Talk:Mount Yosifon

Name of this mountain
I have four English maps and one english index source that all say that the name of this mountain is "Tall Yusuf"

Two english maps at University of Texas at Austin: 

[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_item.pl?data=/home/www/data/gmd/gmd7/g7462/g7462g/ct001957.jp2&style=gmd&itemLink=D?gmd:2:./temp/~ammem_fDHR::&title=Golan%20Heights%20and%20vicinity%20%3a%20October%201994. CIA map]

Google map

http://www.indexmundi.com/zm/sy/700.htm

If no one can bring reliable sources showing that the name of this mountain is something else then Tall Yusuf, then this article should be moved to what the sources say. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You should request a RfC on the name change, placing notices in the Geography and History projects as well. Since any name change is likely to be controversial, the best route would be to involve all potentially interested editors.  Regards -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 22:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Supreme Deliciousness, stop it. We discussed changing the names of all the mountains extensively. You did not obtain consensus. Admins who reviewed the discussion informed you that you did not have the required support to make the change. Now you're moving on from calling for renaming them all to renaming them individually? Really? Breein1007 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Breein1007, the discussion at the Golan article was about all the hills, this is a separate discussion exclusively focusing on Tall Yusuf. Do you have any sources or not? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that use "Mount Yosifon" as the name in English. SD brought some that use "Tall Yusuf". Just saying no to that will not do.  nableezy  - 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mount Yosifon:, ,. You are asking me to provide reliable sources. Please help me understand how the sources you quoted above are reliable? Anyway, I'm done running in circles for you. In the future, I will wait for you to submit RfC's because we have gone over this issue enough times now. I won't let you waste any more of my time on it. Breein1007 (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those three books are written by Israelis/Jews. Maybe I should have clarified better. Du you have any reliable sources? Standardized sources? Neutral sources? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, let me be clear. I'm done listening to you attempt to trivialize sources because they are written by Jews. Get it through your head. Nationality does not determine reliability. Breein1007 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends, we are here trying to find the standardized name used for this hill. I have provided 4 english maps and one english index source. The maps are from an American university, the CIA and Google maps. They all represent standardized English names. The three books you provided are written by Israelis/Jews. They are therefore written from a Jewish-centric or Israel-centric pov. What terms they use can therefore not be seen as standardized names as they are not neutral to the subject, and therefor those sources can not be taken into consideration here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. You don't make the rules. Breein1007 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SD, not all Jews support Israel or her political stances; therefore saying a source cannot be used because its author is a Jew, would be considered by many to be a racist comment. This is not the first time you've tried to use religion as an argument for disqualifying a source or editor from an article at hand, and I think you will find raising such issues is actually counter productive to articles. Doing so moves the discussion at hand from being about improving an article, and turns it into something many editors take personally.  What I suggest that we all do is look for better sources that are give more in depth coverage, instead of a simple a casual mention in an article or a label on a map.  -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 06:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that just because a Jew has written something the source can not be used, what I'm saying is that English organs, universities etc usually use standardized names and therefor they are more reliable in setting these things, while all those sources Breein1007 added are books written by Jews/Israels, and for them to use Israeli/Jewish terms instead of standardized terms is natural because they are automatically israel-centric and jewish-centric and not neutral. So those books do not have any reliable weight in stetting the names and do not get anywhere close to the reliability of the maps I added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SD, whether or not the sources are written by Jews or Israelis is immaterial. Those sources are fine, but there is the issue that they just mention the name. What we need are more sources, not just ones using the name, but ones saying who uses what name.  nableezy  - 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly... and just like we said in the discussion about all the hills in general, we haven't been able to find sources that explicitly say anything like that. That's why it is a waste of time to be discussing this again. Breein1007 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You could say that about every discussion on Wikipedia (waste of time), but we waste it anyway. I think we can find more sources, rather I think yall can find more sources, about this.  nableezy  - 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope no one forget about this, we still wait for the Breen user to come with reliable source. If not, then article need be change name. Ani medjool (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As per my previous comment above, an RfC should be made regarding this name change. Just because the editor wishing to change the article name does not recognize sources written by Jews or Israelis as reliable(diff), does not mean they can be ignored. Please open an RfC if you want the name changed, as this is standard procedure in name changes that may be controversial. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave you my explanation here about those sources, no one replied. An RfC does not need to be opened, I have made a post at WP Israel and WP Geography, that is enough. Anyone who is interested could have seen it and answered.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have no consensus for the move here. It is controversial. Therefore, if you want to propose a change, you will bring it to RfC, not act unilaterally. Quite honestly, I'm getting close to the point where I stop participating in discussions with you at all, and simply bring your edits to admin review every time you do something like this. This isn't the first time you have acted upon your own desires against the will of consensus, and it is getting annoying at this point. Either contribute positively to the encyclopedia like you agreed to do when you created an account and started editing, or stop editing period. Breein1007 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:RM, contentious page moves (like this one right here right now) have to go through wp:rm, and longstanding names should not be moved unilaterally, especially when the move is opposed by others, and especially when there is no consensus for the move. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Move protection
I've protected this article for a week so only administrators can move it. Please resolve the question of the appropriate name for the article by discussing it, not by move-warring. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources wanted for mountain name
I request that people ad sources about this mountain/hill, I'm looking for standardized, neutral, reliable sources to set its correct name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are sources listed above. I won't repeat myself here because you unilaterally decided that the sources going against your political agenda are unreliable. Have fun, Breein1007 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Source you add be non valid and non neutral because them writed by supporter of "Israel" or source in "Israel" and entity be hostile toward Arab world and Syria. Breein user, you need add neutral reliable source thank you. Ani medjool (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RS WP:NOTSOAP WP:5P WP:NPOV Breein1007 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I request that a third party neutral admin be contacted to close this RfC after sufficient time has passed. A neutral admin can be requested to close this RfC by making a post at WP:AN. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 20:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

no one present alternative reliable source that say other wise in long time so this article need be change and discussion close. thank you. Ani medjool (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is impossible!
The mount is not commonly known about by English speakers, so which is it to be? The sources SD provided are not strong sources at all. Breein1007 are a bit better. But then again, what is the common English form? Is it Mount Joseph? - but that is never used! If we say Mount Yusuf, why is half in English and half in Arabic. If the Arabic is chosen, it should be "Tall Yusuf". If Hebrew is, "Har Yosifon". Mount Joseph? Chesdovi (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of voting to win. You are calling my maps from the CIA and university "not strong sources at all" while the books Breein1007 added are all books by Israeli and Jewish authors who of course would use the Israeli/Jewish names and not the standardized. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. Not all Jews support Israel...and not all Israelis support the "occupation". You have to learn to separate the two. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 21:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We definitely can't make up names ourselves... nobody that I know of calls it Mount Joseph (ps: Yosifon != Joseph) Breein1007 (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Third party sources
Whether you trust Israeli/Jewish sources or not as reliable and neutral, third party english sources are more preferable for all sides then Israeli/Jewish: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Except no single editor decides what is WP:RS or WP:NPOV, overall editor consensus does. And there are english-language sources from Israeli and Jewish publications/authors. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 02:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

removal of israeli pov
This is not neutral wording: "Israeli line of defense", since they fought for the continued occupation of southwestern Syria and not for the "defense" of Israeli soil. The wording used here: is more neutral and factual. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)