Talk:Mount Hermon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Hermon is not in Israel 2 Hermon is in Israel 3 Edit war 4 Why Hermon is (also) in Israel 5 Consensus proceedings 6 agreement? 6.1 Unprotected

[edit] Hermon is not in Israel

The fact that part of Mount Hermon is under Israeli military rule does not mean that, in the eyes of the international community, any of it is in Israel. See Israel and in particular the maps in the Geography section. Viewfinder 10:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased the passage to read more clearly, and hopefully used NPOV language acceptable to both sides. Tewfik^Talk 01:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV didn't refer to the "summit" part. I think it can be better incorporated in the article though. I'm going to have another go at copy-editing, let me know what you think. Tewfik^Talk 03:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with the article as it now stands - although I will continue to watch it. Viewfinder 09:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hermon is in Israel

it's annexed. The article won't have Syrian mountain and Lebanon mountain, but not Israeli mountain. International Law is ambigious and interesting subject, but it doesn't change facts. In fact, the Israeli and Golan Heights articles are included in Israeli area, the ones referred to. Amoruso 19:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The annexation was unilateral and is not recognised by the international community or the UN. The purpose of the original and continuing occupation was/is, for defence, not territorial gain. The article was discussed, see above, and the wording agreed. Viewfinder 19:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

nothing was agreed. The category wasn't even discussed and only 2 people were involved with it to begin with. It doesn't matter whether it's recognised or not, and last time I checked you weren't the PM of Israel to decide what's the purpose of the annexation. Fact is it was annexed by law, it has Israelis on the area that aren't even called settlers. The area of Israel includes this in figures, even UN figures, see Israel article, and Golan Heights are part of Israel in wikipedia - see Golan Heights article. It's exactly the same as Jerusalem. The International Law position on the subject is completely irrelevant to the category. Amoruso 20:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That Mount Hermon is in Israel is an POV by some Israelis. It is not recognised in international law, so it should not be recognised by Wikipedia. Still, if you are still determined to push your POV, so this look like a matter for Wikipedia arbitration. Viewfinder 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The one pusing his own WP:POV here is you. You have decided that the UN position on the golan heights is relevant to categorizing, which isn't. Their decisions weren't even binding by the charter itself. Fact is it is annexed and it's in Israel. Category will be restored. Amoruso 20:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is not in Israel per international law then it does not belong in the category. Viewfinder 20:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

per international law is very ambigiuos. There are those that will say it is per international law in Israel. It is also totally irrelevant. Category will be restored therefore + will be added in intro in the borders sections... Amoruso 20:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like mediation will be necessary, your comment that "intefrnational law is totally irrelevant" concerns me deeply Viewfinder 20:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What's necessary is for you to respectfully realise you're arguing something that it's already widely accepted in wikipedia. It doesn't make sense to treat Hermon differnetly to all other places annexed to Israel. I expect you to revert this back yourself, and also add Israel border in the beginning. the international law can be dealt with a whole section if you wish but it doesn't change facts. Note this fact is recognised in Israel that you actually referred to - it's included in the area calculated, and all parts of Golan are in this category already. Thank you. Amoruso 20:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As for your concern on International Law, I'm a lawyer who studied quite a bit about interantional law. This sphere is disputed to begin with and it doesn't change facts. One can find many justifications in international law for Israel's annexation as well. Amoruso 20:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I note with interest the double standard employed by Viewfinder. On the Mt. Everest (a mountian in Tibet, illegally and unilaterally annexed by China) Talk page, he has voiced the opinion that "Whatever the rights and wrongs of the inclusion of Tibet within China, it is shown on maps" - so it should stay listed as a Chinese mountian. Yet here, he gets very concerned with the "rights and wrongs", and the "unilaterl" aspect of the Israeli annextaion. Makes one wonder.... Isarig

