Jump to content

Talk:Ariel (Israeli settlement)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Location

Shuki, I am trying to be an honest third-party broker here, and you are not helping. I added the geographic information that Ariel is "17km east of the Israeli border" and you removed this (without responding to my Talk message above) with the comment "not a border". Well, perhaps "border" is not the right term for the line between the State of Israel and the West Bank -- could you be constructive here and help find the correct technical term, instead of removing this highly pertinent information? As I understand it, Israel has not annexed most of the West Bank (except for East Jerusalem), and indeed the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the West Bank is under military occupation and administration. So what exactly is an appropriately neutral term for the boundary between the State of Israel and these territories? --macrakis (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Green Line nableezy - 05:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
support - green line. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. After the last edit, and a reread of the article, I noticed the reason for the apparent missing info is that it already exists in the section below. There is absolutely no reason for this duplicate locating info. Frankly, I like when the leads are simple and concise without getting into detail. On stubs, the lead paragraph is usually the place for all this, but in a large article with multiple sections, we have the ability to avoid the awkward run-on sentences. Macrakis, input please before kneejerk reverting. Was my edit so controversial that warranted your reaction? --Shuki (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that only basic information belongs in the lead. From my perspective as an outside observer of the situation, it seems highly significant that this Israeli settlement is located 17km from the Green Line. For that matter, mentioning the "Samarian Hills" also seems redundant; again, for an outside observer, "northern West Bank" is enough to locate the place geographically and politically. --macrakis (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Macrakis here. Distance from Green Lien is ceretainly a more important thing to mention than distance from a town substantially firther awy over the line. Ditto "northern West Bank" is more meaningful to most new readers than "Samarian Hills".--Peter cohen (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
We've passed that issues already, the issue now here is not location but this duplicate information in two sections. Peter, it is your OR to what 'most readers' find meaningful, we are supposed to improve all articles based on NPOV. --Shuki (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
To clarify myself more, duplicate info - lead: is an Israeli settlement and a city in the Samarian Hills of the West Bank, adjacent to the Palestinian Authority district capital of Salfit, and 17km east of the Green Line
Geography section: Ariel is situated approximately 40 kilometres (25 mi) east of Tel Aviv, 40 kilometres (25 mi) west of the Jordan River, and 60 kilometres (37 mi) northwest of Jerusalem. It lies southwest of Nablus/Shechem, north of Ramallah and southeast of Qalqilyah.
Frankly, for starters, far away and unrelated Kalkiliya is irrelevant here. Ramallah less relevant as is Jerusalem too. I am suggested that the information be split up (version before Mac revert). --Shuki (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)

Shuki, sorry I mistakenly removed useful information from the Geography section. I have added back more complete information there, including both your contributions and other information. I agree that Rmallah and Kalkiliya are not helpful here.

As for the opening paragraph, it inherently has some duplication with the rest of the article, as it is a summary of it; we need to exercise our collective editorial judgement in cases like this where I can't think of any magical solution to determine what is NPOV and what is worth repeating in the intro.

For the outside observer, I really don't think Petah Tikvah is a useful point of reference, but it may well be useful for the intro to mention that Ariel is connected to Green-Line Israel (is there a better NPOV way of referring to that?) by a highway. --macrakis (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I was looking over the article opening again with your comments in mind, and I think I agree we can delete some of the detail in the opening paragraph. Instead of:

Ariel (Hebrew: אֲרִיאֵל‎; Arabic: اريئيل‎) is an Israeli settlement and a city in the Samarian Hills of the West Bank, adjacent to the Palestinian Authority district capital of Salfit, and 17km east of the Green Line.

why don't we remove the references that probably aren't meaningful to non-Israelis and non-Palestinians, leaving:

Ariel (Hebrew: אֲרִיאֵל‎; Arabic: اريئيل‎) is a city in the northern West Bank, founded in 1978 as an Israeli settlement 17km east of the Green Line.

I think that includes the essentials for outsiders. Do you and other editors agree?

PS I looked in Google Scholar, and found that "northern West Bank" is much more common than "Samarian Hills" both by itself and if you include Ariel (excluding Sharon). --macrakis (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the first paragraph currently reads:

It is the fifth largest Jewish community in the territories that Israel captured from Jordan of as a result of the Six-Day War in 1967. The Israeli Ministry of the Interior gave the municipality of Ariel the status of a city council in 1998.

I think this contains both too much and too little detail. A Wikilink to West Bank is enough to tell us that the West Bank is territory that Israel captured from Jordan during the Six-Day War. (Was this POV-pushing by the anti-Israeli side?) We already say that Ariel is a city; that it was given that status in 1998 doesn't seem like first-paragraph material.

On the other hand, bizarrely enough, the article just calls Ariel a "Jewish community" and never mentions that it is under Israeli administration under an international (though interim) agreement! So how about something like this:

It is the fifth-largest city in the Israeli-administered part of the West Bank (Area C) under the Oslo interim agreements.

