Talk:Judea

Judea/Judah

Are the English words "Judea" and "Judah" transliterations of the same Hebrew word? --i.e.יהודה ("Praise", Standard Hebrew Yəhuda, Tiberian Hebrew Yəhûḏāh)

If so, how come one says "Kingdom of Judah" and "Kingdom of Judea" to mean two different kingdoms, the former being that which resulted from the division of Kingdom of Israel, the latter being that which succeeded the former and where Herod was a king? I checked out French pages and they also seem to be distinguishing between "Judée" and "Juda." Are these words sometimes interchangeable? I wonder how these two entities are distinguished in Hebrew. --Oichiro 10:38, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Hebrew word יהודה is used to refer to both Judah and Judea. There isn't much of a difference—the former is the Biblical transliteration of the word, and I think the latter is the Roman transliteration of the province name. (The Biblical transliteration is a good deal more accurate in its vowelization, for some reason.) It seems to me that the terms are largely interchangeable. I think this should be merged into Kingdom of Judah. --Simetrical 23:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Simetrical. So, while they are actually transliterations of the same single Hebrew word, they have come to mean two separate kingdoms in English. But when you say "I think this should be merged into Kingdom of Judah," you don't mean these two English expressions actually signify the same single kingdom, do you? If we start calling these two kingdoms -- what we call "Kingdom of Judah" and "Kingdom of Judea" in English today -- both "Kingdom of Judah," we would need a way to distinguish the two kingdoms, for example, calling them "the First Kingdom of Judah" and "the Second Kingdom of Judah. --Oichiro 07:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm writing these comments here rather than edit the article as I don't want to damage anyone's work:

When referring to the geographical region, the term "Yehuda" is used by Hebrew speakers - not neccessarily Zionists. By the same token, non Hebrew speaking Zionists would probably use "Judea/Judah". Also, only the northern half of Judea is in the West Bank, so the "West Bank"/"Judea and Samaria" issue is not really relevant here, as long as the focus is the geography/history of this specific region. IMHO the most "encyclopic" approach would be better to simply list the Arabic/Hebrew/Latin names, and explain that state ownership of the northern part is under political dispute (possibly adding a link to a "West Bank" article) -- Nir

chronology

"until 63 BCE - independent Jewish state" - what happened to the Persians, the Greeks, etc? --Zero 02:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed (after 18 months!) Now, would somebody kindly supply the pre-Canaanite chronology? MeteorMaker 09:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Eras

Per WP:MOSDATE#Eras ("be consistent within an article"), I propose to bring this article to consistent BCE/CE notation. I chose BCE/CE rather than BC/AD because Common Era is more accommodative: it may be interpreted as "Christian Era". In an article as deeply related to Jewish history as this one, it would be wrong to force a notation that has certain religious connotations only, given that there is a neutral and commonly accepted alternative. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"supporters of the Israeli occupation"

Abu Ali, before re-inserting the POV that the term is used by "supporters of the Israeli occupation", please think about WP:V and WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the current usage of the term Judea and Sameria which is POV, not my edit. In the current context the term is used to emphasise the Jewish link with these areas and by implication justify continued jewish rule over them. This is not a question of language but a question of political stand regarding the settlements. Pro settler groups + the Israeli government since 1977 use this term (in english as well as hebrew), whereas opponents of the occupation (hebrew or english) would use the term West Bank (see [1]). Whether you intended it or not the edit you re-instated is misleading and makes wikipedia look like a setteler propoganda site. Abu ali 11:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can find some consensus here again, maybe this wording will help: "...is mainly used by Hebrew speakers...". --Magabund 12:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No! The language of the speaker is irrelevant. It is the politics that count. Why not just remove the sentence "In modern times, the name "Yehudah" may be used by Hebrew speakers to refer to a large southern section of Israel and the West Bank, or in the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer specifically to the West Bank area south of Jerusalem." Abu ali 12:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting The Forward:

I have touched on this matter before, yet I feel the need to say it again: Although William Safire is simply repeating what for years now has been the conventional wisdom of the American media, “Judea” and “Samaria,” the Hebrew “Yehuda” and “Shomron,” are not biblical words for the hill districts south and north of Jerusalem that were revived by Israeli nationalists after the 1967 war. That is, they are indeed biblical words, but they have been used by Jews through the ages and have been the standard Hebrew terms for these parts of Palestine since the beginnings of Zionist settlement in the late 19th century...

