Talk:Mobile, Alabama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Mobile, Alabama has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 22, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
December 4, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Good Article Assessment[edit]

Here is the revision of the page I assessed, but I have since made subsequent edits. Below is my assessment.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
    (no edit wars etc.)
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Further analysis of my findings:

  • All images were correctly tagged, captioned and appropriate to the article in question. Green tickY
  • Grammar, spelling and prose was excellent.Green tickY
  • Everything is readable, and doesn't incorporate words that a "beginner" wouldn't understand.Green tickY
  • It is very good for the single-handed work of Altairisfar, and avoids POV-style content, something important for an GA nominee.Green tickY
  • It is factually accurate and is backed up comprehensively with verifiable and independent, reliable sources.Green tickY
  • The article is focused and addresses a broad range of information without going into unnecessary detail. Green tickY

Other Comments[edit]

I am willing to Symbol support vote.svg pass this article based in it's reivision cited, and the subsequent edits I have made. It's a very well written article. Next step FA. Regards, — Rudget contributions 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Population[edit]

Its been commented a few times (outside of here) about how Mobile has a low density compared to other cities in the same population area. Perhaps we can find some cite for this, for it is an unusual feature of the city. --Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Could it because nearly a quarter of the total area of Mobile is taken up by water? I don't know how it is in other states, but in most of the cities of Alabama, there is very little water in the city limits. Out of the "major cities" only Tuscaloosa and Mobile have a significant amount of water area in the total city area. I changed the pop densities of Tuscaloosa and Mobile to reflect that. --Ttownfeen (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

According to 2000 census data Mobile had a population of 198,915 and Montgomery had a population of 201,568 (Difference of 2654). But, based upon the statistical areas and upon common acceptance Mobile is considered 2nd, not 3rd in population for the state. I think that the opening sentence, even though accurate in a hair splitting sense, is a little misleading. I don't normally engage in edit wars so I'll make my suggestion here to leave the article's opening information but move it to the end of the first paragraph. Dpnew (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The structure of the first paragraph follows the guidelines that all articles about U.S. cities must follow at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline. It specifies that the population of the city proper, then the metro area, must be given using official U.S. Census figures. While it is true that many may consider Mobile to be second, we have to deal in verifiable facts. As a resident of Mobile, I'm sure that our city officials would love for us to be second. It's been the topic of several Press Register articles. Maybe with the 2010 census it will pull back ahead of Montgomery, especially with the new annexations that will now be within the city limits.
I have no problem with some minor reworking of the lede, but I don't think that moving a portion of the first sentence to the end of the first paragraph would be the way to go. Established practice usually gives a city's size in relation to the other cities in its state (or the nation with larger cities) within the first sentence. See Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Charlotte, and Dallas as a few random examples. The article may never make it to featured article status, but I do not want it to lose its good article status with the next GA review. Altairisfartalk 15:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to compile the info. I'll leave the population info alone. Additionally, I added a couple of sentences to the "Colonial" portion of the "History" section but noticed there is also a separate "History of Mobile, Alabama" article. Are there guidelines as to what needs to go in a main city article and what needs to go in the separate "History of ..." article? BTW, I currently live in N. Ala but have lived all over the state, including Mobile. Dpnew (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw your improvements to the Colonial history, I liked them and say go at it with whatever you want to contribute there. Most guidelines say to try to keep the history on the main article as short as possible. Although I made it as concise as I thought possible, you can see that it is still quite extensive. Most people would probably think it too long, but Mobile has such a long history for an American city... The History of Mobile, Alabama article can be as long as we can possible make it, but after some clean-up and expansions I really haven't put much time into it. Thanks for helping out! As an Alabama resident, have you given any thoughts to joining us at WikiProject Alabama? We could use any help offered from experienced Wikipedians in Alabama, so many people in the project seem to be inactive these days. Even if you don't work on Alabama topics often. Myself, Dravecky, Dystopos, and Spyder Monkey seem to be the only editors actively working on Alabama-related subjects these days. Altairisfartalk 18:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

column reflist[edit]

the references were soooo long I switched to a 2 column list. Fell free to change it if you like. - JodyB talk 20:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Azalea Trail Maids[edit]