Then why does international mapping, including the maps shown in Israel, and the respected Times Atlas of the World, show none of Mount Hermon to be in Israel? The border that is clearly and unambiguously shown on international mapping excludes the Golan Heights. Therefore the view that it is in Israel is a WP:POV which should not be supported in Wikipedia, and is not supported in articles that I am aware of. By contrast, the same maps show Tibet to be included within the borders od China. So your accusations of double standards are implicitly directed at the international community. That is POV pushing. Viewfinder 20:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course my accusation is directed also at the duplicity of the international community. China is a veto-weilding member of the UNSC, so international decisions against it are impossible, whereas Israel is a small country which can easily be accused of actions taht other nations get away with. But while there is not much I can do about the duplicity of the international community, I will certainly not tolerate similar double standards from a fellow Wikipedian. Either you believe that what has been unilaterally annexed can , by WP standards, be included within the annexing country's geography (as you seem to believe in thecase of Everest) or you don't (as you seem to believe WRT to Mt. Hermon). Isarig 20:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

For more information about this, see the maps shown in the Israel article, and the CIA position and CIA map, which clearly show that the Golan Heights are not in Israel. Viewfinder 21:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

See also [1]. Your accusations of double standards are implicitly aimed at bigger fish than me! Viewfinder 21:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

the map might now show Israel within the same line, but the area does contrain it - 22500 square miles. Also, all articles on wikipedia contain golan heights in Israel, because they are. The map is for convenient purposes only, showing the green line. Indeed, in the future, Golan heights might not be in Israel anymore. Presently, they are. Amoruso 21:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

viewfinder, you need to revert to the last version by Isarig. You have violated WP:3RR and then some. Amoruso 21:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

Please refrain from any futher reverts of the page until consesus is reached, whether you violate 3RR or not, you shouldn't have revert wars.--Konstable 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe first of all, Version kept at present should be the version before the violation of WP:3RR by user:Viewfinder according to wikipedia policy and in order not to endorse violations like these. Then the discussion should continue... Amoruso 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, this doesn't help, as Viewfinder's block will expire and he will come back in a day's time, and your conflict will just keep going on and on. I have now protected the page until some consensus can be reached on the state of it.--Konstable 02:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Hermon is (also) in Israel

Wikipedia is about facts. Not about opinions. Hermon is part of the Golan Heights, an area annexed to the state of Israel. Israelis live there and go about in the country and no one makes any difference between the area and any other in Israel. It is a district, cities, councils, it's fully endorsed by the whole population, it's a place for vacation for Israel, for agriculture, for energy supplies, for wildlife, for anything one can think of. Since there's no foreign population there, there is also no "occupation" there and therefore no local objection to this. It is in fact a very peaceful area with no disputes whatsoever.

Syria is in the position the Golan Heights are theirs. That's a political position. Since Arab states have obviously a majority in the U.N and Syria is a member of the S.C as well (israel never has been), then the U.N and S.C have several resoultions against Israel in the sense of the Golan Heights. These resoultions are declarative only, they're not binding since they weren't taken under chapter VII of the charter. International forum like this can't possibily be the criteria to change facts. This is the only basis to say that Golan is not in Israel. Scholars have easily articulated reasons why the Golan Heights is part of Israel also in international law - the historical Jewish contexts, the defensive war concept, the self defense concept, the original mandate/faisel weizmann agreement concept/san remo concepts, the violation of previous international borders by Syria concept....

All in all, this teaches us that International Law is another subject, another section, article or book. This can be addressed in a seperate section anywhere any editor would like. But the prospect of one thinking that endorsement of annexation is the only way to categorize is dead wrong.

For starters, like said, Golan is physically in Israel. This is all it takes in order to write "Cities in Israel". It doesn't say "Legitimately internationally recognised in the border of Israel cities". It simply says it's in Israel. Take a look at the Israelis, the authorities, the borders and everything and you'd realise it's a city in Israel. Else, we would need passports to go there and we don't.

Secondly, I wouldn't have minded to say "Israeli cities" but that's not how wikipedia defines the lists. It always lists "Cities in X" when X doesn't even exist, just to help, to famialrize , to guide the user. People travelling to Israel know they can go to the Golan and they want this information. This is a factual representation, an WP:NPOV .

