Talk:Mount Hermon/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: 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) 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.
 * I don't have access to the third source.Can you bring a full quotation?
 * 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:

For clarity the suggested wording and the supporting ref:
 * Mount Hermon 's summit straddles the contested border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria.

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:

For clarity the suggested wording and the supporting ref:
 * Mount Hermon straddles the contested border between Lebanon, Israel and Syria, but its peak (2814 m) is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria.


 * 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.  Night w   12:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What about simply listing Golan Heights instead of Israel?  Night w   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.  Night w   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.  Night w   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.  Night w   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:
 * 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)
 * 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)