That tells the reader that it is administered by Israel under an international agreement without editorially endorsing either the Israeli or the Palestinian POV. Comments? --macrakis (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Macrakis, anon's deserve respect as well. Your edit was quite bold considering that we are trying to cooperate here on getting the best edits. If you want to go back to collaborating by editing the article directly, it is unfortunate, but so be it. Your explanation above is contradictory as you yourself put it when remarking that there is too little and too much info. Please don't discuss too much at one time, it's very hard to keep track. Now, the lead sentence. Saying - Samarian hills of the West Bank is actually a more colourful way of saying the bland 'northern West Bank' and more consensus NPOV per the naming convention posted earlier. The bureaucratic term 'West Bank' is quite bland and meaningless beyond the literal extended West Bank of the Jordan River, so adding an actual area is helpful. northern West Bank usually refers to the area further north since there is never has been a distinction here between North West Bank or South West Bank. The extremities are northern and southern, but the rest is central. --Shuki (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"Samarian hills of the West Bank" cannot be described as having "more consensus NPOV" under any definition of "more", "consensus", or "NPOV". nableezy - 01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, could you please point to evidence that "Samarian hills of the West Bank" is "consensus NPOV"? As for "bland", in this context, I think I'd prefer "bland" to "colorful" :-). Anons' contributions certainly deserve respect in general; when they are unexplained on Talk page (which is what this anon suggested) after 24 hours and controversial to boot, it doesn't seem unreasonable to revert them. The term "West Bank" may be bureaucratic; it is also the term used by the vast majority of third-party (not Israeli, not Jewish, not Arab, not Muslim) English-language press precisely in order to avoid prejudging the situation. "Samarian hills" is certainly a venerable geographic name, but provocative in the first paragraph, just as "northern Epirus" is in that context. I will edit the article, therefore, to remove what you would call the "excess information" until we come to a consensus here.
As for the other suggestion, don't you want the article to reflect the Oslo interim agreement that Ariel is Israeli-administered (Area C) with the agreement of the PLO? That is surely NPOV and relevant.
I am trying to be a fair third-party editor here, and you are treating me as though I am some sort of opponent. Why? --macrakis (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank). Two wrongs don't make a right and as per the naming convention page, it is not NPOV to include what you deleted. I appreciate your contribution here but it does not automatically make you right. Please comment first or provide sources showing that Ariel is mentioned as being in the northern West Bank. Please lets deal with the duplicate geographical info and get consensus. Another observation; the convention on Jewish and Arab articles is that Samarian/Judean hills/mountains terminology is certainly legitimate tolerated in 'Jewish' articles while it might seem provocative in Arab settlement articles. NPOV it would be legitimate on the Arab localities that existed in ancient times when the terms Samaria and Judea were current terms.

As for the Area issue, there is nothing wrong with including mention on Area C, but please note a distinction between geographical and political location. Please also try to think a proper way to include 'in Area X' that might also be then copied to other Jewish and Arab settlement articles though it 'might' also seem as boilerplate redundant info since all Jewish settlements are in Area C. On the other hand, Arab settlements are plit between Areas A or B.--Shuki (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Much of what you wrote is unintelligible. What in the naming conventions says that we should include "Samarian hills". I know it says that it may be included, but it does not say it should be included. Actually, it does not even say it may be used, the part of the guidelines you seem to be applyuing hwere is When discussing physical geography using the terminology that appears in international expert journals, for example as part of a proper name ("the Judea Group aquifer"), or as an adjective qualifying a term ("The Samarian hills"). We are not discussing physical geography here, you are simply using that clause to try and coach in a favored term. nableezy - 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I edited the intro to read "the West Bank" to keep the description as neutral as possible. You changed this to "the Samarian Hills of the West Bank", with the edit comment "rv violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank)". But you appear to be misinterpreting that page. The Naming convention page (bullet 4) says quite explicitly that "northern West Bank" is the preferred term:

"West Bank" or "the West Bank" (capitalized) is the most commonly used name for the land area known by that name, and is to be used. The terms "northern West Bank" and "southern West Bank" can be used to refer to parts of it.

It also restricts the usage of the term "Samarian hills" in bullet 6B:

6) ... Any uses of the terms must be in one of the situations described below:... 6B) When discussing physical geography using the terminology that appears in international expert journals, for example as part of a proper name ("the Judea Group aquifer"), or as an adjective qualifying a term ("The Samarian hills")

In other words, "Samarian hills" should be avoided, and "northern West Bank" preferred. This is not just Wikipedia policy. For example, in the New York Times, I find 6090 Google hits for "northern West Bank" and 5 for "Samarian hills"; Wall Street Journal: 2810 vs. 0; Ha'aretz: 1 vs. 0; The Times (London): 426 vs. 0; Web as whole: 828,000 vs. 11,100; Google Scholar: 590 vs. 156. Only on Google Books do we see a roughly even ratio, and most of those hits seem to be Biblical, not modern. --macrakis (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation at all vis a vis your 'In other words'. Your 'northern WB' search does not refer to Ariel which is in the central area. "when they started the community on a hilltop deep in the central West Bank." We can find many more sources referring to Ariel as just in the 'WB' than those referring to it in the 'northern WB'. This would be a compromise, albeit somewhat redundant: in the Samarian hills of the northern section of the WB. Tell me what you think. --Shuki (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
What is it that you disagree with? Bullet 4 says that parts of the West bank should be referred to with terms like "northern" and "southern" (or presumably "central"). Bullet 6 does not positively recommend the use of "Samarian hills" in any situation; what it does is allow it in a narrow set of cases, including physical geography where it reflects the usage of reliable sources.
In addition, I have shown that "Samarian hills" is used far far less frequently than "northern West Bank" (or a fortiori "West Bank" by itself) in reliable sources. You tell me 'central' is more appropriate than 'northern', and that we should look for Ariel in particular; fine. Looking for Ariel (but excluding 'Sharon' so we don't get hits on the person), let's try "central West Bank" vs. "samarian hills" on Google: "samarian hills" ariel -sharon: 1630; "central west bank" ariel -sharon: 52,200. The evidence seems overwhelming, and you haven't provided any reliable sources for your contention that "Samarian hills of the West Bank" is an appropriate NPOV name. Given the baggage that "Samaria" comes with, we need to be careful about using it, as the policy says.
Remember, this is Wikipedia; we're not supposed to reflect our own personal understandings of what is true (you say: "many refuse to acknowledge that the area is Samaria"), but instead work towards a neutral, third-party view of things. This means that our editorial voice should be neutral, but the article should reflect all important positions supported by reliable sources. For example, it appears that the official slogan of the city is "Capital of Samaria", which is certainly worth reporting on. --macrakis (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Macrakis, the NC does say we can to do this or that, what not and it explicitly says we may use that terminology. The whole history behind of that NC is because many articles said that XYZ was in Judea or Samaria and pro-WB editors achieved not allowing the usage of those terms for many reasons. The NC guidelines instead came to make order of what is allowed or not. We are not saying that Ariel is in Samaria - the NC prevents that. We are saying that Ariel is in the Samarian hills, the NC allows that. What don't you understand about that? It's not my understanding, it's in clear English. I don't think the anti-settlement people would accept the second sentence in the lead to be: "The municipality of Ariel calls it the capital of Samaria". Nableezy, what do you think about that alternative? --Shuki (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Shuki, you are editing against consensus, and have provided no Reliable Sources for your position. But two major (and pro-Israeli) US newspapers, one liberal, the other conservative, use 'central West Bank' and not 'Samarian hills'. The NC primarily recommends (bullet 4) 'West Bank', but allows (bullet 6) "Samarian hills" in very narrow circumstances. --macrakis (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The "Samarian hills" are an unknown outside of Palestine, whereas the West Bank is the standard term. The way I read 6B in the NC is that if you describe physical geographical entities, e.g. the hills, you can say "the mines extend deep into the Samarian hills". The letter and spirit of the NC, in my opinion, is to use "West Bank". --Dailycare (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't suggest that the lead should say "The municipality of Ariel calls it[self] the capital of Samaria". I did suggest that somewhere in the article it should be mentioned that the motto of Ariel is "The Capital of Samaria". We need to get a reliable source saying whether this is the official motto or some sort of marketing slogan or whatever, but it is perfectly appropriate to report on this. If it is in fact an official motto, it could be added to the infobox -- regardless of whether some editors consider this to be incorrect or offensive. What of course we can't say is that Ariel is the capital of Samaria. --macrakis (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Synagogues

