Talk:Ariel (Israeli settlement)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV edits

An anonymous user made a series of edits which appear to be POV to me. If nothing else, please cite your sources. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 11:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

i am removing a palestinian POV here, "Some would say that the city is named after Ariel Sharon who was, at the time, a great proponent of Israeli settlements", that information has no validation and it is wrong. In Ariel's homepage it clearly says it was named because it's another name for Jerusalem. Whoever wrote it might be over the name of Ariel Sharon is not fermilier with Israel, the name giving proccess and did not find that information anywhere accept in his or her own mind, which is not what Wikipedia is about.

"Smaria" is not the internationally recognized name for the area. Only pro-Israeli people call it that. The UN resolutions(as well as Geneva Convention law) clearly state that it is illegally-occupied land, and that it is illegal to transfer your civillian population to such land. The sources are the Resolutions themselevs plus checking under the various Geneva codes. If anything YOU need to cite your sources to justify that Ariel is legal, and also that the term "Samaria" is used by more than just Jewish people to refer to present-day areas.

Is "indigenous" vandalism?

This is the claim that someone is making. If referring to the Palestinians as the indigenous people of Palestine is "receurring vandalism" then surely this entire site is seriously flawed? I suppose it comes down to who is running the site what is fact and what is POV. I wonder what John Seigenthaler would say?............John Miller

Who was referring to 'indigenous' as vandalism? I was referring, and explained it multiple times, that vanadalism is entering POV and deleting comments. POV, since, as I already said (you don't even acknoledge this), the proper forum for this 'indigenous' discussion belongs on the Palestinians page, not here. Perhaps indigenous is a proper term used to describe the homogenous native peoples of America, Australia, Africa, etc... It is a fact that there were Jews here in 1948, it is also a fact that while there was already an 'Arab' majority in 1922, if we go back a few dozen years, this was not the case. Another fact that you should be aware of, the current Palestinians, prior to '48, viewed the term 'Palestinian' as derogatroy and did not view themselves as Palestinians, since the Jews were called Palestinian as well.

On the other hand, your point about using the term 'Arabs' to encompass anything non-Jewish is valid. So let's refine this sentence already. Instead of "enrollment...consisting of both Jewish and Arab (Israeli and Palestinian) students."

NEW: "Current enrollment is 8,500 students, the majority of which are Jewish, yet also consisting of both Israeli and Palestinian students of all religions."

OR: "Current enrollment is 8,500 students, consisting of both Israeli and Palestinian students of all religions." --Shuki 22:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"It is a fact that there were Jews here in 1948, it is also a fact that while there was already an 'Arab' majority in 1922, if we go back a few dozen years, this was not the case."

Is that really a fact or just another POV?

"Another fact that you should be aware of, the current Palestinians, prior to '48, viewed the term 'Palestinian' as derogatroy and did not view themselves as Palestinians, since the Jews were called Palestinian as well"

Again, isn't that just another POV?

I think the last example is the most "neutral"...(both Israeli and Palestinian students of all religions). --129.49.7.122 23 February 2006

Hi, 129.49.7.122. Please add comments instead of editing them, it is easier to read and also attribute to the different editors. It also helps to sign your comments with four tildes ~ Now w/r to the facts I stated, I will try to find English sources. Most history about Ottoman 'Palestine' is not in English. The 'Palestinian is derogatory' is also from a hebrew source. I will try to find an English source. --Shuki 09:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Move to Ariel (city)

Since this is a controversial article (I've already been accused of POV here...), I will just say here that the article should probably be moved to Ariel (city), without capital C. This is according to Wikipedia naming conventions. On a side note, why is Ariel (City) NPOV and Ariel, Israel POV if it is Israel who gave Ariel the status of a city, even though generally towns with such a small population are not given such a status? -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Support move to (city). According to city, there really is no standard size. At the end of 2005, Ariel had 17 800 residents, certainly not a metropolis, but not a rural hamlet either. 'Ariel, Israel' is a fact since it is Israeli, BUT the legitimacy of the city is disputed by opponents of any Jewish residency in the West Bank, so they'd probably prefer 'Ariel, illegal settlement'.--Shuki 21:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ariel, Israel" is not allowed because it suggests that the land Ariel sits on is part of Israel and such political comment is not allowed in titles. A name matching Wikipedia naming conventions is "Ariel (city)". Using a capital C looks odd. I'd actually prefer "Ariel (West Bank)" but I'm unwilling to devote time fighting for it. --Zero 23:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The move has been made, since no objections were raised. On the other hand, I don't support Ariel (West Bank), because most of the world knows West Bank to be a Palestinian territory, which means it could be assumed that Ariel is a Palestinian city. -- Y Ynhockey ^(Talk) Y 07:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC

On a historical note it would be interesting to know who owned the land ariel is build on and what happened to them what ever the right or wrongs of the situation. --83.141.98.68 23:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Page upgrade I've added here the city table with some statistics & a pic. I hope it is not POV. Shmuliko 10:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A settlement is not a city

Robin Hood 1212 20:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

why not? What constitutes a city over settlement (disamb)? There are over five Israeli cities over the Green Line (Israel). What happens when Modi'in Illit reaches 40 000 residents? That's not a city? --Shuki 21:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Robin, a settlement is most definitely not a city, but any city is a settlement by geographic definitions. A settlement in geography is no more than a populated place. Ariel is a geographic entity so this definition is important. Settlements are often referred to as communities, however a community unlike a settlement is not at all place specific. Thus, while all settlements are communities, a community is not a settlement. Just another catchy and equally true title you may want to consider. Best regards, gidonb 02:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All cities are settlements. Chicago is a settlement, Gaza city is a settlement, etc. --Leifern 12:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ariel can't be considered a "city" for one reason: According to the international community, the West Bank is not Israeli. So it's a simple logic. If it's a city, then you can't write "Israeli" because Israeli cities are supposed to be within the borders of Israel. So, it's a settlement. A settlement can be of a foreign origin on a land that doesn't belong to the settlers. Therefore, I remove city. If you feel otherwise, please come here and discuss don't just revert Northern (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Northern! Ariel has the municipal status of a city, and this is not disputed by any Israeli, foreign or international body. Whether you believe the land is Israeli or not (or even if sources say that it is not Israeli land), is not relevant to the municipal status of Ariel. As I said in August 2006 (apparently you missed this comment), Ariel gained the status of city in 1998. There is absolutely no source saying that an Israeli city has to be within the pre-1967 borders of Israel, and in fact we had a lengthy discussion about this a long time ago at Talk:List of Israeli cities, where it was decided to rename the article from List of cities in Israel, because some Israeli cities are not recognized to be part of Israel by certain international groups. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. For something to be Israeli, you need for it to be within the territory of Israel while settlement is the one exception, since foreign governments often send "settlers" to settle on foreign land. Any Israeli CITY must be built within a territory that is Israel Northern (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
So it's either a Palestinian city built by Israel or an Israeli settlement in Palestine Northern (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Both points are completely false, and 100% original research. In order for a city to be Israeli, it most certainly does not need to be within the 1949–1967 borders of Israel, and there is no political entity in existence called Palestine. If you can provide a reliable source for your claims that Ariel is a Palestinian city, or that it is not an Israeli city, feel free to do so. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're actually right about Palestine since it's not yet a country but Ariel is not located within Israel. It is located within the West Bank which is not recognized as Israeli territory by the international community. And that was my point all along.
Don't you agree that for a city to belong to a certain country, it must be located within it? So it's not really about borders of 67 or 49. It's about whether Ariel is located with in Israel. According to the international community, it is not.
To prove my point, go read about the West Bank. West Bank is NOT Israel no matter how much Israel yells it is. I'm sorry, but the opinion of the international community matters more. -- Northern (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong on both counts. Firstly, in order to belong to a country, a city doesn't need to be in a country, theoretically. Secondly, the opinion of the international community is of little relevance here, contrary to what you claim. Again, I challenge you to produce a single reliable source saying that Ariel is not a city. Wikipedia doesn't work on the opinion of the 'international community', it works on verifiability, a policy which you should take the time to read. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then what DOES matter when deciding what belongs to a country and what not if not international community? The opinion of the country being discussed? -- Northern (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In real life, yes, something like that. On Wikipedia, reliable sources do. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No, in the real life this isn't the way it's done. A theft of land does not give legal rights over what was stolen. But this isn't about politics, this is about wikipedia so tell me, please sources by WHOM? You keep asking me for sources but sources by whom? Who do you want me to refer you to? The UN? Israeli Government? Whose sources would you consider reliable? Here on Wikipedia it is clearly stated that the West Bank, a part of which Ariel happens to be is not an Israeli territory. Seriously, go read about the West Bank and see for yourself -- Northern (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Northern, please stop soapboxing. As much as I'd like to have this debate with you, I have other things to do. If you are unsure about reliable sources, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research. I believe we don't have much to discuss until you read and understand these core policies. If you are still unsure after having read them, provide any source you want saying that Ariel is not a city (it must say this explicitly), and we will discuss the source's reliability. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so I get it right, you want me to find you a source that says exactly "Ariel is not an Israeli city"? -- Northern (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you removed a statement that said that Ariel was a city, I fully expect you to find a source that says "Ariel is not a city" (from 1999 onwards anyway). However, a source stating "Ariel is not an Israeli city" would be interesting as well. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you got me wrong here. I never said Ariel wasn't a city. It is a city no matter how you look at it. Is it an ISRAELI city? What makes a city Israeli or not is another story. So, I suppose we had a little misunderstanding. -- Northern (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The above certainly doesn't match your edit, but you are still welcome to provide a source for the latter claim, and I'll be happy to discuss it. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So what is still disputed?

