Talk:Rujm el-Hiri/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I've just translated this article from the hebrew wiki. I would be grateful if an Arabic speaker would check the transcription I wrote for the arabic name, and add the name in Arabic script. Also, a general spell check is needed, as I translated this without having a dictionary available... okedem 06:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it "Hiri" with an H sound or with the Haa' sound at the beginning? -- Omernos 09:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In hebrew it's written with the letter "Hei", and sounds like the words "Him", or "Here". That's all I know... okedem 09:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be *Gilgul* Refa'im? (Gilgul in Hebrew means a circle/wheel with semantic connections to incarnation.) 76.169.236.139 (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

what is the source for the bit about goliath? leaving aside the issue of his existence, validity, etc., Goliath was from Gath, near Ashqelon in south-central israel. the golan is quite far from there! furthermore, goliath was a philistine and the refa'im were never identified with them in the bible; in fact, it mentions the refa'im during the joshua conquest, but the story of goliath takes place some 400-500 years later. in other words, i think someone's mind took a leap of fantasy when hearing about giants and the bible. 89.138.168.132 07:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all - thank you for adding the Arabic name.

About Goliath - leap of fantasy indeed, but there are traditions claiming Goliath is buried in the Golan, and which link him to the Rephaites. I'm not saying it makes sense - but some people believe it, and that's all the text claims. okedem 09:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Region

Implication that Golan is not part of Syria is Israel pov. [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent name change

I don't necessarily object to the move, but it is common courtesy to first suggest such a move on the talk page, and get some input. As it's not a simple mistake, but a choice between two rather common names (a simple google search will prove that), the very least one can do is give a rationale on the talk page, and see if anyone else agrees or objects. okedem (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Rujm el-Hiri gets about 1/4th the google hits compared to Gilgal Refaim--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In google web, the arabic name does get less in the way of hits. That's largely because there are a lot of copies of this article in different places and it was named Gilgal Refaim (I am assuming) because it came form Hebrew wikipedia and that's the most common name for it there. But the scholarly and book searches of google produce different results. More importantly, the authoritative scholarly sources written for a worldwide audience use Rujm el-Hiri. Gilgal Refaim also only appears beginning in 1989 as far as I can tell, in Israeli arhcaeological writings as an alternate name for Rogem Hiri or Rujm Hiri as they were writing it then. (Both derived from the original arabic name). Tiamut^talk 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the move seemed obvious to me. I should have asked first but, the evidence was clear.

The interwikis in languages other than Hebrew (or Arabic, if it existed) use Rujm el-Hiri.

Authoritative archaeological sources (two of which I added to the bibliography) use Rujm al-Hiri. One of them adds Rogem Hiri (the Hebrew translation of the original Arabic) in parantheses. Rogem Hiri is also used by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Ha'aretz, who says the Hebrew name is Gilgam Refaim, nevertheless uses Rujm el-Hiri throughout its article, probably because that's the name the site is most commonly known by, and Ha'aretz writing for an English audience, defers to that fact.

google book searches also show Rujm el-Hiri and variations thereof (Rujm al Hiri, etc.) are also more common than Gilgal Refaim. All sources for Gilgal Refaim tend to be a) more recent b) authored by Israeli arhcaeologists. Tiamut^talk 20:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said - I don't necessarily have a problem with it, especially considering the two Israeli sources you mentioned use the Arab name, including the Israeli government site. It's just that considering the fact that I wrote this article - it would have been nice to get some warning and rationale before changing things. okedem (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry. But its a should have, would have, could have kind of thing at this point. I'm glad you don't find the new title to be wrong. If the process was, that's my fault. I hope the new content and sources provided for some of what was there meet with your approval. Tiamut^talk 07:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't read it yet, will later. Don't fret, it's cool that you gave some attention to the article. You can see in this talk page how long it took to get an Arabic speaker to review the Arab name here. okedem (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It probably took a long time to find someone since most Arabs (who do know of it) know it as Rujm al-hira. They would not have recognized it as the same place under Gilgal Refaim. Tiamut^talk 11:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, probably. I see there are a lot of spellings - "hira" or "hiri"? "al" or "el"? And what's the difference? okedem (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. Just like in Hebrew, when Arabic is romanized or transliterated, there are a million and two possible configurations. Tiamut^talk 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew name was repeated twice in the lead, so I removed one of them, also only added the original name to the infobox as the hebrew name is described in the article as being a recent name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Renaming the article and adding that it's located in Israel

The site is now know as Galgal Refaim. Anyone who visit it must have visa to Israel or permission to enter Israel. It's under Israeli sovereignty, regardless the UN resolution that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory (which doesn't mean that right now the site is in Syria as borders are de facto stated where one sovereignty ended and other begins-as I noted in other places, the UN have many decisions that are ignored and mean nothing, thanks God)-the people who live in the region are Israelis and not Syrains and honestly we had enough with POV pushers who insist the Golan should be refereed as Syrian territory to this extent that according those POV pushers Israeli villages in the Golan are at present in Syria...It's too ridiculous, too POV and we shouldn't give it place. The article should be renamed according to the present name. Also remember that this site have very old history and certainly didn't start with Arab name.--Gilisa (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not, the oldest name used is Rujm el-Hiri, "Galgal Refaim" only started to be used after the occupation began. It doesn't matter what nationality the settlers have or that you need to go via Israel to visit it, that's the occupation, it doesn't mean that its in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

History and purpose

Is the purpose of this section to discuss the occupation or the subject?

"The Golan Heights were occupied by Israel from Syria in the 1967 war, and the site was "discovered" during an Israeli archaeological survey carried out in 1967-68.[5] Already mentioned on Syrian maps, a Syrian triangulation post was found on top of its cairn.[6] The area's residents, of course, have known it for millennia, but scientific research of it commenced after it came under Israeli occupation. After initial research the site was mostly abandoned, and the first professional archaeological excavations of it only began in the 1980s, when it became the focus of interest for scientists and researchers, following the work of Professors Moshe Kochavi and Yoni Mizrachi."

How about simply

"Scientific research of the site began with an Israeli archaeological survey between 1967 and 68.[5] After initial research the site was mostly abandoned, and the first professional archaeological excavations of it only began in the 1980s, when it became the focus of interest for scientists and researchers, following the work of Professors Moshe Kochavi and Yoni Mizrachi."?