I was astounded to find that Wikipedia did not have an article on the Azalea Trail Maids. I've created a rough start, mostly based on the things I remember from my highschool days. I'm sending up a flare to ask for assistance in improving the article (both content and sourcing) -- even if you don't want to actually write the article, please send me some source citations and I'll hunt the source down and incorporate it into the article. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for starting one. I'll incorporate a link within the Mobile article and add it to Mobile template. I'll see if I can up with some additional sources for the Azalea Trail Maids. I know there has to at least be some additional news coverage from the time of the presidential inauguration, with the all of the controversy within the state that it stirred up. Altairisfar 23:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sister cities/Palestinian flag for Israeli settlement[edit]

​Under the Sister cities section, a user at 24.23.198.90 is changing the flag icon for the West Bank Israeli settlement of Ariel from the Israeli flag to the Palestinian flag:

Israel Ariel, West Bank (Israeli settlement)

to:

State of Palestine Ariel, West Bank (Israeli settlement)

My reasoning for why the Israeli flag is used here is that the settlement is populated by Israelis and is governed by Israel. The anon user's position seems to be that since it is in the Palestinian territories the Palestinian National Authority flag should be used. Comments? Altairisfar 14:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe this work by the scholarly journal xkcd expresses this dispute in a succinct manner. - Dravecky (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment: There are two sides to this, what you mention about the Israeli de facto governance is a valid point, but on the other hand just putting the Israeli flag there could be seen as legitimizing the settlement, which is after all a war crime. One solution would be to put no flags there (Ariel isn't in Israel after all, and even Israel doesn't claim it is), or then put both. --Dailycare (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment: In this case it's not a matter of international law. List cities per Mobile government. If they will have Mildendo, Blefuscu sister city - search for Blefuscu flag. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC Comment: The logical thing to do is to use the flag of the current government who is in control of the territory in question. If you were to use the flags of countries who claim ownership of one location by decree then the world's map would be rife with contradictions since many areas are under dispute around the world.Chhe (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Use Israeli Flag or no flag - Israeli settlements are defacto Israeli. An Israeli flag flies above the city no? I think the most honest thing to do is use the Israeli flag or none at all. NickCT (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC comment We don't need to splatter flags all over every passing mention of a country, see an essay on this, and it causes exactly this type of problem. Just name the place and leave the flags out. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all of the input thus far. I'm leaning towards no flag, but will wait a while for more opinions. Altairisfar 21:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • RFC comment sister cities always have flags next to them. Per the Oslo Accords (not just de facto) this area is under Israeli control. The real question here--and this requires some investigation on your part--is whether the sister cities cities agreements between the two cities describe Ariel as an Israeli or Palestinian city. I'd be shocked if it were the second, but some more research is needed. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Info: The Mobile, AL web site calls it "Ariel, Israel" in an official press release. [1] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I have fully protected the page until a consensus can be reached. Please let either me or RFPP know when the article is ready to be unlocked. Nakon 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Mobile's official Sister Cities page, used as a primary source within the article, lists it as Ariel, Isreal [sic]. Initially not aware that Ariel was in the disputed West Bank territory, I changed it to Ariel, West Bank (Israeli settlement) after being made aware of the contentious nature of listing it simply as being in Israel after several users zeroed in on it in 2009. The Sister Cities International website directory for Alabama also lists it as Ariel, Israel. Lastly, the City of Ariel website asserts that it is Israel and the capital of Samaria, although this is not recognized internationally... Altairisfar 00:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC comment Agree with NickCT. The legal status of Ariel's territory is murky but it's undeniably an Israeli settlement and not Palestinian. Either the Israeli flag or no flag, either seems ok. Sol Goldstone (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC comment Actually that is not my position, my position is that if there is a flag there it should not be Israeli. See Cartographic aggression. Saddam Hussien says Kuwait is a province of Iraq, maybe we should change all Kuwaiti flags? This is ridiculous. Whether Mobile and Israel say it