Thirdly, this already has been recognised widely in wikipedia. Golan Heights are represented everywhere as in Israel including every area inside them. Even the U.N figure of the size of Israel includes the Golan Heights in the Israel article. The maps that show a line that shows the 1967 armstice lines -> This means that the areas are pending further negotation - yes, but it's' up to Israel to decide what to do with them as long it controls it - "illegal interantional law control" or not - Israel decides. As it is, Israel decided not to annex the West Bank and Gaza and therefore their status is disputed, some say it's already recognised to be Palestinian or occupied - note how international law has differnet opinions. But the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem were annexed and they're currently part of Israel controlled area - it is therefore in Israel as Israel is there - it's not invisible . This goes also for the question of the borders in the intro : One can't say that it's only in lebanon and syria because there's a whole another entitity there: Wikipedia can't simply ignore it because it bases itself on condenmation of it by a declarative U.N resoultion - wikipedia is NOT part of the U.N (What wikipedia is NOT), and even the U.N doesn't dispute the fact that it's currently in Israel - it simply tells Israel to exclude this or part from this from Israel in future talks (S.C resoultion 242) ---> pending developemtns in the future, we can have changes in accuracies. Right now we report the facts on the ground.

Therefore I believe wikipedia should stick to the facts on the ground like it generally does all the time. Not taking positions over who is entitled to what but who is where. Omitting Israel is treating it like a 1984 novel where facts are disappearing simply to meet the wishes and needs of one side of the conflict. Again, nobody is saying that the U.N position should be ignored - it can be written as much as one would like. But it's irrelevant for the changes made, which I believe must stay (btw this was actually the original version for a long time). Amoruso 11:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus proceedings

Let us now see if we can reach consensus. To start with, the article now states that the summit is in Israel. That is not the correct position. The highest point that is under Israeli administration is 500 metres below the summit. So whatever the result of this debate, the article needs to be changed.

I did not read it like that, but rather - its summit is... and (the mountain) is on the border... I think that's the more logical and correct way to read it. Amoruso 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actual current wording: Its highest point is 2,814 m (9,230 feet) above sea level, and is on the border between Syria, Israel and Lebanon. This clearly states that the triple border is the highest point and must be amended. Viewfinder 16:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why ? "is" can relate to the mountain and it makes more sense because it says "its highest point" - "its" referring to the mountain. I don't mind you can change it back but repeat the word "summit" so it will be clear. Amoruso 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not for me to use Wikipedia to discuss the rights and wrongs of the occupation or annexation. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I have no personal opinion on that. But it is for me to enforce accuracy and above all consistency. Please go to Golan Heights, study the map that is shown, and read the article. The map and article show that Amoruso is wrong. Wikipedia does not endorse the Israeli position. Its map shows clearly and unambiguously that the Golan Heights are in Syria. It is consistent Wikipedia policy to endorse internationally recognised borders. If international mapping, including mapping exhibited by Wikipedia, shows that the Golan Heights are not within Israel, then it should not be stated on Wikipedia that Mount Hermon is in Israel, partially or otherwise.

Wrong. As explained, the maps are common and show the 1967 armistice line. But you can see that Golan Heights are written as in Israel in the article, and as for their area, it's included in the area of Israel in the Israeli article. Wikipedia does endorse the fact that golan is in Israel - this is de facto, it's not concerned with international law which is an ambigiuos subject but left for talks. Amoruso 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I can only ask you and other readers and mediators to look at the map, read the article and make up their own minds about whether Wikipedia endorses the claim that the Golan Heights are in Israel. It states that no other country recognises the Israeli claim. Viewfinder 16:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And I can only ask for them to look at the category clearly saying "in israel" and geography of israel and to look in Israel article and see that it's contained in the area of the country. Amoruso 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As regards Amoruso's Golan population claim, there is a substantial Arab Druze population. While Israel may regard this population as Israeli, its military presence prevents dissent among this population and has, according to Golan Heights, imprisoned dissenters. The Golan Heights, like all of present day Israel, have been wholly Arab for most of the last two millenia. The population of what had been Palestine by Jewish settlers (or resettlers if you go back to Biblical times) did not resume until the 20th century.

This is wrong too, numerous Jewish communities existed through-out these two thousand years. There have been small incidents in the past with the Druze, but most are loyal to Israel, and they all have to serve in the Israeli army as well. Of course politics extremists will always be but it did not escalate to any violence. Amoruso 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Jewish communties were, at most, small and isolated, although I may stand corrected by neutral, impartial mediation with knowledge of the history of the area. I do not think there is local Druze support for the Israeli territorial claim, but ditto as above.

