![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
(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:
why don't we remove the references that probably aren't meaningful to non-Israelis and non-Palestinians, leaving:
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:
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:
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)
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.
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:
It also restricts the usage of the term "Samarian hills" in bullet 6B:
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)
Article currently reads:
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)
-- Saads 06:01, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Zero talk 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)
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. Zero talk 13:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:WESTBANK, it shows that we can not use "samaria". -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
בעיצומו של תהליך גיוס המשפחות לגרעין הגיעה הצעה מאגף התכנון במטכ"ל, ובה הוצעו שלושה מקומות להתיישבות בשומרון:
- השטח ליד העץ הבודד שעליו הוקם לימים היישוב ברקן
- השטח שעליו הוקם לימים היישוב תפוח
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
The article currently reads:
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)
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 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 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)
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 though 62.219.119.17 ( talk) 12:47, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ariel (city) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ariel is an ILLEGAL settlement 95.151.107.90 ( talk) 10:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
(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:
why don't we remove the references that probably aren't meaningful to non-Israelis and non-Palestinians, leaving:
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:
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:
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)
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.
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:
It also restricts the usage of the term "Samarian hills" in bullet 6B:
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)
Article currently reads:
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)
-- Saads 06:01, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Zero talk 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)
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. Zero talk 13:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:WESTBANK, it shows that we can not use "samaria". -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
בעיצומו של תהליך גיוס המשפחות לגרעין הגיעה הצעה מאגף התכנון במטכ"ל, ובה הוצעו שלושה מקומות להתיישבות בשומרון:
- השטח ליד העץ הבודד שעליו הוקם לימים היישוב ברקן
- השטח שעליו הוקם לימים היישוב תפוח
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
The article currently reads:
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)
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 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 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)
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 though 62.219.119.17 ( talk) 12:47, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk 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).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Ariel (city) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ariel is an ILLEGAL settlement 95.151.107.90 ( talk) 10:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)