is Israeli is moot compared to the weight of verifiable information that this simply is not Israel, whether or not the settlement is populated by Israelis (obtained through ethnic cleansing) is not the point - placing an Israeli flag on it will give readers the impression that it is Israel (which is why the town uses it). Placing an Israeli flag there is straight up Cartographic aggression. At least no flag. An Israeli flag is seriously undue weight. And frankly the Mobile article is an excellent article, I can't understand why someone would place that flag there and drag in one of the single most decisive issues amongst editors. Not to mention, what possible gain can be achieved for an article about Mobile to cause offence to the vast majority of humanity which does not share US or Israeli views on double stands for war crimes (the Settlements). 24.23.198.90 (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
@24.23.198.90 - Could it be that Israel's cartographic aggression has succeeded, and you simply don't want to admit that for POV reasons? NickCT (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It probably has... in Mobile, Alabama. However it's a much bigger world, and international borders are not defined by the sister cities committee in Mobile, and as a source on such matters a press release by the city of Mobile carries zero weight compared to nation states and international bodies. When it comes to recognition by nations, it hasn't, as not one nation on earth (aside from the protagonist) accepts it. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Besides you are missing my point, this hot button issue should be avoided for the Mobile article (minimum no flag), as it is a great, and very well maintained article. It's not like the status of Ariel is going to be resolved on Talk:Mobile. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Flags involve political and territorial control. Israel has both. Whether that is fair or disputed is not relevant. Many a place has been taken over by someone, and the lingering claims to ownership are not what matter. Wikipedia obviously doesn't make a ruling on the legality or morality of this, simply the current status. Currently, for all intents and purposes, despite the UN's toothless ruling, and the reasonable rantings of many Palestinian supporters, it's Israeli. If one day the UN actually takes meaningful action to control or govern those territories, the issue will change. Until then, Wikipedia should reflect the status quo. Also, I presume, although sources would have to back it up, that Mobile, Alabama (of all places!) believes their pact is with an Israeli city, not an 'Israeli-Occupied palestinian territory'. That wouldn't be sufficient reasoning, but it's another reason to use the flag of the country which is currently in control and currently being sister-citied with. Ocaasi 03:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
What every country on earth bar one recognise does not qualify as "lingering claims", but the overwhelming global consensus on what is, and is not Israel. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually I meant 'lingering' as persistent not settled or meaningless. My point is a concrete one. Israel controls those territories politically, territorially, culturally, and militarily. They lack some international recognition. I don't like or prefer that situation, but it seems pretty clear that Mobile Alabama thinks their pact is with an Israeli city, that de facto it is an Israeli city, and that the territorial dispute should not be reflected in Wikipecia's flag graphic until the situation on the ground actually changes. Ocaasi 07:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • RFC comment I would suggest remove all the flags from all the sister cities they are only being used for decoration. The politics and other issues of the related cities can be found by the reader from the linked article it is not really the purpose of this article to delve into any issues of these cities and should really remain neutral. MilborneOne (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears that we have reached a consensus to at least remove the flag in question. The WikiProject Cities guideline for U.S. cities seems to advocate using the flags, so removing all of them would probably just create more issues down the road. If no one has any objections, I will request that the page protection be removed so that the change can be implemented. Altairisfar 02:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

Protecting a page for almost half a month because one user keeps editing a page is ridiculous. The topic is under discussion, and anyone who is not mature enough to wait for the discussion to end before changing the relevant section should be blocked from editing. Please unblock this page.--Svgalbertian (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking for someone to nominate this article for GA status[edit]

Does anyone else think this article is up to GA status?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  • It is already a GA article. Did you mean FA? JodyB talk 00:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Israel flag for Ariel[edit]

Your current set up of delegitimizing the city of Ariel, Israel is imbalanced, angering and incorrect. Please do not remove the flag of Israel accompanying it.124.180.140.187 (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

