This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Categorization : Diffuse articles from Category:Companies of Israel. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority Judaism B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish culture B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish cultureTemplate:WikiProject Jewish cultureJewish culture articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Palestine B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

In the past, this infobox was reject because of exactly some of the points you brought up. Nothing has changed with you at all. It's your monthly witch-hunt to dehumanize all Jewish populated places and remove their primary descriptor -> municipal type, and replace, or emphasize the political label. Your revert of 'city' simply shows you cannot accept that term being in place by itself without the political descriptor in this case, weasel word. --Shuki (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel is an Israeli settlement in the Palestinian territories. So please do not remove Israeli settlement from the settlement type or replace the map for this place in the palestinian territories with one of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not. That is your POV. Nableezy and SD, I remind you that only a few months ago Nableezy put out an Rfc that failed to support this position. I suggest you do not rehash that whole affair unless there is something new to add. --Shuki (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the RfC about if Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories are in Israel? Did I remove that its a city? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is, like much of what you usually write, inaccurate. The RFC did not "fail to support my position", "my position" clearly had more support than yours. Either way, the primary description in this article is "Israeli settlement". The RFC closer said we should use what is already there and not continue to have this same fight. You are now instigating that fight by again removing the primary description. nableezy - 19:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at length in the RFC... if we go by sources, and why shouldn't we (policies, anyone?) the primary aspect of this entity is "Israeli settlement", but sources do also mention that it has been give "city status" by Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The fact that this settlement is illegal under international law should be in the lead. There is not a single rational argument for not including that incontrovertible fact in the lead, a fact that I can both provide hundreds of sources saying this about all Israeli settlements and further can provide many saying this about Ariel specifically. Edits such as these are examples of unapologetic POV pushing. The article now has included the lead a recent statement by a political leader that they feel that Ariel is part of an "integral part of Israel", but not the fact that it is not currently in Israel, that it is in occupied territory, or that it is illegal under international law. Not one of those facts is currently in the lead. nableezy - 00:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing legality in the lead is fine with me, and I guess we both know how it can be done properly. International position, source, Israeli position, source, everybody happy. If you think that Netanyahu's claim is out of context or have to be balanced or don't belong to the lead, I'm open to discuss it. The IP edit, however, is of the kind you tend to revert as vandalism. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why would that be the correct format? The "Palestinian position" is conspicuously absent in that formulation. nableezy - 02:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less how the consensus (that you've been a part of) goes in all settlement-related articles, where legality is covered in the lead, so I thought it would be ok with you. But I'm open to any constructive input. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC has a boilerplate text to the effect that "settlements are illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this" (quoted from memory). --Dailycare (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember this one. BBC rulez. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cities and villages are legal under Israeli law. --Shuki (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why does that mean the fact that the settlements are illegal under international law should not be in the lead? nableezy - 04:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again? It this the one that sets a precedent? Why are established editors even reverting when a centralized discussion could be taken place?Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Legality and edit warring One editor even said it in a edit summary "known problem with settlement articles, please discuss first". How many times is this going to be repeated? The RfC on what comes first (still a weird RfC to even have) didn;t really have an impact it looks like: [2]. Cptnono (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you make us read this nonsense? nableezy - 13:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that editors continue to not agree on multiple articles how to handle the legality and how to label it? Check out the history page on this article alone. You think it is nonsense while I think it is months of disruption.Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats nice. It misses the point, but its nice to know you are at least thinking. Now if we could only get you to do some reading before saying what you think. We are discussing the content of this article here. If you would like to do that feel free. What you should not feel free to do is disrupt the conversation with a rant that has nothing to do with the content of the article. If you want to go cry about reverting go do it somewhere else. I am trying to solve the problem here. Not deal with rants that dont even have anything to do with the topic of discussion. nableezy - 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't have a problem moving it into the body, if that's what editors here agree to.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it, could you explain what is "weasel worded" about "the term the Israeli government uses for the norther West Bank" and also why you wikilinked within a quote, something the MOS explicitly says to avoid doing? nableezy - 15:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its preferred to link in quotes then to weasel word, something the MOS explicitly says to avoid doing.