Talk:Israeli settlement

Potential ArbCom sanctions

Just as a heads-up, I would like to remind all editors here that this page falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, which says, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

I am not currently placing any restrictions on this article, but I am strongly considering a revert limitation. Sanctions may also be placed on editors who are simply reverting but not engaging in any other substantive edits of the article. Another option is that an uninvolved admin (myself or any other admin who chooses to participate) could review the above discussions and make a formal determination of "consensus" on the Samaria question. I am also open to any other suggestions for creative restrictions which may help to stabilize this article, or even better, creative suggestions for a compromise version of text for the article, so we can get away from this "either/or" cycle that the article appears to be in. Surely there must be some alternative form of the text which would satisfy both sides in this dispute? Or if nothing else, another step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution should be followed, such as an RfC, or mediation. --Elonka 05:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, per the discretionary sanctions authorized via WP:ARBPIA, I'm placing a restriction on this article: No more Samaria-related reverts in the lead of the article. Changes to the text to try and find a compromise are acceptable, but just putting the wording back to something that was used in the previous revert wars, will be considered a revert. All editors are also cautioned that if all they are doing on this article is edit-warring about Samaria, and they're not doing anything else on the article, this may be considered disruptive as well. Everyone: Edit wars do not work. They are a completely ineffective way of forcing through a desired change. Instead, work through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, engage in discussion at the talkpage, request comments from uninvolved editors, build consensus, and try to find a compromise. Thanks, --Elonka 20:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I assume Jayjg will be reprimanded for sneaking in "Samaria" yet one more time [1], apparently just one hour later. Odd that it went unnoticed for so long.MeteorMaker (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It was not a revert, it was a compromise edit, to add the information elsewhere in the article than the lead. It's also worth pointing out that since the change, the article has been stable for the last two weeks. --Elonka 04:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Elonka, but where is the compromise in that edit? It's not in the lead, sure, but leads are revised according to the content of the article, which they must synthesize. By placing that edit in the text, immediately after sanctions were notified for the lead, observes the letter of the law, not its spirit. For two weeks we have argued on the lead, precisely on the propriety of using Samaria. Yyou are technically correct, re the lead, but that was immediately challenged by the article section Jayjg re-edited after you placed the lead sanction. Had I noticed I should have been tempted to edit in the following (probably would not have since it would have generated another edit war, which will follow invariably if we do not resolve the lead question, while taking the battle to the article where the key language of the lead is challenged).

At this point therefore, anyone disputing the propriety of that edit should be equally entitled to put that in 2005 Israel decided ‘to dismantle all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank’ Gershom Gorenberg, The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977, Macmillan 2007 p.363, As Gorenberg notes, the Israeli decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by settlers, and the government won the case. Both parties, arguing in Hebrew, used 'northern Samaria' but the government won by noting these four serttlements were in territory whose legal status was that of 'belligerent territory'. What we have here is the reintroduction of terminology used by the belligerent' occupier, as the government's language before the Supreme Court admitted. It can be cited in the notes, as per Jayjg's sources, or in the text as 'what the Israeli government called', but to keep it as it is, is to infringe wiki's neutral voice.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani here. At this point, Jay and CM's approach has been reduced to (a) pretending not to read my posts, in particular those that systematically dismantle spurious arguments; (b) synthesizing primary sources in an attempt to discredit passing comments of MeteorMaker's – comments, that is, of only secondary relevance to the content dispute; (c) continually assuming that secondary sources addressing the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" together have no bearing on the term "Samaria," while steadfastly refusing to discuss the logic of this odd assumption; and last but not least, (d) rampantly, wantonly, and wholly unjustifiably accusing MeteorMaker of being a liar and a bigot.

These stances, (a) through (d), do not constitute positions to be "compromised" with. They constitute willful disruption and should be dealt with as an ongoing behavioral problem.

Meanwhile, there is Brewcrewer's position. I'll admit that it strikes me as eccentric, but it is internally consistent and articulated in good faith, and he's willing to discuss without the smokescreens, mudslinging, and other tactics of evasion and aggression that have lain waste to so much time, trust, and good will on this talk page over the past few months.--G-Dett (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that roughly this compromise (ie "Samaria" noted elsewhere in the article but not the lead, although also - as Nishidani suggests it should be above - qualified, appropriately albeit slightly clumsily in this version, with "what Israel refers to as ..") was placed in the article by, ahem, my good self over a month ago, with this edit. Another editor then opened a talk page section that was supportive of the compromise, here. Then, regardless, it was immediately reverted twice without any response or counter-argument on the talk page, here and then here, as well as subsequently I believe. As I believe I have said elsewhere, Jay and others have dragged everyone into a fatuous debate and wasted the time of a lot of contributors here, who had to put in a massive effort to demonstrate something that was pretty obvious to anyone who was genuinely neutral and objective in this debate about a single - but nonetheless extremely significant - word. And while they were doing that, they engaged in constant personal attacks (not-so-subtly masquerading as appeals to others to not engage in such attacks), misrepresented what others had said previously on the talk page (while wrongly accusing them of doing the very same thing) and openly claimed that they were "not reading" others' well-argued posts. All for what? To more or less end up where we could have been 30-odd days ago in terms of article content, for better or worse? --Nickhh (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As a proper compromise, one that does not compromise WP's neutrality or compromises with the facts, I have now changed the line to "In August 2005, all settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank (referred to as Samaria by Israeli sources) [8] were forcibly evacuated as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan". Note: This is just a patching fix and does not settle the larger question if partisan terminology should be allowed at all in supposedly neutral WP articles. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

these sources (e.g: Sussex University Press, The Hoover Inst.) are not 'Israeli'. If we're going to describe them, let's do so accurately, and in accordance with WP policy on sources. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, if you could show that there is support in policy or at least some kind of precedent on WP for your claim that sources that have been proven to be non-American and non-British suddenly become "American and British" by virtue of having been cited or printed in American or British publications, your position would be better. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources, on Wikipedia, "are credible published materials with a reliable publication process" - it is the medium, not the author. IHT is an American source. The BBC is a British source as is Sussex U's academic publishing house. On Wikipedia, when Sofaer (an American jurist) is published by the Hoover Inst. (an American research organization), we call that an "American source", and we don't go around conducting personal research into at what organizations Sofaer may have belonged to in his youth, in order to disqualify or otherwise caveat his opinions as 'Zionist'. Canadian Monkey (talk)`

I suspected you'd fail to come up with any kind of support for your claim that sources magically take on the nationality of the publisher, so please stop claiming that they do. Israeli sources are Israeli, and you simply cannot transform them arbitrarily to "British" or "American" nationality. I offered a perfectly good compromise, to keep the partisan term "Samaria", with the proviso that the article mentions it's Israel-specific terminology. If you insist it's not, despite all the evidence, show one reliable source that says so. Until you can do that, your attempts to reinsert partisan terminology must be considered disruptive. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I quoted to you directly form the wikipedia policy on reliable sources. A source is not a person, it is the medium. In addition, I pointed out to you that at least one of the sources is both an American source (the Hoover Inst.) as well as having an American author, making in aply clear that your characterization of the sources as "Israel-specific" is simply false, even using your incorrect classification of sources. Please stop your game playing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You were supposed to back up your claims "these sources are not 'Israeli'" and that WP policy on sources allows us to change the nationality of a source, none of which you found any support whatsoever for. It is also not correct to state, like you did, that the term "Samaria" is "used in Britain and America" — if you want that in WP, you have to back it up with a reliable source like everybody else. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And I did. The IHT is not an Israeli paper. The Hoover Inst. is not an Israeli research institution. The BBC is not an Israeli news outfit. I quoted to you from a WPY policy page, which explains that sources are the venues in which material is published - not the authors themselves. In addition, the authors themselves are not Israeli - Sofaer being a case in point. You have now compounded your disruptive editing by twice reverting my addition - I think this will go to the ARbCom enforcement page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your quote from the policy page ("Sources, on Wikipedia, "are credible published materials with a reliable publication process"") does not in any way support your claim that arbitrarily changing the nationality of an original source is "in accordance with WP policy on sources". It is not wrong to state, like I did, that "Samaria" is used by Israeli sources, but it is wrong to claim, like you did, that it's also used by American and British sources. If that were the case, you wouldn't have such problems to find a reliable source that says so, or even one example of such a source that isn't Israeli (or Zionist) in origin [2]. Note that the most recent addition you made (the interview with Israel's then-ambassador to Australia) explicitly supports the notion that "Samaria" is Israel-specific terminology, by adding this footnote when mr Tamir mentions "Samaria": Nombre israelí de una parte de Cisjordania, Israeli name for a part of the West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead of debating nationality of sources here, how about falling back to WP:ASF and just listing the names of the sources exactly? So instead of "a British source said" just say "The BBC said", etc.? --Elonka 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a complete joke to do what CM did and say that "the International Herald Tribune, the Journal of Church and State, Sussex Academic Press, Lexington Books, Hoover Press and others" call the area "Samaria"[3]. They don't. Sometimes, they publish Israeli writers who naturally use their own nation-specific terminology, but that does not mean the IHT et al themselves use the terms. I request that CM reverts this edit. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Totally misleading edit, with or without the BBC included. --Nickhh (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The IHT reference does not publish or quote any Israeli writer. It is the IHT itself, an American/French source, using that terminology. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, even being generous that's one out of "[five, was six] and others", which is pretty flimsy evidence to base an assertion of "nonsense" on. And of course that article is titled "Biblical significance of West Bank settlements". QED. I'm sorry, we've been through all this. That horse isn't even twitching. --Nickhh (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I brought up the IHT simply because it was being directly referenced in MM's comment, supposedly as a case where the IHT is quoting an Israeli, which is simply false. The same is true of several of the other references, such as Sofaer in the Hoover Inst., Zelnicjk in the Hoover Press or Getz in the Jewish Exponent. The article may be titled "Biblical significance of West Bank settlements", but the statement related to Samaria reads "The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria". We've had quite enough of trying to twist this into the obviously false and self-serving claim that this is "Israeli perspective". It is simply not the case. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The IHT one, for the hundredth time, is a reference to ancient history. Just read it: "Biblical significance of West Bank settlements (Published: TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2005) IT'S IN THE BIBLE: The four West Bank settlements that Israel is evacuating are all located in the biblical Land of Israel — territory that observant Jews believe was promised to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria, was inhabited by the tribe of Menashe, one of the 10 tribes of Israel that were forced into exile. [4]'" As explained many times before, International Herald Tribune routinely attaches an explanation to the term (to the effect of "Israeli name for the northern West Bank"), whenever it quotes an Israeli source that uses it [5]. Leonard Getz is the National Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America [6]. Zelnick states the opposite of what you are trying to prove: " Judea and Samaria, what most of the world refers to as the West Bank."[7]. The rest of the sources are of Israeli origin. At least try and find sources that haven't been utterly refuted already. And remove the silly claim that "the International Herald Tribune, the Journal of Church and State, Sussex Academic Press, Lexington Books, Hoover Press and others" call the area "Samaria"[8]. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding all the spinning, according to its plain meaning,The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria is referring to the current status.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It may seem so to anybody who reads that phrase in isolation. The context, as you can see, is indeed biblical. The IHT is not exactly known for using "Samaria" either — of 72 instances on their site, all that are not comments from Israeli readers are accompanied by an explanation that the term is an Israeli/biblical name for the northern West Bank (and are almost exclusively quotes by Israelis, various PMs in particular). The West Bank, in comparison, is mentioned 9,170 times. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's just stick to this one source for now. The article is clearly referring to the current usage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Which one source? Please tell me you're not talking about this sentence: "The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria, was inhabited by the tribe of Menashe, one of the 10 tribes of Israel that were forced into exile."--G-Dett (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about that sentence, which quite obviously says that how the area is known. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Gdet: Your theatrics are funny. As you're well aware, saying "known by" indicates that it's not the official name. According to your reading of the article, the article writer is asserting that in 12 A.D. the area was known as "northern Samaria" but it was not its official name. Why would a person reading the International Herald Tribune on a nice August day in 2005 give a flying crap whether in 12 A.D. the area was only known as "northern Samaria" but it was not the official name at that time? Additionally, the writer of the article does not represent to be a scholar of ancient Israel who would know about this unimportant distinction. The logical understanding of the sentence is as follows: in 2005, the area is known as "northern Samaria" despite the fact that Israel currently has not officially named that area "northern Samaria". Indeed, not only does this article establish the term's common usage, it also disproves the theories promulgated here at this talk page that the term "northern Samaria" is an Israeli government term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Learn to spell my name, learn what a participial clause is, and learn to read, Brewcrewer.--G-Dett (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: Even if this particular passage could theoretically be seen as ambiguous (to me and most other neutral observers however, the references to the Bible and the Manassa tribe indicate quite clearly that it's historical usage), what do you make of the fact that the IHT site yields only 72 hits for "Samaria" (most of which are direct quotes by Israelis or explanations that it's Israeli/biblical/settler terminology) while "West Bank" gets over 9,000? Doesn't that indicate that your interpretation of this quote, and the conclusions you draw from it (that the International Herald Tribune is a user of the term "Samaria") might be inconsistent with reality? MeteorMaker (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes the IHT article so damning to the neologism-pushers is that not only does it use the term Samaria, it states that the region is known by that name.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're having grammar difficulties again; the IHT article certainly does not say the region is known by that name. "West Bank" is not a neologism, and you are, once again, wasting everyone's time with nonsense.--G-Dett (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested that other editors not change my position. I have yet to argue for the non-usage of the term "West Bank". All my arguments are strictly limited to "northern West Bank" and "southern West Bank", terms that have probably been used more often at this talk page then in reliable sources. I hate to say this, but I am harder and harder time assuming that these that these repeated incorrect assertions are good faith mistakes. I am beginning to suspect that you are doing it to hoodwink a neutral reader. I'm sorry that the IHT source you were banking on turned around and bit you in the ass. Btw, if you think I'm not understanding the IHT article correctly, it would be a reading comprehension problem, not a grammar problem, gde-t. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a grammar problem alright: you don't know the difference between participial phrases on the one hand, and verbs in the passive voice on the other. And there's a vocabulary issue in that you think putting an adjective in front of a proper place name yields a new "term" or "neologism." Finally, there's a reading-comprehension issue in that you think a sentence about the 10 tribes of Israel in an article about the biblical resonance of the West Bank for Jewish settlers establishes that the term "Samaria" is a standard, current geographic term as opposed to a biblical and ideological one.--G-Dett (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-grammar lessons aside, you can't change the plain meaning of the article. Remember, this is a daily newspaper, not a scholarly article. To that end, it's ridiculous to argue that the writer of the article was delving into an etymological and historical exegesis about the difference between Samaria's official name and the name it was "known by" during the times of Menashe. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] It would be very ridiculous indeed to argue that "the writer of the article was delving into an etymological and historical exegesis about the difference between Samaria's official name and the name it was "known by" during the times of Menashe" – which, I think, is why no one is saying that or anything remotely like it. I do not even understand that hypothetical "argument," much less subscribe to it; and I certainly don't see what it could possibly have to do with what we've been talking about.