And scare quotes are bad.Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I made the change but understand if it needs some tinkering still. Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

To not give this important background information about the occupation is confusing because it doesn't show how Israelis went there. The triangulation post is also notable information. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the occupation and the paragraph was bloated. The conflict does not need to be given prominence at every possible opportunity. I assume some of it was also unsourced but did not go through it completely. I don't see why the post is of any value to the article but I don't really see a problem with it. Feel free to add a line about the post.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that ti was already done. Also see that the occupation was readded. It is given less room now. I still think it is unnecessary and think it is a weird seeing it stuffed in every other article but it is much better than it was.Cptnono (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Its one sentence, as I said: "To not give this important background information about the occupation is confusing because it doesn't show how Israelis went there." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

This is an interesting article, but needs more referencing regarding its use (if any) since ancient times. Noting the arguments above, it is clear that attempts are being made to turn this article into a political manifesto. The article is about a mysterious stone formation. All other material will be removed as off-topic.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Archeology cats

The [Category:Archaeological sites in Israel] and [Category:Archaeological sites in Syria] templates should be reinstated. One of the functions of categories is to add articles to relevant lists. In this case we're dealing with an archaeological site that isn't in any of Wikipedia's Archeology lists because no archeology templates were included in the article. Where is the logic in that? A user looking for archeological sites in Israel or archeological sites in Syria should be expected to find this one – again, because that is part of the categories' function in the first place. If the problem was the mention of Israel and Syria in the cats, then at least they could be replaced with [Category:Archaeological sites]. But having only the [Category:Prehistoric sites in the Golan] template when this is clearly also an archeological site doesn't make sense to me.—Biosketch (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure now if a cat should be included if a sub cat is in. Thought the sub would be enough as one can continue on from there. This site is also not in Israel, so that is another reason to not ad "Archaeological sites in Israel" here. There is also the "Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights" cat. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The international community acknowledges Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights, and it's universally agreed that getting to Rujm Hiri is only possible from Israel. Therefore both cats are appropriate. The Israeli cat reflects the IC's consensus that Israel is the Golan's occupying power, and the Syrian cat reflects the IC's consensus that Israel should cede the territory to Syria.—Biosketch (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If Archaeological cats need to be here despite the sub cat that is already here, then still "Archaeological sites in Israel" would not be one of them that should be here. And it is not appropriate or represents the IC, that would be "Archaeological sites of Israeli-occupied territories". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If there existed a [Category:Archaeological sites of Israeli-occupied territories] template, I would endorse its inclusion. Still, minimally, [Category:Archaeological sites] should be added so the article can get listed there where it belongs.—Biosketch (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It can easily be created, just ad the cat you want to the article, and then press on the red link, and its created. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that was possible. It came in handy today.[2]—Biosketch (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Socks

Several socks have shown up here to pov push, Breeins sock repeatedly removed this neutral map:[3][4] Drorks sock also continued to remove it:[5]

There has not been any consensus to replace the original neutral map in this article.

Agadas map:[6] was discussed at the Golan Heights talkpage, and it was clear from that discussion that its factually incorrect as it has incorrect boundaries in several ways and presents the area as in Israel, so its pov. User:Cptnono participated in that discussion, so why this user is continuing to ad this pov pushing and factually incorrect map is not understandable.

The original location map for this article has not been discussed here, and there has not been any consensus established at any discussion anywhere that its not neutral, or that any map like it is not neutral. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you edit warring? You have also already received the reasoning you requested. Do you want me to copy and paste it here and then continue to edit war?Cptnono (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Three of the rvs are by socks - doesn't count, Agadas map he added without discussion, and it was discussed at the GH talkpage and there was consensus that it was pov and also had inaccurate boundaries. After this you added the same map that the discussion showed was pov and inaccurate, so why wouldn't I revert it? Your edit is not following any outcome at any talkpage. Your edit is the opposite of the outcome. You also removed a map that there has not been consensus over anywhere that its non neutral. I said: "Please take your concerns to the talkpage.", at what talkpage has there been consensus for your edit? Just because you make some pov claims at a talkpage and then disregard arguments of others that doesn't follow your pov, doesn't mean consensus has been established for your pov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot explain to you why you are edit warring on this talk page without breaking decorum standards so I will simply summarize arguments you have heard before. I might layout the concern with your actions on this page over at your talk page but I have already done that so you do not need that repeated. After I am done doing with the explanation being given below, I am going to remove the map altogether since both maps show some POV and no map sidesteps that issue (a policy and pillar of Wikipedia). If you want to bring any map back, I suggest you continue to engage in centralized discussions or even open an RfC. Continuing to revert will be edit warring.

1) The Golan Heights does not function as part of Syria. It has been taken over by Israel and functions as part of that nation. It might be illegal but it is the way it is. The opinion of the intl community on legal status does not change that. Furthermore, most tertiary sources (which Wikipedia is) mirror this reality. Note the World Almanac which lists the Golan in a separate section within the Israeli listing. Please go see atlases that sow it in Israel or show it between the two countries with dashed lines.

2)The previous image made it clear that the are was disputed. The map you introduced takes a side. Wikipedia does not take sides. Wikipedia follows the sources (which are split on this but not enough to call either such a minority opinion that you can call UNDUE, as it would be against the spirit of that standard) . Along with sources, Wikipedia strives to stay neutral. The image you presented is in no way neutral in its handling of the dispute.

