Talk:Judea and Samaria Area

Begging the question

I've edited the page to get rid of some phrases that seemed to beg the question as to whether the area ought to be called West Bank or Judea and Samaria. We can't imply support for either position; we should only record that some people say Judea and Samaria, but that most say West Bank. I also deleted the disambiguation tag, because I don't see how this is a disambig page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pharos, I'm not aware of any consensus to move this. Did I miss it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:West Bank. The notice has been up for quite a while and attracted a number of comments, of which yours has been the only one to express opposition.--Pharos 23:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

How many expressed support? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did, User:Dooley did, User:Guy Montag said he wouldn't mind it, User:Heraclius made a snide comment that one can presume means support in a way, and User:John Z made a comment about the Israeli official equivalence of the terms strongly implying support. There has been no response from Slim for seven days.--Pharos 23:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Pharos, the only reason I didn't respond was that there seemed to be no interest in redirecting this, so I thought the discussion was over. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Please see my new comment at Talk:West Bank. Thanks.--Pharos 23:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Talk:West Bank

Look, Slim, is there anything that you think should be in a Judea and Samaria article that doesn't belong in the West Bank article? If not, I can't see how separate articles can be justified.--Pharos 23:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

More or less what's there at the moment. I think it's analagous to Israeli West Bank barrier and Apartheid Wall. There are particular reasons for the use of the minority term, and the article explains them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Tomer requested that Israeli West Bank barrier and Apartheid Wall be merged, and you agreed, as I agree, and will post to that effect there shortly. As far as I can see, you're not naming a single fact from Judea and Samaria that doesn't belong in this article. There is just no reasonable purpose given for two articles.--Pharos 00:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I was persuaded there was a good reason for having both Israeli West Bank barrier and Apartheid Wall and I can see the same holds true here. viz. that there are distinct motivations for the use of both terms, and both are used by millions of people. I'm not sure I understand the argument in favor of merging. My reasoning with Apartheid Wall was that it's a perjorative term and therefore shouldn't be given its own page, but that's not the case with Judea and Samaria. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Pharos, by all means copy comments, but please don't delete them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

N.B. I had moved the discussion above copied from Talk:West Bank and Slim's reply here to Talk:West Bank.--Pharos 01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge West Bank into Judea and Samaria

I'm removing the tag that the section "be merged into West Bank" for 3 reasons. (1) Judea and Samaria are the OFFICIAL names of the areas used by the State of Israel and the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (i.e., Census Bureau). See my edit to article for references and links. (2) Recent renaming of the area as "West Bank" of Jordan is similar to the Roman renaming of the land from Judea to Syria Palaestina in 135 C.E. in an attempt to stamp out any remaining hopes for Jewish national existence and is representative of an extreme anti-Jew POV. (3) There has been no further debate on the issue here for approximately 3 months. Doright 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[slimVirgin], you say, "we should only record that some people say Judea and Samaria, but that most say West Bank." Does your position take into account that the only Country that has exercised control over this land for approximately 40 years officially refers to it in its official government and census publications as Judea and Samaria? Doright 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Added tag Merge West Bank into Judea and Samaria Doright 03:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed tag Merge West Bank into Judea and Samaria Doright 18:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Odd wording

"Since the Israeli capture of this area from Jordanian occupation in 1967, the long used names Judea and Samaria are not used by people who want to de-emphasize Israel's and the Jewish people's relationship with the land. "

This is rather odd, as it sort of implies that the term "Judea and Samaria" were in popular international usage prior to 1967, but have fallen out of use since. What is this trying to say? I think it's trying to say "People who refuse to use the term Judea and Samaria are making a political point", but it's not entirely clear. Morwen - Talk 18:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Does anyone else think this needs a POV tag? It seems to me that the author of this is trying to legitimize the Israeli perspective on what the region should be called rather than describe the commonly accepted naming conventions for the area. Whenever I hear "Judea and Samaria," it's either in a biblical context or a pro-Israel context. The name "West Bank" does not have anywhere near this level of ideological charge (the words "West Bank" do not suggest that one side's claim to the region is more legitimate than another's). I seriously doubt that use of the term "West Bank" instead of Judea and Samaria makes a deliberate political point. Rhesusman 18:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think a POV tag is needed. Rather, feel free to improve the article, if you think it can benefit by your contribution. Actually, as suggested in the article, "West Bank" is an ideological anti-Jew term. One might expect that "West Bank" refers to the physcial geography related to a river. However, the "West Bank" is primarily the mountains or high ground. If France was called the "West Bank," do you think that would be a neutral term? After all, it is the "West Bank" of The Rhine.Doright 23:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