Judea and Samaria are the proper Hebrew words for the central hill country of Palestine between the Galilee and the Negev no less than Connecticut is the proper English word for the area between New York and Massachusetts. And Hebrew speakers can and should use these words, regardless of what they think the future of the territories designated by them should be. Indeed, such is the tendency in Israel today, so that even Israelis on the left talk more and more about the need to leave “Judea and Samaria,” or to give the Palestinians a state in “Judea and Samaria” rather than “in the West Bank.”[2]

The Forward is a left-wing, liberal Jewish newspaper, founded by socialists in 1897. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You say "Hebrew speakers can and should use these words" and that is your opinion. But I don't think that the role of WP is to tell hebrew speakers what words they should use. You say that even Israelis on the left talk more and more about the need to leave “Judea and Samaria,” which implies that up till now they use a different term but that J&S is gaining popularity. If this trend is real and if it continues then some day the Israeli left will all use the term J&S. Until then, the term is contentious in its current application. Abu ali 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't say that, I was quoting the article in The Forward, which basically contradicts everything you have said here. It points out that "West Bank" is the new term, "Judea and Samaria" is the traditional term, and that left-wing Hebrew speakers also use it. That pretty much covers the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, on 17:35, 27 December 2006 you quoted an opinion column in the Forward "...even Israelis on the left talk more and more about the need to leave “Judea and Samaria,”. The author does not cite any evidence for his statement, and people I know on the Israeli left dispute it. But even if we accept the accuracy of the statement that increasing numbers even on the Israeli left use the term "Judea and Samaria" then implicit in the statement is that some on the Israeli left still do not use the term. And they are hebrew speakers. This is confrimed by the article you cited in Forward

... after the 1967 war it became bon ton among Israeli intellectuals on the anti-annexationist left to refer, too, to Judea and Samaria as “the West Bank,” as if these were areas devoid of Jewish historical associations and Jewish memories

The writer argues that the Israeli left are wrong to use the term West Bank and should use the term "Judea and Sameria". But surely WP should describe the world as it is, rather than as it should be. And today's reality is that the term J&S is contentious even in Israel where it would be used in government communiques but not say in Amira Hass articles in Haaretz [3], or on the Peace now website [4]. So the sentence from the article

"In modern usage, "Yehudah" may be used by Hebrew speakers to refer to a large southern section of Israel and the West Bank, or in the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer specifically to the West Bank area south of Jerusalem."

is misleading to say the least. In my opinion best to drop the entire sentence. Especially as Judea and Samaria has its own article. Abu ali 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So, some Hebrew speakers use it, and some don't. Your original claim that it was used by "supporters of the Israeli occupation" is clearly false, but the claim that it "may be used by Hebrew speakers" is clearly true, and not at all "misleading". Wikipedia is not describing the world "as it should be", but simply stating how the term is used today. And, but the way, all Hebrew newspapers except Ha'aretz use it. I'm not sure why you would want to suppress this common usage of the term, which has been used continuously this way for literally thousands of years. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg once again...

We agree that some Hebrew speakers use it and some don't.

You state that my claim that it was used by "supporters of the Israeli occupation" is clearly false. But the falseness of my claim is not clear to me. You have not demonstrated that supporters of the occupation do not use the term.

We agree on WP stating how the term is used today, and on Ha'aretz's use of the term West Bank. And Haaretz is one of the 3 main papers in Israel and is certainly an important part of the hebrew usage today.

I can not verify the "continued use of the term for thousands of years". But the sentence in the article talks about current usage. And the article you refered to in Forward even in its title shows that the choice of term is contravertial.

I don't want to suppress the term. But neither should we hide its political connotations.

The statement that "Yehudah may be used by Hebrew speakers" is true becuase the word may turns it into a tautology, anyone may use any term for anything. While not false, the statement is misleading because the choice of terminology depends more on politics than on language.