Cptnono (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of the map is to show where it is located, the fact that the land is occupied does not change where it is located. According to you and Israel it maybe functions as part of Israel, but not according to the international community, according to the IC it is part of Syria. Most sources and the international community do not follow what you personally view as a "reality". Who said that the map I created had World Almanac as a source? It doesn't. It has other sources, amongst other the international community: p23, UN map following the IC:[7] CIA maps following the IC: Syria:[8][9], CIA Israel:[10], CIA Middle East: [11], CIA Golan: [12][13][14]. Agadas image put the area within Israel. The map I created takes less side then saying Haifa is in Israel. My map follows the worldview per Wikipedia policy npov. Your personal view of what "take sides" is, is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy npov due and undue weight, we do not give the extreme minority as much weight as vast majority. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." [15]. The image I created is following this, it is therefore neutral. Also, I asked you to show me where there has been consensus for you to remove my map, and you have not shown me that consensus, and instead you have edit warred and forcibly removed the map I created without getting any consensus for its removal.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly by saying: "The map I created takes less side then [sic] saying Haifa is in Israel"? Can you elaborate, please? Noon (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Around 20 country's do not recognize Israel and many call the area Palestine. Yet at the articles about Haifa and all other city's and villages in that area, we say they are in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see, you meant that saying that 'Haifa is in Israel' is not neutral enough, since many countries do not recognize Israel, and maybe Wikipedia, for the sake of neutrality, should say that it is actually in Palestine. Am I right? Noon (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not what I am supporting, but going by the arguments of Cptnono here, then there would be more reason to remove that Haifa and the rest of the city's in that area are "in Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikimania 2011. Hope Syrian authorities and UN would authorize visit of wiki-geeks in Rujm el-Hiri site, crossing international border might be hard sometimes... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You see Noon, Haifa, like Acre is part of historical Syria. See Joan of Acre birth and childhood described by reliable sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What you just said has nothing to do with my argument. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No that is just an historical observation. I see Supreme Deliciousness discussing "Golan is Syrian" almost every day. Good luck with that. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but Cptnono when you say "The opinion of the intl community on legal status does not change that." you are expressing an opinion, aren't you? Then you say that most sources give the Golan Heights to Israel by default, well one of the most used and trusted source by both sides of the debate on Wikipedia is the CIA world Factbook. If you check the Syria map (or Syria article) you will see the Golan Heights are a part of Syria with the 1973 boundary lines, however if you check the Israel map on the Israel article you will see the Golan Heights absent from the map. Please check this out yourself, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html.George Al-Shami (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

“ No consensus means no map. ” — User:Sean.hoyland (paraphrase), [16]

—Biosketch (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, on what basis did you remove this map? [17] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why we have centralized discussion,to avoid edit waring each and every article under Golan Heights category, though sometimes to say Acre in Syria might be nice.

“ No consensus means no map. ” — User:Sean.hoyland (paraphrase), [18]

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So why did you join the edit war of two sockpuppets and Cptnono to forcibly remove a map without consensus? And where is the centralized discussion where there is consensus that we shouldn't use this map? You also quoted another user, what Wikipedia guideline is that based on? and how is there no consensus for this map? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agada, you have not replied to my post above or at your talkpage, you claimed at your talkpage that your edit had rationale and said: "please stop WP:IDHT", could you please link to your comment where you replied to why you joined the edit war of two sockpuppets and Cptnono to forcibly remove a map without consensus? Since edit warring was one of your arguments for edit warring the map away as you participated in. The other argument of why you removed it you said: "No consensus means no map.", could you please link to the policy based argument presented here against the map which would turn its inclusion into a "no consensus"? As policy based arguments for its inclusion has been presented, but no against. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No games, just straight talk: The map was inappropriate. No one noticed. It was brought up. Now we notice. You have been given reason on other pages. You chose to revert. Now you have been provided reasoning on this page to fulfill the game version of our standards. You have been reverted. You reverted (making it an edit war) The map was removed. Figure out a NPOV map or let it die. Stop doing this to the topic area without centralized discussion. Everyone is sick of it.Cptnono (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You say: "The map was inappropriate." yet not you or anyone else here or anywhere have provided a policy based reason for that it is "inappropriate". Just because you repeat something over and over does not make it true. Above I linked to a Wikipedia policy that showed it being npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is a pillar and policy. You have received the wikilinks in other discussions. Please stop ignoring other discussions.Cptnono (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I linked to NPOV in this discussion and quoted it, it shows my map in accordance with the policy, and the policy not in accordance with your view of it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And my repeating arguments given to you multiple times would be filibustering. Please feel free to dispute those arguments. You know them so don't play games. If you need clarification please ask but I am not going to pretend that we we have not had this conversation before. (but feel free to cherry pick more than the CIA. See the sources I have already mentioned. Thanks) And no matter what: Consensus is pretty clear now that no map is OK. I would love to work with you on a more NPOV map if you think it is essential to the understanding of the topic. Or we could just showcase the topic for what it is and not force politics down the reader's throat.Cptnono (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments were replied to here:[19], and shows your views of npov to be inaccurate and not in accordance with policy, and you did not reply. I already said above that the international community view is my source and linked to the IC view in a reliable source and to many maps following the IC view. If your World Almanac source is not following the IC view, then that doesn't really mean anything, as I never said it is my source for my map. How is "Consensus is pretty clear now that no map is OK." ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You have chosen to respond to one argument in one place wile disregarding other reasoning. You still do not understand standards such as WEIGHT. And the talk page and editing shows that no map is OK. You are on the wrong side of NPOV and I do not need to wikilawyer it for you to understand. Make a better map or be happy with a picture of the subject. You could always open an RFC and I can filibuster it but I would prefer if you just accepted that politics and nationalism are not the only thing on every Wikipedia article. We got a whole article (or 10) devoted to that topic, right?Cptnono (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What reasons have I disregarded? Actually I do understand weight, that we don't give the minority the same weight as vast majority, per the policy npov. Socks edit warring and users suddenly showing up here edit warring without providing any policy based reasons is not "Consensus is pretty clear now that no map is OK.". It follows less politics and nationalism then saying "Haifa is in Israel", but you aren't removing "Israel" at that article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

