Talk:Mount Bental

terms

More correct and neutral terms in accordance with international community views:[1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where it has been decided this is a more correct and neutral term, since it is a specific type of Israeli settlement. If this cannot be definitively proven, it will have to be reverted. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 17:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kibuttz is more than a specific kind of Israeli settlement, it refers to similar towns within Israel. In fact, the term "Israeli settlement" does not even appear one time in the kibbutz article. nableezy - 20:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about including both terms in something along the lines of: "The mountain is located west of the Syrian city Quneitra and south of the Israeli settlement and kibbutz, Merom Golan."? There seems to be RS stating that it is a kibbutz: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is a kibbutz, so of course there are sources calling it that, and I am fine with that line. nableezy - 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

images

explain to me like I am 3 year old, what does a picture of a coffee shop add to an article about the mountain? nableezy - 21:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a stand-alone section detailing the "tourist attractions" at Mt. Bental, I could see using the photograph of the coffee shop (assuming the shop was some sort of notable tourist attraction -- like they roast their own beans and give tours). However, unlike Mt. Hermon, I don't ever see Mt. Bental becoming a major tourist destination; and since the article basically a stub, I don't see much use in it being there. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 21:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't really understand the issue. Can someone explain to me like I am 3 years old what harm the images do? It is a tourist attraction... maybe not a major one. But does that mean you think it isn't notable enough to be an article? If you go to Har Bental, you see the signs pointing to various cities/other locations (PM office, etc...), and you see the coffee shop. What harm is a bit of visual representation going to do to the article? Breein1007 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images should be used to enhance understanding of the subject of an article. I realize the coffee shop is mentioned in the article, but it strikes me as trivial to mention, and illustrate, in an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 22:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli pov

"lookout point towards Syria in the east" "flowing into Syria" against the entire world viewpoint, this can not stay. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the entire world community sees Golan as Syria and the Israeli presence there as an occupation: The United Nations [9] United States [10] European Union [11] United Kingdom [12] Arab League [13] It would be pov to go by the extreme minority Israeli view against the entire world view, wikipedia rules would be to follow the world view, so therefor I have clarified "the rest of Syria" in accordance with a neutral worldview, and also removed an unreliable JVL source sourced from wikipedia: [14] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ani Medjool opened a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about JVL, please join the discussion there instead of unilaterally deciding a source fails WP:RS --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 20:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily blocked out the source and left a discussion tag, based upon WP is not a source unto itself. If after a short time period, another editor cannot come along and replace it with a non-wp-based source, I will remove it. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made a post there, the vast majority of responses agree that its not a reliable source, that JVL article is also sourced from wikipedia, I have already mentioned this at the talkpage and edit summary, and you have also removed the "the rest of" without saying anything although I have already explained the reason for it above. I find your behaviour extremely disruptive if not pure vandalism. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Malik Shabazz's last response at that discussion, I believe the opinion was that its a mixed bag, but not enough to declare the entire source as non-WP:RS. I have also restored your insertion of "Rest of Syria" comment as a show of good faith. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how does Maliks last response affect anything I have done, this conversation, or the JVL article sourced from wikipedia? you have not replied to why you re inserted the Israeli pov. I don't know what this is supposed to be [15] you have changed it so the water flows the other way for some reason, and you have not removed the Israeli pov from the lookout point towards the rest of Syria.[16] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I have removed all my edits. Current real life issues preclude me from getting involved in another in-depth discussion here, as I do not have the time or energy. I will leave it up to other editors to discuss if they want to find supporting non-WP based sources for the information and if they feel it needs to be tagged or changed appropriately. Regards --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

terms

images

Israeli pov