Talk:Ariel (city)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Israel Portal Ariel (city) is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu): edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Copyedit: Yossi Sarid, Havlagah, Palestinian views of the peace process Cleanup: Israel Export Institute, Agricultural Research In Israel, Israel lobby in the United States Expand: Category:Companies of Israel, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Category:Israeli songs, Port of Haifa, Allon Plan, Israel Antiquities Authority, Secular Jewish culture#Dance, Carmel Winery, Goldstar, List of Egged bus lines, Cellcom, Bezeq, Diamond industry in Israel, Geneva Accord, Zman Tel-Aviv Stubs: Israel stubs Update: National Religious Party NPOV: Israel and the UN, Israeli military action in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Other: update WP Israel banner to include rating scale Translate from Hebrew: Yuval Steinitz, Women in governments of Israel [1] Translate to Hebrew: Gemara, Chief Rabbi, Palestinophilia, David Gans, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, David Bar Hayim, Jacob of Lissa, Nosson Zvi Finkel, Bezalel Ashkenazi, Solomon Schechter, Av Beit Din, Howard Fast, Guardian of Zion Award, Martin Gilbert, Hasbara, Israeli wine, Pierre van Paassen, Uri Davis
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 POV edits 2 Samaria 3 Is "indigenous" vandalism? 4 Move to Ariel (city) 5 A settlement is not a city 6 So what is still disputed? 7 Misrepresentation of the facts 8 City

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Misrepresentation of the facts

• First of all Ariel is built on land that Israel took by force in the 1967 war and continues to occupy illegally until this day. For reference go look at the tens of UN Resolutions clearly stating that fact and the countless international conventions, including the Geneva Convention, which clearly state that the acquisition of territory by war is illegimate, inadmissible, and contravenes all notions of international law and respect.

• Secondly, when pointing out the location of Ariel in the first sentence, in order to make the article accessible to the widest audience possible, it is preposterous to use ancient villages that existed thousands of years ago and only mentioned in texts that people of a certain faith believe in. The whole world believes in geography and what their eyes show them. We have satellites today that give us the precise location of towns and villages. Use references to existing landmarks or latitude and longitude, not the ancient town of I don't know what. There are hundreds of millions of Buddhists in the world that don't necessarily believe what is written in your bible. Wikipeida is not a bible. It is an encyclopedia.

--Saads 06:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair second claim, present day referential landmarks should definitely be placed before historical places. BUT (1) your sincerity is represented by your deletion of the biblical references entirely, do it again and it will be definite vandalism. If you really cared about WP, you'd do this minor cleanup without ranting about it to push your POV.

I'd also advise you to not edit articles you really have no clue about. You reverting the 'Jewish immigrant' claim shows you know nothing about Ariel.

Ariel is a city, town, village, municipality, satellite, and settlement. Please stop pushing your POV, and using the term 'city' is not disputed or POV. The term settlement is also in the article and has not been minimized.

As for your first claim, it is WP:OR. The mountain ridge that Ariel is located on was not conquered by force from a defending army and no natives were forced off this land. Ariel specifically is situated on land that was uninhabited before the first pioneers set up their tents. The Palestinians ridiculed these pioneers because they themselves called the area 'mountain of death' since nothing grew on it except for rocks and weeds. While some parts are 'state-owned' meaning they had been occupied by the Jordanian government, other parts of it were actually purchased with cash from Palestinians. Even today, there are parts that are still outside the immediate boundaries of the city since it is private Palestinian land. Ariel is not on illegal land. If you have an issue with the entire West Bank or Israeli settlements go to those articles. If you have specific references to international law that states that Ariel is illegal, please provide them. --Shuki 07:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Shuki is correct. Before Israel, the land was taken by force by Jordan, UK, Turks, Crusaders, Arabs, Byzantium, Romans... and before that it belonged to Jews. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)