Talk:Mount Hermon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria"

After looking at the sources, all I can say is wow. I have rarely seen an instance in which the sources have been so spectacularly misrepresented to further an extreme minority POV. Let's look at each of these sources:

1. Popular Mechanics: Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria
2. TravelsInParadise.com Brought to RS/N
3. Fodor's Travel Guide The summit of Mt. Hermon—famous as Israel's highest mountain, at 9,230 feet above sea level—is actually in Syrian territory.

Note that the second does not even say that the summit is in Israel. This is a willful misrepresentation of the sources, as evidenced by the absurd quotation from Fodor's in which is actually in Syrian territory is purposely left out of the reference to give the impression that this source supports the opposite of what it says. nableezy - 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't have access to the third source.Can you bring a full quotation?
2. About the second one.Its specifically talks about the peak and there is no dispute that is not part of Israel's Golan Heights . On the mountain specifically it says: " On one side of the mountain is Israel, and on the other side are Syria and Lebanon.So the source is WP:RS to say that Golan is part of Israel.--Shrike (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The quote is right here on the page, what else do you want. The second source is not a "RS to say that the Golan is part of Israel". You cant just use some random website to make these outlandish claims. The Golan is not "Israel's", it is Israeli-occupied as an abundance of scholarly sources attest. This isnt a game of who can find what using google, and just because a website supports your position does not mean you should pretend that it is a "reliable source". There are experts in the field cited at the article Golan Heights that make this point crystal clear. The Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. None of the above sources, from Popular Mechanics to a travel guide, are anywhere close to being "reliable" for that issue. nableezy - 14:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was specifically about "Popular Mechanics" source you claimed that it support your POV and its actually isn't now you claim is not RS.If WP:RS say opposite things then we should include both POVs in to the article.--Shrike (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Uhh no. I never "claimed" that Popular Mechanics supported my "POV", I said that it said the exact opposite of what Jiujitsguy dishonestly cited to it. I also never "claimed" that Popular Mechanics was a RS for where Mt Hermon is. There are real sources on this, and continuing this silly mantra of If WP:RS say opposite things then we should include both POVs in to the article is exactly what the problem is here. Quality sources make this point crystal clear, the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Googling "Israel's Golan" and bringing a collection of sources with no expertise in the topic does not change that fact. nableezy - 15:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I still can't believe people try to pass off travel guides as reliable sources. I would wager to guess that nearly every travel guide about the Palestine Israel area is biased to one way or the other. It is just a real quick and lame way to find something obscure that supports a POV. -asad (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest using contested borders wording of the Popular Mechanics source provided:

Mount Hermon straddles one of the world's most infamously contested borders. On one side of the mountain is Israel, and on the other side are Syria and Lebanon.

For clarity the suggested wording and the supporting ref:

Mount Hermon's summit straddles the contested border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria.

References

If there are no further objections I'll move ahead with this change in the lede in the following days. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The suggested wording is contradicted by the map, which (when zoomed out) shows that the summit is about 13 km from any Israeli-controlled territory. As the lead points out, the highest peak in that area is nearly 600 m lower. The mountain may straddle the contested border, but the summit does not. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point, striking summit, the source indeed talks about the mountain and not its summit. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As anyone can see one the map, the contested sentence is wrong. This need to be fixed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What wording do you propose based on WP:RS, Frederico1234? And I guess we are probably talking about the infobox map_caption field. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Mount Hermon's summit straddles the border between Lebanon and Syria" (i.e. Israel removed). --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Would this wording reflect the provided RS? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes: "but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria.". I would prefer a better quality source, but that's another matter. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification, Frederico1234. We generally zoom out. It was pointed out above that the peak "is about 13 km from any Israeli-controlled territory". That is why the summit word was striked. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The location of the summit seems to be to be an important piece of information for a mountain. That seems to belong to the article. Also, stating that "Mount Hermon straddles the border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria" (without the word "summit") is a WP:NPOV-violation, as it adopts the Israeli (minority) POV of GH belonging to Israel. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The information on peak location is indeed important, so is general picture. It might be a good idea to mimic the source mechanically, reflecting the content reliably. Neutrality-wise probably both paragraphs of the source's Background section should be cited:

Mount Hermon straddles one of the world's most infamously contested borders. On one side of the mountain is Israel, and on the other side are Syria and Lebanon.... Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria.