WP is supposed to present information in an impartial tone, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes."[20] By posting a graphic that shows only one side's point of view, is Wikipedia taking a stand and inserting itself in the dispute? It would seem that a map could be made that would single out the disputed area as opposed to favoring one viewpoint over the other. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 10:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My map is an impartial tone. See the quote from npov above: [21]. We don't give minority the same weight as vast majority as that would violate npov. The map shows the vast majority view, the same way when it says in the Haifa article, "Haifa is the largest city in northern Israel", this is in accordance with npov. If the map is "only one side's point of view", then the Haifa article is also only "only one side's point of view" as we are saying it is in Israel. "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." If my map is "engaging in disputes" then saying "Haifa is in Israel" is even more engaging in disputes, why aren't you removing "Israel" from that article and the other city's and villages in that area? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Classic wiki-lawyering and battlefield mentality. I've said too much here it seems.. Ya'll have fun and maybe I'll come back and contribute when people want to make progress instead of digging their heals in and politicizing every little thing. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 10:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Following the entire npov policy and not cherry picking from it and incorrectly applying the cherry picked part here is not "wiki-lawyering and battlefield mentality.". You want to apply something here, that you aren't applying to other articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't hurt my feelings. Dashes around the area without extra highlighting or space given to on one country or the other. Would improve several articles (assuming others want it in all of the infoboxes). I'm not familiar enough with working on the map files to do anything but criticize.Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Your view of how the map is supposed to be: "Dashes around the area without extra highlighting or space given to on one country or the other." is a violation of Wikipedia policy npov that I linked to above and that you have disregarded in your comment: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Inkscape and Adobe Illustrator, but I don't want to get drug into another "political battle" because of changes I made to something as silly as a map. I believe you were there when I decided to stop contributing photos from the middle east. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 10:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

suggestion

I'm gonna make a suggestion for a new map here: There will only be one box with focus on Golan. The international border and ceasefire line will be the same as the picture to the right here: [22]. Golan will have the same color as the rest of Syria. Israel will also have a (different) color, and on Golan there will be stripes, same kind of stripes as on the West Bank in this image:[23], these stripes will have the same color as Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot support in any map that implies it is in Syria. Having make the center of the map not be the Golan Heights with Syrai given that much space in the frame does just that.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Having make the center of the map not be the Golan Heights with Syrai given that much space in the frame does just that." ? Why wouldn't you support the map I suggested, when it follows npov? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, Is your filibustering (as you call it) based on Wikipedia policy? I have read this entire thread, and I have yet to see you answer SDs point about your continued stance being in direct contradiction to the policy that he quoted two times already. -asad (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already provided policy reasoning even if you chose to ignore it.

The reason a map with Syria taking up the bulk of the frame is not acceptable is because it takes a side which means ti is not NPOV. If you guys would stop asking me to repeat myself then I would not be filibustering.Cptnono (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't. You have misrepresented npov policy, the same thing as you are once again doing now. I have twice posted the part of the npov policy that shows how to handle due and undue weight, which is directly connected for this issue, and I have showed worldview stance, which is not "split", and you have ignored it. Have you even read my suggestion? I said "There will only be one box with focus on Golan" (that Golan will be in the center.) And yes, the color in my suggestion will take the vast majority side, per npov policy due and undue weight that you have ignored. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This issue is not that, the issue is that it is in direct contradiction to this: " "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. -asad (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Winery source

There are several hypotheses regarding its purpose and uses, ranging from a calendar, to a tomb or site of worship.[5] supported by a winery source, which does not appear to be an WP:RS. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a beautiful website. Anyway, they appear to have gotten their material from this document, attributed to one Barry Chamish – a talented Scrabble player and looney anti-Zionist, judging by his Wikipedia page.—Biosketch (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

How is Barry Chamish a reliable source? The document is also hosted at dubroom.org. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed it per no evidence of reliability provided. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, the source might be biased but reliable for factual description. Try WP:RSN, and see also Anthony Aveni book used as ref, saying more or less the same thing. Did you try to read source provided? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it reliable for factual description? If a reliable source says "more or less the same thing", why don't you use it instead? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am commenting on factual reliability, User:Supreme Deliciousness assertion that the source is not reliable is incorrect, see Anthony Aveni Rujm el-Hiri ... served as temple, tomb, astronomical observatory. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with SD here: Chamish isn't an RS. Where are his credentials as an archeologist? The guy strikes me as a conspiracy loon.—Biosketch (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch put hebrew name in "native name" and before arabic

In this edit:[24] user biosketch put the Hebrew name in the "native name" citing "per Template:Infobox ancient site", but Template:Infobox ancient site says "native_name = Name in the local language or spelling", since when is the language of an invader in another country a "local language"? and he also put it before Arabic, why? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

wow.Cptnono (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness, you acknowledge that Template:Infobox ancient site says "Name in the local language or spelling." Are you trying to argue that Hebrew isn't the local language of the Golan Heights?—Biosketch (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Syrias official language is Arabic, the Israeli settlers in the part that Israel occupies have brought with them a foreign language - Hebrew, these people are not "locals" they are settlers/foreigners, whose presence in Syria is regarded as illegal by the international community, how can they're language be regarded as a "local" language? Also why did you put it before Arabic? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What language the locals living in the vicinity of Rujm el-Hiri speak isn't a function of the region's political disputes. The Israeli residents speak Hebrew, the Druze ones speak Arabic and frequently also Hebrew. Sources establishing that this is so can be furnished if you desire.—Biosketch (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesnt mean it should be the primary native name. The place is in Syrian territory, a country that has exactly 1 official language. It isnt Hebrew. I dont have a problem retaining the Hebrew, it should be kept, but it should not be placed ahead of the Arabic name, the name that even the Israeli government uses {see here) nableezy - 15:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Supreme Deliciousness: why is the language of an invading people from Arabia placed before the native Hebrew language of the region? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.10.164.138 (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Link that doesnt belong in this article

In the see also section user biosketch added a link to the Archeology of Israel article, this was later re added by User:Cptnono, saying "the article says why it is "Israeli." But the article doesnt say that its Israeli, so why was this inaccurate category re added here?