While I'm willing to accept the possibility that "West Bank" may have had anti-Zionist or even anti-Semitic origins (although I've never heard anything to that effect - do you have any evidence of that?), it's certainly does not have an anti-Jewish connotation now, and I'm surprised that you think it does. Even Fox News refers the area as "West Bank" and not "Judea and Samaria." The vast majority of people I know of who talk about the region use the term "West Bank." The only people I hear using the term "Judea and Samaria" are pro-Israel activists, and even then not all of them use it (indeed, even they tend to use the term West Bank!). Just because something lacks a pro-Israel connotation does not imply that it it has an anti-Israel connotation. Again, whatever the term's origins (and I'd like to see evidence that it has anti-Semitic origins before believing that), I've never met anyone other than you and the author of this article who thinks "West Bank" is anti-Semitic or anti-Jew. Don't believe me? Look at every major English-language news source on the Internet. They almost universally use "West Bank" and only use "Judea and Samaria" when quoting Israeli officials or talking about how the Israeli government describes the region. Rhesusman 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this to be checked for POV all the same. This article suggests that the term "Judea and Samaria" is the more legitimate term. It also suggests that use of the term West Bank is inherently connected with an anti-Israel agenda. If you ask me these are both POV, but this warrants further discussion. Rhesusman 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. However, I'm having some difficulty connecting them to the text of the article.Doright 05:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your courtesy, but the article plainly suggests that failure to use "Judea and Samaria" as opposed to West Bank to refer to the region indicates some anti-Israel or anti-Zionist agenda. If someone uses the term West Bank to refer to the region, I can't tell what their stance on the Israeli-Arab conflict is solely from that, but if someone uses the term "Judea and Samaria" in a modern context you can safely bet that the person is strongly pro-Israel. People who prefer to say West Bank are not trying to de-emphasize anyone's connection to the area. How would something like this sound as a more NPOV alternative to the first paragraph:

Judea and Samaria is the historical and Biblical name used by the Israeli government for the region known outside of Israel since the Six-Day War as the West Bank, the Jordanian name for the region.

I would prefer this wording because it does not ascribe any agendas to people who say West Bank today. For my part, I would be interested in knowing what most Israelis call the region when they speak English. Most Israelis I have heard talk about the region refer to it as West Bank when they're speaking English (although probably not when they speak Hebrew). As for the sources that indicate anti-Semitic origins for West Bank, the Boris Shusteff one looks like it's just a pro-Israel polemic, and I'm not sure how appropriate that is as a citation. The first source listed looks like the only one that's needed, since its purpose appears primarily to inform rather than advocate. Rhesusman 15:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your collegial consideration of this matter. The article currently states:

"Judea and Samaria are not used by people who want to de-emphasize Israel's or the Jewish people's relationship with the land."

I would like to explore your claim that this plainly suggests that failure to use "Judea and Samaria" indicates an anti-Israel or anti-Zionist agenda. Symbolizing the essential logic of the article's statement, we see that it states:

If A, Then B.

Where,

A = I Want to de-emphasize Israel's or Jewish relationship with the land

B = I Do not use Judea and Samaria

That is, If I Want to de-emphasize Israel's or Jewish relationship with the land, Then I Do not use Judea and Samaria.

Logically, you must accept this to be true, since you affirm an even stronger version of its "contrapostive" in your own comments. You state, "if someone uses the term "Judea and Samaria" ... the person is strongly pro-Israel." Note, the contrapositive of a statement is always logically equivalent to the original statement.

Contrapositive

If not B, Then not A.

That is, If I use Judea and Samaria, then I do not want to de-emphasize Israel's or Jewish relationship with the land.

However, rejection of your claim does not require the above analysis. As shown below, your claim can be rejected immediately once it is understood to be the "Converse" of the article's text. You make the mistake in logic called the "converse error," when you infer that a statement implies its converse.

You claim

"the article plainly suggests that failure to use "Judea and Samaria" as opposed to West Bank to refer to the region indicates some anti-Israel or anti-Zionist agenda."

Respectfully, I submit that your claim is false because your claim is actually the "Converse" of the article's text.