You are trying to demonstrate that "Samaria" is a standard, contemporary, geographic term rather than a biblical, historical, and ideological one. Astonishingly, you hope to do this with a sentence about the 10 historical tribes of Israel in an article called "The Biblical Significance of West Bank Settlements":

IT'S IN THE BIBLE: The four West Bank settlements that Israel is evacuating are all located in the biblical Land of Israel — territory that observant Jews believe was promised to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria, was inhabited by the tribe of Menashe, one of the 10 tribes of Israel that were forced into exile. One of the settlements, Sanur, is in the Dotan Valley, an ancient trade route where the Bible says Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers.

You're clutching the phrase "known as northern Samaria" to your chest because you think it's a present-tense verb in the passive voice. It isn't. It's a participial phrase. Participial phrases function adjectivally. Their temporality is ambiguous, and has to be deduced from the context.

When the IHT was reporting on the flattening of Rafah camp in Gaza in 2004, they wrote the following:

For Palestinians the scenes broadcast Sunday and Monday of refugees carrying mattresses and clothes as they streamed from the camp recalled images of the Nakba, or catastrophe, when some 700,000 Paslestinian Arabs fled or were forced from their homes during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948.

That's front-page reporting, not an op-ed. Does this (and other quotes like it) mean we should use the word "Nakba" in Wikipedia's neutral voice to describe the expulsion and flight of Palestinians in 1948? I say no, because the context here is clearly Palestinian perceptions, the Palestinian experience. This technique – whereby word choice is influenced by the subjective views of those being discussed – is called free indirect discourse. It is extremely common in novels, essays, and so on; somewhat less common in straight journalism; and unheard of in encyclopedic prose.--G-Dett (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset) No-one is disputing that the area is sometimes "known" as Judea and Samaria, or Samaria alone for some portion thereof (was that one of those "strawman" attacks that Jayjg complains of so often?) What does appear to be in dispute - although I am a little confused as to how this dispute is still going on - is whether it is an equivalent or standard alternative term to the mainstream "West Bank"; or rather one used by a small minority of sources, and which attempts to revive biblical terminology in order to assert a (minority, again) political viewpoint based around Israeli irredentism. To labour the point, we could of course always open up the Israel article by saying it is "also known as the Zionist Entity", or that George W. Bush is "also known as Dubya". Both statements are entirely true, however are of course equally misleading because they suggest a false equivalence and provide no context. WP will better serve its readers if it explains that Judea and/or Samaria are not standard terms, while nonetheless briefly explaining that they are occasionally used in some places by some people, for very specific reasons. --Nickhh (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The current compromise is getting too overlawyered and we are doing a disservice to our readers. How about just putting "northern West Bank" and "southern West Bank" in parentheses after each mention of "Judea" and/or "Samaria"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We should use a controversial, ideologically loaded biblical term in the neutral voice, and then put the ubiquitous standard accepted term in parentheses? Wtf?--G-Dett (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to an editor's comment with "wtf?" is not the most conducive way to further a civil discussion. It's also slightly annoying when you act shocked when you really know that the proposal is not that shocking. Indeed, you responded with less theatrics on this talk page to other editors stances' that were less appealing to your POV. In any case, I have offered a resolution. You think it's "wtf?". Fair enough. Would you like to offer a compromise or are you entrenched in your position? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Offering a "compromise" that ignores everything that's been discussed and established on this talk page is not the most conducive way to further a civil discussion, Brewcrewer.--G-Dett (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read the arguments and accordingly modified my position. You haven't budged. I'm the one that's ignoring what's being discussed? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Budge? I'll budge this way and that, and I'm fine with any number of compromise positions – including but not limited to MeteorMaker's. I only ask that what we end up with should reflect the conclusive upshot of the months-long discussion we've had here, that "Samaria" is an ideologically loaded Biblical term for the northern West Bank.--G-Dett (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lovely, you'll accept any compromise that does not involve you actually compromising. Won't fly, but you gotta appreciate the effort. Some people might actually fall for that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources say that "Samaria" is a Biblical term and a loaded one. All literate people including you know this; the fact that you've wasted such a colossal amount of time forcing editors to "prove" it is not an argument for "compromise."--G-Dett (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sources say that, others do not, and many sources have been shown using it in a non-biblical non-loaded context. All literate people including you know this; the fact that you've wasted such a colossal amount of time forcing editors to "prove" it is not an argument for non-compromise. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The appearence of the parrot argument generally marks the point where argumentation ceased and the discussion entered the WP:IDHT phase. Try and find reliable sources for your claims, or kindly stop wasting everybody's time. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Which claim would you like a reliable source for? Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You can begin with "the terms [J+S] are not biblical" [9]. Then, if you can find some support for your claim above that "the authors themselves are not Israeli" (sources 36-42 on this list, and if you have time, your claim that "sources are the venues in which material is published - not the authors themselves", which you claimed entitles you to insert "British and American", the nationalities of the publishers, in the sentence "the northern West Bank (referred to as Samaria by Israeli sources)" [10]. Above all, what RS do you base your persistent attempts on to add "Samaria" to this and other articles despite the overwhelming evidence that it's both partisan and Israel-specific? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The statement ""the terms [J+S] are not biblical" does not seem to appear in the article. The statement ""the authors themselves are not Israeli" also does not appear to be in the article. Same goes for "sources are the venues in which material is published - not the authors themselves". Perhaps you are a little confused on the topic of "reliable sources", and their use in Wikipedia - WP:RS are required for claims made in articles, not for user comments on talk pages. So, again, Which claim would you like a reliable source for? make sure it actually a claim made in the article this time. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the confusion is on your part. If you base an edit on something, that something needs to be a reliable source. I take your above post as an admission that your recent edits have not been based on reliable sources but on something that is apparently your mere opinion. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to budge on. You've an opinion. This is going to be decided on evidence and on wiki principles of NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. Did you think I was just budging from my personal preference? I was budging from my position that the evidence, wiki principles, and npov do not allow for usage of new cool terms. CM and I are the only editors that have offered or agreed to any sort of compromise offer here at this talk page. A position of "There's nothing to budge on" is not ideal for a project that is built through a collaborative effort.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How a term that has been in use for at least 40 years is too "new and cool" to be allowed on WP is beyond me, and FWIW, Judea and Samaria is also from the class of '67. Roughly what year would you suggest as a breakpoint for terms that are too new and cool for Wikipedia? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yada, yada. You have made no attempt to address the evidence, and have misrepresented matters by defining 'West Bank' as a 'new cool term'. Wiki procedures, as frequently mentioned, do not mean that where there is an impasse, a compromise must be the solution. That only lends itself to gaming, for technically, any falsehood could be half-admitted if anyone chose to insist that he would not relent in his or her opposition until at least part of his POV is accepted. Finally, at the bottom of the page, two editors have asked those who are holding out to answer a few simple questions. No one has deigned so far to reply. You're here, please reply, with logic and evidence, not an opinion.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, you accuse me of "misrepresenting matters" in the same sentence in which you misrepresent what I said. I never claimed that "West Bank" is a "new cool term". It's also a slight "misrepresentation" to consider us "holdouts" and you guys the great progressives when it is the "holdouts" that have offered and agreed to compromise their positions. The only thing the "holdouts" have received in return are insults. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the "bottom of the page questions". If you're referring to the snide summary in which the editor established conditions for any response, my reply there answers your question. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay the 'new cool' term consists of adding the adjective 'northern' to the West Bank? Those who have argued for the positions you oppose are not 'progressives' (a political term). They are people who have worked assiduously to reply in great detail, with much time focused on sources, to both demonstrate what is obvious, and to show the partisan character of the formulation you and a few others prefer. The argument is strictly one of NPOV terminology, and the range of quality sources adduced that specifically identify the terms Samaria and Judea as settler-language, with a strong POV, is overwhelming. (b) The range of sources that explicitly analyse this very problem, and define 'West Bank' as the most neutral term outweigh any argument advanced against it. This has been done exhaustively, and most of the counterthread has consisted of challenges to Meteormaker, or factitious hairsplitting. We are still arguing here only out of politeness. Because it has been evident that the two positions cannot be synthesied without infringing NPOV, or making for a wiki-specific horror of compromise jargon for what is a simple territorial designation. As to the bottom of the page, I placed in the second last section, a simple logical question. 'Judea and samaria' are, according to academic sources, POV terms. It was argued that 'Samaria' or 'Judea' alone weren't, and we were asked for sources to show that the terms, in isolation, had been proven to be POV. Even that request was satisfied, but holdouts fell silent. So I raised a simple question dealing with the logic of classes. What applies as a definition of a class or subset applies in logic to the elements that constitute that class or subset. If 'Judea and Samaria' constitute a subset of the class 'terms in Palestinian topology', and it is established that 'Judea and Samaria' is regarded as POV, it follows in logic that either of the two terms, viewed as an element of the collective subset, must be POV (as indeed G-dett showed with a specific source). So tell me why the logic of definitions is to be suspended uniquely here?Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: Your proposal is, like CM's edit here, pretty outrageous. If you're really concerned about potential disservices to the readers, how about not introducing biased and (in CM's case) incorrect information in the first place? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume that CM was kidding, or there is some serious confusion on his part about the relationship between academic freedom in publishing, NPOV, and citation protocols on Wikipedia. Brewcrewer by contrast appears to be serious about his proposal, even though it's offered in complete ignorance of everything that's been discussed and established on this talk page for several months.--G-Dett (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Elonka I know you are only using the BBC as an example here, but CM did cite it above more explicitly as a "British" source which used the word Samaria. Anyway, just to note - as far as I can tell, this is the BBC page being cited, however the word Samaria does not in fact appear in it, even in the reader comments. As I have maintained at length here, the word "Samaria" or the combined term "Judea and Samaria" is virtually never used in the mainstream UK media, or in political discourse in the UK more generally. For the same reasons as it is not used in most parts of the world - as pointed out, explained and referenced ad nauseam. Note Nishidani has started a new section below about the exact wording that might be best here. --Nickhh (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - the BBC is not one of the sources. I'll correct it momentarily. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there are a several "Samaria" quotes from Israeli politicians and newspapers on the BBC site, you can certainly wikilawyer the BBC into the article too, like you can every news provider that has ever quoted an Israeli source, and like you are trying to do with several publishing houses now [11]. It would just make the joke more obvious however. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Nickhh, I have now added a note on Judea and Samaria in the terminology section. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should Wikipedia avoid the terms "Judea", "Samaria", and "Palestine" when describing "Israel" and the "West Bank" in Wikipedia's "neutral voice"?

User:G-Dett has stated that "Israel" and the "West Bank" are the widely accepted terms. "Judea," "Samaria," and "Palestine" are not, and argued that the terms should not be used in Wikipedia's "neutral voice". (e.g. [12]). Do you agree? Should Wikipedia avoid the terms "Judea", "Samaria" and "Palestine" when describing "Israel" and the "West Bank" in Wikipedia's neutral voice?

Agree

• The toponyms Judea and Samaria have been extensively discussed on this talk page [13][14][15] and elsewhere [16][17][18]. The facts that have emerged in the course of that discussion conclusively show that the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" are not widely used in English, and that their modern usage is confined almost exclusively to Israel. Thus, they are not compliant with WP:NCGN and WP:UNDUE, and above all not with WP:NPOV. For the record, I disagree strongly with the premise of this RfC: to bundle two country-specific minority terms (that are never used by neutral sources or the other side in the conflict) with a term that is widely used by neutral media and by both sides in the conflict. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• I concur with Meteormaker's analysis. both Judea and Samaria are deeply problematical, since both terms reflect only Israeli usage. Palestine is less problematical, but better left out of the equation. There are two ways of achieving NPOV. (a) Using standard international terminology irrespective of what local feuding parties say (b) Waive (a) and arrive at a wiki-specific 'consensus' that melds the two regional POVs. Introduce Judea, Samaria and Palestine and you will have several months of RfC, arbitration, vote-stacking, and the usual wiki mess, which is the product only of 'who showed up' for the vote and rarely the outcome of informed analysis. I think wiki should not invent its own terminology, by the happenchance of a handful of editors deciding what the encyclopedia should write, but rather follow usage as that is given by the best scholarly authorities, international law, and international bodies. I.e. option (a)Nishidani (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

• I agree that neither 'Judea and Samaria' nor 'Palestine' should be used to describe the West Bank in Wikipedia's neutral voice. I disagree that 'Samaria' should not be used to describe the geographic region which is the mountainous part of the northern west bank, because 'Samaria' is a neutral geographic term, which is not synonymous with "West bank" or even "Northern West bank". There are areas of the northern west bank which are not in Samaria (for example the Israeli settlements of Shadmot Mehola which is in the Jordan Rift Valley), and vice versa - there are areas where Samaria extends beyond the West Bank into Israel - such as the split village of Baq'a. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional discussion

[Reply to MeteorMaker's comment]