For clarity the suggested wording and the supporting ref:

Mount Hermon straddles the contested border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria, but its peak (2,814 metres (9,232 ft)) is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria.

References

I kind of like the new wording even better, since it is more informational and encyclopedic imho. Any objections on that? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I like it too. It provides the reader with a succinct, comprehensive overview, proper for an infobox, and "contested" appropriately indicates that there is some kind of dispute involved. Also, the wording is faithful to the source. No objection here. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that simply will not do. Popular Mechanics is nowhere close to qualified for this subject, and the sentence gets very basic information wrong. Mount Hermon does not straddle an Israeli border. The boundary between the Israeli-occupied area of the Golan and Syrian-controlled territory (Purple Line) is not a border, contested or otherwise. That is the boundary that Mt Hermon straddles. Just because an unqualified magazine uses the word border does not make it a border, there are countless quality sources on this. Mount Hermon does not go into Israel, and an encyclopedia article cannot take the extreme minority position that the Golan Heights are anything other than Syrian territory occupied by Israel. The sources used here are not qualified for putting basic errors as facts in an encyclopedia article. I am restoring the article to the prior state before Jiujitsuguy's thoroughly dishonest manipulation of the results of a google search that turned this article into a poorly done propaganda piece. nableezy - 03:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please wait for reply comments before making such sweeping changes. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but Jiujitsuguy's changes were forced in to this article without anything resembling a consensus, and the material in the article was demonstrably distorting the cited sources, unreliable though they are for the subject. Im all for getting consensus, but the game of edit-warring something in with a collection of sock IPs is not where the moral high ground on which you can ask others to get consensus for restoring the article to the state it had been in prior to the gross distortion of sources was pushed into it. I restored the article to what had been essentially untouched for months. And now you revert to include clearly bogus material that includes outright lies that are directly contradicted by the sources? Really? Explain exactly why what had been edit-warred into the article is now what should remain? nableezy - 03:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody please tell me what part of Israel Mount Hermon is in? nableezy - 03:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been essentially unchanged for two weeks, then you suddenly make major changes solo without allowing time for discussion. Let's give others a chance to comment, shall we? Hertz1888 (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That is because it was fully protected, and I was hoping that the editor who dishonestly misrepresented the sources would correct his own error. There was never consensus for the current map or the current claim that the mountain is "in Israel" as the infobox now says. This was introduced and reverted then edit-warred into the article by sockpuppet IPs and the, oh, lets say coincidental or convenient to step around the obvious, return of an editor who hadnt made an edit in over a year and hasnt made one since. The article was then fully protected. I did not wish to continue edit-warring, so I left it in and raised the issue of the falsification of sources here and the inherent POV push in attempting to insert an extreme minority claim as fact in the infobox. Apparently you see no problem with retaining the work of a POV-pusher who distorts the sources and a collection of sockpuppets. Because if you do claim to want to follow BRD and have consensus, you would restore the article as it had been prior to the edit-warring to insert propaganda into it. Just a thought. nableezy - 06:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

With Hertz's recent edit the issue raised in the original complaint should be resolved. Might I suggest a new talk page section is opened up for the issue with placing the mountain's slope "in Israel"? --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite apart from the fringe violations here, the sourcing concerns raised by nableezy are valid. I've removed the sources. Nightw 12:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What about simply listing Golan Heights instead of Israel? Nightw 12:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That is pretty much what it had said. Prior to this POV-push of claiming the Golan as Israel's in a number of articles, the infobox said that the southern slopes are located in the Israeli-occupied portion of the Golan. There is an additional issue with the infobox, the map has a border (black lines are international borders in that map) between Syria and the Golan but has none between Israel and the Golan. It also makes the rather obvious POV push of claiming the Golan is "disputed territory". Hertz, please explain why you restored what had been edit-warred into the article by a user and sockpuppets insistent on grossly misrepresenting both the sources and basic facts. nableezy - 15:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My purpose in reverting was neither to condone nor condemn the content involved. As I indicated previously, it was to give others, including myself, time to study the issues and weigh in as they might choose. I am glad to see a discussion ensuing and points being addressed. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

