Talk:Mount Hermon

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

It's not located in occupied Israel it is in israel. JacobThePro (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Highest point

Is in Lebanon, not Syria. It is in Bekaa. it is also not the highest mountain in eastern Mediterranean. Qurnet Al Sawda in Lebanon is higher. Lebanesebebe123 (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)