• Are you seriously claiming that "Palestine" is a neutral term for "Israel" or the "West Bank"? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I am claiming it's used a lot more in neutral media than "Judea and Samaria":
  • Foxnews hits for "Palestine": 2,200
  • Foxnews hits for "Judea and Samaria": 75
  • Reuters hits for "Palestine": 6.680
  • Reuters hits for "Judea and Samaria": 143
  • Note that occurrences of Judea and Samaria in neutral media are almost exclusively quotes by Israelis or letters to the editor, or explanations that it's an Israel- (or settler-)specific term. And as I said, unlike "Judea" and "Samaria", "Palestine" is also used by both sides. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Let's look at your links. The first two Foxnews hits for Palestine are for "Palestine Solidarity Committee"[19] and a direct quote of a statement by Usama Bin Ladn[20] Exactly the kind of thing you claim to be objecting to. Your broad search links are clearly spurious. Also, how can one "note" something that is factually false? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Feel free to scratch the first two (of 2,200) then. If you say it's false to state that the exceedingly few instances of "Samaria" in non-Israeli news media generally are quotes by Israelis or letters to the editor, or explanations that it's an Israel- (or settler-)specific term, go ahead and find me some that aren't (in FoxNews' case, at least 38, half of 75). MeteorMaker (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
        • To quote you, If you have a tangible example, please show it, else kindly refrain from posting. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I know you can't return the courtesy (because the cites you postulate simply aren't there), but here are some examples of what I am talking about: Letters to the editor [21][22][23], quotes by Israelis [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32], explanations that it's Israeli (or Biblical) terminology [33][34][35][36][37]. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • Jayjg and MeteorMaker, I believe that everyone here is well aware of your own opinions on the matter. Could you please move this discussion elsewhere, to make it more likely for other uninvolved voices to comment? I think one comment from each of you is sufficient, and the rest of the discussion should be moved elsewhere. Thanks, --Elonka 20:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jayjg that the broad search links are "spurious." One would have to do a lot of WP:OR to demonstrate that none of the links are repetitive, direct quotes, in "scare quotes," or if one were going to use MeteorMaker's criteria, that none were Palestinian in origin, living in the Palestinian territories or has a pony in the race (ie Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt etc). Oh, and then we have to determine that none of the links come from people who have a demonstrated bias against Israel..." Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest, go ahead and do that. See if you can refute all 6,680 on reuters.com alone in one night. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restructured this RfC, to move some of the endless circular argumentation out of the RfC section. To all existing editors on this page, please provide one (1) comment in the RfC section, and then keep the area clear to give other editors a chance to weigh in. Thanks, --Elonka 21:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Here's an interesting point which may be relevant: According to the Jewish Agency for Israel "Judea and Samaria, located on the west bank of the Jordan River.....Over half of Israel's population live in this narrow and vulnerable stretch of land. In addition, much of Israel's industry and economic infrastructure is concentrated there, including its energy and power installations. " [38] Just an annoying political reality which we can just ignore. Judea and Samaria today, "West Bank" tomorrow. Israel today, "Palestine" tomorrow. Control the language and you have won the battle without a shot being fired. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, I'm afraid I must again draw your attention to the fact that you are muddling issues. You have not understood the source you cite. Understandably since the source is written with tactical ambiguity to induce in the reader confusion or misprisions. Israel's population exceeds 7 million people, and therefore the 'half of Israel's population' referred to (let alone half of its industrial infrastructure) does not refer to Israelis in the West Bank (or industry sited in the West Bank), who number 187,00 settlers, and some 177,000 in East Jerusalem, a mere 17% of the West Bank population (CIA Factbook 2008). It refers apparently to Israelis in the narrow band between the West Bank and the Mediterranean (i.e. the whole text describes a part of Israel, not the West Bank). The population of the West Bank, a distinct demographic reality, amounts to 2,407,681 people as of June this year, of which 83% are Palestinian Arab. This is the 'important political reality' you ignore, that the West Bank is overwhelmingly Arab, identifies itself as Palestinian, and cannot be represented by the terminology preferred by the occupying power if NPOV criteria are to be observed. International terminology, the language of the International Court of Justice, the CIA, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, diplomatic protocols, should be the default terms to avoid these ethnic confusions.Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The only way that can be seen as relevant is if it's read as the credo of a nationalist POV-pusher. We are not here to do battle, we are here to try to improve Wikipedia. EDIT: Referring to the last two sentences in TB's post above. As for the first three, it never occurred to me that he might have thought his source says Israelis are a majority in the West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As this is a dispute about usa of terminology we need, non-partisan, secondary sources discussing the usage of the terminology, not original research about uses of the terminology (whether from neutral or partisan sources). Probably in this case we need to point out in the article what the various names are and what the motivation/provenance of those names is. But, to repeat, this will require 2nd sources which discuss those issues, not simply sources which use the various terms. Misarxist 09:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just updated the list of all sources presented so far that discuss the usage of the terminology. [39]. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

None of those sources discuss the usage of terminology; rather, they are examples of uses of terminology, exactly what Misarxist is saying you should stop using. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of this list. The one I linked to is in fact entirely devoted to sources that discuss usage, and nothing else. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I was thinking of exactly that list. The first list you link to is simply a series of sources that disprove your ever-changing theories. None of the sources in the second list, your list, discuss the usage of terminology; they don't say things like "the term Samaria is used only in Israel" or "Samaria is a historical term, used today only by Israelis, Zionists, or people who belonged to Zionist organizations in their youth". That sort of thing. Instead, they simply list how various sources have used the term - exactly what Misarxist is objecting to (and which I have repeatedly objected to in the past). Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That's strange — when I read it, it contains nothing but sources that discuss modern usage [40], whereas the list that you say disproves it contains only examples of usage. Have you tried cleaning your browser cache?

Let's check: Can you see the latest additions, near the bottom? One should say:

"Israelis often refer to the northern West Bank region by its biblical name of Samaria."[41]

MeteorMaker (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You've actually found one source that discusses the use of the term! Bravo. Admittedly, its quite brief, and just a news-channel, but still, infinitely better than the reams of anecdotal evidence you provided before. Unfortunately, though, it doesn't actually support any of your theories, since it doesn't discuss the use of the term outside Israel, or how well the "toponym" is understood there. Still, a good first try; at least it's the right kind of source, if not exactly the content and quality one would hope for. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

MM has provided scores of excellent sources explicitly discussing the term, and scores more can be provided. Your theory that when both terms "Samaria" and "Judea" are discussed together, then the term "Samaria" is not being discussed, was goofy to begin with and has been demolished.--G-Dett (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Is "Judea and Samaria" a term that leans slightly towards the Israeli POV then the Arab POV? Sure. However, that doesn't mean it cannot be used. Unless another option is offered, we can't wipe out all mentions of those terms when describing a specific geographic area. The "West Bank" is the greater geographic area and should not be used when a smaller geographic entity would be more descriptive. It's only a POV problem when one POV term is being used over another POV term. There is no alternative widely used term to describe specific geographic entities within the West Bank. To remove all mention of "Judea and Samaria" in WP is quite a gross POV violation. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry about all mention of "Judea and Samaria" being removed from WP, it has its own article and category for one thing. However, the term itself expresses nothing that West Bank does not, except perhaps the slight bias you note. "Samaria" suffers from the same issues with WP:NPOV, in addition to being inconsistent with WP:NCGN and simply confusing to many non-Israelis [42]. Using "northern West Bank" solves both problems neatly. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The terms "Samaria" and "Judea" are POV terms for the northern and southern West Bank, respectively. The non-POV term for "Samaria" is "northern West Bank." No one is proposing expunging the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" from WP. They just can't be used in Wikipedia's neutral voice for the northern and southern West Bank, that's all.

The pleonastic phrase "northern Samaria region of the West Bank" does not add descriptive specificity; it just clumsily smuggles in a POV word. "Northern West Bank" is the neutral and equally descriptive phrase, and it has the added benefit of avoiding clumsy pleonasm. If you think the months-long edit war over this arises out of a passion for accuracy, then I've got a bridge to sell you.--G-Dett (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be first in line to support the use of "Northern West Bank" and Southern West Bank" if they were terms that were in the same playing field as Judea and Samaria. Compare the ghits. Using the far more popular term is no POV, but using a far less term in its stead is a POV.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you're first in line for that bridge so don't get hasty and jump in another line, lest you lose your place in the first.

The relevant "g-hits" comparison is between "northern West Bank" and "northern Samaria region of the West Bank." The results are 119,000 and 347; or 343 to 1.--G-Dett (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)"Northern Samaria region of the West Bank" doesn't make sense because it's redundant. It should either be "northern West Bank" or the "Samaria region of the West Bank." Let the one with the far superior ghits win. -brewcrewer (yada, yada)

"Northern West Bank" gets 119,000 hits; "Samaria region of the West Bank," 307. Done.--G-Dett (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha, nice try. I was referring to my initial ghits comparison between "Samaria" and "northern West Bank." brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What the...???

You wrote, It should either be "northern West Bank" or the "Samaria region of the West Bank." Let the one with the far superior ghits win.

"Northern West Bank" won. By a lot. With you reffing.--G-Dett (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, maybe you must have to consider being first in line to support the use of "Northern West Bank" and "Southern West Bank". The field is in fact much more level than it first appears; subtract all web pages about ancient/biblical Samaria, Crete's Samaria Gorge, other places called Samaria, people (and ships) named Samaria, the Korean movie Samaria, companies, churches and religious orgs with Samaria in their names, book titles unrelated to the area, bands and art projects with Samaria in their names, the basic element samarium, and above all, the thousands of hits to WP derivative sites. (The same goes for Judea). In my experience, less than one twelfth remains after this basic Google pruning (all except an insignificant percentage of Israeli origin). Also, you should really subtract all sites that use the compound designator "Judea and Samaria", because that does not compete against "Northern West Bank" or "Southern West Bank", but against "West Bank".MeteorMaker (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that Brewcrewer's raw-ghits methodology is flawed, but it should be noted that even when we follow it to the letter, "northern West Bank" wins by a ratio of 429 to 1.--G-Dett (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely there's false positives with the northern/southern scheme as well. But I take issue with your fundamental point. Of course there are some Samaria hits that aren't referring to the geographic region. But the "Samaria's" that they are referring to are "Samaria's" that have been named after the original Samaria. Thus, the very fact that Samaria is of such a historical significance that she has other things names after her only adds to the notability, acceptance, and importance of the name Samaria. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Graceful retreat. Welcome in the line to support the use of "Northern West Bank" and "Southern West Bank". ;)

Footnote: Samarium is not named after Samaria. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing emboldens the confidence in my assertions more then counterarguers resorting to misconstruing my statements. I have yet to "retreat" from the powerful Google evidence that Samaria is far more widely used term then "northern West Bank" and "Judea" is a far more widely used term then "southern West Bank". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you have retreated from your position that It should either be "northern West Bank" or the "Samaria region of the West Bank." Let the one with the far superior ghits win. You retreated, if I remember correctly, as soon as you realized your horse had lost. You seem to embolden easily.--G-Dett (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing misconstrued, you said you "would be first in line to support the use of "Northern West Bank" and "Southern West Bank" if they were terms that were in the same playing field as "Judea" and "Samaria"". You got 184,000 "ghits" for "Northern West Bank" and 2,550,000 for "Samaria". I pointed out that you have to subtract all occurrences of "Judea and Samaria", because they compete against the whole West Bank, not particular parts of it (remains 2,000,000), and then divide the result by a factor of 12 in order to filter out irrelevant hits (see above). 2,000.000/12 = 167,000. As you said, "let the one with the superior ghits win". You may disagree with the exact correction factor I've chosen to compensate for things like Korean movies and geological formations on Crete, but you should do so after actually performing a thorough study (like I did), not just blindly disagree.

Additionally, G-Dett showed you that of the two alternatives you suggested ("it should either be "northern West Bank" or the "Samaria region of the West Bank"), "Northern West Bank" wins by a ratio of 429 to 1. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The cute little foregoing "gotcha" attempt doesn't really require a response. As for the other points: I don't know how in the world it can be understood that I was retreating when I proclaimed: "[b]ut I take issue with your fundamental point". Again, whether the mathematical maneuverings are legit or not is irrelevant. The vast majority of the "removed hits" can still be used towards establishing the popularity of the terms Judea and Samaria. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The founders of towns like Samaria, Indiana would probably object to such attempts to enroll them in the I/P conflict, and maybe you could ask Kim Ki-Duk too if he intended his movie "Samaria/Samaritan Girl" ([22,500 hits]) to be used as a tool to sneak in partisan terminology in Wikipedia. Honestly, I thought you were joking. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then, it's just too bad on those founders. But I do suspect that if you bring the founders up from the dead and ask them if they would like to change the name of their community to "Northern West Bank" they wouldn't be interested.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's my point: They did not name the place as an attempt to take sides in the I/P conflict. MeteorMaker (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume that's a joke. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume you do not think they did, which makes your suggestion to commandeer their town as a vehicle for smuggling partisan terminology into WP even more outlandish. MeteorMaker (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think it's very funny that you can argue with a straight face that the intention of the founders of the town is relevant to the notability of the term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't that your point? That's why I perceived it as a joke in the first place. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, the fact that the founders of the city decided to name their city after the original Samaria is relevant to the notability of the term. Where these founders came down on the I-P conflict is wholly irrelevant. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, I guess we could mention that. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? That they named it after the original Samaria? Who do you think they named if after? "mention it"? Where would it be mentioned? It's unimportant. Let me try one more time: The very fact that Samaria is around for such a long time and has other things named after it adds to the notability of the term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we could add that piece of trivia to the Samaria article, if you find it important and if it can be sourced. It doesn't make the modern usage of the term less POV though. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's important to the overall notability of the term, but it's not intrinsically notable. However, you can obviously add it to the article, it you'd like. But I am encouraged by your new POV argument (responded to further down). I'll take that you conceded the point of notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As trivia, yes. As I said, it's completely irrelevant in the context we are discussing. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Brewcrewer, how often is Shomron, Hebrew for what Western tradition after the Septuagint and Joseph called Samaria, used in the Tanakh and Talmud as a topological designation for what is now called the northern West Bank, or following Christian usage, Samaria?Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No comprende. Your question is a bit unclear.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It just occurred to me (I'm slow sometimes) that "Samaria" is an international term, while "northern West Bank" is a purely English one. We get tons of German, Swedish, Polish pages and so on, and they need to be filtered out too. Applying the language filter to Google Search, we find that of the initial 2,500,000 hits, over one fifth are non-English [43]. After subtracting "Judea and Samaria", 1,470,000 remain [44], which we divide by the correction factor (see above) 12. Voilá, we're down to 122,500. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, your "analysis" is incorrect. The very fact that it's a international and global term that has a long history which mostly, if not all, originated from the original Samaria, establishes the greater notability of the term versus the "northern west bank" term which are only found in english language newspapers in the last few years. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The analysis is based on the simple fact that "Northern West Bank" is a strictly English term, and "Samaria" occurs in several languages, which obviously skews the comparison you made. Either you look up the equivalent for "Northern West Bank" in all languages that call the place "Samaria" and add the result to the total, or you subtract the non-English "Samaria" hits, whichever is easiest for you. I'll await your result with bated breath and your explanation how mine was "incorrect". MeteorMaker (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Still more result-skewing factors to consider: "Northern West Bank" has several alternatives, like "Northern part of the West Bank" (22,600 hits), "Northern portion of the West Bank" (2,450 hits), "North West Bank" (62,700 hits, with "Israel" as additional search term to filter out most false positives). As a rough estimate, that makes it at least twice as common as "Samaria". Indeed, let the one with the superior "ghits" win. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The RFC question is "terms such as "Judea", "Samaria", and "Palestine" are POV, and should not be used in Wikipedia's neutral voice", per G-Dett's earlier formulation. That is what you need to comment on. I haven't read any of G-Dett's recent comments, but I'm sure she still agrees with the point she made several times just a couple of weeks ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I wonder who else he isn't reading. Perhaps someone whom he is reading could ask him?

This might explain the entrenched quality of his recent posts, their apparent unfamiliarity with the sources adduced and their rote repetition of discredited positions.