Symbolically, your claim is:

If B, Then A.

Where, A and B are as defined above. That is, your claim that the article statement plainly suggests its converse is false. If I Do not use Judea and Samaria, Then I Want to de-emphasize Israel's or Jewish relationship with the land, can not be infered from the article. You are incorrect in your assertion that "the article plainly suggests" If B, Then A, since that is the converse of what the text actually says. Respectfully,Doright 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I did take logic in undergrad so I know what you're talking about mechanically. However, most people's thought processes don't follow this strict Aristotelean pattern. When Judge Alito said at his confirmation hearing "That's what I believed at the time" his statement plainly suggested that he no longer believes the notion in question although his statement doesn't logically entail it. Even though in a strict logical sense, a proposition does not entail its converse, a lot of readers will assume that it will, especially when they read the next sentence (which does not necessarily entail, but certainly suggests that use of West Bank as opposed to Judea and Samaria indicates anti-Zionism - especially with that "for example" bit). Couldn't what you want to say be said less controversially by saying "Politically, the name Judea and Samaria has a pro-Israel connotation, and individuals who disagree with Israel's claim to the region are unlikely to use it. "West Bank," the Jordanian name for the region, has been more commonly used outside of Israel since the 1967 war." I don't think such wording would broadcast any ideological perspective. As it's written now, it looks like it was written by someone who is very pro-Israel. There is a difference between logically entailing something and plainly suggesting it. The current wording may not do the former, but it does the latter. Rhesusman 01:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Problem

The use of these names may also serve as a reminder that, prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jewish communities existed there

This is kind of a weasely phrase. Does the name serve as such a reminder or doesn't it? And who is saying that either way? This is a completely unnattributed opinion. Rhesusman 16:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Explain Revert

I recently made an effort to edit this article to be less ideologically-charged. I must ask, Doright, why you have reverted the article to its previous form with the claim that my edit represents original research. I don't understand that at all. In fact, all I did was change the wording to still say what you claim the article says now, but in a more direct, less confusing, and less ideologically-charged way. I wasn't trying to "factually" correct the article, just re-word it in a manner that avoids reflecting a point of view. I didn't add anything that would constitute original research. I respect your convictions if you're a pro-Israel activist (the types of links you are putting on the page suggest that you are), but Wikipedia is not the place to ply that trade. I also asked for a citation for a piece of information whose relevance and accuracy were questionable. I don't see how the inclusion of that constitutes original research. By the way, it's considered common courtesy to explain why you plan on reverting on the talk page before doing so. Revert Rhesusman 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Original Research = "the name Judea and Samaria has a pro-Israel connotation"

Your change is POV and ideologically-charged. You have already agreed that the text in question is factually correct. Since you took a basic logic class, you should know that it is FALSE that your edit and what that text says are the same. Please do no attempt to poison the well by making ad hominem innuendos about what may or may not be my convictions. For example, I can say I respect you if you are an antisemite, but Wikipedia is not the place to ply that trade, but I would not do that and neither should you. Furthermore, I provided you not one, but 3 citations. You deleted the other two.Doright 11:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what your problem is here. First, I wasn't making an ad-hominem attack on you at all. I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with being pro-Israel. If you ask me, it's a perfectly normal, mainstream opinion to have. That's part of the reason I respect it. Comparing that to you calling me an anti-Semite does not make a shred of sense. That's not an ad-hominem attack, but a reasonable inference based on the sort of citations you're providing. There's nothing wrong with you having that opinion and admitting it on the talk page if that's how you really feel. Maybe I came off as a little patronizing. I apologize if I came off the wrong way. Given what I said, I think it's only fair that I say, no, I don't agree with everything Israel does and everything it's supporters claim. But I certainly would not describe myself as either an anti-Zionist or an anti-Semite. I don't believe I have said anything that suggests the former and I know I haven't said anything that suggests the latter (I'm saying this to clarify my own position on the matter, not to suggest that you necessarily called me an anti-Semite). There's nothing particularly negative about being called pro-Israel. There's something really negative about being called an anti-Semite. The comparison is unwarranted.

