Talk:Mount Hermon ski resort

"Israeli" ski resort

As I said in the edit summary for the attention of [[User:Fipplet], the phrase "an Israeli Ski resort" is wholly innapropriate for this article. For example: 1. the first para of Lake District does not read "a British National Park", 2. Disneyland Paris does not say "French theme park", 3. Port Aventura not a "Spanish Resort". Fipplet's argument that Israeli settlements are referred to as such and not "Israeli built" is completely redundant.. this is a commercial ski resort not a settlement. The only reason Fipplet wants it to read "Israeli" is because of some bizzare political claim over the Golan Heights, this is completely irrelevant to a ski resort. The resort was Israeli built (not that it matters in the lead paragraph!!!) but that doesn't mean we need to say "an Israeli ski resort".. it is just playing politics! AreaControl (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, I think the issue here is that neither "side" of the political argument can really object to the phrase "Israeli built" because it is entirely true. To use the word "Israeli resort" is to imply political ownership and I don't think anybody wants an article about a ski resort to even attempt to explain the complicated political circumstances of Golan Heights! In any case, it is not the norm for a commercial resort to be desribed as "American", "French", "British" or even Israeli in the lead paragraph. AreaControl (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Disneyland Paris does not say a French built them park either so I don't understand your reasoning. Furthermore the resort isn't only Israeli built but Israeli used and adminiestered, so the term "built" makes the text longer but at the same time doesn't give as much information. This is an Israeli ski resort regardless of the political ownership of the territory it is located in. Israeli built is entirely true but so is just Israeli. Israeli built makes the text longer and is a more exclusive term. Fipplet (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why specify? That makes the text longer in itself, Disneyland Paris does not say "French" or "French built" because it is just a resort. An article about a leisure resort does not need to specify some national identity, it is purely you playing politics. Why on earth should we call it an Israeli ski resort you are doing it simply to be confrontational and get "one up" over the other side. It's a Ski resort in the Golan heights, built by Israelis - do I need to say that Disneyland Paris is French because it was built by Frenchmen and most of the guests are French, no! You only want to say Israeli because you know it is somewhat confrontational! AreaControl (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we apparently need more than the fact that this is an established lead paragraph and Fipplet has introduced the word Israeli unilaterally. One of our grand and awesome administrators has, in their infinite wisdom, decided to protect the page citing an edit dispute. So, despite the fact that the previous version was well established and has only really been tampered with by a somewhat biased editor, we must engage in more discussion to get the article back to its previous non controversial state AreaControl (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, so I suggest we write a Ski Resort in the Israeli controlled Golan Heights.Fipplet (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Still it's political if we say Israeli controlled, what about just saying "Ski resort in the Golan Heights" then wikilink Golan Heights so that the reader can go to the Golan Heights article and read the politics section if they are interested. I just think if we specify Israeli or Syrian it is asking for trouble. Although I nominally support Syria in the territorial claim for the area I honestly can say that my personal view is not coming into this, the reason for my stance about this article is that to say Israeli or Syrian opens up a political issue that we cannot hope to address in a Ski resort article. We may all have our own views on the Golan Heights and many of us have made them known at talk:Golan Heights but we should not let the territorial/political issues come into this article. My suggestion is "ski resort in Golan Heights", that way nobody gets offended. AreaControl (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that what defines the relative 'Israeliness' is what the users of the resort would refer to it as, and in describing the resort the users would undoubtebly refer to it as an Israeli resort. In describing European resorts it can also be important to describe the location in a country of a resort for instance articles about Zermatt expicitly refer to it as being in the swiss alps. However all in all this is not such a vastly important topic! [[User:Israelboy|Israelboy] 23:30 1 August 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC).

What are you discussing about? (French fries, Russian roulette, Turkish towel, what is your problem?) The coordinates are wrong. they should be: coord|33|18|24|N|35|46|16|E Chaver83 (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The coordinates are wrong, grossly wrong—by more than 16 km horizontally—not to mention 1600 m in elevation. Correction to the much better figures above requested. Is there an administrator monitoring who can make this edit? Hertz1888 (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. In the future, you will have better (faster) response by placing the {{editprotected}} template on this page (without the tlx). Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Neve Ativ - Israeli settlement