No one cares about your anger. Myself, I was in favor of the Israeli flag, but the consensus ruled. The discussion above was quite extensive and conclusive: Sister cities/Palestinian flag for Israeli settlement. Altairisfar (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Flag icon for Ariel, an Israel in the occupied West Bank[edit]

The discussion is heating up again on the Mobile, Alabama article as to whether the sister city list should include an Israeli or Palestinian flag for an Israeli sister city that is a settlement in the occupied West Bank, see previous discussion at Talk:Mobile, Alabama#Israel flag for Ariel. The last discussion in 2010 led me to remove the flag entirely, now an anon user is constantly adding back the Israeli flag and saying that they are angry about any insistence that no flag be present. Altairisfar (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Forced to choose one or the other I would prefer the Israeli flag since their government, not the Palestinian Authority, rules there. That said, this political contention doesn't belong in an article about a city in Alabama whose biggest contentions are football and NASCAR. No flags at all should please just about everyone. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Palestinian flag The territory in which the city is located is recognized as part of the de jure authority of the SoP by the vast majority of the world's states. DOCUMENTERROR 14:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Israeli flag The city of Ariel is under the governance of the State of Israel; therefore, following the principle of NPOV, it should be preceded with the flag of Israel. Having no flag at all or a Palestinian flag is both portraying a factually inaccurate situation and a statement of political agenda.124.180.140.187 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment to 124.180.140.187: Please don't go on changing this while this RfC is discussing it. It's not usually considered correct behaviour here. Thank you. DBaK (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove Flags. I agree that this is not an article for debating the political status of Ariel. This is just a random American city that happens to have a sister city with Ariel. To avoid this needless controversy, I support no country flags for the list or at least not for this particular city. They're not necessary, anyway. Scarlettail (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove flags: (changed my mind - see below) since we cannot have either the Israeli or Palestinian flag without seeming to take a political position - in a very sensitive area yet one which is wildly irrelevant to this article! - then we should have neither. However, it has already been made clear that having no flag for Ariel when Havana is allowed to belong to Cuba and Malaga to Spain will be seen as itself a political statement ... therefore remove all the flags and leave an HTML editor note explaining why and asking for it not to be changed without the editor coming here first. This should cause minimum offence all round, I hope. While it does not match all other articles of this type it is at least internally neutral. This issue, in this article, is really not worth the time we're spending on it, let alone that spent on it here in the past. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No flag for Ariel Removing all of the flags would make this U.S. city article different from all of the other U.S. city articles, unless I'm mistaken. Please elaborate if I am incorrect. I believe that the status quo should be maintained, with no flag for a city in a disputed territory. All of the Israeli supporters are going to support the Israeli flag and all of the Palestinian supporters that one. Regardless, the Mobile, Alabama article should not be a pseudo-battleground for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I've been working on this article since 2008 and got it to GA status, so I know how this all goes. The Manual of Style guideline concerning flag use states to not use a flag if its use could be a contentious issue. The U.S. cities guideline gives flag use as the example to follow for the Sister City section. It has been four years since this was last discussed, with no major issues since then. If I remove all of the flags, it will be a constant battle to keep others from adding them back, with either the Palestinian or Israeli one included. Altairisfar (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No flag for Ariel Having read the above from Altairisfar I feel I must go with that - a return to a formerly stable status quo. Keep the other flags, lose the Ariel one, apologize to people from either side who are angered by it. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove flags:This is ridiculous. As a Mobilian I say remove the flags; don't let future disputes turn Mobile, AL into a proxy battle of the unending Israel-Palestine online activist war. NickDupree (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove flags: This kind of abuse of WP as a platform for WP:ADVOCACY/WP:SOAPBOX crap is precisely why we have MOS:ICONS and it advises against using flag icons any time they cause disputation.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No flag for Ariel or Israeli flag: while my personal opinion would be that the group directly controling the city (i.e. Israel) should have its flag displayed, as in the Senkaku Islands dispute, it would probably be best here to just not have any flag for this particular city until the dispute is settled. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Israeli flag If you want the article to reflect reality, than you shouldn't change it. If you don't want the article to be accurate, then by all means let your political POV weaken the article and Wikipedia at large.124.180.35.254 (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove Flags The land the flag is based on is under dispute. Adding a flag will make this page a proxy battleground, the page is better off without it. AlbinoFerret 14:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove all flags. I don't think I have ever seen a sister city list with flags anyways (correct me if I'm wrong, however)I am wrong; ignore the crossed out words. Anyways. With this much unnecessary debate, this would be the easier option. Or, and this is just a suggestion, we can just make a new image combining the two flags. Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 00:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be overwhelmingly for the removal of all flags in the aforementioned section, which I will now do with a hidden reference to this discussion. Altairisfar (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ariel in Israel[edit]