Article currently reads:

As the community grew, a more heterogeneous mix of people joined the group including traditional Jews, as well as Orthodox Jews, though the city has kept its predominantly secular nature. The city now includes fourteen synagogues of various ethnic divisions of Orthodox Judaism.

I am having trouble understanding this. First of all, should that be traditional Jews or Conservadox? The second sentence mentions only Orthodox synagogues; does that mean that there are no Traditional or other non-Orthodox synagogues? It is also not clear what "has kept its predominantly secular nature" means; does it mean that there are few haredim? Could someone with local knowledge -- or even better, with reliable sources clarify all this? --macrakis (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the facts

  • First of all Ariel is built on land that Israel took by force in the 1967 war and continues to occupy illegally until this day. For reference go look at the tens of UN Resolutions clearly stating that fact and the countless international conventions, including the Geneva Convention, which clearly state that the acquisition of territory by war is illegimate, inadmissible, and contravenes all notions of international law and respect.
  • Secondly, when pointing out the location of Ariel in the first sentence, in order to make the article accessible to the widest audience possible, it is preposterous to use ancient villages that existed thousands of years ago and only mentioned in texts that people of a certain faith believe in. The whole world believes in geography and what their eyes show them. We have satellites today that give us the precise location of towns and villages. Use references to existing landmarks or latitude and longitude, not the ancient town of I don't know what. There are hundreds of millions of Buddhists in the world that don't necessarily believe what is written in your bible. Wikipeida is not a bible. It is an encyclopedia.

--Saads 06:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair second claim, present day referential landmarks should definitely be placed before historical places. BUT (1) your sincerity is represented by your deletion of the biblical references entirely, do it again and it will be definite vandalism. If you really cared about WP, you'd do this minor cleanup without ranting about it to push your POV.
I'd also advise you to not edit articles you really have no clue about. You reverting the 'Jewish immigrant' claim shows you know nothing about Ariel.
Ariel is a city, town, village, municipality, satellite, and settlement. Please stop pushing your POV, and using the term 'city' is not disputed or POV. The term settlement is also in the article and has not been minimized.
As for your first claim, it is WP:OR. The mountain ridge that Ariel is located on was not conquered by force from a defending army and no natives were forced off this land. Ariel specifically is situated on land that was uninhabited before the first pioneers set up their tents. The Palestinians ridiculed these pioneers because they themselves called the area 'mountain of death' since nothing grew on it except for rocks and weeds. While some parts are 'state-owned' meaning they had been occupied by the Jordanian government, other parts of it were actually purchased with cash from Palestinians. Even today, there are parts that are still outside the immediate boundaries of the city since it is private Palestinian land. Ariel is not on illegal land. If you have an issue with the entire West Bank or Israeli settlements go to those articles. If you have specific references to international law that states that Ariel is illegal, please provide them. --Shuki 07:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Shuki is correct. Before Israel, the land was taken by force by Jordan, UK, Turks, Crusaders, Arabs, Byzantium, Romans... and before that it belonged to Jews. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


apparently for the PLO time starts in 1946 and the rest is a conspiracy ( read charter) 00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Samarian hills

The term is used in the lead to describe geography as per the NC. West Bank on the other hand is a political term and not a geographical one. There are no West Bank hills, West Bank lowlands, West Bank valley, or West Bank river. And you are clearly not being fair claiming 'no opposition' by expected people to be following WP around the clock. --Shuki (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The "no opposition" was about the proposal to make "It is the fifth largest Jewish community in the territories that Israel captured from Jordan as a result of the Six-Day War in 1967." more concise. I made that proposal 4 days ago and in the meantime, you have participated in the discussion here several times, not once objecting to that proposal. It also seems to me fairly non-controversial to replace "the territories that Israel captured from Jordan as a result of the Six-Day War in 1967" with "the West Bank". If anything, it reduces the emphasis on the status of the territory, which I would have thought you'd welcome.
As for the Samarian Hills, you seem to be the only one here preferring that appellation, and I've shown above that it is not used by the third-party press. You are editing against consensus there. --macrakis (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move to Ariel, Judea and Samaria