Abu ali 17:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The claim that it is "used by supporters of the Israeli occupation" obviously implies that all those who use it are "supporters of the Israeli occupation". A more accurate statement would be "it is used by some who support the Israeli occupation, some who don't, and some who haven't made up their minds". However, that would be a silly statement, though at least accurate. As for being a "tautology", that's hardly the case. "Yehuda" is (and has always been) used regularly by Hebrew speakers to refer to a certain geographic area; contrary to your claim that "anyone may use any term for anything", no-one would use the term "aza" or "livanon" or "mizraim" or a million other terms to refer to that area. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

no-one would, but anyone may. Jayjg, you are not happy with "used by supporters of the occupation" but I am not happy with "used by Hebrew speakers" for the same reason. A more correct sentence would, I agree, be silly. So why not just drop the sentence all together? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abu ali (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm not happy with "used by supporters of the occupation" because it's misleading, inaccurate, original research. You're not happy with "used by Hebrew speakers" because it doesn't portray the word's use in the political way you think it should be portrayed. There's a huge difference between the two. Simple fact ("used by Hebrew speakers") is helpful, political soapboxing ("used by supporters of the occupation") is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just when I thought we had made progress and reached agreements on some points, your argument degenerates into name calling. You characterize your choice of phrase as the simple truth, whereas any alternative is original research and political soap boxing. I can assure you that there is nothing "original" in either of our arguments (which are the subject of the Forward article). "used by hebrew speakers" is misleading because

• Some hebrew speakers use it and some do not
• Some english speakers use it and some do not
• The phrase tells us nothing about which hebrew/english speaker will use it and which won't, and why
• The phrase says nothing about the contentious nature of the term "Judea and Sameria"

I am don't think "supporters of the occupation" is a great alternative either. And suggest once again that removing the sentence about the "modern context" would be a solution we could both live with. Abu ali 09:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the contentious phrase "may be used by Hebrew speakers" and re-worded to accommodate your objections. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Great... We have found a mutally agreed text. Maybe one day we will be able to find a way for our peoples to live in peace. Till then I wish you a happy new year/Chanuka/Id. Abu ali 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To you as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor Change

In the chronology it mentions "6 day war." From the book on Israel I am reading, I believe it should be "6-Day War." I am hesitant to change an article on which I am not an expert though. Does anyone know the preferred: hyphenation or not?

Possible Addition to the Article

The Modern Call of Judea (The West Bank) to become a second Jewish state - The State of Judea.

The non-diaspora Jews and their genetic contribution to the pre-1948 population

Re Hertz1888's suggested modification, there is nothing in Oppenheimer's et al research that concludes that the non-diaspora Jews contributed anything at all to the gene pool of the diaspora Jews, which is what the modification would mean if left unqualified. Of the non-diaspora Jews, it's pretty obvious that the group provided the gene pool of itself. I have thus reverted the line to the original "Recent studies indicate that [the non-diaspora Jews] formed the genetic core of the present-day Palestinian people." MeteorMaker (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The source, which is unreliable in any event, certainly doesn't conclude "Recent studies indicate that these groups formed the genetic core of the present-day Palestinian people." It's bad enough to use poor sources, but it's even worse to misrepresent them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The source indeed concludes: "a new genetic study shows that many Arabs and Jews are closely related. More than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years." The source does provide references to the reports it summarizes. I have added a link to Oppenheimer's original study. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And that conclusion has nothing whatsoever with the claim you've made for the source. Please don't misrepresent sources again, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion is that 50% of the modern-day Palestinians and 70% of the modern-day diasporan Jews descended from the same paternal ancestors in historical times. How would you suggest I phrase it if "Recent studies indicate that [the non-diaspora Jews] formed the genetic core of the present-day Palestinian people" is a misrepresentation? MeteorMaker (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The source does not mention Palestinians. Beit Or 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the study, it does. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But it also mentions Jews, doesn't it? Something you keep deleting. I wonder why? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder where you see that deleted? Re the oblique accusation of anti-Semitism, please see WP:CIVIL. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You deleted it right here. As for the "oblique accusation of anti-Semitism", it is oblique indeed, to the point of non-existence. Please don't make false accusations, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed the first paragraph in this section. To repeat myself, Hertz1888's suggested modification would mean that the non-diasporan Jews contributed to the gene pool of either 1) the diasporan Jews, which is a pretty unsupported theory, or 2) themselves, which is, I guess you agree, so obvious it doesn't need pointing out. Hence the deletion.