I would like to remove the npov warning. Can I have all major points that are perceived to be pov in the article? Bullet form would be great! gidonb 20:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the user who slapped the tag on never bothered to comment, even in the edit summary, or otherwise it also came around the time of the validity of using the terms Judea and Samaria which some deem to be disputed, imaginary, POV terms. Otherwise, the article seems to be structured like a regular urban municipality article should be (as a start) on wp. --Shuki 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. To be on the safe side I am going to let my call run another day. Regards, gidonb 21:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No rationale was provided. I am removing the warning. gidonb 15:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

City

Please do not remove the 'city' part from the lead. The municipal status of Ariel is city. This is not disputed and has never been, since the local council was named a city in 1998. City and West Bank settlement are not mutually exclusive, and two other settlements (or three?) are also cities. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncredible source -> ARIJ (Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem)

A few issues; the reference I removed did not provide sources for it's claims of massive settlement expansion in Judea and Samaria, the information seems to be old, another claim of a new tender issued in Ariel when in fact those projects were already under contruction a year earlier, and not even a mention that under the Olmert government there is a total freeze and no new projects have been approved. The cherry on the cake is this: "'Ariel' was established in 1978 on lands originally confiscated from the villages of -------." - as if some teenager hadn't finished is homework. If an article is going to be used as a source, then it should be serious, and if not, this reflects on the 'Institute' that issued it. --Shuki 13:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ariel Logo1.jpg

Image:Ariel Logo1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Expansion that included expropriation?

I heard on my radio during the summer a claim by a person who had at some point visited the west bank and then outside Ariel met a person who grew citrus fruits in the near vicinity that was devastated that there might be an expansion of Ariel and that he then might loose his property. Shortly after the visit, his fears came true as bulldozers destroyed his property. This is my memory of what I heard. If the facts is correct, then Ariel must have been expanded with the seizure of private property. I therefore wonders what is true. If seizure of private property have occured, then I think it ought to be in the article. KMA "HF" N (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ariel didn't undergo an expansion for many years now, so I can't imagine this being true. What year are you talking about? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It was never stated when this would have occurred, though it might have been several years ago. I somehow, possibly totally my own thinking, thought that it was early 90s, though that is pure speculation. --KMA "HF" N (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well A) that's OR so we can't put it in the article. B) Apparently, the built up area of Ariel is only about a quarter of the entire municipal land stretching 12km allocated to Ariel by the Israeli government from 'state lands', so I wonder if that land you heard about is disputed Arab land or what status it might have. I have some OR myself that some areas/plots of land that were added to Ariel are actually privately owned by Jews (bought from Arabs as opposed to the state-owned 'minhal' lands that were owned by the Jordanian government), but I have not found one source online so can't add that either. I know that in the past few years, the only lands that have had new ground work done is one of these private plots (again OR on my part) that is actually inside Ariel, perhaps on disputed land, but I think the courts finally decided, and at the entrance I think the intersection is being widened so technically that kind of expropriation of land is done around the world and NN, especially since it is for the benefit of Jew and Arab drivers. --Shuki (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A settlement is not a city (2)

Ariel is an Israeli city. Israel built it, 18 000 Israelis sleep in it nightly, almost 5000 units pay property tax to a city hall that is acting under the jurisdiction of the Israeli Ministry of Interior. How could it not be an Israeli city? Adding a comment to change syntax makes it seem that Ariel is a settlement and Ariel is also a city - two separate entities. --Shuki (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A note on the terms "Judea" and "Samaria"

Usage of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" in article space appears to contravene 3 key Wikipedia policies: Naming Conventions, Undue weight and Neutral Point of View. [1][2] A large body of evidence [3][4] has been collected during extensive discussions (see list below) that unequivocally shows that these terms, alone and in combination, are almost entirely peculiar to Israel. As of today, no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been put forward that contradict this finding.

Discussion links (most closed, included for reference only):

• Judea (archive)

• Samaria (archive)

• Samaria

• Judea and Samaria (archive)

• Judea and Samaria

• West Bank

• Judea

• Israeli settlement (archive 6)

• Israeli settlement (archive 7)

• Israeli settlement (archive 8)

• Israeli settlement (archive 9)

• Israeli settlement

• [5][6][7][8][9][10]

MeteorMaker (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So what's your point? You know, I don't differentiate between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Same island to me. If I find that 6 billion people think the same, can we claim that calling Northern Ireland is POV. There's definitely no undue weight of Samaria on this page. It seems that you have something against Israelis and Christians who use this term. The term is used, peculiar you want to ignore that. --Shuki (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I'd like to take issue with the revert to my addition of the words "disputed territory" to describe the West Bank in the lead of this story. According to the article in its current state, there's no indication that Israeli settlements in the West Bank such as Ariel are a controversial issue. Such an omission undermines the perceived neutrality of the article. -- Shunpiker (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What part of "an Israeli settlement and city in the West Bank" is not clear with two links leading to articles discussing the 'disputed territory'. Your addition gives undue weight to the POV that there is a territorial issue about settlements. It is also misleading in the sense that it implies that Ariel itself specifically is on a disputed parcel of land, perhaps appropriated from Jewish or non-Jewish owners like some other settlements are claimed and have pending court cases. Ariel, on the other hand, like hte majority of settlements are on 'state lands' which is a term of the Jordanian law that is still applicable on certain issues. --Shuki (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it's an issue of NPOV, but more of OR. Do you have a source that Ariel, specifically, is located on disputed lands? If so, it should mention most if not all of Ariel, because if only very small parts of it are on disputed lands, then it should be mentioned in the article and not the lead. Still with a source though. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When minor amendments like suggesting that the territory is disputed (hardly controversial or original) are reflexively reverted, what is left is a one-sided article that reflects the settler viewpoint to the exclusion of other points of view. I tagged the article as questionable in regards to the {{NPOV}} policy, but the tag was reverted within hours. That's disruptive editing. A single mention of the disputed nature of settlements (plenty of people have no idea what a settlement is) is considerably less contentious than the language in the lead about "the Biblical region of Samaria." I saw a problem, I tried to correct it, but I'm not going to get bogged down in an edit war with those who edit like they own this article. -- Shunpiker (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to include any information about the general status of settlements in the lead section of every settlement article. That's what the article Israeli settlement is for. If you have information specific to Ariel, feel free to include it. However, please provide a reliable source to back up any claims you make. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Samaria

Samaria is known quite internationally by Jews and Christians from the Bible. Please follow the link, it's not a term generated in the past fifty years.

As for UN resolutions, there is a link for that too, specifically this one: UN Security Council Resolution 242. Ariel is not an "illegal Israeli" settlement since the Israeli government views it as a legitimate residential area under Israeli law as are most other Israeli settlements in the 'disputed territories', but you can argue that most see it as an "illegal" settlement under the Fourth Geneva Convention, though that is controverisal as well. Please see International and legal background under Israeli settlement. If it is worded properly and concisely, I'm sure that it can be agreed to by all, or maybe the link to Israeli settlement is enough. --Shuki

Do modern-day people refer to northern Iraq as "Assyria"? Does anybody in present-day Lebanon call that country "Phoenicia" ? Does anybody in France refer to their country as "Gaul"? Do Palestinians refer to the northern West Bank as "Samaria" or the southern West Bank as "Judaea"? And at the end of the day whether you accept it or not the UN and every nation on Earth including Israel regards the West Bank as being a Palestinian territory under Israeli control, and not part of Isarel proper. Therefore archaic non-Palestinian terms should not be used. -- 155.232.250.51

So you are saying that whatever American Indians call their land, it is irrelevant?

