Talk:'Anata

Geography
With no source to describe its geography, editors should refrain from applying their personal biases in interpreting primary sources like a map. Either describe the geographical situation in non-emotive, neutral terms, or drop that description from the lead. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If a map shows a place almost surrounded by a wall, there is absolutely no reason to not say that it is almost surrounded by a wall. It is not an interpretation but just a reading.  If you want to argue that the map does not show the place almost surrounded by a wall, go ahead and make a case. If you want to challenge the reliability of the map, go ahead and make a case.  If you want to argue that we must not say what the source says, read WP:NPOV instead. Zerotalk 08:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The source does not say "the place almost surrounded by a wall" - that is your personal interpretation, which means didly squat. The source is a map, whcih shows a wall to the  east and south, a refugee camp to he  west, and an wide  open space through which a highway passes, to the North. Find a source that says what you claim, or stop pushing your POV. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the source does say that the place is almost surrounded by a wall. Just as one need some skill to read a text in a foreign language, one needs some skill to read a map.  Everyone who has that skill can look at the map and immediately see that I have correctly reported it.  Your version also incorrectly implies that highway 437 reaches Anata; it doesn't. I'll add a map and sources that support my reading. Zerotalk 09:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The source does not "say" anything - it is a map. I have excellent map reading skills, and truly a 10 year old can see that what I wrote is correct::it shows a wall to the  east and south, a refugee camp to he  west, and an wide  open space through which a highway passes, ". you need to  edit  in accordance  with wikipedia policies, not your personal biases. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If your map reading skills are so good, perhaps you can explain how the map does not show Shufat RC and Anata together almost surrounded by the barrier. Zerotalk 23:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of the answer lies in your framing of the question "Shuaft RC and Anata together" - why should we view two separate entities together, rather than  treating them as the separate individual entities that they are? (unless of course  we want t push a certain POV) . The other part is that "almost surrounded" is a non-neutral, vague, emotive term. How much is "almost surrounded? Is it 99%? 90%? 85%? if we exclude the Shu'afat refugee camp, which is not part of Ana'ta, how much of "anata is "surrounded? probably less than 50%. Stop pushing based on your biases. If this belongs in the lead at all, we can describe it in neutral terms - where is the  wall, where is there no wall. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The wall is less than 1km from Anata even in the westerly direction, so it would be perfectly fine to write "almost surrounded" in reference to Anata alone. As far as entry to Jerusalem is concerned it makes no difference that the camp is between. However, I mentioned that Shufat RC shares the enclave with Anata because it is informative.  As for the degree of surrounding, there is about 10km of wall/fence and about 0.4km of gap, so about 96%.  But such quantitative statements are problematic so we should opt for an qualitative English description that everyone can check.  "Almost surrounded" is a verifiable paraphrase of the source, as would be similar phrases like "mostly surrounded" or "completely surrounded except for a checkpoint and an access road". I don't like adding emotive text, but is easy to find sources using words like "strangled" even before the eastern part of the barrier was constructed; maybe you would prefer that. Zerotalk 00:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1Km for a village the size of Anata is a huge distance, and there's an entire refugee camp between it am the wall, so, no, writing 'Almost surrounded' in reference to 'Anata alone would be false, and POV-pushing.  What I would prefer is, in the absence of any sources, thar users simply relay what the map shows: A barrier  to the east and south, the RC to the West, and a highway through an open area to the north There's  no need for the  vague,  emotive, unsourced and violating "almost surrounded". ANd that's not just 'my preference' - but wikipedia policy, which you are blatantly violating I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your text hides the fact that Anata is separated from Jerusalem by a wall with a single checkpoint in it. That is one of the most important facts about the village, not mentioned anywhere else in the article even though it deserves extended treatment. Also, quit it with the silly quips about policy. Zerotalk 01:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Anata is not adjacent to Jerusalem, so it can't be separated from it by a wall. The barrier you refer to separates the  Shu'afat refugee camp from Jerusalem, not 'Anata - something your POV-pushing edit repeatedly hides. Your opinion as to what is 'one of the most important facts about the village' would carry more weight if it had, you know, some sources saying it, rather than you. Following policy is mandatory here, Mr. Administrator - get with the program. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your attempts at personal attacks are risible. Back to business: "Anata is not adjacent to Jerusalem" you say....hmmm, time to use your map-reading skills again. See that yellowish line that marks the Jerusalem municipal boundary?  It has an interesting location in the Shu'afat/Anata region, no?  The refugee camp is actually inside Jerusalem!  So is Pisgat Ze'ev, adjacent to Anata on the north. Anyway, the importance of the Shu'afat-Anata checkpoint to Anata is all over the web; some of these would be citable:      . Incidentally a few weeks ago Israeli established a checkpoint on the access road to Highway 437, so right now Anata is surrounded completely.  But I'm waiting to see if that lasts before putting it in the article (if only all editors were as cautious as me). Zerotalk 10:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Maps of a few years ago show a planned barrier route that closes the current north-east gap in the barrier. I don't see that on more recent maps; does anyone know the story of that? Zerotalk 09:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have checked sooner today and it is not on google map. I assume that the Israeli administration considered the highway was enough to close the area. In many places the "barriers" is really just a fence. I cannot see if there is a fence around the highway. But there is no wall.Pluto2012 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I drew the new map according to Btselem's version of Nov 2014. However, I believe from the satellite photos that the gap in the north-east is only about half as wide as the map shows.  The barrier on the east bends inwards to the base of the U-shape in the exit road.  If you zoom in on the satellite photo here you can see it very clearly (follow the thin smooth line from down further where you can even see its shadow).  I didn't draw it like that because photo interpretation is too OR-ish, but I'll adjust the map in the future if possible within the rules. Zerotalk 22:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Googeling -trick
recent edit here is rather disingenuous; s/he googles  arij advocacy  (this) and gets 87,500 hits, and then use it as "proof" that arij  is an "advocacy" organisation. This is an old trick. Virtually all of those hits are are unrelated to arij: it mention *some other* "advocacy" organisation in connection with arij. (BTW, if we google Obama Satan we get 12 mil hits. This does not mean that we can write that "Obama is Satan".)