Wrong on both accounts. And Druze in most are all loyal citizens and sacrifice themselves in the IDF as well. Clear bias on your side. Amoruso 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The facts on the ground - the Israeli military occupation and administration - are reported in the article and I have never tried to delete them.

Yes you have, because you say the place is not bordered with Israel, and you say the mountatin is not in Israel. I don't mind leaving "occupation paragraphs", whatever you want, but don't change the facts. Amoruso 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going by internationally recognised boundaries, not the situation on the ground. I have not deleted the text about the occupation and administration. Viewfinder 16:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are going by POV of one side who think this is internationally recognised, as if internationally recognised should be the test - it shouldn't. This is not a UN board, it's wikipedia. Amoruso 16:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the facts on the ground determining the countries in which countries features are formally listed, contrary the claims made by Amoruso, Wikipedia consistently overrides these with information according to the borders shown in international atlases. See Kosovo, which Wikipedia shows within Serbia, despite the situation on the ground, which is that it administered by NATO, not by Serbia, and the local population is overwhelmingly Albanian and opposes its inclusion within Serbia. Wikipedia also - rightly - endorses the fact that Bilbao is in Spain, despite the fact that most of the local population, and the local Basque controlled administration, do not think it should be.

The question is why there are Cities in X: Check out Cities in Palestine, Cities in Western Sahara, Cities in the Faroe Islands, Cities and towns in Greenland,.Of course if they're not countries you can't write that they are but it doesn't affect the categories. Now Israel is a country so any city that Israel has jurisdiction of it will be included. Especially if it's annexed by law (of a democratic state). Amoruso 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to the CIA, and other neutral topographic lists, which list Har Meron as Israel's high point. Viewfinder 17:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is another example. You will find Crossmaglen listed in List_of_villages_in_Northern Ireland, not List_of_towns_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland or any other Republic of Ireland related category, and rightly so, because the internationally recognised border places it within the United Kingdom. As for the local ground situation, a few years ago I drove from Dublin to Larne and, out of pure and possibly reckless noseyness, I took a detour. There was no local border presence on the international border at all, only "No partition, Join the Provos" graffiti. In Crossmaglen, the occasional Union Jack on isolated and heavily fortified police stations was outnumbered by multiple, towering tricolors, and in every other respect, the area was visibly republican, as if were part of the Irish Republic, and effectively under the control of republican militia. A few miles further north, there was a kind of no man's land, followed by British military checkpoints, in turn followed by high profile and dominant Union Jacks.

The article could duck the whole question of countries, but this still leaves the problem of what to do about List of countries by highest point, Har Meron (Israel's internationally recognised HP), and List of countries by northernmost point, which have come under attack by Israeli POV pushers on several occasions. It is essential that editors have the power to resist teams of determined nationalist POV pushers, including those working in teams. Unfortunately these pages are not often visited by viewers willing to edit, so using consensus is very difficult and the 3RR works in favour of the POV pushers.

If, as seems likely, yesterday's edits were part of a pro-Israeli attempt to use Wikipedia to cement Israel's claim, then this is POV pushing and is not a proper use of Wikipedia.

It should not be for Wikipedia to challenge internationally recognised borders, despite frequent differences with the reality on the ground, unless a clear consensus that it should do so emerges, which should be widely discussed prior to implemetation. At present Wikipedia goes by internationally recognised borders as shown on international maps and atlases, whatever the position on the ground, and nationalist POV editing to the contrary should be resisted, unless there is a clear and high level directive to the contrary. I urge other Wikipedians to help me to do this, and, in particular, I urge admins to help me to do this in response to nationalist, and often inflammatory, POV pushing teams without violating WP:3RR.

Meanwhile, if the article is not restored to exclude the Mountains of Israel and claim that it is in Israel, and no satisfactory compromise is forthcoming, I will start mediation proceedings.