But why exactly should what had been edit-warred in by a collection of sockpuppets remain as the current content? Your revert had the effect of restoring material that never had consensus. Why is that the case? Why should the article not be restored to the state it had been prior to the source misrepresenting fringe-POV pushing version that had been edit warred in? nableezy - 16:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I go ahead then and replace the point with Golan Heights? Regarding the map, I made a derivative version at File:Golan Heights relief v2.png, which prioritises internationally recognised boundaries. Nightw 04:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Will you be able to highlight or outline the mountain on the map in some way, and give its English name? Hertz1888 (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It should appear the same way the other map does. I've switched them and it looks fine to me. Please confirm though. Nightw 08:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The image looks good to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To me, too, though I was confused by it for a moment. Click on it and the labeling goes away. Don't know how that's done; must be magic. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought that might be what you were doing ;) The labelling is done through the syntax in the infobox. The map parameter draws upon the location map named (in this case Golan Heights) and the pinpoint is generated automatically by the coordinates provided. Nightw 09:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am going to revert back. I find it absolutely insane that someone searching Google can open up this article and get an idea that the mountain is "In Israel". I mean think about it, as listed, it says it is in Lebanon, Syria and Israel. Not in the "Israeli Golan", no, just simply "Israel". I am reverting back to what is backed up by numerous reliable sources on the issue, not travel guides and technology magazines. -asad (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Something along lines "Golan Heights/Israeli occupied" would be just fine. Let's be concise. Thank you Asad. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It says the "southern slopes are located in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights". I am sure every good source, apart from traveler's paradise or whatever, would disagree with that. -asad (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I like your edit, Asad. A politically correct full term would be "Golan Heights/Israeli occupied". Though you'd be surprised, even a good UN source could fail in their language sometimes and just say "Israel", for short. See for instance Border problems. Lebanon, UNIFIL and Italian participation by Lucrezia Gwinnett Liguori, page 7 describing Al Ghajar village reality:

There is an IDF checkpoint at the entrance to the village from Israel and a fence surrounding the entire village, but there is no fence dividing the Israeli and Lebanese sides of the village.

Needless to say that when the source says Israel or Israeli in this sentence, it means "Golan Heights/Israeli occupied". The source however appears academical and surprisingly reliable supported by primary sources. Generally though terminology discussions usually bore me to death: you say potato... Whatever... Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Protected for a week

I've protected this article for a week. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Gilgamesh

I've taken the liberty of mentioning that Mount Hermon is also in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It is either the place where Gilgamesh and Enkidu encountered Humbaba, or nearby. The myth suggests that the mountain split after Gilgamesh kills Humbaba. I added this to the archeology/ religious texts section at the top. I am not familiar with the dating of the Book of Enoch, but am assuming that this Babylonian myth is somewhat older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.97.201.140 (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Capitalizing "bible"

The word "bible" appears in the article but is lowercase. Can this be fixed? Thanks! —The Sackinator (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of Syria has conclusively been shown NOT to be related to Širyôn (one of the names for Mt. Hermon in the Hebrew Bible)

This matter has been cleared up in the articles on Syria and Name of Syria. Herodotus, Strabo, Justinus, Michael the Syrian, John Selden, and Theodor Nöldeke have each stated that Syrian/Syriac was synonymous and derivative of Assyrian, acknowledgments being made as early as the 5th century BC in the Hellenistic world that the term "Syrian" was derived from the much earlier "Assyrian". Majority mainstream scholarly opinion now strongly supports the already dominant position that 'Syrian' and Syriac indeed derived from 'Assyrian', and the 21st Century discovery of the Çineköy inscription seems to clearly confirm that Syria is ultimately derived from the Assyrian term Aššūrāyu. The Greek terms "Syria" and "Assyria" appear to correspond to Phoenician ʾšr "Assur", ʾšrym "Assyrians". In the 8th century BC Çineköy inscription, the Luwian inscription reads "Sura/i" whereas the Phoenician translation reads ’ŠR or "Ashur". Jacob D (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Jacob D

No, the name "Syria" is not derived from the Biblical term "Širyôn" (Hermon)

Unbelievable to see this misconception still appearing on Wikipedia's pages.

The name "Syria" is etymologically related to the name "Assyria".

This matter has already been cleared up on the Talk pages for the Syria and Name of Syria articles, and these articles have been corrected accordingly.

To quote the Syria article's statement on the matter.