He also changed "Palestinians" to the much broader term "Arabs", which would mean the non-diasporan Jews begat the population of the entire Arab world. Quite a misrepresentation of the Oppenheimer report. Would you have preferred if I had left it alone?MeteorMaker (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have preferred if you had accurately described the contents of the article, rather than one-sidedly misrepresenting them. I would have preferred even more if you hadn't bothered inserting the material to begin with; it's just another way of attempting to politicize this article, based on interpretations of genetic studies that aren't particularly relevant to this topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to show me how I have misrepresented them. The material is just as relevant as the somewhat one-sided line "There was never a time when there were not Jews and Jewish communities", particularly since the studies indicate that those Jewish communities formed the core of the present-day Palestinian people. If we cannot reach consensus, how about just deleting that sentence? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, how did you misrepresent them? Let's see, the source you used said:

More than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years.

You summarized that as:

Recent studies indicate that these groups formed the genetic core of the present-day Palestinian people.

and, when reference was added to Jews, deleted it. That's about as egregious abuse of a source as I've seen in a long time. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: "Arabs" in the summarized version, "Palestinians" in the original text, as I've pointed out already. What is your alternative interpretation? How would the sentence be better if it read "There was never a time when there were not Jews and Jewish communities. Recent studies indicate that these groups formed the genetic core of the present-day Palestinian people and the Jews in those Jewish communities"? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I quoted the source exactly, and your summary not only expurgated any mention of Jews, but misrepresented what the source said about Arabs. There's no way of talking your way around this. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How did I misrepresent what the report said about Arab (Palestinians)? Re my alleged "expurgation of any mention of Jews", I have explained three times already that it's pretty self-evident that the original non-diasporan Jews provided the gene pool of themselves, and that the line I corrected would have stated that diasporan Jews originated in this group as well. Again, quite a misrepresentation of the Oppenheimer report. Please don't misrepresent my edit a fourth time. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Source says:

More than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years.

MeteorMaker summarizes as:

Recent studies indicate that these groups formed the genetic core of the present-day Palestinian people.

Case closed. Don't do it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That is indeed the conclusion of this and other studies. If you insist my one-line summary is a misrepresentation, could that be remedied by adding a direct link to the study itself? Which, incidentally, states:

"The low haplotype diversity of the [Palestinian and Israeli] Arab clade chromosomes, as seen in the network, suggests that they descended from a relatively recent common ancestor. Arab clade chromosomes could have been present in the common ancestral population of Arabs and Jews, and drifted to high frequencies in one of the subgroups following population isolation. The event leading to this isolation might have been the acceptance of the monotheistic Jewish religion by a subset of the population, or geographic separation due to the expulsion of Jews after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD79. Alternatively, the Arab clade could have been introduced through generation flow, perhaps by the immigration of Arab tribes in the first millennium AD. [...] According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Moslem Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD. [...] Thus, our findings are in good agreement with historical evidence and suggest genetic continuity in both populations despite their long separation and the wide geographic dispersal of Jews. "[5]

Judge for yourself if your accusation of misrepresentation has any merit. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The quotation you picked seems to mention Jews a lot, doesn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So shall we include it in extenso? MeteorMaker (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, since it's both misleading and irrelevant to this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's less relevant than the statement "There was never a time when there were not Jews and Jewish communities, though the size and condition of those communities fluctuated greatly". When perhaps the majority of this group converts to Islam, they are suddenly irrelevant? MeteorMaker (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So, in the name of neutrality, I have now removed it. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Term usage note