When the person whom he is still reading asks him who else besides me he isn't reading, he or she might also just let him know that I told him or her to say to him that yes, I still think POV terms are inappropriate for Wikipedia's neutral voice, but that that still leaves a lot of room for their use on Wikipedia in other contexts. For example in historical contexts, such as those of many of the sources he's adduced, in his mistaken belief that their contexts are not historical because they were written and/or published recently. If he wants further clarification, perhaps he can ask him or her to report back to me and ask me for it, and I'll respond on my own talk page, and have him or her (the intermediary) leave a note on his (Jay's) talk page alerting him to the fact that I, G-Dett, have responded elsewhere, which note he can then delete, per his big yellow box.--G-Dett (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• In order to step back a bit can we at least agree "Judea", "Samaria", or "Palestine" are not just going to disappear? For example two seemingly 'legitimate' uses in this article might be "Judea and Samaria" for the Israeli administrative which includes all (I believe, is this correct?) the current settlements and "Palestine" for the broader geographical area (and it's attendant claims of statehood) in which all the settlements are located. Both of these usages, in different ways, are more or less descriptive. As to more specific terms, "Judea" and "Samaria" it would seem that these are sufficiently politicly loaded that if they're used their usage needs to be qualified (with agreed upon RS, not OR etc). The same might apply to "West Bank", although that seems to the most commonly used English term for the area encompassing the current settlements. But in working out the details we need to remember that we're here to write about what these terms refer to, not to get involved in the politics of naming. Misarxist 14:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Misarxist, I somehow missed this til now. You're absolutely right that there are many, many contexts in which it would be appropriate to use the terms. "Samaria," "Judea," and "Palestine" are all appropriate in certain historical, Biblical, and literary contexts; and "Palestine" is appropriate in discussions of national stamps, Olympic teams, etc, as well as in certain future-oriented discussions regarding the two-state solution. The combined term "Judea and Samaria" might be appropriate in certain technical administrative/governmental contexts, since it's an official Israeli term for a district of occupied territory. And of course all of these terms are appropriate in direct quotation, or in contexts where the use and implications of the terms themselves is being discussed.

What is inappropriate is using these terms in casual, contemporary, supposedly neutral reference to the West Bank (in whole or in part). It is as inappropriate, that is, to say Israel unilaterally dismantled settlements in Samaria as it is to say Israel unilaterally dismantled settlements in Palestine. Yes, some voices argue that the term "West Bank" is itself POV, but the fact remains – and both sides of the partisan RS divide agree on this – that "West Bank" is by far the dominant, standard term, used by the overwhelming majority of mainstream reliable sources.

The argument for using "Samaria" here has been that (a) "Samaria" is a neutral, contemporary geographic term; and (b) it adds specificity to the disputed sentence. Argument (b) is clearly spurious; this is not a two-month edit war over specificity, and "northern West Bank" adds all the specificity of "Samaria" without the POV problems. As for argument (a), no one has brought sources describing "Samaria" being a neutral, contemporary geographic term. On the contrary, the reliable sources are very clear that it's a "biblical" and historical term. Haaretz says simply, "Samaria is the biblical name for the northern West Bank." (This is after quoting a West Bank settlement spokesman who uses the term "Samaria"; needless to say, Haaretz itself consistently uses the accepted terms "West Bank" and "northern West Bank" when writing in its neutral voice.) The New York Times also describes it as "the biblical name for the northern West Bank," (again here). According to the Los Angeles Times, what it calls in its neutral voice the "northern West Bank" was "historically referred to by its biblical name, Samaria" (emphasis added). According to the Washington Post, "Samaria" is "the biblical name for the northern West Bank." The Washington Times as well: "Samaria is the biblical name for the northern West Bank."

According to CNN, "Israelis often refer to the northern West Bank region by its biblical name of Samaria." And finally, here's USA Today on use of the term for what it describes in its neutral voice as "the hills of northern West Bank":

Physically, the mountainous settlements are harder for the army to close off. But ideologically, for settlers who only refer to this region by its biblical name, Samaria, this land is on an even higher ground.[45]

Again, the only voices claiming that "Samaria" is a neutral, contemporary, widely accepted geographic term are partisan Wikipedians. No reliable sources. Meanwhile, the actual reliable sources make very clear that the term is biblical and historical, and that its contemporary use is ideologically freighted.--G-Dett (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Samaria and Judea

(2)‘Begin was happy to castigate the media and the intelligentsia for their views, real and imaginary, and their use of politically incorrect language. Israeli television was now instructed to use “Judea and Samaria’ for the administered territories, annexation became ‘incorporation’ and the Green Line suddenly disappeared from maps of Israel and the West Bank’. Colin Shindler, A History of Modern Israel, Cambridge University Press, 2008 p.174

(3)'use of the terms Judaea and Samaria, the biblical names for the West Bank, also makes a political statement about Israel’s claims over those lands. When Menachem Begin became Prime Minister in 1977, he insisted that the government news media (radio and television use these terms; when the Labor party against took power in 1992, the broadcast authorities went back to using the more neutral term of “the territories”. The foreign press consistently refers to these lands as “occupied territories”. Each of these terms offers a different perspective on the legitimacy of the Palestinian uprising.’ Gadi Wolfsfeld, Media and Political Conflict: News from the Middle East,Cambridge University Press, 1997, p.162 (note:'Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are the historic biblical terms for the areas 'known to the rest of the world as the West Bank and Gaza.’ ibid.p.82)

These show that politicial pressure, by Likud after 1977, accounts for the diffuse use of this language in Israeli sources after that date. The following sources underline the fact that Judea and Samaria are the preferred terms, as Lustick has been cited for noting by Meteormaker, pushed by a settler-extremist constituency endeavouring with some success to wage an 'ideological assault . . on terminology' in order to change the terms of thinking about the 'territories', an ideological manipulation over the 1980s which encountered resistence in journalists who hewed to the more neutral language of 'the West Bank'.

(4)'‘The reluctance of the editors to use the group’s preferred terminology is apparent in regard to the term “Judea and Samaria,” preferred by the settlers to describe the geographical area of settlement. The journalists usually referred to this area as “the territories” or “the West Bank.” A reporter for Ha’aretz explained that the paper uses the term “West Bank” in order to maintain objectivity. The journalists interviewed stated that they used their own terminology in order to avoid manipulation by the group covered. However, it seems that it is the social-ideological distance from the group that determines the journalists’ unwillingness to use local terminology.’ Eli Avraham, Behind Media Marginality: : Coverage of Social Groups and Places in the Israeli Press, Lexington Books, 2003 p.119

(5)‘No less meaningful was Gush Emunim’s ideological assault on the Israeli public agenda, way of thinking, cultural code and terminology. Particularly effective was its double talk. Toward their own religious-nationalistic ‘constituency’, members of the Gush employed the primordial symbols of ‘land and blood’. Towards the secularists they used the rhetoric of ‘pioneering settlement’ and ‘security’. The secular hard-liners, or ‘hawkish’-(p.235 oriented elites, never possessed such an arsenal of emotional terms of abundance of associations as did their religious partners. The ‘West Bank’ became ‘Judea and Samaria’, or ‘Yesha’ – which is not just an acronym for ‘Judea, Samaria, and Gaza Strip’, but also literally means ‘salvation’ or’redemption’. Stuart Cohen, Democratic Societies and Their Armed Forces; : Israel in Comparative Context, Taylor & Francis 2000 p.236

(6)As part of the government's policy of shoring up the standing of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), from time to time the Israel Defense Forces raid homes of civilians. They pull out people suspected of belonging to the second Palestine - the Gaza Strip. J., a 35-year-old native of Khan Yunis, was living with his wife in Ramallah until he was arrested on suspicion of being "an illegal sojourner in Judea and Samaria." That's the official Israeli term to define Palestinians - not Israelis, Indians or Dutch - who reside in the territories of Palestine. This is what is written in a letter from the bureau of legal adviser of the Judea and Samaria District to Hamoked, the Center for the Defense of the Individual, which came to the aid of J. Akiva Eldar, ‘ Construction plans? The court doesn't care’

(7)‘The importance of changing names in the process of conquering territory is well known. Assimilation of the name “Judea and Samaria” in normal and official language, as well as in jargon, attests to G(ush)E(numin)’s political and cultural achievements.' Gideon Aran,‘Jewish Zionist Fundamentalism: The Block of the Faithful in Israel (Gush Enumin),’ in Martin E.Marty, R. Scott Appleby,(eds.)Fundamentalisms Observed , American Academy of Arts and Sciences University of Chicago Press, 1994 pp.265-344, p.291, p.337

(8)‘The previous April (2001), House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas) had told a Jewish group in Washington that Israel should keep Judea and Samaria, using the Likud Party’s terms for the West Bank.’ John Davis, Presidential Policies and the Road to the Second Iraq War: From Forty One to Forty Three, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006 p.179

(9)'The Likud ideology . .was fundamentally different from the Mapai ideology, which later spawned the Labor party. While Mapai believed in pragmatism, and always preferred action to rhetoric, verbiage and symbols, the Revisionists were avid followers of the ‘majestic’ way of doing things, emphasizing the importance of symbols, pride and honor,. Thus, for instance, the Likud Government was not satisfied with the name ‘Administered Territories’. Even though the name ‘Judea and Samaria’ had been officially adopted as early as the beginning of 1968 instead of the ‘West Bank’, it has hardly been used until 1977.. Shlomo Gazit, Trapped Fools: Thirty Years of Israeli Policy in the Territories, Routledge, 2003 p.162

(10)'by calling the territory “Judea and Samaria,” Israelis are calling attention to their Biblical roots in the land and their right to inhabit or control it.' James L. Gelvin, The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War, Cambridge University Press, 2005 p.10

(11) Hawks used the historic Jewish designation – “Judea and Samaria” – for the occupied territories and advocated their integration into Israel on historical, nationalist, and security grounds.’ Alan Dowty, Israel/Palestine, Polity Press, 2005 p.121

(12) ‘settlement activity after the June War was also undertaken by Israelis committed to permanent retention of the West Bank and Gaza. These Israelis referred to the former territory by the Biblical designations of Judea and Samaria, terms employed for the deliberate purpose of asserting that the territorial claims of the Jews predate those of the Arabs, and also to create a subtle but important symbolic distinction between East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.’ Mark A.Tessler, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Indiana University Press, 1994 p.467

(13) ‘The slow but possibly irreversible transformation and destruction of the infrastructure and distinct character of the territories – even the West Bank itself has been renamed ‘Judea and Samaria’, and the major town of Nablus, Shekhem – may not be as dramatic as the daily violations of individual rights, yet they have profound implications for the ability of the Palestinian community to emerge from the occupation as an integral society capable of self-governance and of exercising the fundamental human right of self-determination.’ Emma Playfair, International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Oxford University Press, 1992 p.11 ('‘Although Israel has not formally annexed the Occupied Territories . .there are reactionary forces in Israel that lay claim to the territories – especially the West Bank, renamed Judea and Samaria – on politico-religious grounds.’ p.464)

If Playfair is right and the official Israeli terminology for Nablus is Shechem, why should we adopt the other official terms 'Judea and Samaria' when Wiki already accepts that the Israeli term Shechem for the Arab site, (made at the same time as the switch from 'West Bank' to 'Judea and Samaria') only refers to the historical, biblical town, while the Arab and International term Nablus is the standard word for the city? Both 'Judea and Samaria' and Shechem are Israeli-biblical terms, used by an occupying power, and their use is prevalently an ethnic and national one, as opposed to the international currency of West Bank and Nablus.

(14)'On 17 December 1967, the Israeli military government issued an order stating that “the term “Judea and Samaria region” shall be identical in meaning for all purposes . .to the term “the West Bank Region”. This change in terminology, which has been followed in Israeli official statements since that time, reflected a historic attachment to these areas and rejection of a name that was seen as implying Jordanian sovereignty over them.’ Emma Playfair, International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Oxford University Press, 1992 p.41

(14) implies, though it does not state, that in rejecting the term 'West Bank' for 'Judea and Samaria', Israel was both denying Jordanian sovereignty and affirming, by its use of Biblical terminology, Israeli sovereignty. The 'West Bank' in international usage no longer (after certainly 1994) implies Jordanian sovereignty. 'Judea and Samaria' do, on the evidence, insinuate Israeli sovereignty, or strong POV claims to sovereignty.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(15)(after 1967) '‘Cartographers therefore had many options, which tended to reveal their political proclivities. Those who were sympathetic to Israel labelled the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Hieghts, and Sinai as “administered territories,” and used the phrase “Judea and Samaria” for Jordan’s former West Bank. They also included all of Jerusalem within Israeli territory. Mapmakers who were ideologically neutral generally referred to “occupied territory” and maintained the term “West Bank”.’ Arthur Jay Klinghoffer, Harvey Sicherman,The Power of Projections: How Maps Reflect Global Politics and History, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 p.37

(16)‘During a short period immediately after the 1967-war, the official term employed was ‘the Occupied Territoriesd’ (ha-shetahim ha-kevushim). It was soon replaced by ‘the Administered Territories’ (ha-shetahim ha-muhzakim) and then by the (biblical) Hebrew geographical terms “Judea and Samaria”. The latter were officially adopted and successfully promoted by the right wing governments (since 1977) and are still the official terms in use. . More than reflecting the already mentioned “Hebraization of the map”, they relate to the disputed lands by mere geographical terminology, denying political borders. This wishful “rubbing out” of the border between the Territories and Israel is apparent in yet another right wing favourite: the traditional Jewish term erez yisra’el ‘the Land of Israel’ (“Israel” here means “the Children of Israel”, i.e., the Jews), which makes no distinction between Israel and the Occupied Territories. In between left and right fall terms like “the (West) Bank” and the neutral “Territories” (ha-shetahim).' Ran HaCohen, ‘Influence of the Middle East Peace Process on the Hebrew Language’ in Michael G. Clyne (ed.) Undoing and Redoing Corpus Planning, pp.385-414 p.397

(17)‘Should places be named according to the ancient Hebrew terms of Yehuda and Shomron (Judea and Samaria), which are favorites of the Israeli right wing; Palestine as preferred by Arabs; or the more neutral West Bank (i.e., the geographical designation as the west bank of the Jordan River)?’ Ira Sharkansky, Ambiguity, Coping, and Governance; Israeli Experiences in Politics, Religion, and Policymaking, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999 p.137

(18)‘To the casual reader of many standards works on historical geography or studies of the history of the region, these terms may appear interchangeable or even neutral. But these concepts and imaginary maps are also about power relations. Benedict Anderson in Imaginary Communities, has shown how the seemingly neutral map played a crucial role in conceptualisation and control of European colonial territories. More recently, in his seminal work, The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History (1996), Keith Whitelam has examined the political implications of the terminology of biblical scholarship chosen to represent this are and has shown how the naming of the land implies control and possession of the land. Nur Masalha, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians : The Politics of Expansion, Pluto Press, 2000 pp.3-4

(19)‘Moreover, Israel’s politics were altered by the powerful wave of messianic-mystical nationalism generation by Israel’s acqusisition of Judea and Samaria (In the coded language of Israeli politics, the term “West Bank” is neutral but the biblical term “Judea and Samaria” expresses a claim to the heartlands of Jewish history.)’ Itamar Rabinovich,Waging Peace: Israel and the Arabs, 1948-2003, Princeton University Press, 2004 p.10

(20)‘The West Bank is a politically neutral term for the territory that Israel captured from Jordan in the Six Day War of 1967. Those who refer to it as Judea and Samaria are saying, through their choice of terms, that this territory is historically a part of Israel and should remain so in the future.’ Valerie Wiener,Power Communications: Positioning Yourself for High Visibility, NYU Press, 1994 p.63 (many other instances are given from around the world)