"Several sources indicate that the name Syria is derived from the 8th century BC Luwian term "Sura/i", and the derivative ancient Greek name: Σύριοι, Sýrioi, or Σύροι, Sýroi, both of which originally derived from Aššūrāyu (Assyria) in northern Mesopotamia.[16][17] However, from the Seleucid Empire (323–150 BC), this term was also applied to The Levant, and from this point the Greeks applied the term without distinction between the Assyrians of Mesopotamia and Arameans of the Levant.[18][19] Mainstream modern academic opinion strongly favours the argument that the Greek word is related to the cognate Ἀσσυρία, Assyria, ultimately derived from the Akkadian Aššur.[20] The Greek name appears to correspond to Phoenician ʾšr "Assur", ʾšrym "Assyrians", recorded in the 8th century BC Çineköy inscription.[21]"

Jacob D (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

I've removed the etymology section - the same sock, Mark Mercer, who added it elsewhere. Full of poor sources. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Identify Qasr Antar

The topic sentence of the section on Qasr Antar is massively uninformative. I can only guess that it has been argued over so much that it now says too little.

The topic sentence reads, "There is a sacred building made of hewn blocks of stone on the summit of Mount Hermon." This is a bald description that raises more questions than it answers. I suggest the following change.

FOR: There is a sacred building made of hewn blocks of stone on the summit of Mount Hermon.

READ: Just below the summit of Mount Herman is the temple of Qasr Antar. It is one of a group of temples built on Mount Hermon during the Roman period. Kcranson (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Occupied, controlled, and other nonsense

The Golan Heights is Syrian territory held under military occupation by Israel. That is a fact that is nearly uncontested among reliable sources. It is a super-majority view. Replacing all instances of occupied to controlled to satisfy "NPOV" is asinine. NPOV says each view is given its due weight, it does not say that we treat every side of an argument as though it has the same validity. Reliable sources are clear on this point, and so to will this article. And Viewfinder, you broke several wikilinks with that revert. The target article is, rightfully, called Israeli-occupied territories. nableezy - 17:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not denying that Israel occupies the Golan Heights, I am stating that the term "controlled" is equally accurate and more appropriate for mountain related articles. Viewfinder (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

How come the term "controlled" is equally accurate and more appropriate for mountain related articles? Your previous claims that its "negative and judgmental connotations" is not based on anything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Politics aside, the original edit (later restored wholesale) introduced location errors. At least let's get the geography correct. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess Hertz1888 refers to the highest point], which is "occupied" by UN and not by Israel. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That (in the caption), and the sentence mangled with "it's highest peek" in the Geography section. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not equally accurate, or not as fully accurate. Israel controls Tel Aviv as well. It does not occupy the Tel Aviv-Jaffa area. And the idea that controlled is more appropriate for mountain related articles is an assertion made without any basis at all. And oh by the way, Mt Hermon's summit is nowhere near an Israeli border, it isnt even near Israeli-occupied territory, as you wrongly reinserted in to this article. nableezy - 19:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This is cute: super-majority view All POV pushers sound the same. Please read history and make corrections after.Abkhazia IS Georgia! Most of the civilized world agrees with me. Are not you getting bored with this continues nonsense? Nobody argues with you, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Just glanced at the article history. Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! This salad must be stolen ;) It is good to be a team! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You tried this before, it didnt work then either. It is in fact a super-majority view that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel. Sources attesting to the fact that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory occupied by Israel have been brought in bunches several times in the past. You can keep acting like you dont know this already, or that you think it matters that you dont like that fact, but you do and it doesnt. If you want to say something, then come out and say it and face the consequences for doing so. Trying to be cute or clever or funny isnt your strong suit. nableezy - 04:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"Controlled" should be a perfectly fine pseudonym for the purposes of readability. Inserting "occupied" at any given opportunity unnecessarily adds politics to various articles or sections. Sometimes the reader just wants to know about elevation and other facts that might appear to some as less titillating encyclopedic information. Unfortunately, some sources have adopted the rhetoric of those who protest the situation on the ground and will beat the wording into the head of the reader. I have always wondered why we give so much credence to such sources while ignoring the countless sources who ignore (or at least limit) the political issues. Nableezy hates some reliable sources (such as newspapers) even though many at least attempt to provide general information with some sense of balance. Sources from academia are fantastic but they are often intentionally written to prove one point or the other. Wikipedia is not here to bring as much attention as possible to political causes regardless of their merits.Cptnono (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Argument by assertion and gross misrepresentation all in one. Nice to see things havent changed. The term "occupied" has not been insert[ed] at any given opportunity unnecessarily. Your wonderment notwithstanding, we use the best sources possible on a given topic. Those sources say that Mt Hermon straddles the border of Syria and Lebanon with its slopes extending into the Israeli-occupied Golan. So do we. And all this because a user restored a series of garbage edits that a. introduced factual errors into an encyclopedia article, b. mangled several wiki-links, and c. was closer to resembling a fourth grader's level of English than what is expected in an encyclopedia. Yall amaze me sometimes. nableezy - 04:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Any territory is "occupied" by whoever controls it. You can call Puerto Rico "American-occupied territory" or call Quebec "Canadian occupied". Doing so reveals a strong bias against the entity you're deeming the "occupier". There is no reason to say Israel is "occupying" the Golan Heights instead of saying it is simply part of Israel - which it is. Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with history - but of course, only after you calm your bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValuableAppendage (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not what occupied means in this context. Try to resist the urge to use talk pages as your blog. This has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with editors being obliged to follow the rules regardless of their personal views. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The content must reflect published reliable sources. WP:V and WP:NPOV are mandatory policies. Given those constraints it is impossible for Wikipedia to treat the Israeli occupied part of the Golan Heights and anything in it as if they are part of Israel. It can say that Israel regards it as part of its territory but the encyclopedia's narrative voice can't be used to present a view only held by Israel and its supporters as a fact. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If politics forces us to say Israel "controls" a portion of the Hermon, let's own and celebrate the fact that our portion is indeed under control. This unfortunately cannot be said for all the other portions. Israel is the unique nation in the region which turns whatever it land it possesses, controls, occupies, whatever you want to call it into something useful and profitable for its citizens. I hope some of our neighbors can bring themselves to be more in control, as well.Apiryon (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nableezy:, you write that "Israel controls Tel Aviv as well. It does not occupy the Tel Aviv-Jaffa area" in your bid to disqualify the use of the term "Israeli-controlled Golan Heights" instead of "Israeli-occupied Golan Heights".