Ariel is a settlement in the West Bank, a place nearly the entire world agrees is not in Israel. It is a straightforward NPOV violation to call Ariel a city in Israel, beyond that it is just factually wrong. Not even the Israeli government claims the West Bank is in Israel. There are a hundred sources that say Ariel is not in Israel, among them The Christian Science Monitor, Haaretz, NY Times, and The Guardian. Ariel is not in Israel, despite what the website for the city of Mobile, AL says. nableezy - 18:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I completely agree. Although the city is Israeli, it is definitively in the occupied Palestinian West Bank. First the flag issue, then, once that was settled, the IP editor changed it from the current wording, which had been "Ariel, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank" since 2007 (when I worked for almost a year to bring the article up to GA standards) to Ariel, Israel. I knew what the city website states, but that doesn't make it a fact. No county that I am aware of, not even the U.S., recognizes the West Bank as Israel, although they have occupied it since the 1967 war. I am so weary of this bulls**t. It is such a trivial detail in this article, but it continues to be the target of editorial wars between Israeli and Palestinian supporters. I am no longer watching the page, since I'm so disgusted with the entire mess. Other editors can handle it or screw it up until this is settled. Altairisfar (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Quite. Everything to do with Middle Eastern politics, nothing to do with a town in Alabama, and heading for WP:LAME at a rate of knots. DBaK (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree this isnt the place to argue it, that should take place at Talk:Ariel (city), and Id rather not have that fight drive people away from editing an article on a city in Alabama. All that said though, this article shouldnt contain a provably erroneous fact in it. nableezy - 16:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 January 2015 Suggestion[edit]

I have an edit request to add references to the one line in dispute (the Ariel settlement) in this article. First, the Mobile's Sister Cities citation should be removed, as it is already present at the top of section. It could be made into a repeating reference for each city listed if need be, but I had just put it at the top intro since that seemed the most logical. These articles discuss that Ariel is indeed a settlement in the occupied West Bank and I believe should be added as verifiable references to the line in question if we intend to end this farce:

I believe that the article protection level should be restricted to registered users for a couple of months once the current protection expires, that should cool it all down (I hope), I am so weary of this issue that I wish that I could convince the city council to cease the sister city agreement with this settlement. Thank you for your time, whatever your decision. Altairisfar (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC) (Jeffrey A. Reed)

Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Please make sure you have consensus first. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 03:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ariel Controversy[edit]

If there's so much controversy on something that doesn't even have relation to the page whatsoever, then how about this compromise: remove Ariel from the Sister Cities list until further notice. I know that it would be inaccurate, but if such a useless edit war is going to happen just because of a city's location that has no relation to the article except for a single iline, then the best thing to do is just remove it. Remove it until Ariel's location can be fully confirmed as either Isreal or West Bank, and put a note stating why.