(21)'I would also like to point out the use of certain terms that distort reality – for example, describing the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, and describing or calling areas not by their Arab names but by the name of the settlement, even though these have been Arab towns for hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years.’ Walid al-Omary, senior correspondent for Al Jazeera, accredited in Jerusalem, in The Search for Peace in the Middle East: A Palestinian-Israeli Dialogue: Proceedings of the International Media Encounter on the Question of Palestine, United Nations Publications 2001 p.53

(22)‘Various labels can be used to describe the areas of land captured by Israel during the ‘Six Day War’ of June 1967 (the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights). The least politically problematic terms seems tom me to be ‘the Occupied Territories’ or ‘the Occupied Palestinian Territories’. I use the emic term ‘territories’ as a literal translation of the Hebrew shtachim, the word most commonly used by the ‘Dovish’, liberal Israelis with whom I worked, Simply describing them as ‘Palestine’ seems to me politically problematic and misleading, until a viable Palestinian state is established there (if ever). Other terms, such as Judea-Samaria (Yehuda-Shomron in Hebrew – sometimes combvined with Azza (Gaza) and shortened to Yesha) are used by religious Jews, settlers and many Israelis to the right of the political centre (and are still used in much official Israeli documentation). The implication of the term is that the area weas always part of Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel.’ Richard Wilson, Jon P. Mitchell Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights, Claims and Entitlements, Routledge 2003 p.136 n.2

(23)”Judea” and “Samaria”, biblical terms for regions roughly congruent with the West Bank, are routinely used by the Israeli state and the mainstream Zionist movement to convey a territorial claim and historical presence.’ Ali Abunimah, One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse, Macmillan, 2007 p.196

(24)‘With the advent of the Likud government in 1977, the territories were hgeld to belong to Israel by right, indeed by divine right: there could be no question of expropriating or occupying what was rightfully Israel’s. As of that time, land designated by Israel as public, i.e. ‘state land’, was taken over an given to the only public Israel recognized – the Jewish settlers. The term ‘West Bank’ fell into disuse and ‘Judea’ and ‘Samaria’, the only officially recognized designations, began to be used by the public as neutral terms. The word ‘occupation’ was also definitely dropped. The territories were now ‘administered’, as were the 1.5 million Palestinian inhabitants.’ International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories.'Emma Playfair International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Oxford University Press, 1992p.167

This note from Playfair is helpful. since it suggests 'Judea and Samaria' is a term customary usage has domesticated for an Israeli public to the point that it appears neutral to that national constituency. So is the following, which again underlines how the perceptions of some of those who push for 'Samaria' as neutral may reflect infra-Israeli lexical sensibilities, rather than reflect a grasp of international terminology. If Eva Etzioni-Halevy description is correct, then those who support the 'West Bank' in here are being read through an Israeli/Jewish perception that sees supporters of this term as being 'left-wingish' rather than merely people who follow, as most international authorities would agree, standard global conventions of neutral geographical description I.e.

(25) (In Israel) ‘At the most basic level, the right refers to itself as “The National camp”, the left refers to itself as “The Peace Camp.” Beyond that, Right-wingers are wont to refer to a major part of the territories as “Judea and Samaria”, thus using an emotionally laden Biblical association. Left-wingers refer to the same territories as “The West Bank” (of the River Jordan), thus using a more neutral geographical connotation. Right-wingers are wont to emphasize Jewish historical memories, and the right of the Jewish people over the Land of Israel, left-wingers more frequently speak of humanism, human rights, modernity, rationalism, liberalism and democracy.’ Eva Etzioni-Halevy, The Divided People: Can Israel's Breakup be Stopped?, Lexington Books, 2002 p.125

The next is from a clearly pro-Israeli national position, but useful because it does admit 'Judea and Samaria' are not neutral terms.

(26) ‘There seems to be no neutral way to refer to the land captured by Israel in the Six-Day War. The closest to such is probably ‘the Territories.” Without any adjective such as “occupied” or “administered”. The Territories encompass what is Biblically called Judea and Samaria, as well as the Gaza Strip.. . Those who do not accept the legitimacy of Israel’s claims over Judea and Samaria continue to call them by their pre-1967 Western name, “the West Bank”. Chaim Isaac Waxman, American Aliya: Portrait of an Innovative Migration Movement, Wayne State University Press, 1989 p.229 n.1 Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear from these examples that the insistence on trying to plunk this language into Wiki I/P articles reflects an editorial bias intent on securing a highly-charged, fringe, settler set of terms, later adopted by one political party, Likud, and since secured over some informational constituencies in Israel by political pressure in recent decades, against the neutral terminology defended by journalists in Israel and generally by scholars and international bodies abroad, and thus violates NPOV. Secondly, there is a possibility that 'ìWest Bank' is viewed strictly within an Israeli national perspective, in the Israeli discursive context, as a 'left-wing' term favoured by the Israeli left, if that exists. This nuance has nothing to do with the neutral connotations of the term in standard English Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems from your statment, and do correct me if I'm wrong here, that you are suggesting that Likud and extremist Jewish settlers are the only bodies that use the terms Judea and Samaria. If this is really what you're stating, then it is a clearly false statement and I'd suggest you give a look to sources again. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Nishidani, almost all of your sources refer specifically to the phrase “Judea and Samaria”, not the term "Samaria". Some even described it that was, as the phrase “Judea and Samaria”, or the term “Judea and Samaria”. We're just discussing the term "Samaria" here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing odd about this at all. G-Dett while graciously accepting the challenge you proposed, said that the proposal itself was spurious, but that she would, notwithstanding, try to answer it. I in turn answered the larger question. The error you are making is quite elementary. Let me reframe it in the logic of classes. No one doubts that

• The definition of a class or set extends to the constitutive elements of that class or set.

• Man is a class or set. Constituted of specific entities, men. Man is mortal, hence all men are mortal.

• There is a class of terms that refer to a given area of the Middle East.
• One of those terms is 'Judea and Samaria',(Yehuda ve-Shomron). This is a subset of the set or class of terms for that area.
• Samaria is in turn a subset of the more generic term Yehuda ve-Shomron/Judea and Samaria.
• What applies to the generic subset 'Judea and Samaria' (not neutral, but partisan) applies logically also to either of the two terms which constitute it, here Samaria.

Put more discursively, we are discussing the class of terms for that area, Palestine, Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, etc., and we are asked to determine their relative neutrality, in order to choose the one that is most adequate to wiki requirements of NPOV. What applies, in the authoritative literature, to the subset 'Judea and Samaria' applies also, by logic, to the single elements of the subset. If 'Judea and Samaria' are, as the literature shows, defined as 'not-neutral', 'reflecting the preferred terms of a settler/Gush Enumin/Likud/Israeli right-wing constituency', etc., it follows that this definition extends, in terms of logic, to the elements of the subset, viewed individually. It's that simple. Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Some do (that has been shown to be irrelevant however, you may have missed that part of the discussion). Of Nishidani's 25 cites, eight refer to J and S as separate terms (3, 8, 12, 16, 17, 23, 24, 26), thirteen as one unit (2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22, 25), and the rest (6, 18, 20, 21) are ambiguous. I also direct your attention to G-Dett's post immediately above Nish's, which very unambiguously states that the single term "Samaria" is a "historic term [that] assumed political significance after 1967" and also the following:

"it is used by the Israeli government , Zionists and Israelis, to refer to the modern region, but it is no longer used by others, who prefer the Jordanian term for the entire portion of the land occupied by Israel - "West Bank"."

MeteorMaker (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Continually claiming something as fact, or asserting opinion as fact, when in general the opposite is true, isn't conducive to talk page discussion. In this case, wishful thinking aside, the difference between "Samaria" and "Judea and Samaria" has not "been show to be irrelevant". Regarding the last quote, assuming G-Dett did indeed say that, the only source I can find making this claim is http://zionism-israel.com/ . Are you, or G-Dett, claiming this website is a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look any different from hundreds of other sources that other I/P articles use, and this particular cite is not contradicted by any other cites that have been presented yet, on the contrary [46]. Re your first sentence, finally we agree on something. If you still haven't read G-Dett's posts, we will be in a better position to continue the discussion when you have done so. Alternatively, you could provide a reliable source that supports your somewhat unorthodox position that "Judea" and "Samaria" are two different pieces of land than "Judea" and "Samaria". MeteorMaker (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's odd how you have such difficulty answering simple questions. To repeat, are you, or G-Dett, claiming http://zionism-israel.com/ is a reliable source? If you do not simply answer "yes" to that, then your including it as evidence is meaningless. Also, I have never made the straw man statement that "Judea" and "Samaria" are two different pieces of land than "Judea" and "Samaria". If you have evidence of me making this claim, please provide a diff. Creating a straw man "somewhat unorthodox position" on my behalf is "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". Please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, a strawman argument is a deliberate and substantive distortion of an interlocutor's position. If you think you've been misunderstood or misrepresented, specify in what way. Panicky, repeated, and unsubstantiated claims that one has been "strawmanned" are in fact personal attacks, and at any rate won't be taken seriously. You can avoid even the appearance of pressing "Strawman!" as a panic button in the face of Socratic checkmate simply by clarifying your position in the face of what you feel might be a mischaracterization.--G-Dett (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with #1, but as usual with Jay, he's raising it as a red herring. Of the 26 sources above, nine (1, 3, 8, 12, 16, 17, 18, 23, and 24) deal with "Judea" and "Samaria" as separate terms. Period. To establish good faith, Jay should strike out his totally false statement to the contrary. Of the remaining, I count ten as ambiguous (2,5,6,10, 13, 20, 21, 22, 25, and 26). Only seven (4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19) specify "Judea and Samaria" as a single collective term. All of these sources (along with the scores of others adduced by MM) make clear that these terms are biblical historical terms being applied for political purposes. Jay has brought no sources proposing that "Samaria" is a neutral contemporary geographic term; nor has he brought any sources arguing for a POV-distinction between "Judea and Samaria" used as a singular term and "Samaria" and "Judea" used as individual terms. Different writers make different syntactic choices; the theory that these syntactic choices entail different POV implications is entirely his own. Enough of the wikilawyering; endgame, indeed.--G-Dett (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please reread again my sources and my comments. By the way, now that I have your attention, you have just removed a POV tag from Beit HaShalom, when someone has plunked in there unsourced pseudo-information about the 'Dwek clan' in the text and in a footnote. You've removed the tag, and let stand what very much looks like am abusive manipulation of the article by a supporter of the settler lobby. I hope you'll attend to this, and at least remove unsourced information and correct misspellings etc.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, re You've removed the tag, and let stand what very much looks like am abusive manipulation of the article by a supporter of the settler lobby, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayg, comment on this instead of making baseless accusations please.

I have now updated the discussion of sources page with the latest cites presented in this section. MeteorMaker (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

MeteorMaker, re making baseless accusations, please desist from deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors, and respond to this question instead. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, Nish was not commenting on Jaakobou, only on his edits, and the rules about deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors apply to you too. Have you had time to read any of G-Dett's posts yet, btw? MeteorMaker (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Describing someone's edits as an abusive manipulation of the article by a supporter of the settler lobby is a personal attack. Claiming it is not commenting on Jaakobou, only on his edits is deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Still waiting for your response. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't reply to the reply (maybe you didn't see it), so I assumed you had lost interest. And again, Nish did not comment on Jaakobou, what you construe as a "personal attack" doesn't specify an editor or even a particular edit. Could we go back to the discussion of the sources now? MeteorMaker (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What on earth does this have to do with Jaakobou? Describing someone's edits as an abusive manipulation of the article by a supporter of the settler lobby is a personal attack. Claiming it is not commenting on Jaakobou, only on his edits is deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. It was a personal attack, period, the insertion of "Jaakobou" into the discussion was obvious misdirection. Still waiting for your response. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The project must be in real trouble when a top administrator thinks he must defend an editor with these problems. Nobody with this level of racism ("crack-head Arabs") abuse of sources (caught here yet again) tendentious abuse of TalkPages (both article pages and individuals) and a legendary 19 month filibuster against an 8-1 consensus (described here - an attempt to insert a BLP) has any place editing articles on the Israeli-Palestinian topic. PR^talk 09:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

PR, please stop soapboxing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On top of that, it's logically inconsistent: Jayjg says "What on earth does this have to do with Jaakobou?", then immediately repeats his claim that Jaakobou, and nobody else, has been attacked. Let's take a look at what was actually said. This is what Nish tells Jaakobou (emphasis mine): 'You've removed the tag, and let stand what very much looks like an abusive manipulation of the article by a supporter of the settler lobby". Note that Nish specifies no particular editor (or even a particular edit), which I believe is the most basic requirement for a personal attack. By truncating the quote, Jayjg makes it look like Nish was calling Jaak a "supporter of the settler lobby". The irony in his admonishing me for deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors when I point this out is not lost on me. Instead of indulging in this kind of diversion tactics, including resorting to repeatedly accusing other users of ethnic discrimination, maybe we could return to the topic please? MeteorMaker (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Describing someone's edits as an abusive manipulation of the article by a supporter of the settler lobby is a personal attack. Constant attempts to justify such attacks are a "diversion tactic" and an abuse of the Talk: page. Claiming I "make[] it look like Nish was calling Jaak a "supporter of the settler lobby"" is deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Please desist from all of these inappropriate behaviors. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On I/P pages, there is an inverse relation between the quality of editorial input and the quantity of admonitions about civility, WP:NPA, etc. The poorer the former, the greater the latter. They have several functions, all obvious. In general, it is best to ignore them, unless one intuits a consistent campaign by several editors to dump these accusations against you over many articles, in order to rig a subliminal impression on them that might sway future administrators reviewing yo0ur work or these pages. Children do this kind of niggling at school. Adults should have enough experience to brush it off, as reflecting more on the whiner than on the accused. Nishidani (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary break

just for the record. It seems that distorting what I say in order to trump up an insinuation I violate NPA is the strawman plat du jour (well actually 'crap du jour') I'm served up mechanically now whenever I appear. The default 'mock-up-a-civility-suspicions-rapsheet-to-get-Nishidani-framed-before-future-admins'technique. I suspected this is the point to the Arthur Rubin precedent hanging on my page, and one is amused that it is now be inducted into talk pages with some frequency.

As there, this is now customarily jerryrigged by twisting the straightforward construal of English, and eliding the context. In writing: You (Jaakobou)'ve removed the tag, and let stand what very much looks like an abusive manipulation of the article by a supporter of the settler lobby, the 'supporter of the settler lobby' is not the subject of the sentence. The subject of the sentence is Jaakobou, a distinct person, not to be confused with the poving pro-settler editor whose damage to the encyclopedia I draw Jaakobou's attention to. I therefore noted to Jaakobou an instance of blatant abuse by others of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:Verify on a page he edited some minutes earlier, which I can't remove because I have suspended my editing of articles until the slur on my page about NPA is removed. Does one need to explain that drawing an active editor's attention to a problem on a page he edits, where abusive manipulations of evidence are patently at work, does not constitute an 'attack' on that editor, but rather a nudge to him to edit that page more closely, by actually checking the refs?