Sorry, but this is a non-argument, in light of the fact that Tel Aviv is always identified as being part of Israel (Tel Aviv, Israel), not simply as being controlled by it.

The term "Israeli-controlled Golan Heights" states a fact, without entering into the political issue of sovereign vs. occupied territory. Regardless of which side one takes on the political issue, the simple fact remains that a legal international boundary has never existed between the State of Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic (which never even recognized the 1923 Mandate boundary line as valid), and the ceasefire line which existed between the two countries prior to 1967 was based on the 1949 Armistice agreement between Israel and Syria, which specifies that "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party...It is emphasised that the following arrangements for the Armistice Demarcation Line between the Israeli and Syrian armed forces and for the Demilitarised Zone are not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement.".

Since the limits of Syrian sovereignty in the Golan Heights area have thus never been defined, one cannot claim the Golan Heights is occupied without "prejudice to the rights, claims, and positions of either Party".

Jacob D (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

Please sign your name properly. We follow the overwhelming opinion of the world on this and don't adopt a phoney "balance" by giving the Israeli position equal weight. Zero^talk 07:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There is little reason for us to take sides in this geopolitical dispute. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia says the Golan Heights is Syrian territory held by Israel under military occupation because that is what the balance of reliable sources report as fact. Your comment, beyond being factually wrong, is in fact the non-argument on Wikipedia. Your personal views are irrelevant here, what matters is what do the sources say. And for the Golan there is almost no dispute that it is Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation. The extreme minority that disputes that view qualifies as WP:FRINGE. nableezy - 18:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zero0000:, well what a surprise it is to see an article relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict locked for an extended editing, and find yourself weighing in on the side of the anti-Israel position to make sure that it stands and doesn't get edited. "Overwhelming opinion of the world" is hardly a means for determining facts in the Arab-Israeli conflict, given the nature of the voting bloc system at the UN that essentially guarantees an automatic majority against Israel on any issue, whatever the facts. Here is a fact for you. The term "Israeli-controlled Golan Heights" states a fact without giving undue weight to Israel's position. There has never been a legal international boundary demarcated between Syria and Israel. Ever. The ceasefire lines which existed before 1967 were drawn with the understanding that "no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party." Syria has never recognized the validity of any boundary with Israel, including the 1923 Mandate Boundary. The two countries have been in a state of war since 1948. Like it or not, the statement "Israeli-occupied Syrian territory" takes a position that prejudices the rights, claims, and positions of one of the Parties.