This was the reason the article got protected the last time. Who disagrees with calling Neve Ativ an Israeli settlement?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Redundant & unnecessary. Already stated via link (see 14 Aug. edit summary). Hertz1888 (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it unnecessary? Why cant it say Israeli settlement instead of "moshav". No one knows what a moshav is but many know what an Israeli settlement is, and this is what this settlement is called through an international viewpoint. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Links are for the purpose of providing additional information for those who desire it. Moshav is specific—and peripheral to the topic. This article is about a ski resort. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Israeli settlement is also specific. So people can click on the link and read its an moshav , Israeli settlement is the most common used word and definition of what it is, no one knows what an moshav is.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is how they learn. Specific means it's more precise. And "no one" is a matter of opinion. I can't spend the day on this. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Its in the Golan, if saying its a "moshav" and then people click on it and read "is a type of Israeli town".. makes them think its a town in Israel. The international view is that its an Israeli settlement on occupied land and this is what it should say (Israeli settlement), not only the Israeli view.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Then the phrase "Israeli town or settlement" can be added to the Moshav article, and this specific argument becomes moot. Although, the leading line in the sentence already stated it was a "settlement or village". --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It loses the point that way, specially since the moshav article is about cooperative settlements in Israel. It has to be linked to the Israeli settlement article "Israeli settlements are residential areas inhabited by Jewish Israelis in the Israeli-occupied territories (lands that were captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War). Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, which is viewed as occupied by Israel by the international community[1] and partially under the control of the Palestinian National Authority, and in the Golan Heights, which is also viewed as occupied by Israel." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that a Moshav is specifically a type of cooperative settlement, there are other types of Israeli settlements. If you use the generic term "Israeli settlement" someone might get the idea that it is something that it is not. :-) ... SD, you first expressed concerns that people might think its a town in Israel because of the way the Moshav article was worded. Moshav and Kibbutzim exist in the Palestinian territories as well, so its not specifically a type of settlement occuring in Israel, therefore I changed the Moshav article to reflect that. However now you have changed your reasoning for removal of the term again, it appears. I would ask that you reconsider your reasons for opposition or at least stop shopping for reasons to remove the term, other than your dislike for it. --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No my first expressed concern was that Neve Atviv was not labeled as an "israeli settlement" in this article, and by Israeli settlement I do not mean a moshav/cooperative settlement as it is now.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that one of the purpose of wiki-linking terms? For people to learn what a word means -- to expand their knowledge. We've all done this before while editing different articles -- both wiki-linking a term or following a term's link. That said, can we find another reason why "moshav" should not be used? Otherwise the appearance is given that the opposition is not to the word itself, but to the fact that it is a Hebrew/Israeli word. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are a bunch of articles referring to the Israeli settlements as both Israeli settlement and kibbutz/communal village. So there is no reason why we can not in this article also refer to Neve Ativ as an "Israeli settlement and moshav"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Etzion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revava

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechelim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mevo_Dotan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27ale_Shomron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinanit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brukhin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peduel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_Horon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Eldad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesh --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to using the phrase "an Israeli settlement and Moshav", or something along those lines. The use of both terms compliment each other. Would that be satisfactory to you as well? --Nsaum75 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes that was what I tried to do from the beginning link --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

YAgreement reached between me and Nsaum75 to have Neve Ativ called: "Israeli settlement and moshav" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Toddst1 (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Category

I change category to -Category:Ski areas and resorts in Syria- because it in Golan which be part of Syria that be occupied by the israelis. It not israel so category that state it israel be incorrect. Ani medjool (talk)

Edit is of no practical value, as the resort is inaccessible via Syria. Reverting. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It does no matter it be inaccessed. It still part syria and not part of israel. Ani medjool (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's hear from other editors. Should the resort be categorized under Syria, Israel, neither, or both? This is Israel's ski area, but currently the category "Ski areas and resorts in Israel" is orphaned and has disappeared. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the Israeli Ski Resort category was deleted today[1] and [2], about an hour after Ani Medjool created the Syrian Ski Resort category[3]. I don't see how the category had been empty for four days (per the deleting editor's edit summary), since the category was just removed from the article today, and prior to today, the article had not been edited since September 22nd --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The categories for Israel shouldn't be here because Golan is not Israel. But I don't think the categories "Ski areas and resorts in Syria" and "Visitor attractions in Syria" should be here either since it is a resort built by the occupiers. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would site the example of Qumran in the occupied West Bank still listed as a tourist attraction in Israel, as, that is how it is accessed and the people who go thre are almost exculsively Jewish/ Israeli, but why can't we just describe it under the category Ski Resorts in the Golan, or Ski resorts in the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan???--Israelboy (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2009 (GMT)

Resort ownership and legal issues

I'm starting a section on the resort ownership and legal issues. This is what I have so far: "Ownership of the resort is controversial. The resort is operated and held by 32 families of Neve Ativ. The families have no propriety rights in the land and they have not paid the Israel Land Administration for its usage for over a decade." I also want to add information about all the legal issues (snow cat accident, arson of competitor shop, etc). Most of the references I'm finding are in Hebrew. I'd appreciate help with this. Guy.other (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Guy.other

References

Atonement

After so many controversies, simply create or initiate an article in Arabic. --Hellsepp (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Global warming

It is written as scientific fact when it is simply the opinion of the honorary president and former chairman of the Israel Ski Federation, not exactly an RS. It needs either a credible RS or to be deleted. The Kingfisher (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)