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except you havent said what is "weasel worded" about what you removed. nableezy - 19:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One point is also that "West Bank" is the term that WP:RS typically use of the area and the term that therefore this article should predominantly use. --Dailycare (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, they were looking for a place in Samaria. I see where you are going with this, and I think it is about time to modify the naming convention a bit to allow leeway for this. Nonetheless, A direct quote will help take away the ambiguity. I'm trying to get a hold of a book about Ariel as well to also source my old claim that the hill was called Jabel Mut. Imagine how good you could make Arab articles if you spent 10% of your time on them instead of holding the Israeli articles to the highest standards. --Shuki (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The naming convention isn't modified yet, so until that happens, it must be followed. Samaria can not be used according to the rules. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide a direct quote and attribute it as a direct quote then you can quote them saying they were looking for a place in Samaria, but it should be clarified in the text what that means. I think I have already told you that I focus on Palestine, not Israel. This is an article on a colony in the Palestinian territories. It isnt my fault that Israel has established a large number of colonies in the Arab territory it holds under occupation. nableezy - 20:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

try to be somewhat more collegial and i will be glad to respond.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, respond because you are required to explain your reverts. Respond because an uninvolved admin said that there is consensus for including this information in the lead of such articles. nableezy - 21:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that needs to be said is at the centralized discussion. Please see my recent comment and keep it there over having multiple discussions on talk pages.Cptnono (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, brewcrewer needs to explain the revert he made in this article at this article's talk page. nableezy - 21:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to explain why you disregarded the admins suggestion on how to implement this. Stop going out of your way to start trouble.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You dont know what you are talking about. To the point, I added a reliably sourced statement to the lead. I would like brewcrewer to explain why he tendentiously removed it without any basis in policy. You have been told to not discuss editor's motives. Kindly desist from making such comments. nableezy - 21:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not discussing your motives. I commented on what you are doing. You are starting a conflict. If you would simply keep it at the centralized discussion then it might get hammered out fairly smoothly.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop going out of your way to start trouble. is a fairly clear attack on my motives. Stop muddying an article talk page with such comments. I am attempting to include reliably sourced material, material that the sources treat as among the most important facts about this colony. How about you just stop talking about me and instead discuss the content of the article. nableezy - 21:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read it that way but you are going to believe what you are going to believe. I am not discussing it here since it should be done at the centralized discussion. Part of the reason it was started was because more than one editor was making sweeping changes and the individual talk pages were not looking at each other. If that happens again it means the centralized discussion accomplished nothing. Even after you expressed concern about implementation several weeks ago this went through and that might be a good thing. However, implementation can lead to it falling apart just as fast as any other part of the process.Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article talk page, it has a specific focus, that is to discuss the content of this article. You have now indicated a refusal to discuss the content of this article on the article talk page, instead choosing to discuss other topics. Kindly stop disrupting the purpose of this page. If you do not wish to discuss the content of this article please move along. nableezy - 21:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking Brewcrewer why he should not be banned certainly has something to do with the content of the article, but I yet have to figure out what exactly. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a polite request as to why I should not simply request he be banned. But you are right. Brewcrewer, please disregard the initial comment. Instead please explain why you have disruptively removed a reliably sourced sentence from the lead on a topic for which an uninvolved admin says there is consensus to include in the lead in such articles. nableezy - 22:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC) 22:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the mentioned discussion has ended with clear consensus: people just lost interest. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An admin did close it out saying there was consensus. Don't exactly agree but I understand it. He made his own tweek (which I personally like) "To conclude these words, I will now put forward a suggestion that may satisfy the agreed need to include the form of words that has consensus into articles where there has been a perceived issue - as discussed above. My solution is to place the agreed wording into the main body, and in the lede of the article to use the wording, "(subject) is a settlement of disputed legality..." etc. (or variations thereof). WP:LEDE is satisfied because the agreed wording, found in all other relevant articles, expands upon that note when placed in the main body, and the lede condenses that content while retaining its meaning. I hope that this finds favour among the readers." That was disregarded in the edit. But if editors want to be disruptive it proves that we were not ready for the change. Like I said, easy enough fix if editors do not open up independent discussions but instead focus on achieving the goal of including information that has widespread support. By the way, I asked over there on how we are to implement this. It was ignored. Look what is happening now. I told you so.Cptnono (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Exactly as the closing admin suggested. It should be noted that there is yet another discussion ongoing at Ma'ale Adumim due to the edit.Cptnono (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point us to this consensus. I don't recall it and neither was there an agreement for placement. I think that a proper consensus can be agreed upon if it is done orderly and can be understand by others, especially those who did not or could not follow that drawn out discusssion. --Shuki (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The admin said there was consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Review of discussion and proposed template, above. I disagree with his interpretation but I am so involved that I could be completely wrong. I assume he was "closing" it but he also made a suggestion that should have been looked at. Editors also should have discussed how this was going to be added since look at what happened.Cptnono (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]