It's important to not give the impression that the term "Judea" presently has any currency outside (certain camps in) Israel, so we need a usage note. If the article were dealing exclusively with the area during the 6-7 centuries of Jewish rule, there would be less room for confusion, but it's practically impossible to keep an article such as this from expanding into the last two millennia. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following this comment. Do you have any sources supporting this claim, because my knowledge in Hebrew suggests that most mainstream medias use "Yehuda VeShomron" on a fairly regular basis. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, apparently a fluent Hebrew speaker, confirms that Israel's third largest newspaper doesn't use the term, so the claim that it's universally accepted in Israel is clearly unsupported. Outside the country, the area is commonly referred to as the West Bank. Since this is English Wikipedia, we should use the term that's accepted in English-speaking countries. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of this article describes the history of the area under Jewish rule, when it was universally called Judea. There are 7 lines dedicated to post 1948 history, and of those 7, 4 describe the fact that it is called the "West Bank". Please don't turn this article into yet another battleground. I am Dr. Drakken (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is in fact my main objection (apart from the fact that the article, together with its sister article on Samaria, merely duplicates information already available in History of ancient Israel and Judah and gives the impression of being a bit of a coatrack). We don't want to mislead the casual reader into believing "Judea" is an accepted term outside Israel. Could we change the present tense in the lead to make clear that the article is indeed about the history of the area under Jewish rule? Compare to the article on Prussia, particularly the usage note. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't politicize this article with unsourced claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's up to those who claim that "Judea" is the universally accepted term for the area to provide sources for their claim. Negatives can obviously not be proven. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that using false cliches will not get your pov motivated ideas to stick. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid so too, that's why I refrain from such tactics. Did you have a valid argument you wanted to share or was that all you had to say? MeteorMaker (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

But you just did. No, you were refuted quite thoroughly by now. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since no-one has claimed that Judea is "the universally accepted term for the area", there's no need to provide a source for such a claim. Judea is a region with a unique history that is not contiguous with any of the other geographic entities described on Wikipedia - not with the West Bank, nor Israel. This is the article that describes that region. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the same could be said about Prussia, Germania, Livonia, Khazaria and just about every geographical name that has been used for a particular region during a particular historical period. Since the names aren't used any more in the English language, the lead consistently uses the past tense so as not to mislead the reader into believing the terms are used today. The same should be true for the articles on "Judea" and "Samaria". If you feel those terms for the West Bank are different from any of the historical place names I've given you, please explain how. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this article differs significantly from those ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it differs significantly in that it uses the present tense in the lead, whereas the articles on Prussia, Germania, Livonia and Khazaria all use the past, because the names are not in current use in English. I have suggested we align this article with that pattern, so we don't give people the impression "Judea" a valid geographical term today. What do you say? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, Judea is a "valid geographical term today", as much as any other. It may not be as commonly used as it once was, but it didn't suddenly become "invalid". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you can support that claim, it would be helpful. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you need to prove it's "invalid". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you suggest one proves a negative, Jayjg? Your claim "Judea is a valid geographical term today" should be easy to prove, if that is in fact the case. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How does one distinguish between "valid" and "invalid" geographical terms? Is there some book I can read on this subject? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if one can find support for one's position that a term enjoys widespread usage (WP's procedure detailed here), I assume one has a slightly better position than if one just plays obtuse. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to rephrase the lead so that it's clear that the article deals with the history of the area under Jewish rule and that the term "Judea" only applies in that context?

Suggested new version: "Judea or Judæa (Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yəhuda Tiberian Yəhûḏāh, "praised, celebrated"; Greek: Ιουδαία, Ioudaía; Latin: Iudæa) was the name of the mountainous southern part of the West Bank area, now divided between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, during the periods of Jewish rule.". MeteorMaker (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also a name that was used by the U.N., and is still used today. There's no need to add unsourced political views to this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody disputes it is used in certain political camps in Israel (see above). However, this is not he.wikipedia.org. The UN certainly isn't using the term "Judea". Presenting the term as if it was universally accepted is a violation of WP:NPOV and, as I've pointed out above, the whole article appears to be a coatrack. It could be saved with usage note as outlined above however. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the region known as "Judea". No-one is "Presenting the term as if it was universally accepted"; rather, you are trying to inject your political views into the article. Please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be known to you as "Judea", but certainly not to the rest of the world outside Israel, and Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for attempts to change that. "Judea" is strictly a historic term and that should be reflected in the article. Compare to the wording in articles like Prussia or Germania. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about me, please stop attempting to personalize the discussion. The article is about the region known as Judea, and your unsourced attempts to politicize the article are unwelcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the region is presently known as "Judea" outside Israel? Again, it would be helpful if you could provide sources for that claim. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean the ancient region of Judea? Yes, it's referred to all the time as Judea - it was, after all, a Jewish kingdom, and then a Roman province. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I'm talking about the region in modern times. In your opinion, is it known as "Judea" outside Israel? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to remove an article based on your argument, you should remove the article Palestine. That region was created into two states Israel and Jordan and Palestine is historical only. However, Judea is a common geographic established fact just like Palestine. The reason you don't hear it much is because people prefer to use West Bank for political gains, but the actual geographic connotation still exists, and in fact is also a district in Israel. Since Israel controls part of the area, it can call it by any name it wishes. It's an official name of a place therefore, certainly not past tense. It's also called like this by Christians around the world btw. Amoruso (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't suggested removing any article, you must have misread. I have suggested changing the lead as outlined above.