Yes, Ariel, Judea and Samaria is an Israeli name for this place, but WP tries to avoid names associated with one side or another of a conflict. One could equally well say that Ariel, illegal settlement or Ariel, West Bank or Ariel, Palestine are Palestinian names for this place, but those too would be tendentious. In any case, a highly contentious change like this should be discussed before being made. --macrakis (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That is an unacceptable name. We have guidelines in place that say that we cannot say, in WP narrative voice, that a place is in Judea or Samaria. In fact, Ariel (city) emphasizes a minority POV over a super majority one (that Ariel is in illegal settlement). nableezy - 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Israel intends to annex the area which Ariel is a part of in the near future. The settlements of Ariel, Beitar Illit, Modi'in Illit, and Ma'ale Adumim are real cities, and Ariel is an industrial hub. All are also near the Israeli security fence, not to mention the surrounding settlement towns. Israel has established facts on the ground which completely excludes any possible Palestinian state from this area. Secondly, Judea and Samaria is the Israeli name for the West Bank.--RM (Be my friend) 00:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, your personal beliefs on Israel's intentions, and whether those intentions, even if true, mean that the area is part of Israel are meaningless. And we dont go by the "Israeli name for the West Bank", and before you continue I would advise you to read this and this. Attempting to impose the language of the occupying power against the language of a super-majority of sources will not go over well. You cannot say that a place is "in Judea" or "in Samaria" or some combination of the two in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Quoting the naming conventions: The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice; for example, it cannot be asserted without qualification that a place is "in Samaria". nableezy - 02:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with Nableezy. Israel's "intentions" are not relevant here. For that matter, even if Israel unilaterally annexes Ariel, WP tries to maintain an NPOV stance, reflecting all important positions on the matter. Compare, for example, Kyrenia, unquestionably a "real city" and unquestionably located on the island of Cyprus, and certainly controlled by the de facto "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". The tag "(city)" is sufficient to disambiguate Ariel from other things and people named "Ariel". --macrakis (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, Israel has openly stated that it will annex the area in the near future, and that the wall will run roughly along the future borders of the State of Israel (Ariel is near the wall). Secondly, Israel may be an occupying power, but it therefore runs the West Bank, and has decided to call it Judea and Samaria.--RM (Be my friend) 00:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel being the occupying power means that it cannot annex any area in the West Bank into Israel. Israel does not determine its borders. But back to the point, that Israel has named the area Judea and Samaria does not mean that Wikipedia is under any obligation to follow that. Read the links provided. nableezy - 01:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, no matter what the other countries say, Israel will still annex it, and even if its illegal, they will be de jure and de facto part of Israel, no matter what International law says, as Israel does not recognize these laws as applying to settlements. Take East Jerusalem, which Israel has annexed, even though it is an occupying power. No matter what the international community says, Israel still annexes them. When that day comes, (probably in the near future), we should call it Ariel, Israel, since it will be a fact that it is part of Israel. For now, in that case, I would suggest calling it Ariel, West Bank.--RM (Be my friend) 15:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Small correction, the Supreme Court of Israel does recognise that international law applies to it's settlements. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
If Israel annexes the territory it would be Israeli territory only according to Israel. That does not mean it is Israeli territory. nableezy - 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what the world would say, but it would still be a part of Israel according to Israeli law, and it would be de facto a part of Israel. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are illegal under international law, but they are de facto totally independent, for example.--RM (Be my friend) 21:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for making an exception to the agreed naming conventions. Zerotalk 01:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel's position on this is only one relevant position. One of WP's basic principles is neutral point of view, which means that WP does not itself take a position, but reports on all important positions. As I said above, even if Israel does unilaterally annex Ariel, that simply means that Israel claims de jure jurisdiction over it. It does not mean that other countries and entities agree with that claim. WP should continue to report on situations like this (and of Cyprus, and of Taiwan/Republic of China, etc. etc.) in a neutral way. --macrakis (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"illegal under international law"

I don't think we should write that Ariel is illegal under international law, but we should write (with suitable source) that authorities like the UNSC and ICJ and most countries consider it illegal under international law though Israel disagrees. That is a plain fact and is one of the most notable facts about Ariel. Leaving it out would be a sin. The question is what source to use and how to present this information briefly (I don't like the same argument leading to expanded text in many articles). Btw, "most countries" is proved by UNGA resolutions. Zerotalk 13:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Im fine with that. nableezy - 17:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

settlement type

Shuki, in your unexplained rush to remove the words Israeli settlement from the infobox, perhaps you should pay attention to some salient points. This is a generic "settlement" infobox, not specific to Israel, so the "settlement" parameter has nothing to do with the type of Israeli settlement this place is. Also, we have as the primary description of this colony in the lead of the article the term "Israeli settlement". Is there a reason why that description is being removed from the infobox by yourself? nableezy - 19:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In the past, this infobox was reject because of exactly some of the points you brought up. Nothing has changed with you at all. It's your monthly witch-hunt to dehumanize all Jewish populated places and remove their primary descriptor -> municipal type, and replace, or emphasize the political label. Your revert of 'city' simply shows you cannot accept that term being in place by itself without the political descriptor in this case, weasel word. --Shuki (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Ariel is an Israeli settlement in the Palestinian territories. So please do not remove Israeli settlement from the settlement type or replace the map for this place in the palestinian territories with one of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Not. That is your POV. Nableezy and SD, I remind you that only a few months ago Nableezy put out an Rfc that failed to support this position. I suggest you do not rehash that whole affair unless there is something new to add. --Shuki (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Was the RfC about if Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories are in Israel? Did I remove that its a city? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
That is, like much of what you usually write, inaccurate. The RFC did not "fail to support my position", "my position" clearly had more support than yours. Either way, the primary description in this article is "Israeli settlement". The RFC closer said we should use what is already there and not continue to have this same fight. You are now instigating that fight by again removing the primary description. nableezy - 19:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed at length in the RFC... if we go by sources, and why shouldn't we (policies, anyone?) the primary aspect of this entity is "Israeli settlement", but sources do also mention that it has been give "city status" by Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