Secondly, as for my wording being POV and orignial research, I disagree. Do a Google search. Look to see who's saying Judea and Samaria (in a political context) and look who's saying West Bank. Maybe it was a mistake of me to assume that was common knowledge. My bad. I'll freely admit that. I should have found a source that stated that more directly. However, if my claim that using Judea and Samaria in a political context has a pro-Israel connotation is original research, then the first sentence of the third paragraph is also original research (they don't say the exact same thing, but they're supported equally well or badly, depending on how you look at it). As for what we said not meaning the same thing, I'll also admit that I may have been sloppy and imprecise. I would argue, however, that I am not being POV. This is what we seem to agree about 1) the historical name for the region is in fact Judea and Samaria 2) more people outside of Israel call the region West Bank than Judea and Samaria 3) people who want to de-emphasize the Jewish connection to the region (which, let's face it, is almost certainly because they disagree with Israel's claim to the region) prefer not to use the term. I am not entirely certain whether you think that using the term in a political context has a pro-Israel connotation or not. I thought you did, but it looks like you may disagree with that.

It's true that when you go through a logical analysis, I agree with what you're saying. My problem with your preferred wording is not that it is factually inaccurate, but that it is more confusing and suggestive (of a POV) in its tone and emphasis than it needs to be. As I already explained, just because something is accurate doesn't alone mean it's adequate. People don't think in strict Aristotelean terms. Here are my specific problems with the current wording: 1) There are many reasons a person would use the term West Bank instead of Judea and Samaria. By giving prominence to the anti-Israel reason, it makes it seem like that is the most common reason. That's POV (My version may have this problem too). 2) The sentence is worded in such a way as to make it seem like Judea and Samaria is a more legitimate term that has been wrongly usurped by West Bank ("long used names" and "despite being the literal land of Judah"). That's POV (I'd simply like the article to note that Israel and its supporters prefer to call it Judea and Samaria in a political context - the fact that Judea and Samaria is the historic name, would fit nicely into the second paragraph where it wouldn't look like it was trying to legitimate a claim). 3) Connecting the last two sentences with "For example" makes it sound like people are using West Bank instead of Judea and Samaria because they are trying to de-emphasize the Jewish people's relationship with the land.

Also, it's worth pointing out that Israel and the Jewish people are not conceptually identical. Most people don't dispute or try to de-emphasize, in my experience, the Jewish people's traditional and historical ties to the region. That's why I preferred a wording that refers to people who disagree with the modern day State of Israel's claim to the land as opposed to people who want to de-emphasize the Jewish people's relationship with it. There are plenty of people who fall into the former category but not the latter. I was trying to be more accurate and inclusive in my wording. Look, it's obvious to me that you're far more strongly committed to the current wording of this than I am to changing it. I certainly did not intend to spend this much time discussing this, nor did I expect this discussion to be reach this emotional level. I'd be happy to continue discussing this with you and attempt to reach a compromise on the wording of this, but I won't try to change it any more. I'd like to point out, however, that I'm not the only one who has had issues with the way this is worded.

Thirdly, as for the citation note, you didn't read carefully. I put a second note in a different paragraph. That's the one your revert caused to disappear. That's another issue. See the heading before this one. Rhesusman 05:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Odd wording again

"Since the Israeli capture of this area from Jordanian occupation in 1967 ..."

Describing the status prior to 1967 as "Jordanian occupation" seems odd to me.

I was under the impression that, following the cease-fire in 1948, when the area was indeed occupied by Jordan, the people of the area petitioned the King of Jordan to incorporate the area into the Kingdom of Jordan.

I'd have used the wording:

"Since the Israeli capture of this area from Jordan in 1967 ..."

Tim Martin

Hi Tim, I'm a little confused. First you say, Describing the status prior to 1967 as "Jordanian occupation" seems odd to me. Then, in the very next sentence you say, "when the area was indeed occupied by Jordan." I fail to understand the difference between "Jordanian occupation" and occupied by Jordan." Regards,Doright 09:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Changes

Thanks to whoever changed it this article is much better now. However, I still think the "may refer to" bit is a little weasely. Rhesusman 20:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

POV fork?