"Since Israel controls part of the area, it can call it by any name it wishes", far be it from me to deny Israel the right to call any area anything. However, what a particular place is called in Israel is only relevant in he.wikipedia.org and yi.wikipedia.org. This is English Wikipedia, and you have yet to show that the term enjoys universal acceptance in the English language, outside its historical context. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, what policy is that that insists a term must "enjoy universal acceptance in the English language"? I doubt there is any term in English that "enjoys universal acceptance". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: Naming conventions :"This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers. [...] If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. Non-English names should be used only if there are no established names in English. Rationale for historical usage should be explained on the article's talk page and in the name's section of the article about the geographical place in question."

The procedure to determine the accepted name is detailed here.MeteorMaker (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What, in your view, is the "widely accepted name" of the region known as "Judea"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The widely accepted name today is the West Bank. The area doesn't map 1:1 with ancient Judea, but few 2,000 years old administrative divisions are intact today, and Wikipedia should not give that impression either. Again, compare to the articles on Prussia, Germania, Livonia, and Khazaria. The names have changed, the borders have changed, hence the use of the past tense in the lead in every article about an ancient region except this one and its sister article on "Samaria". MeteorMaker (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, no, the West Bank doesn't even map 1:½ with Judea. Judea covers part of Israel, about half of the West Bank, and small parts of Jordan. They are not synonyms - not even close. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither is any of the ancient regions I've listed as examples. I can't see the relevance of your objection either, isn't this article about historical Judea and not some kind of artificial modern-day entity? MeteorMaker (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg. There's no such policy. You just invented a new one :) Israel don't call it Judea, they call it יהודה. So yes it's english language - Judea. And like I said, it's not only by "Israel" or "Jews" (God forbid we go by them). It's by practically all Christian following people, making it something like half the world calling it by this name, lots of English speaking people there. [6] [7]. Anyway, like China calls Tibet Tibet Autonomus Region and the rest of the world calls it Tibet... it still goes by that name in the wikipedian article. Just an example... the reality is that Judea is a region that exists today, not historically, people live there and identify the place as such, and don't forget the Judean hills, and generally the name U.N uses too sometimes [8] Amoruso (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd welcome some support for your claim that "practically all Christian following people, something like half the world calling it by this name", besides one link to a Israel-based Zionist website and one that reports on the "Third International Christian Zionist Congress", held in Jerusalem. And your link to the UN shows a list of titles of documents supplied by the Israeli government. ;) MeteorMaker (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I welcome your views on the suggested rephrasing of the lead (see above). MeteorMaker (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The area is known geographically as Judea. Some may not use it for political figures but the U.N has previously used it, many people use it, of course Jews and Israelis do, etc. The same thing for Samaria. It's not historic. Therefore, no grounds for any lead change which seems to be POV motivated. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comment to Jayjg above.MeteorMaker (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Jayjg has refuted your claims. 79.181.17.163 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unverifiable claims and posts that don't contribute anything to the discussion. Thank you. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please behave. Amoruso (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So, do we now have consensus that 1) the article is about the historical Judea and 2) that the term "Judea" for the present-day area is not used outside Israel? If not, please support your argument with relevant information. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're the one making claims, you support them with sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the article is about the historical Judea is not mine, it has been repeated by several people (see above) and originated with I am Dr. Drakken. We have yet to see anybody disagree with that. As about the toponym's usage domain, I have only asked for evidence that it is used outside Israel. So far, none has been produced. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who keeps making the claims about the term, you have to prove them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I conclude we have consensus on assertion 1, that this article is about ancient Judea. As about assertion 2, that the term "Judea" for the present-day area is not used outside Israel, your opposing position would be considerably stronger if you could produce some kind of support for it. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't assert consensus where there obviously is none. This article is about the region known as Judea. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So, Jayjg, to whom would you say the region is known as "Judea"? MeteorMaker (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

Accuracy disputed: "Judea", a historical or modern toponym?