Even kids in elementary school in the earlier literate world would see that. The 'supporter' refers to, if you know the record on Beit HaShalom, a series of identities which appeared and disappeared on wiki in a brief period, first with the anonymous editor User:24.44.88.175, who inserted the anecdotal furphy about a 'Dwek clan' (which no ref.refers to) onto that page, a remark that suggests some local insider gossip or agitprop by a supporter of the settlers in the Beit HaShalom group. The page was identified as highly POV, and the anonymous IP editor's text stood, and the POV tag placed on it removed subsequently by a succession of Cheshire cat editors, registering for a one-on edit at that page, only to disappear immediately, User:Rachamim, User:Jonund, and User:Netanel h, who came over from the Hebrew wikipedia just once to reinforce the nonsense. As with the majority of articles I read, I watched this without comment, and, when Jaakobou once more entered to remove the POV tag, without actually cleaning up the mess, I drew his attention to the problem, to see whether he would act on it, for the good of the encyclopedia, and remove the 'Dwek clan' furphy. He didn't. You User:Jayjg, reading this, haven't either, but have simply seized on the note to twist my words in a way that might suggest I was commenting on Jaakobou, rather than, as was the case, on User:24.44.88.175, and his tag-teaming mates User:Rachamim, User:Jonund, and User:Netanel h.

Now that this has been clarified, and I have deconstructed your misconstrual or misprision of the simple English phrasing in my earlier comment, I expect my explanation in turn will now be twisted to argue that this is an attack on you or Jaakobou. With such games are I/P articles dis-edited, as formal transactional gaming à la Eric Berne vies to trump substantive analysis. Nice try. But use the gambit too often, and it wears out its specious credibility. Doing this, I would remind you, is itself a profound form of incivility, though I have never checked to see if the wiki rulesheet covers the case. Please note that one of you should fix that mess, now that I have drawn your attention to it, otherwise a serious question does indeed arise regarding one's dedication to NPOV editing. Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Describing someone's edits as an abusive manipulation of the article by a supporter of the settler lobby is a personal attack regardless of the lengthy rhetoric attempting to divert this to a discussion of Jaakoubou, or the lengthy filibuster used to defend this statement. In the future, rather than attempting to defend the indefensible, restrict your comments to discussing article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You have used the word of MM of 'deliberately asserting false information' several times over as if it were a hammer reflex. To accuse another editor of 'deliberately asserting false information' is to make a personal attack. It is so because even were the furphy true, that deliberately is your private interpretation of an editor's intentions. Secondly, you yourself are, irony of ironies, 'asserting false information' in so far as my original quote was prefaced with the words': what very much looks like (an abusive manipulation of the article by a supporter of the settler lobby)', an important qualification your persistent quoting of the passage elides, I can only presume for tactical reasons. That is my clearly nuanced subjective take on what was going on by the series of people who 'asserted false information' on the Beit HaShalom page. I did not attack the anonymous I/P, or his two cronies who registered on wiki, edited that page, and then disappeared. I noted to an editor of that page my impression of editorial malfeasance, and asked him, and then you, to elide the 'assertion of false information' on that page. Neither you nor Jaakobou have acted on this. Rather than edit out the false information asserted on that page, which anyone can see, you harp on the putative impropriety of my drawing attention to the abuse, and do so ad nauseam on this page without, in the meantime, responding to the queries your interlocutors have made severally on the issue of Samaria. I.e. rather than care for the integrity of wiki editing there, you appear to focus on the potential for creating the impression the whistleblower (myself) should be brought to heel here. If you are so prepossessed by 'the assertion of false information',why do you refuse to correct an example of it on the Beit HaShalom page? Or is it that 'the assertion of false information' is something to be deplored only if it detracts from an Israeli POV?

I will refrain from commenting on the sublime irony revealed by this diff. Here are a couple more sources, including then-PM Menachem Begin.

Modern usage of the toponym "Samaria"/ "Judea and Samaria" (additions 2008-12-30/2)

Source	Samaria defined as:	Samaria is in regular mainstream English use	Samaria is in partisan or non-English use
Benny Morris, Palestinians on the Right Side of History, NY Times, August 24, 2005 [47]	"The hilly central spine [of the Holy Land], between Ishtamua (present-day Samua), Hebron and Shechem (present-day Nablus)"	"The rest of the world calls [it] the West Bank"	"This stretch, with Jerusalem at its center, comprises the area that the Bible and many Israelis now refer to as Judea and Samaria, and the rest of the world calls the West Bank."
Interview with Prime Minister Menachem Begin on CBS television- 21 June 1982 [48]	The West Bank	[Non-Israelis] call [it] the West Bank	Mr. Herman: "Tomorrow you meet with President Reagan. One of the subjects I'm sure is going to come up is the question of negotiations for the autonomy of the Palestinians, of whom the largest part still remains within your control, in what you call Judea and Samaria, and what the rest of the world calls the West Bank." PM Begin: "What we call properly Judea and Samaria, others mistakenly call the West Bank. The West Bank is the whole territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean..."
PBS Online Newshour: UNSETTLING GAZA August 17, 200 [49]	The West Bank	"The rest of the world knows [it] as the West Bank"	JONATHAN MILLER: "Unilateral disengagement from 21 Jewish settler communities in Gaza and from four in what the Israelis call northern Samaria and the rest of the world knows as the West Bank, the remaining 116 settlements there, unaffected by today's evacuations elsewhere. The pictures are heartbreaking."
Robert Zelnick, The Gaza Pullout, Hoover Digest No 4/2005 [50]	Samaria: Israeli term for the northern West Bank	No indication	"A symbolic four settlements, with only a few hundred total residents, were in the northern West Bank many Israelis call Samaria."

Full table here. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

MM. Now that you've alluded to Begin's views, I suppose I should add this information. This issue came up in the negotiations with Sadat at Camp David, and Carter felt it necessary to annotate the agreement in order to remove any ambiguity from Begin's undertakings, precisely because the West Bank, which was guaranteed autonomy, is not quite commensurate with 'Judea and Samaria'. See

’the West Bank, known to Begin only as Judea and Samaria’ Samuel W.Lewis, ‘The United States and Israel: Constancy and Chance’’ in William B. Quandt (ed.) The Middle East: Ten Years After Camp David, Brookings Institution Press, 1988 pp.217-260 p.221

‘To make sure that no doubt would ensue about the final result of self-government for the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza, President Carter, on receiving the letter from Begin and Sadat, added an explanatory notation to the copies intended for the United States and Israel: ‘I have been informed that the expression ‘West Bank’ is understood by the Government of Israel to mean ‘Judea and Samaria’’.’ Evgeni M.Primakov, ‘Soviet Policy toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict,’ in in William B. Quandt (ed.) The Middle East: Ten Years After Camp David, Brookings Institution Press, 1988 pp.387-411, p.397. See also p.460 (for Carter's letter, reproduced there)Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the table of sources that discuss the usage of the term/s with the latest batch. Note that I've now included Jayg's list of Israelis using the term, which, according to him, is important even though it doesn't in fact demonstrate usage of the terms outside Israel. We all agree that the term "Samaria" is used in Israel, so I don't quite see the relevance, but I've grown tired of the constant uncivil accusations of ethnic discrimination, so there you go. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no "list of Israelis using the term"; please do not [[Wikipedia:CIVIL#Engaging_in_incivility|"deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors"]. I have, rather, provided a list of over four dozen sources published outside of Israel that disprove your theory that the term is used only in Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your list contains around twenty Israeli sources, aren't they Israelis any more? I thought you had acknowledged that. Whence else your constant accusations of discrimination when I point out that they are not the best evidence of non-Israeli use of the term "Samaria" one can hope to find? MeteorMaker (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have consensus here. "Samaria"and "Judea", having conclusively been shown to be Israel-specific terms, cannot be used as neutral alternatives to the West Bank, or parts thereof. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, stating that your personal preference is "consensus" doesn't really cut-it; nor do your claims that your own arguments have "conclusively been shown" to be anything. Given the fact that your theory has, in fact, been disproved, it's even less acceptable. By the way, you haven't responded to respond to this question yet. Do you think the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" are used only in Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)]

If what you call my "personal preference" has all the sources on its side, whereas your personal preference only has issues with multiple WP policies, I think most Wikipedians would agree that the case is pretty much closed. Re your question, I think you haven't given a proper answer to my earlier question how you think when you say verbatim quotes from encyclopedias and tons of other reliable sources are anecdotal evidence, and how your list of purported non-Israelis using the term is anything else than anecdotal evidence. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything but a consensus. In addition, the ghits clearly indicate that Judea and Samaria are a far more notable term then the "cooler" new "northern west bank" and "southern west bank" . --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

By being less than half as many, as shown above? I don't think there's support in policy to count "ghits" for Samaria, Indiana, Agnes Samaria, Samaritan Girl, Samaria Gorge and a host of other Samarias as hits for Samaria. Even so, "notability" credits should go to the ancient Samaria, but then you need to find reliable sources for your claim that they are indeed named after it. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, as explained above and below. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you mean it's irrelevant whether the sources you count actually refer to the thing you're counting hits for or not, that view is highly unorthodox and has nil support in WP policy. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. See above and below. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record

Mechanical repetition of a serious charge against another editor by an involved administrator who yet refuses to act on his accusation, or go to arbitration, is itself a matter of some gravity, particularly when that administrator does not answer key questions, but appears to regard other editors as under a unilateral obligation to answer the only ones that interest him. I haven't the time to do the diffs, but will copy and paste the evidence, and suggest the person desist from his subliminal attack mode and address the actual issues, or take the case to arbitration, since no one else appears to perceive what he takes to be obvious. This looks to me very much like a systematic attack on Meteormaker's civility and assumption of good faith. They are all comments on the editor, not on his edits.

• (1)please review desist from deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Finally, please review WP:NPA, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Thanks. Jayjg 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• (2)I ask you to desist from deliberately asserting false information, it is in direct response to an example of such. Jayjg 19:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• (3)'you are deliberately asserting false information. I am not trying to make the sources say anything; it is you who keep trying to remove terms from Wikipedia, based on your theories. I am merely disproving your theories, nothing more. Your constant attempts to reverse both cause and effect and the burden of proof, are "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Jayjg 18:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• (4)If you have evidence of me making this claim, please provide a diff. Creating a straw man "somewhat unorthodox position" on my behalf is deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Please desist. Jayjg 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• (5) MeteorMaker, re making baseless accusations, please desist from deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors, and respond to this question instead. Thanks. Jayjg 05:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• (6)Claiming it is not commenting on Jaakobou, only on his edits is deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Still waiting for your response. Jayjg 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• (7)Claiming it is not commenting on Jaakobou, only on his edits is deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. It was a personal attack, period, the insertion of "Jaakobou" into the discussion was obvious misdirection. Still waiting for your response. Jayjg 22:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• (8)Claiming I "make[] it look like Nish was calling Jaak a "supporter of the settler lobby"" is deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Please desist from all of these inappropriate behaviors. Jayjg 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• • There is no consensus between editors, as opposed to the consensus of reliable sources that 'Samaria' is no where near a 'neutral' word to describe the 'northern West Bank'. There is only an apparent refusal by two editors to engage with the overwhelming evidence presented so far that Samaria is an Israeli-POV.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • • Anyone would admit that Judea and Samaria are closer to the Israeli POV. But it's irrelevant. WP has no policy of providing equality. WP's policy is to use the commonly used and most popular term. When the new hip terms gain popularity and are at least on the same playing field as 2000-year old terms we should obviously switch terms. But an argument to remove the terms of Judea and Samaria because they're not neutral is an argument that misconceives WP policy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Presenting them as neutral (in spite of all the evidence, and even your own assessment of the term) would be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, and then you have WP:NCGN and WP:UNDUE. You still imply that "Judea" and "Samaria" are more common than Northern and Southern West Bank, which is 1) a red herring and 2) incorrect, see above. Also, chances are that the "hip new terms" you think WP should avoid are older than yourself. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