From quickly looking through the earlier talk page discussion, I know that this has been discussed before, but I'm not sure how I understand how this article does not constitute a POV fork. It seems to me that the West Bank article can discuss the usage of the name "Judea and Samaria," by Israelis to refer to the region, and that any other information about history and politics can and should be accommodated by the West Bank article. What is the argument for a separate article here? john k 18:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You make the change and then ask questions? Not too sincere, so you probably don't want to listen to any replies anyway. If you really want to be bold (and a true wikipedian) suggest an AFD. --Shuki 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer to that is very simple. As far as many Jews are concerned, the name West Bank itself violates NPOV, because it implies that the land is not Jewish land. However, no one (except total liars) can argue that this land is not the land historically known as Judea and Samaria. Yehoishophot Oliver 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No one (except total liars) can argue that Israel together with the territories is not the land historically known as Palestine. Should we then not rename such articles? —Ashley Y 23:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ashley, which liars are deny the use of the word 'Palestine'? The first sentence of the Palestine article is pretty straightforward, though I couldn't find in that article when the first use of the word was. Land of Israel = Palestine. What's your point? Judea and Samaria is a fictitious name invented by 'liars'? --Shuki 14:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, maddening. Surely nobody can deny that the area is on the West Bank of the Jordan river. Beyond that, you are basically saying, yes, this article is a POV fork, and that it should be. That is not an adequate response. The use of "Judea and Samaria" to refer to the territory between the Jordan River and the 1949 green line, btw, is obviously a made up name invented by propagandists. The terms "Judea" and "Samaria" obviously existed, but the precise geographic signifier of "territory in the Mandate of Palestine which was controlled by Jordan between 1949 and 1967" is surely a new usage. And the term "West Bank" is completely lacking in any kind of ethnic signifiers. It's not like it's being called "Eastern Palestine" or "Northern Palestine" or something like that, which would obviously be POV. "West Bank" is a completely non-political, so far as I can tell, geographical signifier. john k 23:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the "Status" section

I have a few issues with the Status section of the article for various reasons that I'm going to outline:

• Irrelevance: Assuming that this article is about the origin, history and usage of the term "Judea and Samaria" the status of the territory itself is not relevant to the term used to describe it, and should only be included in the main West Bank article.

The following reasons assume that the Status section is relevant and remains in this article

• Irrelevance: The second paragraph is irrelevant because it discusses the reasons for occupation and not the status of the area.
• Improper Citation: the citation for the claim that security is the Israeli government's traditional argument for occupation does not support this claim.
• POV: That "Israeli claim to the territory has been weakened" is a point of view.

Even if the Status section is left in the article, the second paragraph should at least be removed. I want to make sure that others agree with me before making any changes. -- Mathan 05:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"It is the official name of the area in the Israeli sources and the Hebrew media"

Could we possibly get more weasely than "the Israeli sources" and "the Hebrew media," while also taking POV shots at Ha'aretz? Italiavivi 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The name Judea and Samaria has been used to describe this region throughout 3000 or more years of history , it was never known as the West Bank. The name West Bank is a complete non historical term invented extremely recently. So, this area , referred to many hundreds of times in the worlds most popular book as Judea and Samaria is just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.187.128 (talk) 20:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Are the lists needed?

I propose removing the lists of councils and cities, we have a navbox which serves this purpose, the Hebrew names also ruin the style. Chesdovi 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are similar lists in the other Israeli districts and they describe what's in the district.--Towerdefence 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they should all be removed, it's a needless and unnecesary duplication of infomation. In Center District (Israel) the former municipaly list can be retained. Why have an infobox aswell as these lists stating the same thing? Chesdovi 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

district of Israel?

How can territory which Israel does not officially claim to be Israeli territory be a district of Israel? john k 23:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's just practicalities. It is currently under Israeli administration and disricts are made for administrative purposes. Chesdovi 00:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's administered like a district (sort of...), but surely they can't actually call it a district, can they? john k 04:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war developing?

Back & forth it goes. Instead of the endless reverts, how about discussing the issue(s) on this page? By my count multiple editors are already eligible for 3RR warnings, or about to be. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Some editors have taken upon themselves to promote "Judea" and "Samaria" from historical regions to current geographical [1], without presenting much support for the change or even discussing it beforehand. There is one discussion going at Judea and one at Samaria, however the nature of the evidence presented there so far should rather discourage such attempts. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

MeteorMaker has some unsourced theories about the terms Judea and Samaria, and is neither willing to provide reliable sources for this theories, nor willing to accept evidence to the contrary, but instead has determined that he will promote his theory across Wikipedia, and excise any mentions of the terms from articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange then that the article had reflected those "unsourced theories" for years until CanadianMonkey decided to start a revert war by imposing his own unsourced theories on it [2], which not only are at odds with all encyclopedias [3] but also so difficult to find evidence for that all he has come up with after several months in fact is better evidence against them [4][5]. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)