'At the end of the day', NPOV means that we try to bring as much information to the article as possible, not write, or rather leave out, history the way one side sees it. I don't ask you to believe the bible, but you should accept that it was around long before 'Palestine'. Again, if you can provide a Palestinian or Arabic term for the 'West Bank', than it would be legitimate as well. Until now, no one has added it to the article. Shuki 20:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The West Bank has really only existed as an entity since 1948. Prior to that the West Bank was part of Palestine. I sincerely doubt that your "Judaea and Samaria" correspond exactly to what is now the West Bank. Also the name "Palestine" and its earlier terms such as "Filistin" can be traced abck to at least 5 thousand years ago. The Bible dates from less than 3 thousand years ago. Even then the land is called "the land of Canaan" . Earlier it says that "Abraham lived in the land of the Philistines". Regardless of this the name "Samaria" is in modern-times used by the occupiers of occupied land, while the Palestinian people refer to the corresponding area as "the northern West Bank". When Hitler invaded Poland and changed everything to German names under the occupation, most countries, as well as the League of Nations, still used the sovereign Polish names, rather than the Nazi-approved names. Similarly while Israel may control the West Bank, even the Knesset does not regard the West Bank as part of Israel proper and thus the Palestinian terms should be used, and these do not to the best of my knowledge include "Judaea" and "Samaria" . ____________________________________________________________________________________________

thats bulshit. If you are going to try and find reasons to attack everything that seem to be israeli, atleast make it reasonable and true.

1 - There is no place in the "torah", or the book of "genesis" in it, that says "Abraham lived in the land of the Philistines". the Philistines were an ancient greek nation that came from the sea and conquered the southern coast of israel around the same time the israelites started to conquer jodea and samaria. The term "Philistine" didn't exist in the time abraham lived and not even in the time the "torah" was written.

2 - Philistine, the land of the ancient greek nation the Philistines, did not include jodea or samaria. Philistine was along the southern coast, between the cities Ashdod and Gaza, modern south-central Israel and the Gaza strip. By the way, thats where i live :)

3 - Palastine isn't used for 5,000 years to describe israel(the philistines which gave their lands that name only came to israel around 3,000 years ago), Palastine is used for less than 2,000 years. Palastine is the english pronunciation philistine(or "paleshet" in its original form), and it was set as a diffrent word from philistine after 1948 to differentiate the palestinians from the anceint greek nation the philistines(or "plishtim" in its original form). Prior to 1948, there was no such thing as a palestinian nation, they took the name from the british mandate's name. The name of israel in the beginning was "land of cna'an", since the nations that lived in israel were the cna'anians. After the israelites conquered cna'an, the name of the land was known as Israel. Near Israel, on the southern coast, there was the land of palastine(or philistine today). The philistines were Israel's arch enemies throughout ancient israel's history. The babylon empire conquered Israel and Philistine and the Philsitine nation was destroyed. After that the Greek empire conquered israel, and they named the land "Jodea". After them came the Romans, they also called the land "Jodea". After the jewish revolt against the romans failed around 70AD, Jodea was destroyed and canceled. Instead, the Romans gave the land a new name, Philistine, over the name of the Philistines. That was done in order to humiliate the jews, by giving their land the name of their arch-enemies. Ever since, Philstine or Palastine is the name that is used to describe this land. It has no connection to the modern palestinians. And it does not rull out regions' names such as jodea and samaria.

4 - Jodea and Samaria are 2 terms that were used worldwide even before the roman empire. The Jodean mountains, the Joidan desert and the Samarian mountains are called like this by the entire world. That includes the palestinians. The "west bank" doesn't conflict with the terms Jodea or samaria, they are natural regions inside the west bank. The fact that the names for those areas are driven from hebrew doesn't make it pro-israeli. Like it or not, the israelites are the original owners of those lands, and most places in the west bank, including mountains, regions and cities, are hebrew names.

5 - I assume u haven't spent a day in your life there, and therefore, you are under the impression that all palestinians are filled with blind hatred like yourself, and thats too bad, because you make them look bad. The palestinians do refer to those areas as samaria and jodea, and they don't try to hide that information or say it was names given by israel. Those names were used throughout history by the Israelites, the Babylon empire, the Greeks, the Roman empire, the Arabian empire, the Ottoman empire and the british mandate. Its written in maps everywhere. Therefore, saying that because those areas belong to the palestines since 1993 the names are incurrect, is stupid(to remind you, before the oslo agreements in 1993, that area belonged to Israel only. The west bank was conquered by Jordon in 1948 and was conquered from Jordon by Israel in 1967 in the six days war). Those names were there long before the palestinians and they are used by the palestinians and the rest of the world, including the UN, which shows "Jodea" and "Samaria" in the west bank maps. Like you said, we should write what the world calls it, and not what a minority calls it. Even if the palestinians were to call it diffrently, it should still not be accepable because that term was there before them and is still used and known worldwide. Saying the words "Jodea" and "Samaria" are pro-israeli is like saying the words "Jordon" or "Jerusalem" are pro-israeli since they are hebrew names.

6 - There is no other "Palestinian term" for the jodean mountains and the samarian mountains, only the arabic pronunciation of it. In daily talk palestinians and israelis usually don't say region's names. The region's names are ancient names for those areas, and in daily talk we usually use modern terms . both palestinians and israelis will say "northen west bank". inside israel too, i won't say "upper galilee" i would say "northen israel", i won't say "tsin desert" i would say "southern israel", i won't say "cna'an mountain" i would say "city of tsfat" i won't say "dan" i would say "central israel" and so on and so on. but don't confuse daily talk with official information. using modern areas' names doesn't cancel out any of the real names such as galilee, samaria, jodea,tsin, pa'aran and so on, and it is used often in the news, papers, speeches and maps.

i hope now you relize how senseless your arguments were.

please read about the ancient greek nation the philstines, so you will understand there is no connection between them and the palestinians, there is no historical connection between the modern palestinians and the land of israel or philstine, and that philistine was a coastal land and was not consisted of the jodean and samarian mountains that are the modern west bank.

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

Maglanist

How nice, using terms like "bullshit" to make your point. Before making offensive comments like that, as well as your racist revisionism claims, I suggest you read the wikipedia policy and terms pages. You claim that there is no connection between the Palestinains and Philistines, and in a way you're right..the Palestinians are a "mongrel" race, a mixture of Israelite, Canaanite, Philistine, Persian, Arabic etc. However what is certain is that there is no connection between the Israelites and modern "Israelis" who are a European, gentile race.

Furthermore, the name "Filistin" was used by Egyptians, Persians etc long before any of the above-mentioned people appeared. Also, during the Exodus, it mentions the Israelites taking the long way around out of the Sinai Peninsula to avoid making contact with the Philistines. It is also a fact that certain cities, eg Gaza. were founded thousands of years before any "Israelite" appeared. While this does not necessarily mean that it was then a Philistine city, it does prove that the land had like-minded people (ie not Zionist elitists) who already ahd established terms and names for places and regions that has nothing to do with your false claims. The names "Judaea" and "Samaria" are also pointless and rather sad today, because the actual Judaeans and Samarians have long since vanished from the land of Canaan/Israel/Palestine/whatever and thus the name should be named after or by its current inhabitants(ie the Palestinians). - 155.232.250.35 --

Why do you hide behind anonymity? The entire Samaria/West Bank discussion is irrelevant to wikipedia since wikipedia is NPOV meaning that all points of view are supposedly allowed in an article. Plesae go to NPOV. If you have a problem with the term Samaria, please go to Samaria and comment there.

--Shuki 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 

I am not hiding behind anything. Just because I haven't got a wikipedia account doesn't make me any better or worse than someone called "Shuki". And at least I don't swear at other posters and make racist statments. If wikipedia is NPOV then why do you insist on using names that only Jewish colonisers use? Surely that is POV? And if you want to add stuff onto my post again that I didn't type. go ahead, I've lost interest in your zionist supremacist rubbish anyway.

Removing previous comments is a serious vandalism! - 155.232.250.35 -- - 155.232.250.19 -- from @afrinic.net.

--Shuki 13:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

2nd warning 155.232.250.35, removing previous comments is a serious vandalism!