MM: Please, you continually restate my assertions incorrectly. If you're not going to bother reading what I'm saying then why bother responding to me? I never claimed that the terms Judea and Samaria are as neutral as the newfangled terms; they're not. However, WP policy does not require equal rights to all sides. WP:NPOV only comes into play when two terms are in the same ballpark. Although the terms "Northern West Bank" and "Southern West Bank" and very chic and more WP:NPOV then the few-thousand year old terms of Judea and Samaria, we are not in the business of being in vogue. WP:NEO and WP:NC forbid these terms unless they are considered atleast somewhat as commonplace and popular as the original term.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I have inadvertently restated your assertions incorrectly. Correct me if I'm wrong again, but one misconception on your part seem to persist: That "Samaria" as a modern toponym (for the relevant area in the West Bank, not for other places or things that happen to be named "Samaria" or contain "Samaria" in their names) is more common than "northern West Bank". It has been shown above that the latter is at least twice as common as the former, and if you count only neutral sources, the ratio skyrockets because close to 100.0% of the online instances of "Samaria" are on Israeli websites or otherwise of Israeli origin. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The non-acceptance of your theories is not a "misconception,". At most it's a difference of opinion. In any case, I've already explained ad nauseum, the removal-of-certain-types-of-ghits theory is logically flawed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You imply that Samaria Gorge and a host of other things with "Samaria" in their names should count as Samaria, yet claim the opposing position is "logically flawed". I rest my case. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. You restate my argument and then "rest your case". But I'm happy to see you've finally rested your case. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And I think most would accept 'northern' is not POV, and 'West Bank' likewise is the default term in standard international newspaper, academic, diplomatic and legal language. The question is therefore not 'why not Samaria?'. It is simply, 'why not stick to the prevalent, more neutral language of international usage'? 'Northern West Bank' says nothing about which side has a stronger claim to sovereignty, and therefore best fits NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Although West Bank is clearly an accepted usage, taking the next logical step and using "Northern West Bank", is still WP:OR in the face of unpopularity of the term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, let's stick with West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you conceding that "Northern West Bank" and "Southern West Bank" are less notable terms then Judea and Samaria? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Northern [sic] West Bank" and "Southern [sic] West Bank" are neither terms nor neologisms. "West Bank" is neither new nor chic; it's just the standard, neutral, overwhelmingly dominant term favored by just about every mainstream reliable source on the planet. The rest of your argument here – about how we should calculate what terminology is appropriate not by referring to the ubiquitous standard used by virtually all contemporary reliable sources on earth, but rather by tallying up usage points over the centuries – is simply very weird, in addition to being wrong. By the way, when you put an ordinary adjective in front of a term that is a proper noun (like "West Bank"), the ordinary adjective remains uncapitalized and does not become part of the term itself.--G-Dett (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In your zeal to correct my grammar, you manifested the flaws of your stance. "West Bank" is a proper noun but "northern West Bank" is not. The explanation for the discrepancy is obvious: unlike "West Bank", "northern West Bank" is not considered a geographic entity. Also, "tallying up usage points over the centuries" is a longer way of saying "ghit counting". This "idea" is not novel; it's used frequently here at WP. If there are any "weird ideas" at this talk page, it's the ideas promulgated to remove chunks of the Judea and Samaria ghits. Finally, please be more careful when restating my argument. I never said that West Bank is new and chic. I was referring to "northern West Bank" and southern West Bank". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course "Northern [sic] West Bank is not a proper noun; you were the one capitalizing it as if it were. I don't care about your grammar; that's your problem until it becomes a way of smuggling in discredited arguments, at which point I expose the shell game. I don't know what you think you mean by "geographic entity"; "West Bank" is the accepted, consensus modern standard term for what's being talked about. Lower-case "northern" adds the specificity you and other editors are pretending to care about while POV-pushing by shoving in a historical, Biblical, ideological minority term where it wasn't needed and doesn't belong. "Tallying up usage points over the centuries" may be synonymous with "ghit counting," or roughly anyway; both are stupid ways of determining standard modern usage. Actual literate reading of reliable sources, on the other hand, is a terrific way of determining same. I recommend it.--G-Dett (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My grammar mistakes were actually supporting your stance, but it's irrelevant and might confuse you. In response to your substantive point, take Manhattan as an example. "Manhattan" is a more notable term for the island known as Manhattan then say, the "smallest geographic borough in New York City". Now that "Manhattan" is a more notable term should the neighborhood in Manhattan known as Harlem be called "north-east Manhattan" instead of "Harlem"? Of course not. Yet, you are making this very claim. West Bank is a notable term but that does not mean that its notability moves to smaller sub-geographic areas within the West Bank. "Samaria" is a far more notable term than "northern West Bank" and "Judea" is a far more notable term for the "southern West Bank". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Harlem" is not a controversial partisan term and is used universally, being the uncontested official name of the area. Bad parallel. I don't really see the need for artificial segmentation of the area either. West Bank is West Bank. Does southern Negev (a much larger area) have its own specific name for instance? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Being controversial is a not a basis for non-use. "Israel" is also controversial. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed "controversial" above to "partisan" in order to make the argument clearer. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by a consensus of editors, not by one or two editors claiming a consensus among sources. In this case not only is there no consensus among editors, but the reliabel sources themselves nowhere show this alleged 'consensus' claimed. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, the sources presented so far[51] show complete consensus: "Samaria" and "Judea" are partisan and minority terms, used by a group that is confined to Israel (one source says "Jews", but I think that is way too broad). Lacking support in facts and reliable sources for your position, you have tried every WP policy, sometimes using very innovative new interpretations, to sneak these partisan terms into Wikipedia. WP:CONSENSUS says: "Consensus is not the same as unanimity. [...] Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered inappropriate by Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines." MeteorMaker (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, please argue more evidentially, section per section, why the massive evidence, textual and statistical, mustered above, is not suggestive of a marked difference between Israeli/Jewish usage and international usage. Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Numerous sources have been presented which show the use of "Samaria" as a neutral geographic term, in academic publications, geographic maps, etc... Feel free to revisit previous discussion here and at Talk:Samaria. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to link to one source that explicitly states that "Samaria" is a neutral and widely used term. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey. I've read that, and this thread is its follow-up, and you have not addressed the massive additional evidence accrued here. Further, the term Shomron in Hebrew usage that lies behind Samaria, as you yourself admit, does not imbricate over the area known as the northern West Bank, since it includes areas within Israel proper. Precisely this confusion is one further reason why it should be avoided. You can assert that it is neutral and geographic all you will, but are still required to explain why 26 sources challenge its neutrality, and geographers avoid the term. What Israelis understand by Shomron/Samaria is not what is variously understood (if understood, because refs to Samaria in English invariably are followed with a gloss for the reader) by non-Israelis.Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the term Samaria does not imbricate over the area known as the northern West Bank, since it includes areas within Israel proper, but I disagree that it should be avoided for this reason. There's no reason to avoid usage of a neutral geographical term, as used by multiple reliable sources in this context. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"As used by multiple reliable sources in this context" [52] meaning 1) as a biblical or historical term 2) when discussing the settlers movement's ideology or ambitions from their own perspective 3) when quoting or paraphrasing Israeli sources and 4) when being such a source oneself. No, I can't see a problem with that either. However, only 1) and 3) are suitable for Wikipedia's neutral voice. And again, every source that has been presented in this discussion (including by your side) that says anything at all about the usage of the term/s explicitly says it's Israel-specific terminology. [53] MeteorMaker (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the context I was referring to was the dismantling of Israeli settlements - and the sources' use of Samaria in that context. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That would fall under 4), with one exception, Zelnick, who also says "[...] Judea and Samaria, what most of the world refers to as the West Bank."[54]. NB: Jayjg has collected all his sources (and a couple of Tundrabuggy's) at the page I linked to. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey. You keep insisting it is a neutral geographical terms. Please reread and respond to the following two examples from academic literature which deny this.

(15)(after 1967) '‘Cartographers therefore had many options, which tended to reveal their political proclivities. Those who were sympathetic to Israel labelled the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Hieghts, and Sinai as “administered territories,” and used the phrase “Judea and Samaria” for Jordan’s former West Bank. They also included all of Jerusalem within Israeli territory. Mapmakers who were ideologically neutral generally referred to “occupied territory” and maintained the term “West Bank”.’ Arthur Jay Klinghoffer, Harvey Sicherman,The Power of Projections: How Maps Reflect Global Politics and History, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 p.37

(16)‘During a short period immediately after the 1967-war, the official term employed was ‘the Occupied Territories’ (ha-shetahim ha-kevushim). It was soon replaced by ‘the Administered Territories’ (ha-shetahim ha-muhzakim) and then by the (biblical) Hebrew geographical terms “Judea and Samaria”. The latter were officially adopted and successfully promoted by the right wing governments (since 1977) and are still the official terms in use. . More than reflecting the already mentioned “Hebraization of the map”, they relate to the disputed lands by mere geographical terminology, denying political borders. This wishful “rubbing out” of the border between the Territories and Israel is apparent in yet another right wing favourite: the traditional Jewish term erez yisra’el ‘the Land of Israel’ (“Israel” here means “the Children of Israel”, i.e., the Jews), which makes no distinction between Israel and the Occupied Territories. In between left and right fall terms like “the (West) Bank” and the neutral “Territories” (ha-shetahim). Ran HaCohen, ‘Influence of the Middle East Peace Process on the Hebrew Language’ in Michael G. Clyne (ed.) Undoing and Redoing Corpus Planning, pp.385-414 p.397

The first has a professional cartographer noting the non-neutrality of those terms, compared to the West Bank. The second has a linguist analysing topological language shifts in Hebrew saying one of the functions of this usage you call neutral is to 'rub out the borders between Israel and the Territories', and he also says 'the West Bank' is the neutral by comparison. The second point is important because, as you admit, Shomron/Samaria in Hebrew is not 'Samaria' in English but conveys a mixture of Israel and the West Bank. Retain 'Samaria' and you 'rub out the border' that sets apart the West Bank, as an internationally defined territory whose sovereignty is yet to be determined, from Israel. That is a very subtle POVing consequence that follows upon any advocacy for using 'Samaria' (qua Shomron) in wiki's otherwise neutral voice.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

These references both refer to "Judea and Samaria". If you have been following this discussion, you will have noted that I have agreed, months ago, that "Judea and Samaria" is a term used by one side of the conflict as an alternative for "The West bank", and that it should not be used in Wikipedia's neutral voice, except in the article describing the Israeli administrative district. "Samaria", however is a different term, and is neutral. I do not agree at all that "Shomron/Samaria in Hebrew is not 'Samaria' in English" - they are exactly the same, and if they are used by the sources we reference, there's no problem using it ourselves. Canadian Monkey (talk)`

And is you have been following the discussion you will have noted that the distinction between 'Judea and Samaria' and 'Samaria' in sources is a non-sequitur, since it ignores the logic of classes and their elements. See here. No one cared to answer the point, and until they do, the asserted distinction will not convince.Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

While you were away, several new sources have surfaced that address that specific objection. A few examples:

• "Samaria - This historic term assumed political significance after 1967. It is used by the Israeli government, Zionists and Israelis, to refer to the modern region, but it is no longer used by others, who prefer the Jordanian term for the entire portion of the land occupied by Israel - "West Bank" which they coined after World War II. [55]

• "A symbolic four settlements, with only a few hundred total residents, were in the northern West Bank many Israelis call Samaria."[56]

• "Israelis often refer to the northern West Bank region by its biblical name of Samaria."[57]

More here. Also note that many sources put separate quotes around "Judea" and "Samaria" and/or refer to them using plural, which indicates that they are not intended to be read as one unit. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already shown you numerous sources, which are not Israeli, who use "Samaria" as a neutral geographical term, as do the 8 sources we have in this article, for this context. It is getting tiresome to repeat this. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not forcing you, on the contrary. Again, of those 8 sources, one is a mistaken case of historic usage, six are Israeli or Zionist, and one expressly contradicts your claim that "Samaria" is a widespread and neutral term altogether. You can read the refutals in detail here. We have no indication at all that the term is neutral or widely used, but we have 58 sources saying it isn't. Before you reply, read this. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your self-serving interpretations of what the sources "really" mean, or the ideologies of their authors are not only uninteresting and irrelvant, but distasteful. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can't do better than that, I think the discussion is over. Facts speak louder than your opinion, especially when you express it with regurgitated Jayjgisms. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think you will unilaterally get your way here by fiat, you are mistaken. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer facts to fiats (shitty cars, btw). Try supporting your opinion with reliable sources instead. You can't have it on WP otherwise, even less if it violates WP:NPOV. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur. There is nothing wrong in stating the obvious, that we have a split between language favoured by Jewish/Israeli sources, and language current in standard international commentary and analysis. This recurs in all wiki pages dealing with nationalities in conflict over land and identity, Macedonians and Greeks, Turks and Kurds and (a)whey you go. The only way out is to adopt standard international terminology which is, relatively, super partes or at least strives to be neutral as to the claims made by either side, i.e. West Bank. Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. What's the next stage, Elonka dear? In the modern mass media according to Umberto Eco, there is no need to censor truth or the facts: one can swamp the truth with circumstantial details, backchat, niggling, tendentious sidetracking gambits, until the sheer volume of noise buries the significant content. I think everything by both sides has been said, and no consensus has emerged. Forget the idea of compromise. This is a question of NPOV, ultimately, not each getting a bit of his POV in. Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So the way I understand this fiat, is that you intend to take out all mention of "Samaria" unless you include a disclaimer eg "as a few rightwing religious Israelis and Jews call it" ? This despite the fact that the subject matter is referring to an RS which simply refers to Samaria in context? Wouldn't this amount to an attempt to censor this name out of wiki based on the assertion that it is "offensive" to some people? Or is it because it is a minority word that you wish to keep it out, despite its use in RS in this particular context? I've read the reams of discussion and looked at all of the supporting statements, but still can't see why using this word in this context is somehow taboo. It is clearly understood by anyone who has read anything on this subject, and if they still don't get it they can use the wikilink to learn more. What seems to be the problem here? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been explained probably 100 times, but all right, you're a relative newcomer to this discussion, so you may have missed the first 90 or so. I direct you to this page. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy. Bref. RS uses both 'northern West Bank' and 'Samaria'. The former is neutral, the latter is Israeli usage. NPOV requires the neutral term, not the Israeli term, especially since the West Bank, north or south, is not an extension of Israel, as you once asserted, but, under prevailing international law, an occupied territory. As many sources say, using the Israeli term implies a claim to that area. Israeli may have a claim, so do the Palestinians, who constitute 83% of the population of the West Bank. That in a thumbnail sketch, is why we go for 'northern West Bank' as most independent sources do. There! I've saved you the need to actually read the archives. Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Map of Israeli Settlements is inaccurate

I've noticed for example that the city of Ein Gedi is mapped as if it is in the West bank, beyond the green line and that there is a military check point to the south of it. This is simply not true, I've checked several other maps to confirm including Google Maps. This probably happened because the Green Line was drawn too far south and the Dead Sea too far north. This shows a fundamental problem with the map and I don't think that some photoshopping will help. I'm sure that if I keep examining it I'd find more inaccuracies. Should it be removed? Ytoledano (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The label "Ein Gedi" on the map does not refer to the town itself (Israeli poulation centers are typically not shown) but to the road closure with the same name, a few miles inside West Bank territory. Neither Photoshopping nor removal of the map is called for. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempted summary of arguments on all sides

I'm going to summarize briefly what the positions here are, as I understand them. This will involve radical simplification, but if that simplification leads to distortion I encourage others to clarify and correct, with an eye toward the brevity I'm after here. Unsubstantiated accusations that I am constructing "strawman" arguments, "deliberately trying to mislead other editors," etc. will of course be ignored as intentionally trivial disruption.

Nishidani's position, MeteorMaker's, and my own are all very close. All of us maintain that "Samaria" is not an appropriate term for the northern West Bank in Wikipedia's neutral voice. It is fine for direct quotation, of course, and in certain historical and/or biblical contexts; and in certain technical/administrative/bureaucratic contexts the joint term "Judea and Samaria" or "Judea-Samaria" might be appropriate, since it's Israel's official term for a piece of disputed territory it occupies and administers. The three of us have pointed to scores of reliable secondary sources (by 'secondary sources' I mean those discussing terminology qua terminology) that describe the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" as "Biblical terms" employed & deployed specifically for the purposes of invoking Jewish historical attachments to the land and consolidating present Israeli political claims to same. We have also noted the lack of reliable secondary sources (again, sources discussing the terms qua terms) that describe them as neutral, contemporary geographic terms. Finally, we've noted secondary sources describing "West Bank" as neutral, & as the ubiquitous, standard, dominant term favored by the overwhelming majority of mainstream sources.

On the above, there is no daylight between Nishidani, MM, and myself. In addition to the above, MM maintains that the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" are not in wide use outside of Israel.

Jayjg and Canadian Monkey’s argument focuses primarily on MM's position described directly above. They have brought numerous primary sources (i.e., sources that use the term "Samaria" but don't discuss it as a term) and argued that the primary sources demonstrate its currency outside of Israel. MM has objected that many of the primary sources they've gathered are in fact Israeli. Jay and CM maintain that even where the author is Israeli the publication is not, so that for example when an Australian newspaper publishes an interview with an Israeli politician who uses the term "Samaria," this should count as an example of the term's use outside of Israel. They furthermore maintain that focusing on the nationality of sources in the first place is distasteful and unseemly. MM's response to the charge, as I understand it, is that reliable secondary sources have described the term as one "used by Israelis," that furthermore nationality is a fortiori relevant to a discussion of nationalist terminology, and finally that it is Jayjg and Canadian Monkey – not MM himself – who are gathering primary sources according to nationality in their effort to prove the term's currency outside of Israel.

Regarding the secondary sources describing use of the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" as ideologically loaded, Jayjg and Canadian Monkey maintain that most of these discuss them jointly, and that thus what they're really talking about is the joint term "Judea and Samaria," which refers to an "administrative district," and that the joint term may have ideological implications not shared by its constituent terms, and that therefore secondary sources addressing them jointly should not be considered as relevant.

