Talk:Mount Judi

message: Could "Qardu" come from "Qar-iudu", translated "Mountain of Judi" ??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.26.150 (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

message: I tried to make the article both more informative (by eadding, e.g., information on the possible derivation of the name "Judi") and shorter. Making it shorter meant cutting back the long quote from Crouse, and, regretfully, deleting entierly the Berlitz material. Sorry about Berlitz, it was interesting, but I don't believe it really said anythin that wasn't already there. But I did the edits one by one, so anyone who wants to restore material just has to go back into archives. PiCo 10:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some edits 

message: There is another page (Mount Cudi) and I propose that it be merged into this page. Cush (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: According to Reynolds (2004), there is a modern peak called jabal jud, judi dagh and qardu, located east of Cizre, at an elevation of 2089 m. But I so far fail to identify this peak on any map. 
Precise coordinates, together with a reference to a map that marks the peak, are needed.
The article used to have , without reference, which is probably about right, but I cannot verify it. --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to have a map in our article? Even google-earth would be a help.PiCo (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: location of the modern peak

message: The 2089 m elevation is due to Reynolds (2004). :tr:Cudi Dağı claims 2114 m, but I have no way of verifying this. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Height

message: I have, amongst other things, removed a long quotation from the text.  Since one editor appeared interested in it, I have now placed the quotation in the citation, but personally I am dubious of the appropriateness even of this. Its source "Archaeology and Biblical Research" sounds good, but actually it is a journal (now called "Bible and Spade") that "written from a scholarly and conservative viewpoint, supporting the inerrancy of the Biblical record. .... Archaeological evidence, properly interpreted, upholds the history of the Bible". There is no editorial board or review process listed. We can check it out at WP:RSN if editors insist, but I am pretty clear that it will not be considered a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of its author; which is how it is now phrased. Quoting it as it was gave undue weight to material, including many so-called "facts", sourced to an unreliable source. So, yes, this edit summary  with its unfortunate failure to assume good faith, is correct in a way; I am uncomfortable with WP citing "facts" from such a unreliable source. As I should be. --Slp1 (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And it isn't. There are circumstances when it could be used, eg to show the Creationist perspective. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight; Reliable source etc

message: Perished Nations is a self-published by Islamic creationist Adnan Oktar and clearly fails WP:RS. "Miracles of the Quran"  is another of Oktar's sites so also fails WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more unreliable sources 

message: I put a photo of Mount Cudi on Wiki Commons -> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cudi-dagh-tr-1829.jpg
Regards, --Timo Roller (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Online sources (the usual tools, blacklisted or not) vary very slightly re. both coordinates and elevation (either a little under, or a little over 2100 m: both 2,089 m and 2,114 m consistently pop up). Maybe the coordinates we have now are just what Google Maps is showing, and we know that Google Maps can be edited by anyone, almost like Wiki, right? Arminden (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location, altitude