You are required to sign your commnets with 4 tildes. Whether you sign your comments or not, your IP address is recorded when the changes to the article are made. (Do I have to tell you this?) Refusing to do so, as well as your continued vandalism (adding POV and non-factual terms) shows you are not a sincere contributor to wikipedia, rather a recurring vandal who is not interested in improving wikipedia. Please read Palestine, Palestinians, West Bank and plently more. There is absolutely no reference to a homogeneous 'indegenous' people. In fact, you'll find that many Jews are Palestinians too. The term 'Arab' is used since religion is irrelevant to school enrollement, but the fact that the college is open to all students, regardless of nationality is.

Registering for a username means responsibility. Not registering means that you can hide behind the anonymous Witwatersrand servers and not be directly penalized. --Shuki 14:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is hiding? And surely calling Palestinians "Arabs" is POV? After all Arabia is to the south of Palestine. Just because somebody speaks Arabic, it doesn't make them an Arab. In much the same way as if someone speaks English it doesn't make them a descendant of the medieval Anglo-Saxons. And "Arab" isn't a religion. If by your ignorance, you mean "Muslim", then you should know that there are many non-Muslim Arabs, and in fact the largest Muslim community in the world is in Indonesia, not the Middle East. The generic "Arab" term to try and sustain the myth that all Middle Eastern people is homogenous, and thus the Palestinians are no different to Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Arabians, Tunisians etc was created by western propagandists to try and convince people that since the Palestinians have no culture of their own, they thus shouldn't be entitled to their own state. Furthermore, it is a fact that I'm sure you would agree with, that prior to the creation Of Israel in 1948, the vast majority of the people living in the state weare Palestinians. While you may not accept that they (or rather their ancestors) have been there since prehistory, you must admit that they had at least for sevral centuries been the vast majority people in the land. Likewise the vast majority of Jewish people who ebcame the "Iraelis" arrived in Israel/Palestine only after the second World War. From this perspective the Palestinians are the indigenous people. Likewise many Sephardic, Fallajah people do not like being referred to as "Jews" since the term "Jew" is widely used and understood to refer exclusively to the white Ashkenazi people who are the post-1945 arrivals, while the darker skinned "Jews" who have lived in the state for at least several centuries mostly spoke Arabic and identified themselves not with the Ashkenazi, but with the Palestinians(Muslim, Christian, and otherwise) before the creation of the state of Israel.......John Miller

I have yet to meet a 'Sephardic' Jew that resists this title. While there is evidence of an Arab majority, even in 1922, there is no evidence that seventy years earlier, this was true. And Arab is the widely used term since many Arabs (not all, and I don't say 'most' either since there is no proof) living in Israel/West Bank are immigrants/descendants of Syrian, Egyptian, and other surrounding areas who flocked to the area when the Jews started arriving in the 19th century. Again, this is not the proper forum for this argument. --Shuki 22:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. West Bank is a political term for the area conquered by Israel from Jordan in 1967, while Samaria is a geographic area which name happens to be of Hebrew origin. Do you also object to the terms Jordan or Lebanon, both of Hebrew origin? Not everything has to be related to politics. TFighterPilot (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

it was built on stolen Palestinian lands

i LIVE IN A VILLAGE NEXT TO THE SETTLEMENT OF ARIEL, AND KNOW THAT IT BUILT ON STOLEN LANDS OF PRIVATE PALESTINIAN FARMERS. ARIEL IS ILLEGAL SETTLEMENT CONSTRUCTED ON THE PALESTINIAN OCCUPIED TERRITORIES ON 1967. THE SETTLERS OF ARIEL ATTACKED PALESTINIAN NEARBY VILLAGES IN ORDER TO INFORCE PEOPLE TO LEAVE THE AREA. THEY ARE NOT WELCOMED AND WE ARE KEEN TO SEE THE DAY WHEN THIS SETLLEMENT TO BE DISMANTLE AND RESTORE OUR LANDS AND FARMS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.75.245 (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! We'd love to hear what you have to say about this and other topics. Please create a user account so that we can properly correspond. Also, please try and refrain from using all capital as it looks like you are shouting. Much love, Joe407 (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned anon, in WP, your claim is called WP:OR. On top of that, please tell us why the Palestinian farmers called the hill on which Ariel is built 'jabel mut' (Mountain of death). Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Settlement before city

As with another place, I have done a Google looking for the first reference in a newspaper to Ariel in a newspaper/journal that is not alligned with Israel/Palestine/the Jewish world/the Arab worlds or leftist groups. The first article was in the New York Times [11]. Just as with my searches for another settlement in the German, French and UK Googles, the first description found was "settlement". WP:DUE makes it clear that we should prioritise the terminology favoured in the majority sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Ariel is a city with about 20 000 residents, a college, schools, supermarkets, health clinics, shopping malls, restaurants, etc... The essence of the article is about a locality, in this case a city, in other cases a town (local council), or village, or hilltop, or some tents, or some apartments in a neighbourhood. Thank you for bringing that link to NPOV, please read it objectively. Peter Cohen, please answer: At what point does a locality become a city? What is a city? Is Ariel not a city? Should there not be a plain NPOV standard for that 'city' status? Currently it seems like minded editors don't really care. --Shuki (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The article does not say Ariel is not a city, in fact it clearly says that it is. What it does not do is use the term before what is the most common description of this place, which is "Israeli settlement". Read WP:DUE and, since you brought it up, WP:COMMON and let us know what in those says we should use a description that is not used anywhere near as often as "Israeli settlement" as the primary description of the place. nableezy - 14:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on usage of the term 'Israeli Settlement'

It's time to reach a new consensus on the usage of Israeli settlement.The term has taken negative connotations and its current usage conflicts Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. The article uses the term before anything else, this creates the impression and incurs the negative connotations of the term before the facts. This creates undue weightWP:DUE. People might believe the term is justified by its common use, but in this case a common term conflicts with a neutral point of viewWP:NPOV. The Israeli government refers to them as 'Israeli cities/towns/villages within Judea/Samaria'. I'm proposing the use of all of them in a more neutral wording. We need to maintain and state the facts. Ariel is a city, it is Israeli, it is within the region of Samaria, located in the West Bank, and is commonly refered to as an Israeli settlement. So, I'm asking what it wrong with

Ariel (Hebrew: אֲרִיאֵל‎; Arabic: اريئيل‎) is an Israeli city, located in the Biblical region of Samaria in the West Bank near the ancient village of Timnat Serah. Established in 1978, its population at the end of 2007 was 16,600, including 7,000 immigrants, who came to Israel after 1990. It is the fifth largest Israeli 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, due to the ongoing debate on the city's legal right to exist , it is commonly referred to by the international community as an Irsaeli settlements.

This use is a lot more neutralWP:NPOV, doesn't create any undue weightWP:DUE and it still makes use of the common term. I know that the arguement can be made that that Israeli settlement is a more specific term, but its still a negative term, a lot of people may cite the media for its use, but since when is the media ever neutral? I'm hoping we can reach a consensus here that will apply to the use of the term throughout wikipedia. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this issue has been discussed a lot. On a similar note, also the term "concentration camp" has negative connotations, however it's used in the first sentence of many articles, e.g. the one on the Dachau camp. Saying the settlements are settlements is neutral, according to WP:NPOV. Failing to say that would be POV, namely to POV of the law-breaking party (Israel's government). Respectfully, --Dailycare (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus among reliable sources is that "settlement" is the normal term. When tyhis was last discussed, I tried the German and French versions of Google as well as Emglish and looked at teh first hits in non-partisan mainstream sites and "settlement, "Siedlung" and "colonie" were what I found.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes the term is used by the international community in the mainstream media. But, being an 'Israeli Settlement' shouldn't be the immediate thing used, the articles always say "Ariel is an Israeli settlement". Being an Israeli settlement doesn't define Ariel. Ariel is first and foremost a city in the Samaria region. Furthermore, within Israeli, the term isn't used by the Government, and the Palestinians refer to them as Colonies and occupiers. It would be more neutral to state the facts, and include the facts they are commonly but not exclusively referred to as Israeli settlements. Also, other langauge wikipedias can't really have any bearing on the English wikipedia, because words can have different connotations. Also, I hardly consider the Israeli government breaking any laws, all international laws that are apparantly being broken Israel isn't a siganatory too, aswell as the laws being up for interpretation. Arguements aside, you can't use 'israeli settlement' within the first few words, it creates undue weight, and isn't really a neutral point of view, because it defines the city as something negative. All concentration camps are considered negative, Israel doesn't consider the settlements as a negative thing. If the word Nigger was still in wide use but considered derogatory only by the people who it refers to, would you edit the Martin Luther King page to say that he was a nigger? AnOicheGhealai (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AOG. its also quite sad that we have to argue with an editor who claims that if we don't use the word "settlement" we shouldn't use the word "concentration camp".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