If you google "arij advocacy"   ...you get exactly 2 hits: one a linkedin-link. Huldra (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if they are related, such a search is still biased. The right thing to do would be to search on the organization's name (Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem and ARIJ) and look on how they are described. Not searching on the name and an already defined term. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, In addition, see who funds them. In this case it is the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation. Also, pr this: "The WP:BURDEN is on the person who added content to support it," Huldra (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no "trick" here, nor an attempt to show that there are many Google hits for "arij+advocacy" That search simply brings up numerous pages from ARIJ's own webs its and LinkedIn pages, where it describes itself as an advocacy organization. There is really very little doubt that it is an advocacy organization.
 * Here is how its critics describe it: "Political Advocacy: Among the leaders of the political warfare against Israel, seeking to further boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS), false accusations of Israeli “apartheid” and “racism,” and support for a Palestinian “right of return”, which is inconsistent with two-state solution. "
 * Here is how its supporters describe it: "In addition, support to Arij facilitates a networked, peer-to-peer collaboration amongst representatives from the Palestinian Authority, academia, the UN, civil society and donor organisations, in a delicate advocacy endeavour " ; "ARIJ plays an active role in the local community as an advocate for greater cooperation among local institutions as well as international and non-governmental organizations." [ http://www.westminsterpresbyterianwooster.org/get-involved/middle-east-peace/the-applied-research-institute-jerusalem-arijsociety-towards-a-sustainable-palestine]
 * and here is how it describes itself: "ARIJ plays an active role in the local community as an advocate" "; "Mission...Advocating & enlightening strategic decision makers and various other stake holders " ; "The visit was conducted as part of the ongoing cooperation between ARIJ - as part member of the EWASH advocacy committee"  . Game,  Set and Match. I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly. Every organization "advocates" for something, duh. Zerotalk 21:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite. Under these criteria, I could call any Israeli government organisation or pro-Israeli NGO for "activist".  In any case, this  discussion really belongs on Talk:Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem. And any characterisation of ARIJ belongs in the ARIJ-article, and not on every page mentioning them, Huldra (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

'Anata or Anata
In the infobox it says the official spelling is Anata, shouldn't that then be how it's spelled here? 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , again, why is this article not titled how the official spelling is? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * sorry, SJ, I never noticed your October 2016 question. I have no big preference about the name, (I didn't start this article), but I see Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem   use 'Anata. The "old guys" (Clermont-Garneau, Conder and Kitchener, Thomson, Socin,  Hartmann, Schick, Barron, Hadawi) all also used 'Anata, (Amazingly, they almost never spell a name the same way!). That indicate to me that 'Anata should be the name we use. But as I said: I have no strong opinion about it. , who started the article under this name,  Also: The official name in the article is unsourced, can you find a source for it? Or could it be a mistake? Huldra (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it should be Anata just for clarity sake. I would imagine anyone putting that name into search would not start with the ', so it's more a judgement call. On the flip side, Anata is a disambig page so the article would need to be Anata (village) or something which would then still need a redirect. If the current sources (such as newspapers and demographics) use Anata, we should as well. (this is similar to I think Ovda Airport, where we are using the incorrect spelling). Sir Joseph (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be simpler, but would it be correct? You really need to dig up some sources using Anata about the village, before we move it. Huldra (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we have modern newspapers all calling it Anata, so there's that. I don't know if that is enough though to move it. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete: "Since 1967, 'Anata has been occupied by Israel. "
This statement has no support by any reliable source, & it is a violation of NPOV. "Occupied" implies that some power which did not own the land seized control of it. That political POV is contrary to the POV that the land of Israel was given to Israel by YHWH. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC))
 * That it was "given by YHWE", has as much weight as if it was "given by  Allah." Huldra (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes
User:Rajoub570; please explain yourself: cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Why does the reader need to be told twice that "Anata is identified with the biblical town Anathoth" and "Anata stands on the site where the ancient city of 'Anatoth once stood"?
 * 2) Why do you re-introduce the Moshe Sharon -book? So now the same book is references twice -while I (tried) to unify the references?
 * 3) Why do you insists on keeping stuff that belongs in the Anathoth-article in this article? ("According to the Bible, 'Anatoth was one of the Levitical cities allocated to "the children of Aaron" within the tribe of Benjamin. It was the native town of Abiezer the Anetothite and the prophet Jeremiah.")


 * Why not show people interested in 'Anata what was there in antiquity? it's something to be proud of. No need to add all about Anatoth but showing general info about the ancient phase is necessary, interesting and meaningful for readers interested in Anata. Rajoub570 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Another example is London. We have London. We also have Londonium. The article on London has a whole paragraph on Londonium, and people who want to get more info can click, but the basic info should be appear the modern place. Rajoub570 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

(PS: Incidentally, I had exactly the same issues with User:Tombah (eg Talk:Silat_ad-Dhahr: issues 2 & 3; Talk:Mukhmas: issues 3, Talk:Al-Khader: issues 3)


 * A: we should not use the Bible as a source of history of modern places -lots in the Bible has no historical basis.
 * B: if the Bible-history is used, it should be about Biblical places, ie Anathoth,
 * C: if you want it in, then please start a WP:RfC cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)