Jacob D (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

@Jacob D: you can't fix a ping, you have to make an entirely new, signed edit. I'll ping User:Zero0000 for you. Zero has nothing to do with the fact that this article cannot be edited by anyone without 500 edits and 30 days, that was done 2 years ago by someone else, and the restriction applies to all articles reasonably construed to concern the conflict. You are also failing to assume good faith. Let me remind you that sanctions apply to behaviour on talk pages as well as edits to articles. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, please read my statement again, I did not claim that User:Zero0000 was the person who locked the article, but rather that he is weighing in on behalf of what I regard as a biased position on an article that has been locked for extended editing, so that this position will not be changed ("we follow...and don't adopt a phoney "balance"). I have encountered him on the Talk pages of other locked WP articles (and on my own User Talk page) adopting a similar line. The principle of "Assuming good faith" should take into consideration an apparent track record.

Jacob D (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

@Nableezy:, you write, "Your comment, beyond being factually wrong, is in fact the non-argument on Wikipedia."

Well, I'd be interested to hear what you believe makes my comment "factually wrong" or to see some kind of refutation of my "non-argument" from your side, given the fact that I quoted verbatim from international agreements made long before 1967.

So let me reiterate.

Fact 1: Syria as an independent state since 1946 has refused to accept the validity of the 1923 Mandate boundary line, claiming it was a colonial line established without considering the will of the Syrians. See for instance the following journal article: Biger, Gideon. “The Boundaries of Israel—Palestine Past, Present, and Future: A Critical Geographical View.” Israel Studies, vol. 13, no. 1, 2008; pg. 81.

Fact 2: Syria has never recognized the validity of any international boundary with Israel. Not at the time of its independence, and not since then.

Fact 3: No formal international boundary between the two countries has ever existed. The so-called "pre-1967 lines", or the 1949 Armistice Lines are explicitly not to be regarded as an international boundary. The Israel-Syria Armistice Agreement is very clear on this.

https://content.ecf.org.il/files/M00202_TheArmisticeAgreementBetweenSyriaandIsrael-EnglishText_0.pdf

Article II, Paragraph 2: "It is also recognised that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military, and not by political, considerations."

Article V, Paragraph 1: "It is emphasised that the following arrangements for the Armistice Demarcation Line between the Israeli and Syrian armed forces and for the Demilitarised Zone are not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements affecting the two Parties to this Agreement."

Fact 4: When in 1949 Syria withdrew from areas inside the former Mandate of Palestine, and those areas were converted into "demilitarized zones", Syria refused to recognize Israeli sovereignty in those areas (or anywhere else.

Since the matter of sovereignty in the area was never resolved, it would be dishonest to speak of "occupied territory" as though a mutually (and internationally) recognized boundary had existed between Israel and Syria, with Syrian sovereignty on one side and Israeli sovereignty on the other.

Jacob D (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

Again, it is a non-argument because it is WP:OR. Please read that policy. On Wikipedia what matters is what do reliable sources say. Well, they say that the Golan Heights are Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation. Heres an example:

Korman, S. (1996). The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice. Clarendon Press. p. 265. ISBN 978-0-19-158380-3. Retrieved 2019-03-12. Whether or not Israel's action in extending its law to the Golan Heights is interpreted as amounting to an act of annexation, it is clear that its conquest of the Golan Heights has not given rise to recognized rights of sovereignty. ... The continued occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights is recognized by many states as valid and consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, on a self-defence basis. Israel, on this view, would be entitled to exact as a condition of withdrawal from the territory the imposition of security measures of an indefinite character ... But the notion that Israel is entitled to claim any status other than that of belligerent occupation in the territory which it occupies, or act beyond the strict bounds laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention, has been universally rejected by the international community-no less by the United States than by any other state.