AOG, in order to try to change the existing consensus on naming settlements, you'd need to work with some sources. You can't make a valid argument based on saying that you feel "Israeli settlement" has a negative ring. Peter's comment is valid: the sources call these Israeli settlements, and that's what we do as well. See this. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't let them convince you that just because many reporters automatically qualify Jewish localities in Judea and Samaria as 'settlements' that that is how an encyclopedia should refer to them as well, in inconsistent and mostly poor syntax leading sentences. There is absolutely no consensus on settlements terminology as they would have you believe, except a mere ceasefire that won't be settled by a 3 on 3 match of people set in their opinions. As it is, the 'pro-settlement' folks like Dailycare, Factsonground, Nableezy and PeterCohen will viciously protect any change in the status quo. It's refreshing to see someone else with normal reasoning agree that localities across WP are first described as what they are - town, kibbutz, village, city, etc... and then only afterwards other terminology, labels and badges of pride/shame. Frankly, the POV here is making these Jewish localities the exception to the rule on WP, demanding from us sources to prove that Ariel is a city and not a settlement. --Shuki (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A good ol basic Google search clearly supports Shuki, AOG, and myself. Compare the simple Ariel city to Ariel settlement. There's nothing stopping anyone from mentioning the settlement concept somewhere in the article, but to have it thrown at the reader before s/he gets out of the first sentence is a bit POV much.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, WP:NPOV specifically does say that if "many reporters" (meaning, many editorial decisions) say so, we'll say so too. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unprocessed google search counts are misleading.

• They pick up unreliable sites,
• they reflect the biases of the majority of bloggers who speak the search language- does anyone think that the equivalent Arabic and Hebrew versions of these searches will have remotely similar results. Do you think that the Russian and English results will be similar?
• They pick up extraneous results. Try searching for Shakespeare+Tempest+Ariel and then tag on city or settlement. You get nearly quarter a million hits with city, around 50K with settlement. How many of these have anything to do with the subject of this article? With what term is Ariel Sharon most likely to be associated...

When I used google to try to see how the terms were used in particular countries. I did it by looking specifically for press or similar results. I excluded Jewish, Muslim, Arab etc results as they would simply reflect communal views. I also excluded political groups as left wing groups would be expected to tow a party line.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

they are perhaps misleading for some of the reasons that you mention above, but you forgot to show how a more refined search term would churn out a result more to your liking, instead of less to your liking. as for the non-english terms, they are mostly irrelevant. this is the english language wikipedia, so we use terms that are most npov of the english language. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not something I forgot or was obliged to do. I've just demonstrated that an argumentum ab Google is an invalid form of reasoning and, therefore, that your deduction using it is also invalid. Even if we were somehow to be able to exclude all references to angels, brands of detergents, Israeli prime minsters and other people called Ariel (unless they really are talking about or visiting the place in question) etc., we would still be left with the issue on whether the remaining results are found in reliable sources. Google is simply not capable of making that judgment.--16:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing to indicate that the point required me to prove that each ghit corosponded with either Ariel the settlement or Ariel the city. The point was that in general it is more often refered to as a city, not a settlement. The fact that there are some false negatives in both searches doesn't in any way invalidate the point. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't demonstrated that. "City" has 1,590,000,000 hits on Google; "settlement" has 53,100,000. A ratio of 30 to 1. If you search for these words in conjunction with most other terms, then you will typically find many more hite for those extra terms with hits than with city. FOr example "pancake settlement" has 187,000 hits, but "pancake city" has 3,280,000, a ratio of 17 to 1. "Washington city" has 119,000,000 hits and "Washington settlement" has 16,700,000, a ratio of 7 to 1. These ratios are less than those for the bare words, but still exist.

"Ariel" has 31,200,000 hits, "Ariel city" has 9,420,000, less than a third of the uses of "Ariel". So the majority of uses of the term are in other contexts and we need to be wary of any search results which don't try to root out "our" Ariel from the angels, washing powders, airy spirits and people.

Let's turn to your second search. "Ariel settlement" has 1,930,000 hits. So the 30 to 1 ratio on the uses of "city" and "settlement" has reduced to less than 5 to 1. It seems that there's something to do with this word "Ariel" that makes "settlement much more likely to appear on the same webpage as it compared with "city", than would be expected from the two words hit rates by themselves. It also has a more extreme change in the ratio than that for the two other test words I tried above. This needs an explanation.

So, let's try the hypothesis that is "our" Ariel that is the cause for the difference in ratios, and try some additional words that are more likely to be associated with it than some other Ariels.

Add "Israel" on the end of the "Ariel settlement" search and you get 1,200,000 hits. So a lot of thess excess hits seem to have something to do with Israel. Add "Israel" onto the end of the Ariel+city search and you get "2,940,000" hits. The ratio of "city" to "settlement" has now reduced to less than two and a half to one. We seem to be zoning in on the cause of "settlement"'s over-representation.

Let's try another expression that may be associated with "our" Ariel and shove in "West Bank". "Ariel city Israel "West Bank"" has only 359,000 hits. A big reduction. This is where it gets exciting. My next search is going to be "Ariel settlement Israel "West Bank"". How much has that 1.2m gone down to? If a third remain, then I win. Well the shocker is that it hasn't gone down. It's gone up to 2,810,000.

So doing a bit of refinement changes the ratio of the search from 5:1 in your side of the argument's favour to 7:1 in my side's favour. Your pressing me to follow this up has now produced exactly the opposite indication to what you expected.

Of course, while we've probably disentangled most of the hits that relate to Shakespeare and washing powders, we havn't disentangled those that relate to Ariel Sharon. Further, I can imagine certain topic-banned sockpuppeteers arguing that I've used that nasty pinko Arab-loving term "West Bank" which will inevitable distort the figures in my side's favour.

So two more searches: Ariel+city+Israel+Samaria has 71,100 hits; Ariel+settlement+Israel+Samaria has 75,600. So, even using a term that I would expect to over-represent an ultra-Zionist viewpoint produces more hits for "settlement" in conjunction with "Ariel" than for "city". You will need to do a lot to convince me that "settlement" is not the more appropriate term.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The first time I read your latest comment, the misnomers, typos, and grammar mistakes through me off. I usually don't give these things a second shot, but as I was in a fairly good mood today, I gave it a second shot. Unfortunetly, the second time fared no better. Perhaps you can give it another try in more coherent language. Apparently, you're very proud of your comments, [12][13] but please bear in mind that it's a little more difficult to win over the objective editor then editors who will knee-jerkingly agree with you. Cheers, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reworked my post as you have suggested, though your post on my talk page suggests you were unhappy that I did so. I don't see how using lots of striking will make it easy for the objective editor you mention. BTW next time you post a complaint on someone's spelling, I suggest that you use the spelling of "threw" that you intend.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