As such: [1]. The problem with it is not the legal status of Ariel, but the style of the article. Legality issue is already covered. The second addition is simply unsourced and I doubt it can be sourced. Also, IP's comment "No disputing the settlements are illegal. only whether they will remain" shows lack of understanding of WP policies. Please read about five pillars, neutral point of view and reliable sources. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this settlement is illegal under international law should be in the lead. There is not a single rational argument for not including that incontrovertible fact in the lead, a fact that I can both provide hundreds of sources saying this about all Israeli settlements and further can provide many saying this about Ariel specifically. Edits such as these are examples of unapologetic POV pushing. The article now has included the lead a recent statement by a political leader that they feel that Ariel is part of an "integral part of Israel", but not the fact that it is not currently in Israel, that it is in occupied territory, or that it is illegal under international law. Not one of those facts is currently in the lead. nableezy - 00:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Reviewing legality in the lead is fine with me, and I guess we both know how it can be done properly. International position, source, Israeli position, source, everybody happy. If you think that Netanyahu's claim is out of context or have to be balanced or don't belong to the lead, I'm open to discuss it. The IP edit, however, is of the kind you tend to revert as vandalism. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
But why would that be the correct format? The "Palestinian position" is conspicuously absent in that formulation. nableezy - 02:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
That's more or less how the consensus (that you've been a part of) goes in all settlement-related articles, where legality is covered in the lead, so I thought it would be ok with you. But I'm open to any constructive input. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The BBC has a boilerplate text to the effect that "settlements are illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this" (quoted from memory). --Dailycare (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I remember this one. BBC rulez. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The cities and villages are legal under Israeli law. --Shuki (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
And why does that mean the fact that the settlements are illegal under international law should not be in the lead? nableezy - 04:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Again? It this the one that sets a precedent? Why are established editors even reverting when a centralized discussion could be taken place?Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Legality and edit warring One editor even said it in a edit summary "known problem with settlement articles, please discuss first". How many times is this going to be repeated? The RfC on what comes first (still a weird RfC to even have) didn;t really have an impact it looks like: [2]. Cptnono (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason you make us read this nonsense? nableezy - 13:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason that editors continue to not agree on multiple articles how to handle the legality and how to label it? Check out the history page on this article alone. You think it is nonsense while I think it is months of disruption.Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thats nice. It misses the point, but its nice to know you are at least thinking. Now if we could only get you to do some reading before saying what you think. We are discussing the content of this article here. If you would like to do that feel free. What you should not feel free to do is disrupt the conversation with a rant that has nothing to do with the content of the article. If you want to go cry about reverting go do it somewhere else. I am trying to solve the problem here. Not deal with rants that dont even have anything to do with the topic of discussion. nableezy - 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

capital of samaria

Could the user who feels this is "relevant content" please explain why a remark by an Israeli PM about Ariel deserves to be in the lead? nableezy - 14:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem moving it into the body, if that's what editors here agree to.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
While we are at it, could you explain what is "weasel worded" about "the term the Israeli government uses for the norther West Bank" and also why you wikilinked within a quote, something the MOS explicitly says to avoid doing? nableezy - 15:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Its preferred to link in quotes then to weasel word, something the MOS explicitly says to avoid doing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Except you havent said what is "weasel worded" about what you removed. nableezy - 19:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
One point is also that "West Bank" is the term that WP:RS typically use of the area and the term that therefore this article should predominantly use. --Dailycare (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
You missed the point.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

recent edit

this edit says that settlers looked "in the hills of Samaria". WP:WESTBANK specifies that you cannot say that something is "in Samaria". The edit summary on the revert is mindless, what certain people call "Samaria" is a part of the West Bank. If somebody "looked in Samaria" they looked in the West Bank. nableezy - 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they were looking for a place in Samaria. I see where you are going with this, and I think it is about time to modify the naming convention a bit to allow leeway for this. Nonetheless, A direct quote will help take away the ambiguity. I'm trying to get a hold of a book about Ariel as well to also source my old claim that the hill was called Jabel Mut. Imagine how good you could make Arab articles if you spent 10% of your time on them instead of holding the Israeli articles to the highest standards. --Shuki (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The naming convention isn't modified yet, so until that happens, it must be followed. Samaria can not be used according to the rules. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
If you provide a direct quote and attribute it as a direct quote then you can quote them saying they were looking for a place in Samaria, but it should be clarified in the text what that means. I think I have already told you that I focus on Palestine, not Israel. This is an article on a colony in the Palestinian territories. It isnt my fault that Israel has established a large number of colonies in the Arab territory it holds under occupation. nableezy - 20:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

WP WESTBANK

See Wikipedia:WESTBANK, it shows that we can not use "samaria". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jabel Mut

בעיצומו של תהליך גיוס המשפחות לגרעין הגיעה הצעה מאגף התכנון במטכ"ל, ובה הוצעו שלושה מקומות להתיישבות בשומרון:

  1. השטח ליד העץ הבודד שעליו הוקם לימים היישוב ברקן
  2. השטח שעליו הוקם לימים היישוב תפוח
  3. גבעה קרובה לכפר כפל-חראס, הידוע בפי ערביי הסביבה בכינוי "הר המוות". "הר המוות" (ג'בל מאוט): אדמתו טרשית, מלאה בסלעים חשופים, שאותה אי אפשר לעבד לא כן שכן להתיישב בה.

per NOENG, the entire paragraph reference for hill of death from the book about the city of Ariel. --Shuki (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

lead again

Brewcrewer has disruptively removed from the lead what an uninvolved admin said there was consensus to include (see here). Brewcrewer, explain why you should not be banned for disruptive and tendentious editing against consensus. nableezy - 18:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