Your personal opinion on what the armistice agreements really actually mean is just that, personal, and as such it is irrelevant. Reliable sources determine Wikipedia content, not the personal beliefs of random people on the internet (that means you and me). If you would like a place to publish your personal views there are countless such websites available to you. Wikipedia however is not one of them. nableezy - 17:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Jacob's argument based on the nature of the armistice line would work just as well to justify Syrian annexation of the Galilee, since Israel never accepted the armistice line as a border. Zero^talk 23:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The world's opinion on the Golan Heights has been measured every year since at least 1993 in the UNGA. The last resolution affirming the region to be Syrian was A/RES/73/255 on 20 Dec 2018, which passed 159/7. Zero^talk 00:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Not all countries are equal, and that included opposition from the rather significant US. Syria at the moment does not control the Galilee. However, this whole discussion will probably be more interesting in 1-2 months given prospective events.Icewhiz (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The rather significant US? What is that even supposed to mean? The international community, including the US, consider the Golan Heights to be Syrian territory occupied by Israel. There is no dispute on this topic. Literally zero. nableezy - 15:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. Beyond voting against the most recent resolution on the Golan,[1] the US state department refers to the Golan as "Israeli-controlled".[2] The United States carries significant weight in international affairs. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, additional developments in this regard are expected in the near future. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:Crystal in the light of your double reference to 'prospective events' in the 'near future'.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The US changing a report does not mean it does not consider the territory occupied. Your own source says But a State Department official, commenting on the absence of those words, said: “The policy on the status of the territories has not changed”. If they do make that determination then it can be noted that Israel and the US are alone in arguing that. They have not though. But the idea that if the US decides something that means something besides the US has its own position is silly. The EU doesnt carry any weight? Russia? China? Please. nableezy - 19:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You write, "The international community, including the US, consider the Golan Heights to be Syrian territory occupied by Israel."

That is no longer the case. It is now official that "the United States recognizes that the Golan Heights are part of the State of Israel."

https://il.usembassy.gov/proclamation-on-recognizing-the-golan-heights-as-part-of-the-state-of-israel/

https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-may-30-2019/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-publishes-first-map-showing-golan-as-israeli-territory/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob D (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Jacob D (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

Ok? nableezy - 15:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Zero0000: You write: "Jacob's argument based on the nature of the armistice line would work just as well to justify Syrian annexation of the Galilee, since Israel never accepted the armistice line as a border."

Indeed, during the 1950s, Syrian forces occupied areas to the west of the 1949 Syrian armistice line: the southern demilitarized zone at al-Hamma, the Banias area, and the strip of coastal territory along the northeast shoreline of the Sea of Galilee. The UN made no tangible efforts to remove the Syrian presence from these areas.

The issue with the Syrian historic position on territory viz. Israel is not one based on conflict of boundaries but one based on lack of recognition of the State of Israel, full stop. As such, the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence" of a neighboring state would be an act of aggression that would violate Article 2 of the UN Charter. Jacob D (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

The word هرم (Haram) means "pyramid" in Arabic.

I don't want to include other details about the connection between Mt. Sinai/Hermon of Exodus and the Pyramids of Egypt, but I think it's misleading not to include the meaning of the word "hrm" in the Arabic language, especially since the name Mt. Hermon was not coined by the Israelites and is seen in many other Semitic religious books such as the Epic of Gilgamesh for example:

Epic of Gilgamesh V: -The ground split open with the heels of their feet, as they whirled around in circles, Mt. Hermon and Lebanon split.

It's also called "Mount Haramoun" in Lebanon, not just Mt. Hermon.

On a more important note, the word هرم (pronounced Haram) does not have any other meanings than "Pyramid" in Arabic. It does not mean "sacred enclosure", the only reason that might've happened is because pyramids themselves are thought to be sacred enclosures, not the opposite. The word "هرم" is used to describe any object that is pyramidal in shape. --ConfusedEnoch (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

The Golan Heights and the southern slopes of Mount Hermon/ski resort are NOT “Israeli-occupied”. The are a legitimate legal territory of Israel. The whole area was been officially and legally annexed by the State of Israel. 2600:8802:C13:9300:D8BA:FD86:981D:5348 (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

See Golan Heights, all of the Golan is widely recognized as sovereign Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation. nableezy - 23:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Mount Hermon country is wrong

The entry for Mount Hermon says it's in Lebanon and Syria. It's in Israel. I thought Wiki was supposed to be factual and not pplitically biased? 2A02:14F:1F8:DA0C:4BCF:B7F8:37DD:CC6B (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The Golan Heights do not belong to Israel. Dimadick (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)