Note that this is just a thought I had in mind. State below if you agree or disagree. I don't expect change, or for this to get approval, but it's just a suggestion I had in mind, and if you do agree, then the change may happen. Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 03:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The only way that works imo is to remove the entire sister cities section. Otherwise, to cover the other sister cities would be a type of pov, the type that says, we'll cover this subject, but only if it's easy. I would endorse elimination of the sister city section. It really doesn't tell the reader that much about the city anyway. John from Idegon (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I was actually thinking that as well. I mean, why do we even have the sister cities list in the first place? I suggest we remove the sister cities list altogether, from all cities, or if not, just Ariel from this list. Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 05:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: It would be inaccurate but you might as well get rid of it and have yet another Wikipedia article containing glaring factual inaccuracies. Wikipedia has been taken over by POV pushers regarding anything that is even remotely related to Israel. How can an official Mobile government source be given stating that the city of Ariel, Israel - and not Ariel, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank - is a sister city of Mobile, Alabama, only for the latter to be placed in the article? Even when those words are not in the source given! For accuracy, the only fair thing to do is to put the flags back, list the city as "Ariel, Israel" with the Israeli flag in front of it, and add a note stating the contentious and/or disputed nature of the locality underneath it. 124.180.167.228 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Pyrotle: I don´t think that is the way to proceed. Nobody agrees to "Ariel, Israel": the Israeli government has not annexed Ariel-area. That certain POV-puchers tries to push this POV, should not stop us from stating the fact, namely that Ariel is an Israeli settlement on the West Bank. We could of course remove all the sister cities, but I fear that the problem will then just move on to Heredia, Costa Rica. Huldra (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Except the option was to remove all sister cities period. As in from all city articles. I don't think it'll succeed, but it's just a thought. Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 14:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
That is a bit draconian, isn´t it? Listen, I understand perfectly that people editing outside the I/P area get totally sick of it when they are unwittingly drawn into the I/P conflict, like on this article. People like myself (who edit in the area) are just too used to it: if we were to cut out everything which was controversial, then there wouldn´t be much left of the topic...... Huldra (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It is draconian when you consider that the total removal is because of this controversy. It's not draconian, however, when you think the lists are useless and unnecessary anyways, which is admittedly what I think.
However, that's a different discussion. For now, we have the option of just removing Ariel from all that apply until its location can be fully confirmed. Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 15:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Why are we discussing this now when it's been stable for a while? Look at the edit history - the flag issue has not been raised (hoho) for quite a few edits. Why not just leave the status quo? DBaK (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Because it is possible that this will start up again, which we don't want. Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 15:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I hive no opinion on the flag issue, but the source clearly says "Ariel, Israel". Wiki works by citing reliable sources, not by what editors think is correct. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not change it while we are discussing it - that's just bad manners. DBaK (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
But you can go ahead and change it while we're discussing it? How does that work? I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted your change. I am so sorry that you are unable to understand this. DBaK (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
And I had previously reverted yours. Why is your action ok while mine is not? I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Is the City of Mobile's Special Events Departments website a RS on this sensitive political question, I wonder? It does not seem to be cited at our own article on the settlement, for example. Shouldn't it be? If it's authoritative on this matter?? Or how about Sister Cities' International's page for Mobile? Is that an RS, because the weird thing is it doesn't agree with the other more local site - it says it's "Ariel, Palestinian Territories (Israeli Settlement)" ...is that authoritative? I dunno. Do you? DBaK (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The City of Mobile's website is a RS for who the Sister Cities of Mobile are, yes. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a sadly inadequate response. Oh, look, you completely failed to comment on the other website. Can you olny see ones that you like? Sad. DBaK (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It is a perfectly adequate response to the question you raised. again - The City of Mobile's website is a RS for who the Sister Cities of Mobile are. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit war is why I'm proposing to remove Ariel from the list altogether until further notice. And I made this without intention from the flag issue; if you actually look at the contributions, people chnaged the location of Ariel after the flags were taken off. Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 23:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not an edit war, it's just someone with poor etiquette. DBaK (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It takes two to tango. Your edits are a mirror image of mine. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Sadly, I do not have room for your squeakings in my life right now, and I have no time to attempt to educate you - so enjoy your article. Bye. DBaK (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Ta ta, then. Don;t let the door hit you on your way out. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk)