MM, Nishidani, and I have countered by pointing out that many of the sources in question address the terms separately, with separate sets of quotation marks and in the plural, and that in almost all cases no reference is made to any "administrative district," explicitly or implicitly, and that the context in these sources is clearly and explicitly the use of these "Biblical terms" – plural – for ideological purposes.

This counter-argument regarding the secondary sources has not yet been addressed, nor – as far as I can tell – even acknowledged by Jay or Canadian Monkey.

There is no daylight between Jay and CM on the above. Meanwhile Brewcrewer's position is totally distinct. He agrees that the term "Samaria" is biased, but argues that its use in various contexts over the centuries has won it enough "ghits" to guarantee it a kind of tenure in Wikipedia’s neutral voice. He acknowledges that "West Bank" is overwhelmingly preferred in contemporary reliable sources, but objects to the fact that giving it the same level of specificity as "Samaria" requires the use of an adjective, "northern." He finds the resulting phrase "chic" and neologistic.

These are the positions as I understand them. I welcome clarification – but not new examples, unnecessary elaboration, repeats of source lists, abusive allegations of deceptions and/or strawmen, or the like.

Perhaps it would be helpful to create a chart listing the main points of dispute, inventorying and classifying evidence adduced thus far according to whether it is primary-source evidence or secondary-source evidence.--G-Dett (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Setting conditions to a response, including no "unnecessary elaboration", is not conducive to a civil discussion. I would be surprised if anyone bothers responding.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have, so thanks. My feeling is that months of often circular discussion, in the archives, the sources discussion page, etc. provide more than enough elaboration of existing positions; if people have new positions, great, elaborate them. Barring that, I think this is the time for condensation & summary.--G-Dett (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I confirm G-Dett's summary as a precise synthesis of the issues, and endorse her request that clarifications be forthcoming. I would also draw attention to the point I made about the logic of classes. Samaria is a subset of 'Judea and Samaria', and a very large number of sources discussing the POV of terminology specifically identity 'Judea and Samaria' as strongly slanted to a variety of Israeli POVs. What applies as a definition of a class, applies to elements of the class. We have had no answer at all to this, though it is glaringly apposite to the crucial question of NPOV. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Samaria by Israeli sources and Israel-friendly individuals in America

MM. I don't think this is much chop. For one it is ugly, clumsy, and it is probably too much of an editorial synthesis, thirdly, where's G-Dett, our master or mistress stylist, on occasions like this? It seems clear to me from the evidence that pro-Israeli commentators around the world do often use 'Samaria', though they do their readers the courtesy of glossing it with(in)'the West Bank'. We need some collaborative suggestions, evidently, on how to phrase this. I would prefer, off-hand, 'referred to as Samaria in Israeli usage and foreign works that reflect that usage.' Or something along those lines.Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I obvioulsy didn't expect it to stay up for long, but such kludges are what we get if we try to compromise and be literal and be factually correct about who exactly uses the term at the same time. Per the discussion above, the best solution is still to stick to neutral and mainstream terminology, and simply call the area the West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

actually, the best solution is to refer to it as the reliable sources cited have done, without any original research synthesis of the kind you are attempting. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the phrasing could be a little less clunky. This option however is way worse, suggesting as it does that occasional use in each of these publications/outlets is enough to imply the more regular "referred to as Samaria by ..". Plus as noted above the BBC source cited doesn't in fact use the word, and of course reference to the term is not the same thing as endorsement in any event. How about - as I've suggested at least once before, maybe on a different page - something more along the lines of "sometimes referred to, predominantly in Israel, as Samaria"? And how about moving this material into the Terminology section, where it more obviously belongs, and where the debate can be dealt with in a bit more detail? --Nickhh (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How about simply saying what the referenced RS's say in this context - that 4 settlements in Samaria were removed? what's the problem with that? We've compromised by moving it out from the lead, and we're quoting the RSs. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many sources that refer to the incident as the 'withdrawal of four settlements from the northern West Bank'. Technically, one should, therefore be equally entitled to parallel those sources Jayjg uses in the body of the text and notes, with an equal number of sources describing this same event, not as a withdrawal from Samaria, but as a 'withdrawal from the northern West Bank'.

In brief, unless we agree on the NPOV vox propria for the lead and text, which is, as far as I can see, 'northern West Bank', there is no point in trying to fix a compromise in which the lead has that, and the body of the text has 'northern Samaria'. I am for putting 'northern West Bank' in the text as NPOV, with an extensive note, listing the Samaria variant, which is well attested in 'pro-Israeli' sources. We must not create cognitive dissonance, however much pressure there is for a wikistyle compromise. The evidence is overwhelmingly for the view that 'Samaria' whoever uses it, is not the conventioned neutral term of most sources with no horse in this race.Nishidani (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Note on Judea and Samaria added in Terminology section, per Nickhh. [58] MeteorMaker (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourced restored, per NPOV etc.

I'm restoring the cited information using the terminology "Samaria", per WP:NPOV, and per Elonka's comment. I remind editors here that even if it were the case that "Samaria" was less common terminology, NPOV does not allow it to be expurgated; on the contrary, it insists that multiple points-of-view be presented. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That's an unorthodox reading of WP:UNDUE, WP:NCGN and WP:NPOV. Read more here. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your personal views do not become fact by mere dint of repetition or continued linking. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not voicing a personal view. Your argument that NPOV's provision for "multiple points of view" extends to terminology used in Wikipedia's neutral voice is indeed unorthodox. He was, if anything, being euphemistic.--G-Dett (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The four texts cited could be paralleled by a dozen using the term 'northern West Bank'. So are we to have an extensive page-long footnote with quotes just on this issue? is this an invitation to stack that footnote with all available sources referring to the same incident as a withdrawal from the 'northern West Bank'?Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It says "northern West Bank" first in the detail, and only "northern West Bank" in the lede, so I don't see your issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We could easily add "Palestine" as well, is that OK with you, Jayjg? MeteorMaker (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg . To quote your own words above:'Your personal views do not become fact by mere dint of repetition'. MM's arguments are not 'personal'. They are those of the majority of sources, and of editors in here.It is improper to single MM out for restating facts that are accepted by most of us, on the basis of the documentation examined.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing to a personal translation of a Spanish version?

For some strange reason the citation to the article by Tamir in The Australian was changed to a personal translation of a Spanish version of the article on some website. I understand that User:Meteormaker was at one point making some sort of claim that since the link to the original article in The Australian was dead, he could therefore remove the reference.[59] In addition, he was insisting that he couldn't verify what the source said, despite the exact quote being provided, and therefore it was not valid. I would simply point out that

• articles published in a newspaper are valid sources, regardless of whether Meteormaker has actually read them. If he wants to, he can go do a library and look them up, and
• the exact quote is still available in the google cache.

In the future please don't remove valid links to quoted newspaper sources, even if the link dies, and please don't substitute your translations of foreign language version of the original source. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It was removed partly because the link was dead, partly because we had a consensus that an Israeli government official might not be the most NPOV source, and we all know it's called "Samaria" in Israel anyway, so no big surprise if an Israeli calls it that. The case for WP to take up Israel-specific terminology is still extraordinarily weak, as you haven't provided one single source that says it's used outside Israel, and that is kind of corroborated by the fact that six of your eight cites are from Israeli sources. Your Google cache links lead to one 404 and one wholly other article btw. CM (or NoCal) supplied the Spanish-language substitute, which predictably contains the disclaimer "Samaria: Israeli name for the West Bank". It was in all likelihood in the Australian original as well. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the google cache leads to the original source, in English, which says nothing of the sort. I've quoted it exactly and completely, leaving not one word out - therefore it was not "in all likelihood in the Australian original as well". The second link leads to a cache of the article at The Australian, and says "Four settlements will be evacuated in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank. It could be argued that this stage of the pull-out presents an even ..." Those are the exact words, as I've said time and again. Now, either you accept the truth, or, if you still doubt it, go look it up in a library. Those are your only options. Continuing to pretend that it doesn't say what it says is not an option. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be online to be valid, they just need to be verifiable by a reasonably diligent editor with access to a decent-sized library. I've checked my own library database, and confirmed that Jayjg is talking about a real article. The sentence that Jayjg is talking about, is the first line in the second paragraph, and the word "Samaria" appears three times in the article. --Elonka 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have access to the full article, Elonka, can you confirm that it contains the same disclaimer (ie "Samaria: Israeli name for a portion of the West Bank") as the Spanish translation? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to paste in the entire article here, if it's not a copyvio to do so. It's an op-ed by the Israeli ambassador (not an interview, as I erroneously identified it below). The Israeli ambassador uses the word "Samaria" three times in his op-ed. There is no footnote on the term; that appears to have been added for a Spanish audience unfamiliar with an increasingly obscure biblical term favored by Israeli spokespersons for propaganda purposes. What on earth this op-ed is doing as a source for this article I have no idea. The Israeli ambassador is making this statement before the actual event we're supposedly sourcing. We should be using scholarly sources and mainstream news coverage covering the actual historical event, not obscure op-eds announcing the imminence of said event. This appears to be here as part of Jay's massive original-research document dump intended to demonstrate that the Israeli POV word "Samaria" is mainstream usage and not an Israeli POV word. Using an obscure op-ed by an official Israeli spokesperson is an awfully peculiar way to go about demonstrating this, as MM has tirelessly pointed out.--G-Dett (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note, however, that this discussion of authenticity is yet another total red herring. The "article" in question is an interview with op-ed by an Israeli official who, unsurprisingly, uses the POV term "Samaria" in describing part of the West Bank. Palestinian officials are wont to call the West Bank "Palestine" in their op-eds. Big deal. Wikipedia doesn't use these terms in its neutral voice, for reasons which are obvious to all but which have nevertheless been explained at great length.

Substantively speaking, using this interview op-ed as a source here makes no sense. In order to source the fact that Israel withdrew from four settlements in the West Bank, we provide a statement from before it actually happened, announcing that as a future intention? This is a really, really weird approach to sourcing historical facts; I don't think you'll find it anywhere else in Wikipedia. The only reason it's being done here is because the POV word "Samaria" is used there by an Israeli official. MeteorMaker was right to remove it. It's a stupid, inappropriate choice of source for our legitimate purposes, coy and clever as it may be for illegitimate ones.--G-Dett (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Official term

I know in Hebrew that 'Judea and Samaria' are the official terms used by the Israeli government in Hebrew. This may seem a small point, but I would like some indications that it is the term also used in official Israeli publications and negotiations in English. Efraim Karsh notes examples of the two being out of synch (Arabs in Hebrew official texts, Palestinians in those texts published for foreigners).Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Continued insertion of original research

For some reason I cannot fathom User:Meteormaker has replaced specific citations with the unsourced original research claim "referred to as Samaria predominantly in Israel". Can he produce reliable sources which back up this claim? I do, however, appreciate his concern that the current wording was too long, so as a compromise I replaced the list with wording that did not violate the WP:NOR policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you may have seen these 58 sources that all say, explicitly, that it's Israel-specific terminology. Now let's see yours, that say it isn't. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Jay, please do not cite the "concerns" of other editors as justification for restoring an unqualified "also known as .." wording, which both those editors have argued against at length, including only a few days ago. As pointed out ad nauseam, that wording suggests a false equivalence. The previous wording you were trying to push, naming sources where the word Samaria seems to have been found, possibly only once, is equally misleading, as surely you know. You are playing games here, both in your edit summaries and with the sources. Can you please also explain exactly how a phrasing that says the words "Samaria", "Judea" and/or "Judea and Samaria" are sometimes used, predominantly in Israel, does not constitute a fair and broad overview of the many sources cited here over the past months? We have relative Google hit counts from media organisations and official websites, as well as serious published books looking at the issue which explicitly refer to them as minority-use, politically loaded terms of biblical origin which were revived and pushed within Israel from the Begin years onwards. Concisely summarising the obvious is not a breach of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Feel free to work out some variation on that wording, but let's not pretend that we can have serious content here that gives equal weight to this minority terminology; or that says nonsense like "referred to as Samaria by CNN" or whatever, based on a single example.--Nickhh (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That prank edit ("referred to as Samaria by the International Herald Tribune, the Journal of Church and State, Sussex Academic Press, Lexington Books, Hoover Press and others" [60] [61]) will go into a hall of fame one day, when someone writes the history of nationalist gaming of Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, here's how 1948 Palestinian exodus begins (emphasis added):

The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية‎, al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya), referred to by Palestinians as al Nakba or al Naqba (Arabic: النكبة‎), meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm," refers to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem during and after the 1948 Palestine war.

To my knowledge, no pro-Palestinian editor or admin has tried to change that to read –

The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية‎, al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya), referred to by the New York Times,[62] Sussex Academic Press,[63] [64] , Lexington Books,[65], Columbia University Press,[66] and others, as al Nakba or al Naqba (Arabic: النكبة‎), meaning the "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm," refers to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem during and after the 1948 Palestine war.

If someone does try that, will Canadian Monkey and Jayjg back him or her up? In other words, do they actually believe the arguments about sourcing, NPOV, and minority terminology that they've been making on this page? To ask the question is to answer it.--G-Dett (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

G-Dett, please review WP:CIVIL, for you have emended your remarks several times without apologizing for the offensive lapsus calami of the original oversights. True, the corrections may not involve your own edits, but even there you have been unconscionably slow in correcting them. Come to think of it, there may be grounds here for an AN/I report on possible violations of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and, uh,. . I'll come up with some other complaints tomorrow. Nishidani (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Balance in the Lead

The following passage is the 5th paragraph. It should perhaps be in the first or second since it appears to represent the majority of the world.

• A number of international bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and many legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law, but other legal scholars, Israel, and the Anti-Defamation League disagree with this assessment.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably the most significant aspect of the settlements, so OK to that. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have moved it to second place.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Has moved back down, somehow - will move it back up.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Name change

OK. Who gave that ok to move the article? --Shuki (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It was done unilaterally, with no prior discussion or consensus. Time to move it back. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom restrictions

MeteorMaker (talk · contribs) has been banned from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days.[67] He is still welcome to make other non-revert changes to the article, and to bring up concerns at the talkpage, to build consensus for desired changes. --Elonka 17:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be based on a misconception: I did not remove Jayjg's (cherry-picked) cites, I just moved them to the proper place in the article, the part that actually discusses the usage of the name "Samaria". [68] I humbly request that you lift that ban. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you removed the statement that the term "Samaria" is sometimes used, which is exactly what those sources supported. The fact that you didn't actually remove the sources, but merely hid them in an irrelevant citation, is not a defense of your edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

None of those sources say that the term "Samaria" is sometimes used. That appears to be your own conclusion. If you want that statement there (IMO an irrelevant place, as we have a section on the toponyms and their usage already), it shouldn't be misleading — since dozens of sources confirm that the term is used in Israel and the rest of the world calls it the West Bank [69], that is what the article should say. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Samaria is not the same as the West Bank. You are reminded that you are banned from making Samaria related reverts. Go find something else to do. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your original research is still unproven; and, in fact, conclusively disproven. Nevertheless, I have modified the wording to account for your objection to the phrase "sometimes used". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)