please don't do something like this again (see User talk:Peter cohen/Archives/2010/January#talk page conduct). no offense, but it's a way too sneaky.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see you WP:Assume good faith. Anyway, now that we've established that you consider my post comprehensible, please could you return to the point and consider whether Google does support your stance as you previously claimed.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And it is even harder to win somebody over who makes opposing arguments depending on the POV. nableezy - 00:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down the diff. But apparently you remember me edits better then yours. A few diffs prior to mine you linked above we have you taking the opposite position on Google hits then the position you're taking here.[14]. But regardless, let me explain. As you may have noticed in the diff you link, I said that ghits can't be the sole reliance for an argument (or something to that effect). What that means is that you can't use ghits alone to argue for a change from a npov term to a more pov term. This situation represents the opposite circumstances. "City" is clearly a more neutral term then "settlement." This very basic concept is apparently not grasped by some editors (one of which claims that if we can't use "settlement" to describe Ariel we can't use "concentration camp" to describe the places the Nazis murdered Jews), so we have to resort to more technical facts to bring out the point. But apparently nothing will work. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember mine as well, the difference is I never said google hits in general are sufficient. You need to search on reliable sources, you need to look at google scholar and googld books, you need to look at searches on well known news sources. That is where google hits come in handy, but just throwing out a google search on ariel city and ariel settlement is useless. Google can help demonstrate certain things, but your searches are useless and you knew that when you put them up. You are misrepresenting what WP:NPOV says, it does not mean that we disregard what the overwhelming majority of sources say about something and sanitize it. And city is not a "more neutral" term than "Israeli settlement", that is a baseless argument. The idea that we represent a fringe sized POV over an overwhelming majority POV is in violation of NPOV. nableezy - 00:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Its what you're saying now. The difference is I have previously said not to rely solely on Ghits (as you link above), but you never said so (as I linked above). But if you're really taking the position that its "baseless" to argue that "city" is more npov then "settlement", there really is nowhere for this conversation to go and should probably end here (or with your last retort). Best. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What is it that I am saying now? I have said that your google search is useless. That search will contain mentions of Ariel Sharon and a thousand other people named "Ariel" and the word city, it will even contain references to the Ariel the Little Mermaid that contain the word city. To say that a google search with the words Ariel and city shows anything meaningful at all is misleading. If you would like to provide a reason why "city" is more "neutral", as defined by WP:NPOV, feel free. nableezy - 01:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand our arguement here. We're not saying Settlement can't be used. We're saying that first, foremost and more importantly, the 'settlements' are Cities, towns, villages first, and the term 'Settlement' and it's use needs to be qualified later on. By the way, if I try your experiment in Hebrew, and type Ariel, Settlement, Israel, and Samaria into Google, I get 7,290[15], now if I remove the word Settlement from my Hebrew search, I get 1,460,000 [16]. You will need to do a lot to convince me that "Settlement"is the more appropriate term. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've actually read the subthread. If you had, you would notice that someone on your side had introduced the argumentum ab Google claiming that it supported your side. I have just demolished that point. Now you're claiming that the point I demolished was never made by your side. Again if you had bothered to read the subthread, you would have noticed that I have already mentioned that the Israeli and Arabic googles might just possibly have different prefered ways of describing the settlement. Now why should your preferred language be priorotised over tha of he people whose land he place was buil on? Anyway if you had bothered to read the subthread you would have noticed that the person agreeing with your side of the argument had said tha we should favour English-language sources for the English-language Wikipedia. So under the argument put forward by someone on your side, it doesn't matter a fig what Israeli sources say.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me what you think I have done and haven't done. I made the point I wanted to make. the language whose land the place was built on, well that statement makes me laugh, because the place is Jewish and the language is Hebrew. By the way, Ariel was built on a desolate wasteland that the nearby Palestinians called "Mountain of Death", they laughed when the first Jews founded Ariel. Needless to say, now we know whose laughing. :). It also doesn't matter what the English sources say, wikipedia needs to maintain it's neutrality! That is something I want to maintain, and the use of the term "Israeli settlement" goes against that neutrality. I'm suprised that a decendant of Aaron would side against his own people. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What you mean like I side against my own people in starting [[17]] thread? I'm happy for the Lord's face to shine upon those who are oppressed whoever they are.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 'Consensus on usage of the term 'Israeli Settlement''

WP:NPOV also states that we have to "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." Israeli settlement is a term used to assert an opinion. Which is why "many reporter" use it, they are pushing an opinion, the media is never neutral, they have an agenda. As editors we are to assertain the absolute facts from any source, removing the opinions. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, you have to work with reliable sources. I can produce any number of reliable sources characterizing settlements as settlements. In this one the Israeli prime minister uses the term settlement. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh* And as I've said, all sources have an agenda, and BBC like every other form of Media isn't neutral, the Israeli government has an official terminology which is uses. you have to remember that the media paraphrases quotes to create an angle to garner more readers/viewers. Find a news video of Binyamin calling them Settlements, and that will hold it's ground with me. While a news source is reliable, editors are required to find the clear facts and represent them in a neutral prose. Just to make it clear, we're not denying the term shouldn't be used, we're saying that Ariel is a city first and foremost, and is referred to as an Israeli settlement. The Article should start with "Ariel is a city"...not "Ariel is an Israeli settlement", and to add to that, not everybody refers to them as settlements, they're merely cities, towns, etc. So, you'd need to assert the fact that they are often reffered to as settlements by the international community. WP:NPOV says we can not assert opinions as facts, and that's all it is, Israeli Settlement is a term used to assert an opinion, and that goes against WP:NPOVAnOicheGhealai (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And you don't think that might be just a teensy-weensy bit of an agenda in the Israeli government's choice of official terminology?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Israeli government has a neutral stance on the matter, which they have re-iterated over and over. They merely assert the facts, Ariel, a city in Samaria. They don't qualify it as a colony, or settlement or anything. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a transcript of an interview with Netanyahu, on the Israeli government's website, where he uses the term settlement. AOG, what agenda is he driving at by choosing to use that word? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes the Israeli government has a neutral stance on a matter where umpteen international organisations from the UNSC to the International Court have said that it is in breach of international law. Maybe Osama bin Laden has a neutral stance on whether attacking that ship in Yemen was a good thing. Come off it--Peter cohen (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The "International Law" of which you speak, is pretty much up to interpretation, plus I'd hardly consider it a "law" in the proper sense, because I don't see any international police arresting Israel. Face it, International Law is more like "International Guidelines". You have failed to explain how stating "Ariel is a city in Samaria" isn't a neutral statement. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you say what is not neutral about "Ariel is an Israeli colony in occupied Palestine"? Because what you wrote above is the opposite POV of that. The way the rest of the world would write the sentence is that "Ariel is an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank", though on account of a group of editors who insist on not allowing what can be sourced to thousands of peer-reviewed journals or books published by academic presses we instead settle on "Ariel is an Israeli settlement and a city in the West Bank". That is NPOV, it takes into account all significant viewpoints giving due weight to what is the overwhelming majority view as published by reliable sources. What you have done here and at other articles in removing the term Israeli settlement is in violation of several core policies and it will not stand. NPOV means taking into account all significant POVs, giving due weight. You are attempting to portray a tiny-minority view that Ariel is an "Israeli city" (it is not as it is not in Israel) in "Samaria" (language which resulted in an arbitration case and in a specific set of guidelines for usage. nableezy - 23:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is fair play, that yes Ariel is refered to as an Israeli Settlement. BUT, why does must that term be used before city. Ariel is a city! Do you dispute that? Ariel is a city commonly refered to as an Israeli settlement. Also, your arguements about it not being an Israeli city, is pretty much pointless, because the article on Ramallah is called a "Palestinian city", yet there is not Palestine state. The word Palestinian is bluelinked, and goes to the article on the Palestinian people, so, yes, Ariel is an Israeli city based on the fact its residents are Israeli citizens. If you dispute this, then you dispute Ramallahs status as a Palestinian city. The reason Ariel is an Israeli colony in occupied Palestine is not neutral is because under the definition of Colony, Ariel doesn't match. Also, the negative connotations of the sentences prose goes against WP:NPOV, and I would hardly consider Ariels status as an Israeli city a minority view, what kind of city would it be then, are you implying it's palestinian? Well, the "core policies" you talk of aren't neutral, and that won't stand. Africans were treated like inferior slaves for centuries because of "core policies", which were changed. And this core policy has to change too AnOicheGhealai (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter, you can't hold what someone on one 'side' said against any other editor at all. Kinda ridiculous argument actually. I remind you that this is not war where lines in the sand are drawn - we are trying to improve this encyclopedia. And certainly, you will not be able to 'win' a discussion with the rest of your ad populum claims.