try to be somewhat more collegial and i will be glad to respond.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No, respond because you are required to explain your reverts. Respond because an uninvolved admin said that there is consensus for including this information in the lead of such articles. nableezy - 21:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
All that needs to be said is at the centralized discussion. Please see my recent comment and keep it there over having multiple discussions on talk pages.Cptnono (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No, brewcrewer needs to explain the revert he made in this article at this article's talk page. nableezy - 21:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Then you need to explain why you disregarded the admins suggestion on how to implement this. Stop going out of your way to start trouble.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You dont know what you are talking about. To the point, I added a reliably sourced statement to the lead. I would like brewcrewer to explain why he tendentiously removed it without any basis in policy. You have been told to not discuss editor's motives. Kindly desist from making such comments. nableezy - 21:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I was not discussing your motives. I commented on what you are doing. You are starting a conflict. If you would simply keep it at the centralized discussion then it might get hammered out fairly smoothly.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Stop going out of your way to start trouble. is a fairly clear attack on my motives. Stop muddying an article talk page with such comments. I am attempting to include reliably sourced material, material that the sources treat as among the most important facts about this colony. How about you just stop talking about me and instead discuss the content of the article. nableezy - 21:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't read it that way but you are going to believe what you are going to believe. I am not discussing it here since it should be done at the centralized discussion. Part of the reason it was started was because more than one editor was making sweeping changes and the individual talk pages were not looking at each other. If that happens again it means the centralized discussion accomplished nothing. Even after you expressed concern about implementation several weeks ago this went through and that might be a good thing. However, implementation can lead to it falling apart just as fast as any other part of the process.Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an article talk page, it has a specific focus, that is to discuss the content of this article. You have now indicated a refusal to discuss the content of this article on the article talk page, instead choosing to discuss other topics. Kindly stop disrupting the purpose of this page. If you do not wish to discuss the content of this article please move along. nableezy - 21:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Asking Brewcrewer why he should not be banned certainly has something to do with the content of the article, but I yet have to figure out what exactly. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It was a polite request as to why I should not simply request he be banned. But you are right. Brewcrewer, please disregard the initial comment. Instead please explain why you have disruptively removed a reliably sourced sentence from the lead on a topic for which an uninvolved admin says there is consensus to include in the lead in such articles. nableezy - 22:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC) 22:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the mentioned discussion has ended with clear consensus: people just lost interest. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
An admin did close it out saying there was consensus. Don't exactly agree but I understand it. He made his own tweek (which I personally like) "To conclude these words, I will now put forward a suggestion that may satisfy the agreed need to include the form of words that has consensus into articles where there has been a perceived issue - as discussed above. My solution is to place the agreed wording into the main body, and in the lede of the article to use the wording, "(subject) is a settlement of disputed legality..." etc. (or variations thereof). WP:LEDE is satisfied because the agreed wording, found in all other relevant articles, expands upon that note when placed in the main body, and the lede condenses that content while retaining its meaning. I hope that this finds favour among the readers." That was disregarded in the edit. But if editors want to be disruptive it proves that we were not ready for the change. Like I said, easy enough fix if editors do not open up independent discussions but instead focus on achieving the goal of including information that has widespread support. By the way, I asked over there on how we are to implement this. It was ignored. Look what is happening now. I told you so.Cptnono (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding is wrong. LHvU's suggestion for wording in the lead was specific to articles that do not have the information expanded on in the body. Ive explained this to you, that you persist in making inaccurate statements is somewhat amusing but not all that helpful. nableezy - 23:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Nab's point understood. Cptn, Brew, do you have any ideas about how it should be implemented in this specific article lead, for I don't think that the IPCOOP discussion has any chance of making a productive output in the near future? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly as the closing admin suggested. It should be noted that there is yet another discussion ongoing at Ma'ale Adumim due to the edit.Cptnono (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Please point us to this consensus. I don't recall it and neither was there an agreement for placement. I think that a proper consensus can be agreed upon if it is done orderly and can be understand by others, especially those who did not or could not follow that drawn out discusssion. --Shuki (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The admin said there was consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Review of discussion and proposed template, above. I disagree with his interpretation but I am so involved that I could be completely wrong. I assume he was "closing" it but he also made a suggestion that should have been looked at. Editors also should have discussed how this was going to be added since look at what happened.Cptnono (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin has said that there is consensus for the line and that there is consensus that it be included in the lead. As such I am restoring it. If an editor would like to remove it they need to give policy based reasons and explain why that consensus does not apply here. The user that removed the content has yet to explain their actions. I trust that will not happen again. nableezy - 16:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a settlement is considered illegal under international law is significant information and needs to be included in the lede, so I'll be readding it. Also, could all of you here stop being so personal in your content discussions with each other? I would think that any new editors would find this a very threatening and intimidating topic to get involved in. It's not supposed to be that way. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"t is the fourth largest Jewish settlement city in the West Bank"

Maybe it's true, but the reference given does not state that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.129.193 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it does, in the first paragraph:

Ariel is the "capital of Samaria" and an "indisputable" part of Israel, pledged Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Friday afternoon just after he planted a tree in the fourth largest settlement city in the West Bank.

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Peculiar wording

The article currently reads:

Thirty-five MKs have already signed a Knesset bill which would see Ariel annexed to Israel.... This position has been contradicted by Palestinian representatives, who argue that the Ariel 'finger' would interrupt the territorial integrrity of a Palestinian state and includes a major aquifer, as well as Israeli voices who stated: "the settlement’s future is not clear. As well as an obstacle to an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, it could also serve as a crucial trade-off for negotiators hammering out a final deal."

I find this peculiar in a variety of ways. First of all, it is not clear what period of time "already" refers two. Second, what is the "position" which is "contradicted" by Palestinian representatives? It is not that the position is contradicted, it is that Palestinian representatives are opposed to this proposal. Then there's the "as well as Israeli voices..."; does this mean that this "position" has been contradicted by "Israeli voices"? That makes no sense. And the "voice" that is being quoted here is not a participant in the political process, but an observer of the process reporting on others' analyses. All in all, I find this paragraph incoherent and poorly written, and plan to rewrite it. --Macrakis (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Map added on July 13