That link doesn't belong here because this article is not about a place about archaeology in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read the first paragraph of the "History and purpose" section: "The site was cataloged during an Israeli archaeological survey carried out in 1967-1968...." "After this initial study, serious archaeological excavations commenced in the 1980s, under Israeli professors Moshe Kochavi and Yoni Mizrachi."—Biosketch (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Its still not "Archeology of Israel", and a link to that article is already found in the sentence "The site was cataloged during an Israeli archaeological survey carried out in 1967-1968," so we don't need to link it twice. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We have already discussed Israeli ("Something of, from, or related to the country of Israel". Do you want me to repeat the argument on every page you disregard it on?Cptnono (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually had to revert my edit. Although I doubt the reasoning would have come from someone else, I care more about MoS than winning. The link is actually already used in the body since studies by Israelis are were we got so much info. Cptnono (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness' argument to the effect that "Its still not 'Archeology of Israel'" isn't valid because per WP:SEEALSO the article Archeology of Israel contains content that qualifies as something a person reading this article would conceivably also want to explore. His other argument's also invalid given User:Nableezy's removal of the other link to Israeli archeology in the article body.—Biosketch (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, and I am growing tired of the insistence on tagging every part of the occupied territories as being of Israel. WP:SEEALSO also says should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic. I see no reason why Archaeology of Israel would be in a comprehensive article on the topic. Archaeology of Israel is not closely related to this topic, and as such should not be in the see also. nableezy - 00:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC regarding wikilinks

Should Archaeology of Israel and Syro-Palestinian archaeology continue to be linked to from this article (currently See also but within the text may be possible).Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support retaining the link to Archaeology of Israel from the article. Israeli archeologists and institutions have played a crucial role in furthering our knowledge of the site, and the Wikipedia article that covers Israeli archeologists and institutions is Archaeology of Israel. I have no strong opinion one way or another vis-a-vis Syro-Palestinian archaeology.—Biosketch (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose including Archaeology of Israel - This "is it in Israel" argument gets hashed out again and again. We really need to agree on some kind of politically correct compromise. I wish there was a Archaeology of the Levant page. NickCT (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support retaining both links. The genesis of this RfC is silly. We have editors so eager to re-fight a war that happened decades ago that having a link in the "See also" section causes heartburn. The discussions on this talk page also reveal several editors who seem to POV push at every opportunity; I recommend Administrators start banning them for their inability to play nice. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• This RFC doesnt say anything about the dispute, it asks for opinions without giving any facts, it asks two questions as though they were the same, creating this idea of a false equivalence between the links and inviting less than informed views on the subject. The article Archaeology of Israel is about the study of the archaeology of Israel. Israel is a country that does not include this site. That link has as much to do with this article as Archaeology of Lebanon does. nableezy - 04:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "false equivalence" is exactly right. NickCT (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose using Archaeology of Israel as that is off-topic for a site not in Israel. Biosketch's argument that the excavating is done by archaeologists who are Israeli is seriously inadequate — actually a large amount of archaeology in Israel is done by American, British, German, etc, archaeologists yet nobody would dream of listing it under Archaeology of Germany etc.. Troutman didn't provide an argument at all and so doesn't count. Zero^talk 05:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose including Archaeology of Israel, I agree with NickCT's statement, an Archaeology of the Levant would be beneficial for some articles. I am in support of keeping Syro-Palaestinian for this however, Palestine and it's variants have been the longest and best description of the area in question. If we would like to call it archaeology of Israel, we could also call it archaeology of the New Kingdom of Egypt while we're at it. Silvertrail (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Archaeology of Israel as its not located in Israel, support Syro-Palestinian archaeology, per that its located in an area that is internationally recognized as part of Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose using Archaeology of Israel - per others. United States Man (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the inclusion of Archaeology of Israel (it's not located in Israel). Support Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Also, the link in the lede regarding "Isreali occupied" has no place in this article, either—It's in the Golan Heights, plain and simple. - GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC) (Per FRS.)
• Oppose using Archaeology of Israel. It's not Wikipedia's job to take a position on international disputes. Nice try. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Its been a month, the result of this should be pretty clear. Im removing the see also. nableezy - 05:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Israeli archeologists

Can somebody explain why the nationality of the archeologists is relevant of something ? Are they biaised for what concerns the Golan ? Or particulary well-known ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC) (edit) I had not seen the discussion here above. It seems clear that if the wikilinks was removed, there is even less reason to give the nationality of the scientists... Pluto2012 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

