Talk:Ariel (Israeli settlement)

Materials

Relevant sources:

• http://www.jpost.com/Metro/Article.aspx?id=199767

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

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

Actually it does, in the first paragraph:

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

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

Peculiar wording

The article currently reads:

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

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

Map added on July 13

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

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

I have reverted you. Please can you find a reliable source, the very reliable source you speak of, that says what this map is and that precisely supports the statement "In a map suggested by the Palestinian delegation to the Israeli-Palestinian peace accords in Taba, back in 2001, the city of Ariel is considered part of Israel." As Malik says, it is just a map at the moment. You need to present the actual source that verifies the statement you are making. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, this article is covered by a WP:1RR restriction. Please read the header at the top of the page. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The map is undoubtedly genuine, but the proposed text is original research. The claim "considered part of Israel" is completely wrong, it was never so considered by any Palestinian delegation. The most that was ever true is that there existed proposals that Ariel and some other places might be exchanged for Israeli concessions as part of an overall settlement. A proposal made for the purposes of negotiation is entirely different from an agreement, and the golden rule about negotiations is that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". A balanced account of Ariel's status in negotiations would be appropriate for this page, but original false claims like this are not. Zero^talk 09:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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