The city's website is reliable for saying Ariel is its sister city. It however is not reliable for saying Ariel is in Israel. This article doesnt exist in some neverworld completely separated from the rest of the encyclopedia, and the municipal website for the city of Mobile cant claim Ariel to be in Israel when even the state of Israel does not claim Ariel is in Israel. nableezy - 06:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't give a single fu ck WHAT YOU THINK Ariel is a part Israel there is no fu cking "palestine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.98.113 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2015[edit]

The Fun Ship Holiday belonging to Carnival was in Mobile and the Carnival Elation replaced the Holiday. I knw it was the Holiday, because I cruised the Holiday. 166.177.186.65 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

    • Not done What is needed here is a specific request for the copy you want, a specific location for where you want the content, and reliable sources to verify the content you are requesting to be added. Personal knowledge is not an acceptable source for anything on Wikipedia. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Huldra, please think before you edit. If you look at the changes you make with this edit, you will see that many, many of those changes are vandalism, which should not be restored (eg, changing "President James Madison" to "Supreme Leader James Madison"). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeKnowledgeCreator Yeah, please do think before you edit. Notice that you placed Ariel (city) on the occupied West Bank as being i "Israel"? Huldra (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The edit you made restored vandalism to the article - as should be obvious to anyone looking at it. If the claim about Ariel was inaccurate, you could and should have removed it without restoring vandalism in the process. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean, alas, your edit restored the that "Ariel" was in "Israel". What about restoring it to this edition? Huldra (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
LOL, I see you already have, Huldra (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Does this seem awkward?[edit]

I love this article. Good work everyone and thank you from a resident.

In my opinion, the two paragraphs below seem a bit awkward when compared to the rest of the piece. The rest of the work states the actions and facts about the Civil Rights era and its aftermath in a clear, non opinionated manner. I feel these two paragraphs need some attention in that regard.

Would it be possible to expand on the facts in the highlighted sentences such that they come across more historically? Both of the sentences are true, but they seem to deserve an explanation via helping people understand the specific actions and circumstances involved. Personally, I was unaware of the work toward early integration of the civil forces and the voluntary desegregation of buses and lunch counters and I think it would be beneficial as a fact which helps define our city.

Again, I praise the work as it stands. I do not feel capable, nor morally authorized, to make the edits myself, but I hope some of you would consider the points and possible actions which might be helpful.


The transition to the postwar economy was hard for the city, as thousands of jobs were lost at the shipyards. Eventually the city's social structure began to become more liberal. Replacing shipbuilding as a primary economic force, the paper and chemical industries began to expand. No longer needed for defense, most of the old military bases were converted to civilian uses. Following the war, in which many African Americans had served, they stepped up activism to gain equal rights and social justice, especially in the Jim Crow South. The city of Mobile police force and Spring Hill College were integrated during the 1950s. Unlike the rest of the state, the city buses and lunch counters voluntarily desegregated by the early 1960s.


The Civil Rights Movement gained congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, eventually ending legal segregation and regaining effective suffrage for African Americans. But whites in the state had more than one way to reduce their voting power. Maintaining the city commission form of government with at-large voting resulted in all positions being elected by the white majority, as African Americans could not command a majority for their candidates in the informally segregated city.

Salbasia (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Bayfest Now Gone[edit]

Bayfest no longer exists in Mobile and ceased operations in 2015. An alternative sprung up, seemingly last minute, called Ten Sixty Five.

The city hosts BayFest, an annual three-day music festival with more than 125 live musical acts on multiple stages spread throughout downtown.[99] The event was attended by more than 200,000 people and generated in excess of $38 million for the city's economy during its 2011 season.[100]

wkrg.com/2015/09/16/bayfest-music-festival-cancelled/

BayFest 2015 organizers: Festival is canceled, effective immediately (updated)

Mobile's new downtown fest has a name: Ten Sixty Five | AL.com

Mnemnoch (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mobile, Alabama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledgment[edit]

Thank you to Mobile Public Library Local History and Genealogy Division for providing informative newspaper articles about Mobile's sister cities. -- M2545 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Mobile, Alabama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mobile, Alabama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)