wikilink

Can Biosketch or somebody who isnt interested in childish games explain to me the relevance of the wikilink Archaeology of Israel when discussing a survey by an Israeli archaeologist. Because it isnt clear to me, though maybe that just my childish nature. nableezy - 15:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You're asking how the expression "Israeli archeological" is related to "Israeli archeology." What's not clear to you, Nableezy?—Biosketch (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Im asking how a survey made by Israeli archaeologists is related to the contents of Archaeology of Israel. That is what is not clear to me. Please explain it to me. nableezy - 15:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The word survey isn't part of the wikilink to "Israeli archeology", the expression "Israeli archeological" is. Do you not understand how "Israeli archeological" is related to "Israeli archeology."—Biosketch (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The words of Israeli archaeology survey mean that it was performed by an Israeli archaeologist. How is that related to the contents of Archaeology of Israel? I dont think this is that hard of a question, and if you would like to accuse others of playing childish games Id request that you not start the one called playing dumb. Im asking a simple question, can you answer it? nableezy - 16:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You're continuing to formulate your argument as though the words "Israeli archeological survey" are what're being wikilinked to "Israeli archeology" when that isn't the case. Confine your argument to what it is actually about: the relevance of the expression "Israeli archeological" to the article redirected to from "Israeli archeology." Propose a compelling question about the relevance of those two expressions to each other, and I'll be delighted to start taking your comments seriously.—Biosketch (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Youre continuing to stick your head in the sand and pretend that the phrase is not using Israeli as anything other than the nationality of the person conducting the survey. So I ask again, how exactly is the nationality of the person who conducted the survey related to the contents of the article Archaeology of Israel. If you cannot articulate a reason I will re-revert as it seems rather clear to me that the link does not belong and that you are only playing childish games to retain an inappropriate link. nableezy - 16:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that what it seems to you? Ok. It seems to me you're relapsing into your cranky earlier persona who can't keep his interactions with other editors civil and professional when they insist on cogent arguments from you. Now, I'll say again what I've been saying throughout this exchange despite your endeavors to shift the focus to such irrelevancies as the word "survey" in the expression "Israeli archeological survey." The expression "Israeli archeological X" is the exact semantic equivalent of the expression "X of Israeli archeology." That being the case, wikilinking "Israeli archeological" to the redirect "Israeli archeology" is natural, intuitive, reasonable, within the scope of the wikilinked text, and expected. Do you have a compelling counterargument to what I've just told you, or is all you can do accuse your interlocutor of performing various acrobatic feats with his head?—Biosketch (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you not remember who said that their interlocutor was playing childish games, or do you really want to pretend that I am the one having an issue remaining civil? Back to the point, what is the word Israeli signifying in the sentence? Does it have anything to do with anything other than the nationality of the person(s) who conducted the survey? Its a simple question, and I for the life of me cannot figure out a reason why you wont answer it. That is, a reason other than you know that the answer makes a mockery of your hand waving. So please, answer the question. nableezy - 18:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I very clearly remember implying that the various edits relating to the removal of wikilinks to Archeology of Israel constitute childish games, yes. That you seriously still do not understand why that is only reinforces that observation. Rujm el-Hiri was explored as part of an Israeli archeological expedition. Now let's contemplate what that means. An Israeli archeological expedition. Could that have anything at all to do with "Israeli archeology"? I don't like to be in the position of making a mockery of my interlocutors, but since you've brought up mockery, and are denying that "Israeli archeology" is relevant to "Israeli archeological survey," then I honestly don't see that I have much of a choice anymore but to do just that. When you come across the expression "biblical archeology," do you infer that the nationality of the archeologists involved is "Bible"? When you come across the expression "Ancient Egyptian archeology," do you infer that the nationality of the archeologists involved is "Ancient Egyptian." I mean, maybe you do and that's why you're still trying to argue that the denotation of "Israeli archeological survey" is necessarily archeologists of Israeli nationality. If only you understood that "Israeli archeology" can mean Israel-funded archeology, or archeological studies sponsored by Israeli academia, or archeology conducted under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority, then I would not find myself in the position I find myself in now of having to make a mockery of what I would otherwise much rather was a professional colleague of mine. But as long as you ignore the true scope of the expression "Israeli archeology" and force your own narrow, selective understanding onto the phrase, I'm regrettably left me with no other alternative.—Biosketch (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the scope of the expression Israeli archaeology, and your oh so misplaced condescending tone notwithstanding Ill be happy to enlighten you on a few things. The target article is titled Archaeology of Israel. Its contents, as specified in the first sentence of that article, is is the study of the archaeology of Israel. of Israel. The country. That place that does not include the Golan Heights or the topic of this article. You get that? Now the sentence, like it or not, is about an archaeological survey conducted in 67-68. That survey was conducted by Shmarya Gutman and Claire Epstein, both Israeli archaeologists. Now you can continue to pretend that the word survey does not exist and that the thought ends wherever you decide the wikilink ends, but it does, and you dont. And finally, I respectfully ask that you not willfully distort my position. You're the one using the words Israeli archeology, I however am asking how the sentence is related to the target article, which you may have neglected to notice is called [[Archaeology of Israel]. Get it this time? How about instead of trying to act the smartest guy in the room you just answer the question posed to you. Finally, Ill note that the source, as best as I can tell, does not call it an Israeli archeological survey, it only says it was one of many surveys conducted in the region. Ill be adding a {{cn}} tag to Israeli. nableezy - 22:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The article "Archaeology of Israel" shouldn't be linked in the sentence "The site was cataloged during an Israeli archeological survey carried out in 1967-1968,", because it is completely unrelated. Imagine if there was a sentence about an Italian archeological team working in a foreign country and the article would then link to "Archeology of Italy", in the same manner as here. Its the exact same situation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk)

I requested a citation for it being an Israeli archaeological survey, none was given. Ive modified the sentence to actually reflect the cited source, not what some people playing childish games wish the source said. nableezy - 15:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That really worked out for you, huh? Now instead of having a link in the article it is of equal prominence in the see also. I now fully agree with its inclusion there. Archaeology of Israel is of navigational use. It is more useful to the reader than Syro-Palestinian archaeology. I thin it is cute that the later has actually been disputed as a whole. I can't believe I am promoting the balancing of nationalism (or whatever -isms you guys are on right now) but nice work, Biosketch.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up (since my above comment as nonsensical to anyone not following the diffs and I was so flabbergasted that it happened): It was not OK with the link in the see also based on MoS since it was in the body. Now that it has been yanked out of the body for some policy/guideline based reasoning, it is now acceptable for it to be in the see also. That is a major bummer if a editor is trying to limit links within wikipedia that discuss the importance of Israeli archaeologists working studying the formation and is even more of an issue if an editor really really hates that the land is under Israeli control. The fact of it is that Israelis control it and have studied it. It might be an injustice to mankind but it is he way it is. On a side note, I assume we all hope there is a day where such squabbling is laid to rest and we can all apprciate the importance of historical sites (or foods, girls, sport, music, etc)06:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And I have reverted you Nableezy. I know we have a less than cordial past so I hope it doesn't ruffle your feathers but the link is valid in this article. There is an appropriate place for both Syria-Palestine and Israel archaeology links somewhere. I am not asking you to remove the Syria-Palestinian link even though I don't respect it. Please be respectful to your fellow editors and the reader. We do love AE if you want to go that route but this seems like an unneeded and petty fight to pick unless you really don't want to assist the reader.Cptnono (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the relevance of the study of the archaeology of Israel to this topic? Rujm el-Hiri is not of Israel. How is that link relevant. What you respect is not something that I plan on spending much time thinking about, so instead of providing your usual half-baked ideas you have about me or my motivation, kindly discuss the only thing that this page is to be used for, that being the article. How exactly is the study of the archaeology of Israel related to this article? nableezy - 05:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to answer your question since it disregards the reasoning provided by not only ignoring the text in the article, but the RS. The subject is related to archaeology of Israel (Israeli scholars, the whole political occupation thing, etc). You are right, we do not need to discuss your motivations. Any editor who thinks that it is not related to the point that it does not deserve at least some mention should take solace in it being only a see also link. If that is simply too much then we have bigger issues that go to our favorite play ground. So no need to debate. Either it is valid or not. You can chose to keep on arguing.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Screw it. These things always work out the same. Nableezy and SD are confident in their reasoning and will discuss it for months if given the opportunity. Some editors and IPs might even edit war over it. So let's cut to the chase since we all have more important things to do than worry about a single link:— Preceding unsigned comment added by cptnono (talk • contribs)