Viewfinder 15:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What's going on here is that you are using a pro-arab attemp to use wikipedia to cement arab claims. Since Wikipedia is not a political forum, it can only go by facts. Since Israel controlls the area and annexed it, it will be regarded as territory of Israel. This is the only way that wikipedia can avoid taking a political position, because the disputed land is not no man's land, it is a land where Israelis live, work, breathe, eat and die, and are full citizens of the country and there are no barriers whatsoever and one can't even know when he's in the golan and when he's not, it's all intricated together. This is in Israel whether you like that or not. So stop pushing your own WP:POV and stick to the facts. There are enough articles and indeed sections in this article can be added to to deal with what the U.N says. Stop also the amateur comparison between interantional law and U.N . U.N is a political body under attack of many legal scholars, some think that Israel has better right over the Golan than Syria. Since it's not wikipedia's role to decide on it, it can only use facts. This is why West bank and Gaza are not considered part of Israel in wikipedia but East Jerusalem and Golan Heights do  ! Amoruso 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have no Arab connections, involvements or sentiments. As far as I know I have no Arab in my blood line - the only Semitic in my line is a Jewish great-great-great grandfather whom my family talk up. I consider myself a neutral party. Viewfinder 17:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be an arab to support the syrian view :) You're not exactly neutral because you believe the area is not in Israel. It's either X or Y here. Amoruso 22:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] agreement?

Delete the word "israel" from borders with lebanon and syria and rephrase so it's clear we're talking about the summit. No further changes to introduction necessary on my part. keep the catgory "mountains in Israel" per wikipedia policy and precedent "Cities in Western Sahara" and so on. Seems fair I think. Amoruso 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The intro repharsing proposal :

Mount Hermon (33°24′N 35°51′E; Hebrew: הר חרמון, Har Hermon; Arabic: جبل الشيخ‎, Jabal el-Shaiykh, Djabl a-Shekh, "mountain of the chief" and "snowy mountain") is a mountain in the Anti-Lebanon mountain range. Its highest point is 2,814 m (9,230 feet) above sea level. This summit is on the border between Syria and Lebanon and is under Syrian control while the southern and western slopes of Mount Hermon came under the control of Israel as a result of the Israeli victory in the 1967 Six-Day War. This part of the mountain and the Golan Heights were unilaterally annexed by Israel in 1980.

I have no problem with this, although some editors may not be happy about the Hebrew coming before the Arabic. I am neutral on that subject and have not been involved with related edits. Viewfinder 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And again : have a look here : [2] it's all under "african countries", it has an area, seperate georaphy, everything, and it's not a country according to BASIC international Law. This is the clearest case, but of course faroe island, greenland and dozens more are available. This is wiki policy. Amoruso 16:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This remains an area of disagreement. There are many categories involving non-sovereign territories. Scotland is a separate country in many ways, but it is not a sovereign country. The problem is, that we cannot categorise Golan Heights entities as both ".... in Israel" and "... in Syria", as though more than one country has sovereignty. So we are back to the question: are the Golan Heights in Israel or in Syria, or to put it more generally, does Wikipedia go with "de facto" situations imposed by military force, or those that are shown on international maps from what Wikipedia recognises as reliable sources and recognised internationally? That is still an area of disagreement. Viewfinder 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

of course it's all more complicated as it's not the same. But what you need to remember is that the UN position over western sahara is : "It is considered a non self-governed territory by the United Nations." Meaning it's NOT a country - yet WIKIPEDIA considers it a country and has the templates, categories, everything and considers it a country because it realises it has the enough attributes - same with faroe island, greenland and so on. Now the same here - Israel in its borders might not be recognised but wikipedia realises the control Israel has over the area and is therefore included. This is differnet from West bank and gaza where ISrael conceded that it can belong to the palestinians and they have some control over it, making it their "western sahara" - it's all about facts and simplify matters. Hope that was clear enough. Amoruso 16:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

~~ It is a bit different here, as Western Sahara and the Faeroes are not claimed by any countries other than Morocco and Denmark. The Golan is claimed by Syria and Israel. As well as the categories, there is also the problem of recurring edits to list of countries' highest points. Viewfinder 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A side issue: re Israel, and the area source, List of countries and outlying territories by total area, there is inconsistency with the CIA given area, which excludes the Golan Heights. Imo, Wikipedia is contradicting the area shown within the international borders that it is showing, and should be amended, but the Mount Hermon discussion should be resolved first. Viewfinder 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's stick to the issue here. Other articles should be dealt in their respective discussion pages. Now my friend, what's the point of citing exterior sources if I just showed you that the position on western sahara etc is also not consistent with external sources ? It's simply not relevant what X page says since it also won't call western sahara a country, right ? The difference is irrelevant, because it's the principle of writing them that are "contradictory" to the U.N position (which is not true, as explained - see chapter VII and 242 explanation, but in theory....). Notice we're not talking about writing anything anymore, since we have an agreement over the introduction. It's just the category - the category is not supposed to be influenced by any of these considerations, and this wikipedia policy, as I believe I've proven in length.