The map added on July 13 is inappropriate, and it is not a reliable source because it lacks any information about its provenance. All it is is a map. No caption, no text. It certainly doesn't support the sentence "In a map suggested by the Palestinian delegation to the Israeli-Palestinian peace accords in Taba, back in 2001, the city of Ariel is considered part of Israel." There's no indication that the map came from the Palestinian delegation to Taba, nor does it indicate that Ariel is considered part of Israel. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

with all due respect, the map was taken from a very reliable source (you can further read on the Geneva initiative). Moreover, this source is a former Palestinian cabinet member. I re-instated the text. This unsigned message was left by 62.219.119.17. Bakilas (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted you. Please can you find a reliable source, the very reliable source you speak of, that says what this map is and that precisely supports the statement "In a map suggested by the Palestinian delegation to the Israeli-Palestinian peace accords in Taba, back in 2001, the city of Ariel is considered part of Israel." As Malik says, it is just a map at the moment. You need to present the actual source that verifies the statement you are making. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, this article is covered by a WP:1RR restriction. Please read the header at the top of the page. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
The map is undoubtedly genuine, but the proposed text is original research. The claim "considered part of Israel" is completely wrong, it was never so considered by any Palestinian delegation. The most that was ever true is that there existed proposals that Ariel and some other places might be exchanged for Israeli concessions as part of an overall settlement. A proposal made for the purposes of negotiation is entirely different from an agreement, and the golden rule about negotiations is that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". A balanced account of Ariel's status in negotiations would be appropriate for this page, but original false claims like this are not. Zerotalk 09:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I accept your comments. as long as we all agree that the map is in fact genuine, i suggest that the text would be "According to a map purposed by the Palestinian delegation to the Israeli-Palestinian peace accords in Taba, back in 2001, the city of Ariel would be part of Israel in a future agreed peace treaty between Israel and Palestine". Of course, I welcome any better wording you may come up with, as long as one can understand that in fact, Palestinian officials have suggested (in 2001, taba) that Ariel will - one day in the future - become part of Israel. I DO NOT wish to make the change my self, as I would not like to be considered violating any rule i am not aware of. I - therfore - thank you in advance for further-editing this article as you deem fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.119.17 (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why this proposal should be mentioned, and not others. For example, in the Saudi peace plan Ariel is part of the Palestinian state. Why not just say what the status is and edit the article when some plan is adopted that would change the status? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess my new edit of today would be undisputed by any other editor in light of the above agreed facts.62.219.119.17 (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I see two problems with this change: 1) it doesn't cite any reliable source, 2) it presents the idea of Ariel becoming part of Israel in the future as a common Palestinian position, by voicing down the opposite position (which, I guess, has wider support among Palestinian establishment). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

the source is undoubtedly relaible, so there is no problem there. Furthermore, this was in fact an official Palestinian position (which - by the way - is repeating in the undoubtedly genuine WikiLeaks Palestinian documents revealing the true official Palestinian position towards that area). 62.219.119.17 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC) I did add the missing source though62.219.119.17 (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is not good enough. Please take a look at WP:RS policy. You need to familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines to edit productively, especially in the area as loaded as Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I fully understand what you wish to say. Do you argue that the map is not genuine? (if so, please note what our mutual friend ZERO has to say in that regard) or do you argue that it is no longer the Palestinian position (maybe, but the "official" documents revealed recently say otherwise). Can you please be more specific?62.219.119.17 (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC) and while discussing this here with you, came Nableezy and did what can only be described as small scale brutalety. I kindly ask all other Wikipedians to help me by contributing to this discussion (rather than just bully me as Nableezy tried to do).62.219.119.17 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You need reliable third party sources that say what you want the article to say. This is a simple concept. And informing you of the 1RR and the likelihood of blocking if you continue to violate that rule is not bullying. nableezy - 13:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

there is in fact a very reliable source that says exactly that. you deleted that source together with the entire edit (did not even bother make an edit of your own, simply deleted the whole thing...). Your (and mine) political views are - with all due respect - irrelevant, as long as the source is: 1. reliable and 2. evident the edit it is based on. One would have expected you to contribute some of your own to the discussion here, prior to doing what you did. I have no desire to engage in an 'edit war' with you, yet i expect you to be decent enough to undo what you did. 62.219.119.17 (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is just a map. By itself it doesn't verify the content you added. Did you read through the explanations above about what is required ? The removal of this content is nothing personal and it has nothing to do with politics. It's just a mattrer of complying with policy. You need to cite a reliable source that verifies your words. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope that we all agree that the Map is in fact genuine (if you still dispute that, than please go back to what ZERO wrote). now, if you look at the map is clearly shows that: 1. in that map Ariel is to be part of Israel in the future (rather than today). 2. that map is a proposal by the Palestinian delegation to the Taba convention of 2001. going back to the text i wrote, can you please explain (i seem to be 'thick headed', i know...) what part of that text is NOT substantiated by the map? by the way, if you do find such part, you can clearly edit that part as you deem fit. I am here for the truth, rather than any political "opinion". 62.219.119.17 (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, I did not say anything about your, or my, political views, and you are quite right that they are irrelevant. What is not irrelevant, however, is this policy. As Sean says above, your "source" is a map. That is not a source for anything other than such a map existing. The material that you added was not sourced to anything that backed it up. As Zero wrote above, a sourced account of Ariel as it relates to negotiations between the parties would be appropriate. That isnt what you added. You need to get sources that actually back up what you are writing in encyclopedia articles. This is not something that should be as difficult to explain as you seem intent on making it. nableezy - 14:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The logic dictating adding that Ariel was to be a part of Israel by the Palestinian's Taba proposal would have a pretty nasty spillover effect to many other articles in dealing with the same topic. We could then start adding that settlements like Eli, Shave Shomoron, Itamar, Yitzhar, etc., etc. were to be included in a future Palestinian state. I don't think that is water worth treading. -asad (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

why not? if other settlements are not to be part of Israel in any future deal (whereas some will be part of Israel in the future), then why not make that distinction? it is still the truth, isn't it? and what Nableezy says here above is useless. this map (just like any other map) is a very good source as long as the text is in fact substantiated by the content of that map. in this case, the map is self evident to both parts of the text i wrote and Nableezy (let's not put an adjective here) deleted.62.219.119.17 (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that you are using outdated information to offer some sort of presumption to readers that this is in fact was the final proposal given by the PLO negotiators? Does your source say that? It seems clear that that the map was one many that the PLO offered, but there is no source saying it was their final offer. And to pass it off as the final offer would be your original research. -asad (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said (nor can it be construed from the text) is if this is a 'final' proposal. Moreover, there cannot be such a term as 'final' when referring to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, at least not until a true FINAL agreement (i hope you join me when I say that I welcome such an agreement, regardless of its details). If you look at the text i edited before it was deleted, you will find that it is in fact mentioned clearly that nothing is final. Do you suggest that we wait until a FINAL solution is reached and refrain from editing until such time? I guess not... 62.219.119.17 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