Actually, dealing with you is more boring and tiresome than anything else, so I think Ill pass. nableezy - 06:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That seemed a little unnecessary. Toodles! I am sure the community will come to a swifter and wiser conclusion than we would have on our own. Cptnono (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Arounf the time you said you were leaving us here, you made an edit that inserted the political "Israel occupied" You know that that has been a contentious line and I removed it. I actually considered keeping it since it provided more strength to the argument that Israel and archaeology or relevant. Per my edit summary I deleted it, though. It just seemed like over politicization. I don;t need to explain it to you and won;t repeat myself, but I did want to have some venue for SD to continue discussion since he reverted and made a series of edits that could be taken poorly. So SD, feel free to bring up your reasoning for "Israel Occupied" here. Per BD, Nab was reverted and it is up to you to convince the community to keep the edit. I also suggest you see the RfC below, I tried to keep it neutral so that others can hop in. Please do not filibuster.Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained my edits in the edit summary's. There is part of Golan that is occupied by Israel and a part that is free. So "Israeli occupied" is need to point out which one Rujm el hiri is located in. "Gilgal Refā'īm" is a name the occupiers who occupied Syria in 1967 started to use for this Syrian monument, therefore its not its real name and therefore there is no reason to have it in thick black, (putting it in the same position as its real name). The image size changed by Giilabrand made the image very small, making it hard to see what it is showing, the previous size was therefore better. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats just nonsense. The article had said, for a long time, that Israel has occupied the Golan since 1967. Gilabrand removed that, and I restored it elsewhere. If you want to try citing BRD (or spelling it for that matter), try to pay a bit more attention to whats going on. nableezy - 13:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Restored for the reasons given above. nableezy - 20:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

restored again for the reasons specified above. nableezy - 23:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

About the "Israeli occupied" Golan : is there a relevant part of Golan that would not be occupied ? I argue here below not to mention the nationality of the archeologist because I don't see what information it brings but I don't see either the interest of specifying that this archeological site is located in the Israeli-occupied side of the Golan (99 % of Golan ?). Pluto2012 (talk) 06:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is part of Golan that is not occupied by Israel, for example: Quneitra, Beer Ajam, Khan Arnabeh, Bariqa, Jubbatha al Khasab, Ruqqad river. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal Anecdotes about Rujm el-Hiri

This comment lacks suggestions for improving the article as required by WP:TALK. Collapsing per WP:NOTBLOG, click show to read anyway.

Though this info clearly DOES NOT belong in the article, i thought some of the editors (and other interested parties) may appreciate some personal (non-academic) stories relating to Rujm el-Hiri. I visited the site a few months ago, and attempted to survey it with a low-cost quadcopter that broadcast images from it's 720P HD camera via Wifi. Unfortunately a strong wind-gust literally carried my quadcopter away :-). If anyone wants directions to the site (it's not really a straightforward visit) please feel free to contact me (ronreisman@gmail.com) for directions, instructions, and hints. Watch out for the jackals, vipers, and venomous vermin. They're all there. The trip out there is sketch, though well worth the trouble, however; I highly recommend seeing the place if you're in the area. One anecdote: while hiking around Rujm el-Hiri I saw a couple of fully-armed Israeli Apache helicopters swoop low and hover directly above the tumulus. I thought they were on maneuvers, and had a great time taking photos and video of them (while they were probably taking pictures of me :-). A few hours later I found out they were not actually on a training mission. The week before my hike a Syrian Rebel group had pushed the UN Peacekeepers out of the neutral zone between Golan and Syria-proper, and then constructed a heavy-machine-gun fort less than 5 mi. away from Rujm el-Hiri. The night before my hike the Rebels used the heavy-machine-gun to fire on two Israeli trucks (which were on the Golan). I didn't know about this when I went hiking that morning. It appears that the Apaches I saw were part of the force that blew up the Syrian Rebel machine-gun fort, at the same time I was at Rujm el-Hiri. The locals at Golan (both Jews and Druze) did not appear alarmed in any way by these events. The US-based press, however, went practically wild with front-page headlines about how Israel had attacked Syria, intimations of wider war, and other high-adrenaline stories. In Golan, in the meantime, everyone we saw was calm, cool, and collected. There was more excitement about the food in a very good restaurant that was open that afternoon than anything that related to the Conflict. In any case, I posted video of the incident on Youtube, for the entertainment of one & all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnfLQFKQdjc Ronreisman (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Ronreisman (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Description of location in lead

Formerly titled "Partisan Politics does not belong here: WP:POV and WP:OR") NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nableezy is engaging is clearly mis-using his editing participation to express his own partisan political opinions, adding language the expresses his demonstrably anti-Israel bias and point-of-view. This behavior is in complete contradiction to Wikipedia general rules and guidelines, e.g. WP:POV and WP:OR. Nableezy: please confine your political statements to the appropriate venue. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not the topic of this article. This is an article about an archeological site. The article is clearly *not* the place to engage in sniping aimed at Israel or Israeli POV. Conversely, no anti-Syrian or anti-Arab coloring or bias should be tolerated. If you want to express your opinions here (on the Talk page) or on some similarly appropriate page, then we all support your freedom to express yourself. Inserting your opinions, beliefs, or creed into a Wikipedia article itself, however, is clearly out of bounds. Let's all show our consideration for the Wikipedia reader and refrain from inappropriately putting debatable and/or controversial adjectives and/or links in an article that has no natural connection to the subject matter of the topic. If this continues to be a problem then we should elevate the issue to the appropriate forum for remedial action to prevent future vandalization of this article.Ronreisman (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC) The bottom line is that we don't want to clutter up an article with an topic about archeology with a lot of partisan stuff relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This means we certainly don't want to insert gratuitous links to articles about 'Israeli-occupied' land. After all, do we *really* want to confuse the readers by bringing in 'context' regarding the claims over Golan's status? Do we want to throw in language (and refs that source statements of fact) regarding Israel's annexation of the Golan? Do we really need to provide 'balance' by pointing out that Golan is considered part of Israel according to Israeli Law, and part of Syria according to Sysrian Law, and 'Disputed Territory' according to many members of the United Nations? Should we then dredge up the controversy about the 1923 boundary between Mandatory Palestine and the French Mandate of Syria? Should we start pointing out that during the 1949 Armistice Agreements the Syrian government refused to honor the previous border agreements, and instead claimed that 1949 Armistice line should be based on Syria's military status quo, which were determined by Syria's military victories and resultant acquisition of land in their 1948 War against the establishment of Israel? Should we bring up the various arguments and observations that Syria's claims of 'military status quo' were reflected in Israel's claims over the land, once they had taken it (militarily) from Syria in the 1973 War? Does this sort of discussion belong in an article about a site that was constructed >>five thousand years<< before the Arab-Israeli conflict began? Do we *really* want to pollute this archaeological topic with such recent historical context? Let's keep our partisan opinions where they belong, and not confuse the topic of this article with factoids that don't belong, and are adequately covered in the 'Territorial Claims' section of the main Wikipedia article on Golan Heights. If we don't like the way that section presents the facts, then edit the relevant text. Again: clearly there's no need to drag such controversy into a topic (like Rujm el Hiri) where it clearly doesn't belong.