Do we have an agreement then, leaving the other matters aside (highpest point and so on) to leave this category intact ? Because then we can unlock the page and move on. Amoruso 19:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we do not have agreement about the category. However, if the main article is unprotected and the introduction amended per what we have agreed, then I will not delete the category, but I will continue to contest it and if necessary take it to mediation, citing Kosovo, and the Crossmaglen categories where there are similar de facto vs internationally recognised border situation. Perhaps there is some mechanism to enable the category to be retained with the addition of a disputed tag, enabling us to agree to disagree, but I am not sure if category technicalities allow this. I will, if necessary, put some kind of footnotes, mentioning both the de facto and international community positions, explaining the difference in an NPOV manner, in the lists of countries by highest and northernmost points.

The fact that Wikipedia is occasionally at odds with external sources does not mean that such sources should be rejected in this case. As for Western Sahara, it is listed under countries by Wikipedia because it is listed by the public domain and often used CIA source. Its sovereignity status is in limbo. Viewfinder 20:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is listed under wikipedia like this because that's how someone put it and the tradition developed. It is correct for Golan too. Please don't start an extreme editing war where you'll contest Golan Heights everywhere - it serves no purpose and it ignites animosity. It's fair to stay Golan is in Israel right now - whether "legal" or not - it's there. That is all. This is in fact a fact like saying the world moves around the sun, you can come to Israel and see it's here. You understand, you're disputing a fact. This is the problem of attacking categories like that because it's infumed with political agenda and it's wrong, and it's also offensive. Amoruso 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no plans to contest Golan Heights everyhere. I think most Golan Heights articles avoid stating their contry of inclusion. But I would like a ruling on the de facto vs international recognition issue. De facto, Kosovo is no more in Serbia than the Golan Heights are in Syria, but the wikipedia clearly shows it to be within Serbia's borders, just as it shows the Golan Heights to be within Syria's borders. Consequently the categorisation of Mount Hermon as a Mountain of Israel is incorrect and inconsistent, and I find your claim that my category claim is "offensive" to be another case of flame throwing. There is no political agenda, it is merely about consistency. If you wish to counter contest the case please do calmly. Viewfinder 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you have your political opinion over this too, and you're not only trying to be accurate so to speak, but Anyway, that's beside the point. I don't understand the kosovo example - replace Israel with syria in your example and you have the opposite conclusion. Again you're sticking too much importance to the artmistice line on the maps - you saw yourself the area and the rest of categories fit into Israel. Amoruso 22:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

in other words, I'll give the argument again... Even the syria map article says "Israeli occupied" on the map - what does that mean ? it means that Israeli controlls the area, correct ? Ok. Now Israel decides how it wants to control the area - it can treat it as a buffer zone for military exercise only, as a de-militarized zone, and so on. But Israel decided by law that it's a part of its state like any other state. There's no endorsement of this by putting it into that category - it simply says how Israel designated the area. Why take Israel's position ? We shouldn't - but Israel undeniably controlls it , correct ? That's why.

Now take for example a tourist wanting to visit Israel or the Golan heights. He would search the category and won't find the place in Israel, thinking it's not here - he'll think he has to go to syria to visit the place but it's not true --> the place is in Israel. He would sign a passport only with Israeli authorities and travel in regular israeli civilian transportation between the different areas in Israel. This is why it's in Israel per the category, not per endorsement, but per categories in wikipedia. Amoruso 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

I have unprotected the page as there seems to be some agreement about reverting at least.--Konstable 21:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ta - I have put in the agreed text, I hope it is OK. Viewfinder 22:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Amoruso 22:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored the Hebrew to first, as the biblical history predates any of the political controversy, and is any event from where the mountain derives its notability. I'm also removing the citation request; it doesn't seem disputed that it is indeed a military early warning station. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)