One last time. You need to get a reliable, third party, source, that directly supports the material you are adding. The map is not that. Instead of arguing about what is or is not self-evident from the map, go find another source. Read WP:RS for that constitutes a reliable source. Finally, anytime that you think something is self-evident and that it should be in an article, go read WP:OR and calmly tell yourself that unless a source directly supports the material you are inserting then it cannot be included. nableezy - 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
62.219.119.17, I don't see a consensus in this discussion to add the text you're proposing to the article. I think that if you wish to persist in this, then you need to bring some new arguments on the table, and in particular reliable sources, preferably secondary sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The claim "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law" is not substantiated by the reference

The reference says: "It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal." This is DIFFERENT than saying categorically that: "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law".

Please change the phrasing to the original version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.111.142.88 (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing represents a project wide consensus that you can read about at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. The wording was carefully chosen and the BBC source is a representative example of very many sources that support the statement. See Wikipedia_talk:Legality_of_Israeli_settlements#Compilation_of_sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your input 166.111.142.88. A nicer way to ask for additional input would be to see the discussion linked by Sean and then ask you to feel free to continue the discussion. The discussion did not lead to a solution that was perfetct and it did not reach "consensus" that was very much over the majority. But it was better than nothing. If you have more to add go ahead and start it up again. More discussion and tweaks should not hurt anyone's feelings (but it will).Cptnono (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


I support the suggested change. Since the BBC (which is also widely considered biased against Israel, even by BBC's own investigation of the matter) is less categorical than the phrasing of the entry, I would suggest to change it accordingly to: "It is widely accepted that under international law, the Jewish settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 are illegal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.231.88.1 (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
And what about the literally hundreds of sources that say the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law? Or ones that just flat out say that they are illegal under international law, no mealy mouthed international community "considering" it so (like this one, or most of the ones listed in Sean's compilation of sources). There are literally thousands of sources that either support this sentence or go even further than this sentence does. nableezy - 16:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
As Cptnono writes above, this isn't the correct place to discuss changing the consensus wording which was agreed in the discussion linked to above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
For interest, I'm planning to continue expanding that compilation of sources when I think of a suitable place for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Authorization Required

The article does not specify whether former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would have approved of the city being named after him. There should be a section discussing whether he would have approved of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.109.2.24 (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can find an RS, then maybe it might be worthy of a discussion. In any case, the renaming of the city that went nowhere is just some blurb in history and nothing more, bordering on NN. --Shuki (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Israeli city

Weve dealt with this nonsense in the past, but Ariel isnt in Israel. So it isnt an Israeli city. Tel Aviv, Haifa, Nazareth, those are Israeli cities. This is an Israeli settlement. nableezy - 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Weve [sic] dealt with this nonsense in the past"—exactly. But the conclusion was the opposite of what you say. The logic is very simple: it's a city (this is not disputed), and it's Israeli (you say yourself it's an Israeli settlement). Therefore it's also an Israeli city. QED. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Dlv999 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The Israeli government considers it a city, but others do not. If you introduce yourself as Joe, but I call you Bill, that doesn't change the fact that your name is Joe. Ariel is considered a City to Israelis and officially recognized by the government, just as much as opposing groups call it a Settlement. And I think for the sake of truth, people should know both points of view. You can't stifle the conversation, because you don't like it. Both points are valid and that's that.SimplesC (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yn, absolutely not. There has never been a consensus that you can call this an Israeli city. And you are well aware of what OR means, please stop engaging in it. It might be a city of Israelis, but it is not an Israeli city. Please do not distort the record. There is a reason this article has not said it is an Israeli city for some years now, and it isnt because the conclusion is as you claim. QED indeed. nableezy - 14:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

For nearly six months it said "an Israeli settlement and a city in the West Bank", written by... nableezy. Before that, it simply said "an Israeli settlement city in the West Bank" (November 2011–August 2012). And before that, it said "an Israeli settlement and a city in the West Bank" (January 2010–November 2011). And before that I have no interest in going. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem a city. I do have a problem with [an] Israeli city. nableezy - 16:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It is "Israeli" not (only) because of its location, but (also) because of its population, which is Israeli. Debresser (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
As always, our own analyses have to take a back seat to high quality sources. Sources, unless I'm mistaken, predominantly describe Ariel as an Israeli settlement. Users advancing the "Israeli city" theory should do so with reference to high-quality secondary sources, preferably international sources. --Dailycare (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ariel (city). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ariel (city). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ariel (city). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

settlement in short description

The primary description this article uses, and found in reliable sources, is Israeli settlement. Not Israeli city. I have reverted the so called fix of a POV edit as a POV edit. nableezy - 23:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

There is an Rfc at Beitar Illit regarding this issue. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"Ariel, Israel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ariel, Israel. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Huldra (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request

I'd like to edit the section about settlements to account for the United States joining Israel in proclaiming that Settlements aren't illegal under international law. Shachna1979 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That is discussed in International law and Israeli settlements, but the reliable sources continue to use international community for who considers settlements illegal. nableezy - 17:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that if wiki is going to display on the individual settlement page that "Settlements are consider illegal" instead of having the reader find that information in some other wiki page, then the reader should also be informed on this same page that it isn't just Israel that disputes the illegality of the settlements. The USA's dispute against the international community is a pretty big statement. It should be included in this page. Shachna1979 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Ariel is an ILLEGAL settlement 95.151.107.90 (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Already included in the intro, "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law" – Thjarkur (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ariel_(Israeli_settlement)/Archive_2&oldid=1170212623"