I really do not know how some editors continue to claim credibility and expect us not to break out in laughter when they seriously claim that we cannot say 'Israeli city' because this presumes a city in Israel, but 'Israeli settlement' does not presume that the settlement is in Israel. Telling us what certain terminology is a connotation too is nothing but WP:OR. By Nableezy's logic, we need to change the name of Israeli settlement because this assumes that the settlements are in Israel. The top quality way to describe an article about a city is to use the primary descriptor which is 'ABC is a city'. I quote Nudve: "Israeli" refers to the locality's national/administrative status; "settlement" refers to its legal/diplomatic status. "City" refers to its municipal/civic status. Its apples, oranges and persimmons." It works that way in all other locality articles on WP. First civic status, then location, then any other status. The current version is a good start. I think I would accept a concise NPOV boilerplate sentence on that 'Israeli settlement' status in the following sentence. Now we should discuss how to add that into the lead paragraph. --Shuki (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not my logic and you have made the same fallacious argument in the past. The term Israeli settlement does not simply mean a settlement in the generic term in Israel. The term "Israeli settlement" has a specific meaning: an Israeli locality in the occupied territories. I almost remember typing this exact same thing on another page, and as there is no point in repeating it on each one we need to start a wider discussion instead of playing these same arguments out on every single Israeli settlement page. nableezy - 00:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, The term "Israeli settlement" has a specific meaning. More ad populum. Yes, I am challenging your OR POV logic. --Shuki (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ad populum you say? So you are saying that because many reliable sources define a phrase as something is X that it is a fallacious argument to say, on Wikipedia, that the definition of something is X? And "OR POV logic"? I suggest a a closer reading of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. nableezy - 01:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Folks, can I suggest that this discussion is moved over to a centralised area like this one rather than repeatedly raised in individual articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, how many times do we have to restate that NO ONE IS DENYING THAT THE TERM SETTLEMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE LOCALITIES. It seems that I'm yelling, but in fact all I did was hit caps lock. This is going back to the tried and true tactic to game the system with loosely connected chatter to avoid discussion of the actual problem at hand and the attempt to get a fair decision. Sean, I first suggested that until Nableezy got himself blocked so I was fair to him to wait until the block was over. You are right about taking to a central place, this rehash is just another warm up session that is going nowhere. --Shuki (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Then why were there users edit warring the term "Israeli settlement" out of this article? And my point is not simply that the term is "associated" with these settlements, it is that the term "Israeli settlement" is the primary description, and often the only description, of these places in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. That is what determines due weight and due weight here is to place "Israeli settlement" before the other descriptions. To place "Israeli city" (and I have already said why that is wrong) before "Israeli settlement" places undue weight on a minority opinion. You keep saying that every other locality article gives the municipal status first; these are not like those articles, these articles are about colonies in occupied territory. To pretend that this article is somehow analogous to Leeds or any other article about a city is misleading, purposely so. Let's not play these games. nableezy - 15:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) What term is used first is determined simply by examining what is the term most often used by reliable sources. This is a question of fact, not opinion. So far no evidence has been presented it would be anything except "Israeli settlement". Indeed, I suspect everyone knows this is the term most commonly used so this discussion is in fact (assuming I'm right) unnecessary. Arguing that is "negative" or biased is not only irrelevant but also incorrect as the rightist Israeli PM uses the term. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A centralised discussion would be more appropriate. Also Nickh did once propose bundling this in together with the WB/J&S issue.

What in any case has been established is that there's no shift in the consensus. We could go for an rfc here, but the lack of new faces at the one at Talk:Israel suggests that most uninvolved editors want to keep well away. WT:IPCOLL might be the best place to take a discussion on the pprpriate approach for dealing with this as a broad issue.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw what is going on there and I know that on this subject some POV editors who might release a Fruedian slip like these articles are about colonies in occupied territory will not rest (proven) and make sure each opposing comment gets a reply, similarly drawing out any mature discussion into an internet forum which does scare away any uninvolved editors. Peter, nothing has been established and there is no consensus on this at all, just a mere status quo. Unless you can find where this consensus has been agreed on, we will call it imaginary from here on out. Most articles are 'pro-settlement' but many are written the proper way with the type of locality leading. I would suggest that no one does anything one sided at the current time because it risks merely opening a new 'front' and also having people sanctioned off the topic. Nableezy, don't ask me about the comments of others, ask them. Again, don't hold the comments of one editor against anyone else and leave the prejudice behind, this is not one side against another, it's a collection of editors with different backgrounds and views. --Shuki (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats not a Freudian slip. I was not asking about others comments, you said that NO ONE IS DENYING THAT THE TERM SETTLEMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE LOCALITIES when in fact multiple users were edit-warring the term Israeli settlement out of the article. Your opinion on the proper way to write the introduction is simply that and it ignores what NPOV demands; you seek to relegate the most common description of these places, "Israeli settlement", in favor of what a fringe-sized minority uses instead. There is nothing neutral about this, NPOV requires us to give due weight and that weight is dependent on what the sources say. The overwhelming majority of sources use the term "Israeli settlement" as the primary description, and often they use that description exclusively. And once protection on this article is lifted I have every intention of restoring it to the state it was prior to when AnOicheGhealai logged out to get one last revert in (I can conclusively prove this, but no need for an SPI). This article will not lead with "Israeli city", both because it is not in Israel and because the primary description in the sources is "Israeli settlement". We can go back to where it was with "city" before settlement in the meantime, but it cant say "Israeli city". I can accept, on this article for the time being, it saying "a city and an Israeli settlement in the West Bank". But for other articles the status quo should be maintained until a wider discussion can take place. nableezy - 22:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have the naïve idea that Ari'el is a not an Israeli city, because it is not in Israel. While, the Ramallah article states that it is a Palestinian city, the Palestinian word is bluelinked to the article on the Palestinian people, and I suggest the same for the term "Israeli city", where Israeli is bluelinked to the article on the Israeli people. If you don't agree with that, then the word Palestinian needs to be removed from the Ramallah article and others, because there is no Palestinian state. You're not going to get away with writing in Israeli Settlement without qualifying it. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ramallah is a Palestinian city both in its demographics and its location, it being populated by Palestinian people and it being in the Palestinian territories. And there is a Palestinian state, but I fear that is a topic that will be a bit too complicated for discussion here. Ariel is an Israeli settlement in occupied Palestinian territory, namely the occupied West Bank. nableezy - 22:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me use that wording as well: Ariel is an Israeli city both in its demographics and it's location, it being populated by Israeli people and it being in the territories controlled by Israel. And there is an Israeli state. Ramallah is a Palestinian settlement in the West Bank. How's that? Hmmm? This is called hypocrisy. A city, built by Israel, filled with Israelis is not an Israeli city, but a settlement built by Israel and filled by Israelis is an Israeli settlement. --Shuki (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ariel is not in Israeli territory. If you really want to argue that point I suggest you try conservapedia instead of here. And, again, the generic term "settlement" is not at issue here, the specific term "Israeli settlement" which has a specific meaning is. Also, read up on the definition of the word hypocrisy. The situations are not analogous and to pretend that they are is not hypocritical, just inane. nableezy - 22:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: What term is used first is determined simply by examining what is the term most often used by reliable sources. This is a question of fact, not opinion. So far no evidence has been presented it would be anything except "Israeli settlement", and that's the term this article will use first, unless the aforementioned evidence proves forthcoming. Kind regards, --Dailycare (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You can repeat your self all you want, it's not being productive though. The "term used first" is an imaginary policy you made up. This is certainly a question of fact. Ariel is a city - fact. Ariel is a settlement? Yes, that is a label many have slapped on it to describe it's political status, not what it is. The evidence is undeniable that Ariel is a city except you guys will resist any attempt to have that fact lead, and no evidence will change your mind anyway. It's a POV thing and your arguments are not based in guidelines or rules. --Shuki (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a policy. Is there a single one you would like to use as a basis for saying that the article must lead with an undue emphasis on a minority position? nableezy - 22:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Beware: Undeniable WP:GAMING in preceding comment. Nableezy, using your WEIGHT claim is irrelevant. We are not removing the issue about settlement from article content. In fact, by your weight and ghits proofs, there should be large sections used to talk about Ariel as a settlement, but in reality, the vast majority of your ghits are not about anything substantial about Ariel and settlement, just a label added to the name - again nothing to do with WEIGHT). C'mon now, gimme something for real. It is POV to claim that Ariel is not a city - 18000 people, supermarkets, parks, medical centres, the largest Israeli college, etc... --Shuki (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, firstly because I have not provided any "ghits". And also because it is undeniable that Ariel is an Israeli settlement, which means locality of Israelis in the occupied territories. I realize that a segment of the world does not enjoy reading the word "settlement" or "occupied", but to claim that it is a "fact" that Ariel is a city while leaving out the "fact" that it is a city in the occupied West Bank (which makes it an Israeli settlement) is silly. There is no "GAMEing" in my comments, that is yet another in a long line of nonsense that you have written about me and what I have said. nableezy - 23:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Beware: Undeniable WP:GAMING in preceding comment. Nableezy, I am not demanding that the settlement label be removed from the article. It's not a claim that Ariel is a city, it is a fact with reliable sources and all. Your comments are gaming because you are making false claims; that Ariel is not a city and that I am trying to remove the settlement label from the article. --Shuki (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