Perhaps consulting some of the Wikipedia editing pages may cut down on potential conflicts within this talk page. For instance, we should keep in mind the old WP:ASF ( "A simple formulation"), a former section of WP:NPOV (no point of view) which said, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves." There's no need to club the readers over the head with POV phrases. Let's all review WP:DECISION (let the reader decide), which contains the following relevant passage:

In Wikipedia, one of the key tenets is to keep a neutral point of view. However, sometimes it is tempting to use words that imply a point of view when the statement is essentially true. Just because no one will argue with your statement, does not mean it has a neutral point of view. Editor consensus therefore should not override policy guidelines. If an editor knows that a POV statement would be true, they should instead use neutral statements backed up by reliable citation and let the reader make the conclusion. For example, an editor does not need to say that Adolf Hitler was a genocidal maniac hell-bent on killing all the Jews. If they provide enough cited statements about his books, speeches, and concentration camps, then the reader would likely draw that conclusion. And one last tip, be careful about wandering into the gray zone between making statements which are neutral and factual.

Another relevant guideline is WP:FAPO (facts precede opinions) which states (in a nutshell) "that content accepted by Wikipedians to be factual takes precedence over content that is contended to be opinionated. This is a complement to NPOV."Ronreisman (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC) If, OTOH, Nableezy and other editors do not agree with these positions and continue to insert biased language into the article (eg references to 'Israeli occupation' etc.) then perhaps we should refer this issue for Wikipedia conflict resolution.Ronreisman (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a completely neutral reason for identifying this place as lying in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Namely, the Golan as such is much larger than the part Israel occupies. If it was located in the Syrian-held part of the Golan we would say that too. But it isn't. So we identify the location correctly. You don't like the word "occupied" but that's too bad since it is the correct word according to almost the entire world. Not a single country disagrees except the occupying country. Incidentally, this place is very far from both the 1920 and 1923 Syria/Palestine boundaries and there is no controversy about this location from that period. Zero^talk 10:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's avoid a cantankerous and immature edit-war (or worse) and see if we may politely agree amongst ourselves on a cordial consensus that respects Nableezy's concerns and addresses Zero's point, and yet doesn't introduce anti-Israeli terminology into a place it clearly doesn't belong. How about using the more neutral phrase 'Israeli-administered' rather than the more controversial (and politically biased) 'Israeli-occupied' ? This should inform anyone which polity is in charge of that portion of the Golan, and yet avoids prejudicial language that unnecessarily colors and/or biases the tone. Again, using language that conjures Arab-Israeli political conflict is simply inappropriate for a topic about a ~5,000 archeological site. So can we de-escalate this superfluous kerfluflfle, agree on a consensus, and move on to other matters? C'mon people, let's not sweat the small stuff; there's more important things to do with our lives! :-) Ronreisman (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Its not biased, its nearly undisputed fact, and I am not even aware of Israel actually disputing that it occupies the Golan. This is not language that conjures Arab-Israeli political conflict, it was what the entire world calls the area. nableezy - 02:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we've made a good faith effort to resolve this issue by discussion and clearly we're not going to reach a consensus. I'm therefore going to create a new section on the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and see if we can get some help settling this. In the meantime Nableezy's 'undo' may stand, until we receive some sort of guidance or conflict-resolution. Life is too short for edit-warring.Ronreisman (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just created a new section on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard about this issue. The following editors have been names in my posting: Nableezy, Zero0000, Tiamut, Supreme Deliciousness. The section may be accessed via http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Rujm_el-Hiri:_in_.27Israeli-administered.27_or_.27Israeli-occupied.27_Golan.3F or ==Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion== Hello, Rujm el-Hiri. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Rujm el-Hiri: in 'Israeli-administered' or 'Israeli-occupied' Golan?. Thank you.. I'll send notifications to the editors named. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronreisman (talk • contribs) 20:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In this edit's summary, AgadaUrbanit (talk · contribs) incorrectly implies the result of discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard was to simply say "Golan Heights". I participated in that discussion, and do not agree with AgadaUrbanit's assessment of that discussion. ‎Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) already restored "Israeli-occupied" to the text, and I endorse that revert for reasons stated at the noticeboard discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

References

{{qn}} on cairn age

According to this book the cairn in the middle was build 1500 BC, i.e. more than millennium after original construction. However we say The central tumulus (or tomb) is built from smaller rocks and is thought to have been constructed about 150 years after the surrounding walls were constructed.[10]. We also say the tomb is a 1,000 years newer than the site itself. however this claim goes without citation. Might be a typo, suggest to change to 1500 years. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That is old info: since a Chalcolithic-period pin was found inside the burial chamber, it was dated to the Chalcolithic; see some of the ref's within the article for confirmation. 72.183.52.92 (talk) 10:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Maps and discovery

There is literature around saying that Rujm el-Hiri was "discovered" in 1968. It is a bit like "Columbus discovered America", given that there was a village (Joumaya) only 1km away. It is also recorded that the Israel archaeologists who visited in 1968 found a Syrian triangulation post on top of it (Mizrachi 1996, cited in the article). Ok, probably the archaeological significance was first recognised in 1968. The site was known to non-locals at least by the 1940s since it is shown (as an unnamed circle of dots) on a map that I have (G.S.G.S. 8061, Sheet No. 50-K-20; reproduced in 1952 by the UK War Office from a 1943 map drawn by the French Service Geographique des F.F.L.). Zero^talk 04:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)