Talk:First Battle of Mount Hermon

Copyedit

This article has many inaccuracies, contradictions and portions that are just plain daft. For example:

'Background'
para 4, the article states there were 60 men in the outpost; in para 5, there were only 55.
para 5, what is a 'routine raid'? Is there such a thing as a raid which is not routine?

'Prelude'
para 3, the article has a battalion being commanded by a lieutenant. Either the Syrian army works very differently to the rest of the world or the word 'colonel' has been omitted.
para 3, The battalion then turns into a company just one sentence on; that's why I haven't changed it'.
para 3, What is 'Kanji'?

'Syrian attack'
para 2, "Three Golani soldiers at the upper ski lift observation post saw the Syrian landing but failed to fire at them due to a sub-machine gun malfunction." When I carried a sub-machine gun, it was a one-man weapon. Maybe 'sub' should not be there. Even if that is the case, this whole sentence sounds rather dubious; surely if their machine gun had jammed, they would have cleared it?

'Aftermath'
In para 1, it says two Israelis were executed. In the 'Info' box, it also says two. In the 'Capture' section, para 1, it states two, but in para 4 of the 'Wadi Si'on' section it states that "A soldier from the Air Force unit in the outpost accidentally entered a 183rd Syrian Battalion position, deployed on high point 1614. He was caught and executed the next day", later in the same paragraph, it also states: "A badly wounded Golani soldier who fell behind was killed, his body left behind." If I've got it right, that makes four.

'Counterattack'
"The force left Rosh Pina at 07:01 and reached Neve Ativ at 04:01". It either means 'the force' travelled back in time or something is not quite right here. I would favour the latter.

Various
The word 'fighters' appears throughout the article. For most this word describes a type of aircraft from WW II. I have changed it to 'infantrymen' or 'soldiers'.

I doubt that I have caught all the mistakes. There is still plenty of room for improvement.

I've had a look at the articles for the 2nd and 3rd battles, they are equally confusing RASAM (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Further rationale for revert

While the rationale is mostly the same as for the other two articles, I will clarify here anyway:

• Reverted a case of replacing neutral term (captured) with non-neutral (occupied)
• Reverted poorly-written (bad grammar) sentence change that also wrongly implied that the Israeli position was in the middle of Syrian or Syrian-controlled territory (surrounded on all sides)
• Removed citation needed tag because a source for the paragraph appears at the bottom and there is no evidence that there is no source for the statement
• Removed other unnecessary word additions

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ynhockey, please explain why you removed "the rest of" here: "a strategic flanking move toward the rest of Syria" and "manning the Hermon outpost could view the rest of the entire Syrian plain" your removal of the entire world view is a violation of npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have explained the reasoning above:

Reverted poorly-written (bad grammar) sentence change that also wrongly implied that the Israeli position was in the middle of Syrian or Syrian-controlled territory (surrounded on all sides)

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how its poor grammar or how it implys that the Israeli position was in the middle of Syrian-controlled territory. Adding "the rest of" has nothing to do with who controls the territory. t has to do with real international borders. As it is now, it implys that what the entire world sees as a region in Syria, is not, which is a violation of npov, Due weight. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall explain farther:

1. "manning the Hermon outpost could view the rest of the entire Syrian plain" quite simply doesn't make any sense. One can call it bad grammar, bad language, or simply something that doesn't make sense.
2. Both passages imply that the Golan = Syria. This does not take into account the true status of the Golan as territory de facto administered by Israel and claimed by Syria. It therefore does not comply with WP:NPOV.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The "true status" as you call it, of Golan is that its Syrian land occupied by Israel, see the sources here:[1] Occupied doesn't mean that its part of Israel, we already know its occupied. The entire worldview is that its Syrian land occupied by Israel. So to imply that its not part of Syria is a violation of npov, Due weight --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Golan is disputed territory and the claim that it's in Syria is just as "valid" as the claim that it's in Israel. The sources you provided are nice, but this is a much bigger issue than this article and the issue is common probably to over 100 articles. If you really want to get into this argument, please open an RfC and notify WP Israel and WP Syria so that many users can voice their opinions. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Reading further into the discussion you linked to, it basically seems to be a slew of comments by yourself with a few interjections by other editors. There is no evidence for consensus there and so that page is completely irrelevant here. You need to attain consensus before making sweeping changes. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain how "the claim that it's in Syria is just as "valid" as the claim that it's in Israel" when all countries on earth and major organs see it as a region in Syria and not in Israel? There has already been discussions before about occupied, see: [2] majority of editors there support "occupied". The discussion here is about the map: [3], I linked to it so you could see the worldview sources provided. Consensus is based on the arguments not on the votes, how are the arguments there for modifying a CIA map following the worldview stronger then the arguments who do not want to modify it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as this article is not following the worldview and not identifying a region internationally recognized as in Syria as being in Syria, this articles neutrality is disputed, so the tag should stay in the article until the neutrality problems in the article are fixed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Being bold

As it has been two years almost to the day since my comments above ('Copyedit') and nothing has been done, I thought I would be bold and have added 'Colonel' after 'Lieutenant' in para 3 of the 'Prelude' section and deleted 'Sub' before 'machine gun' in para 2 of the 'Syrian attack' sub-section.

If it's wrong, it can always be reverted.

RASAM (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Template Disputed has no guideline that says it should be removed before the problems are dealt with so Im adding it instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Coordinates needed, in popular culture

Can someone who has access to the relevant sources please add the coordinates of some of the major positions mentioned such as: the outpost itself, the ski lift, tank curve, Hill 2071 etc. as its very difficult to conceptualize without them. How closely, if at all, does the Valley of Tears (TV series) correspond to the battle?