When have I said that Ariel is not "a" city? Show me one diff in which I have said that. It is not a "claim" that Ariel is an Israeli settlement, that is "a fact with reliable sources and all". Stop playing this game (and it is you who is "GAMEing" these policies). Due weight does apply, what the majority of sources use to describe this place (hint, "Israeli settlement") should be given its due weight, ahead of the status the occupying power gives this place ("city"). Stop lying about what I have or have not said. I have never said that you are trying to "remove" the "label" from the article, I have said that you are trying to emphasize a minority position before a super-majority one, in violation of NPOV. Again, stop lying about what I said. nableezy - 23:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I'm not lying, please apologize for that baseless accusation. --Shuki (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not, you are lying. You are repeatedly saying that I have said things that I have never said. Either provide a diff of me saying those things or strike out those lies. nableezy - 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yalla, this reminds me of the first discussions I had with you. I would make an accusation and then you would then use it right back at me. Anyway..., I would appreciate it if you could create or improve other articles in order so that we can collaborate on something instead of this chat. --Shuki (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I will gladly strike out "lie" if you strike out the fallacious accusations above. But if you repeatedly attribute things to me that I have not said after having been asked not to do it in the past I will conclude that it is intentional. Respond to the points made instead of giving these silly responses about "Beware: Undeniable ...". I would like to have a serious discussion about this issue and actually settle it (this and the use of the word "occupied") without your histrionics clouding the issues. nableezy - 00:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you noticed above, a couple of us already mentioned that nothing will come out of any discussion here and for now to avoid changing the status quo on any article without a broad project consensus (not 3 people). And why do I do not appreciate gaming so much and editors who feel the need to respond to every single comment at all hours of the day? Because it scares them away, as well as any other editors who might want to / have something to contribute to the discusssion. Who can keep track of some of the long discussions that occur in the I-P (and most at the Israeli articles in fact)? It's counter-productive to anything productive. --Shuki (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it from that non-response that you do not intend to strike out those lies above. Thanks for making that clear. nableezy - 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Biblical region of Samaria"

The lead paragraph currently reads:

a city in the West Bank, in the Biblical region of Samaria near the ancient village of Timnat Serah.

Several problems here:

• Why call it the "Biblical" region of Samaria and not the "ancient" region of Samaria?
• Why mention the ancient name of the region at all? After all, we don't start the article on Paris with "Paris, a city in France, in the ancient region of Gaul". And Paris actually existed in that period, unlike Ariel.
• According to the WP article, the location of the ancient Timnat Serah is unknown; one possibility is apparently the village of Kifl Hares, but that is not the nearest village to Ariel. So why is Timnat Serah mentioned at all?

It appears that Ariel is within the borders of Salfit Governorate, but this is not mentioned in the article. I don't know how local government works in the West Bank, but I'd guess that at least the Palestinian Authority regards Ariel as within Salfit Governorate, so WP:NPOV would require that we mention that. --macrakis (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A governorate is a municipality of a regional area, not a locality. Is Salfit closer than Kifl Hares?

Good point on the ancient/biblical village. I've read the article many times but not noticed this specifically. The mention of biblical Samaria was probably some compromise on a POV discussion since many refuse to acknowledge that the area is Samaria and claim it is a ignorant minority who do as opposed to the majority (they claim) who see this area as the 'West Bank' (an term that was first used in the 20th century). In any case, maybe per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank), we should change in the Biblical region of Samaria near the ancient village of Timnat Serah. to in the Judea and Samaria Area, north of Salfit and south of Kifl Hares. --Shuki (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the name "West Bank" is the neutral name used in English-language media (and in some Hebrew-language media as well) for the region. You mention that that term was first used in the 20th century, but then the city of Ariel didn't exist until the 20th century, either, did it?

For that matter, the term "Judea and Samaria" apparently is not only a 20th century term, but specifically identified with one particular political position within Israel (Likud) (cf. Judea and Samaria Area#Terminology and footnotes).

So "West Bank" appears to be the appropriate NPOV term. On the other hand, Ariel is apparently administered as part of the IDF Central Command's Judea and Samaria Area (which is an official name, not a POV description), so that could be mentioned, too, in addition to the mention in the infobox, giving:

...a city in the West Bank, north of Salfit and south of Kifl Hares, administered as part of the Israeli Defence Forces Central Command's Judea and Samaria Area.

Is that correct? --macrakis (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West_Bank). No reason to add the IDF CENTCOM part, B) since it is a government designation, C) it is an independant city, not administered by the army or the government. Judea and Samaria is an ancient term, Judea and Samaria Area is a new term that was a compromise agreement here on WP. Actually, it should be more like 30km east of Petah Tikva, adjacent to Salfit (it's bigger than Kifl Hares) in the Judea and Samaria area. Adding the additional localities is to give a better reference point and Petah Tikva is more known than Salfit (unless you want to say 40km east of Tel Aviv though not sure about that). --Shuki (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of that naming convention page, thanks. Following that guideline, then, it seems it should be:

...a city in the West Bank, north of Salfit and south of Kifl Hares, in the Israeli administrative unit called "Judea and Samaria".

since the guideline says that the term Judea and Samaria Area "cannot be used without qualification as though it is the NPOV position". The guideline also requires us to remove the mention to Samaria later in the article. --macrakis (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Area" (capital A) should not be piped out. nableezy - 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Macrakis, why do you say you were unaware of that naming convention page when I already mentioned it above in a direct reply to you? I suppose then that it is a good time to make you aware of this Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles so you relax with the 'bold' edits. --Shuki (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"Bold" edit? I thought I was applying the naming convention page you pointed to and what we agreed to above. This is an article about a city founded in the late 20th century, so using the ancient name "Samaria" is, according to that naming convention, inappropriate. And you agreed yourself above that the "ancient village of Timnat Serah" was not relevant. We also agreed above that Salfit was the nearest town; indeed it has been characterized by the NYT as "the Arab village of Salfit, Ariel's sister city, so to speak". NYT So why did you revert my edits? --macrakis (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what is in the hills of what they called "Samaria" to  ? The RfA I pointed you twice explicitly says that saying Samarian Hills is the way to go (as opposed to the wish of many who wanted to simply say 'in Samaria'.

The Naming Conventions page specifically talks about geographical location as opposed to political/religious identity. Am I wrong to assume that it was significant to the Jewish settlers that Ariel is in Biblical Samaria, not just in the geographic Samarian Hills? That makes it POV, just as calling southern Albania "Northern Epirus" is POV. It doesn't make it an incorrect or wrong POV, just a POV which should not be reflected in our editorial voice. I would actually like to see more of the settlers' POV documented in this article -- as well as, of course, the POVs of other interested parties, following WP's basic principle that articles "represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". --macrakis (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is this (and it is not my approval of using the vague label 'Israeli settlement' first, just an attempt at improving the lead sentence while keeping the status quo): Ariel (Hebrew: אֲרִיאֵל; Arabic: اريئيل) is an Israeli settlement and a city in the Samarian Hills of the West Bank, thirty kilometers east of Petah Tikva and adjacent to Salfit. --Shuki (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an improvement over the current text, so I have modified the article. However, I have modified the wikilink to Samaria to a wikilink to Samarian Hills. I still think that Samarian Hills is inappropriate here; the Naming Convention page you point to says specifically that that term should be used for 'physical geography', but here we are discussing political geography, so "the northern part of the West Bank" would be more appropriate, avoiding the contentious names of Samaria, Jabal Nablus, and Salfit Governorate.

I also question the mention of Petah Tikvah, which is fully 30km away, when Nablus is only 15km away. Perhaps you were mentioning Petah Tikvah as the nearest major city in de jure Israel? Why not then just mention the distance to the de jure border? --macrakis (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, beyond the I-P realm, I think it is helpful to include nearby cities/towns to the lead of a locality article to give relative geographical location with a larger better known one. On I-P, where we strive for NPOV (often at the expense of quality), I think it is 'fair' to include Arab locality as well, even though normally it is not helpful to include a smaller adjacent town. Anyway, the reader informed about Israel would know about Petah Tikva, and the reader informed about the Arab settlements would be more aware of them and unaware reader would get both. FWIW, Petah Tikva really is the nearby 'big city' that Ariel resident have access to. Most of the Arab locality articles do not mention nearby Jewish villages, but that is not the issue here. What are you suggesting? That the article be improved by saying 10k southwest of Nablus instead of mentioning Salfit, or instead of mentioning Petah Tikva? --Shuki (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I do not have local knowledge, so I suppose Petah Tikva is worth mentioning, though I think for a non-local reader like me, it would be much more interesting to know how far Ariel is from the borders, e.g. "adjacent to the Palestinian Authority district capital of Salfit, 17km from the Israeli border, and 33km from the Jordanian border." --macrakis (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)