I have now added a "Disputed" tag to the page, until the toponym dispute started in the section above can be resolved. To recapitulate:

• Consensus seems to be that this is an article about the historical Judea.
• Articles about other historical regions (eg. Prussia, Germania, Livonia, Khazaria) consistently use the past tense (eg "Prussia was, most recently, a historic state", "Livonia was once the land of the Finnic Livonians", Khazaria was the country of the Khazars", "Germania was the Latin exonym for a geographical area of land on the east bank of the Rhine").
• My suggestion: Modify the lead of this article to conform to that pattern in order to avoid misleading readers into believing "Judea" is a valid geographical term today. Suggested wording: "Judea or Judæa (Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yəhuda Tiberian Yəhûḏāh, "praised, celebrated"; Greek: Ιουδαία, Ioudaía; Latin: Iudæa) was the name of the mountainous southern part of the West Bank area, now divided between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, during the periods of Jewish rule."

Some people have objected that the term is used today, in Israel. The same, however, can be said about "Germania", which doesn't mean the article on Germania should be changed to use the present tense. What a particular region is called in Israel has no bearing on English Wikipedia.

The same people contend that the term enjoys widespread acceptance outside Israel as well, but have so far failed to produce evidence for that position. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Widespread acceptance is a subjective matter, but it's clearly not a rejected terminology, esp. when discussing Israeli control/municipality:

• Judaea, Samaria and Gaza (Studies in foreign policy)
• Economic development in Judea-Samaria and the Gaza District: 1985-86
• Israel, the Middle East, and the Great Powers
• Judea-Samaria and the Gaza District: A Sixteen-year Survey (1967-1983) Microform
• Separate and Cooperate, Cooperate and Separate
• Report of the Director-General: International Labour Conference 78th session By International Labour Office
• Developing the Occupied Territories: An Investment in Peace By World Bank
• The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Documentary Record International Center for Peace in the Middle East.

I hope this will solve the disputes. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could have provided a better selection of anecdotal evidence. Of the eight items on your list:

• five (#2, #4, #6, #7, #8) are simply documents (or quotes from documents) straight from the Israeli government or other official bodies,
• one (Elazar, #1) has worked as an Israeli gov't consultant (not that that is aggravating per se, but you can make fairly safe assumptions why he is using Zionist terminology),
• one (#3) is written by associates at the Tel-Aviv University,
• finally, one (#5), a compilation of texts by Israelis and Palestinians, clearly acknowledges that

  "Israeli officials use the names "Judea and Samaria" and "the Gaza District" while the Palestinians use the terms "West Bank" and "Gaza Strip" or just "Palestine"."

  That would seem to constitute negative evidence for your position.

MeteorMaker (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree for the most part with your assessment of the provided sources; As I'v said, acceptance is a subjective matter.

Seeing that you have strong feelings on this matter and others disagree, I'd suggest that you first provide some evidence to support your theory. I'm not sure what type of evidence would work since I find it to be a "Jews and anyone in contact with Israel don't have a say on naming conventions" theory, so I feel you should at least make an effort to persuade with something other than rejection of 'International/World Bank' sources.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In case your disagreement is based on factual reasons and not just pure emotion, it would be interesting to hear your objective explanation how the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, the Bank of Israel Research Dept, the "Coordinator of Government Operations in Judea-Samaria and the Gaza District", one former consultant for the Israeli government, and (then-)PM Yitzhak Shamir are not affiliated with the Israeli government in any way.

If you really intended to prove that the term "Judea" is in common use outside Israel, one would think you could have come up with a better list, considering every single writer on your list is an Israeli except one, who has worked for the Israeli government. :D MeteorMaker (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to get personal just because we disagree on interpretation of sources. From my perspective, the last three sources make my point for me just fine. I think it's time you put some sources which reject the Judea terminology proving your perspective/theory. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you brought up the subject of emotions first, but let's leave that aside. Your claim that direct quotes in a foreign publication of Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, then-PM's Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs in Israel, the various Knesset political parties' manifestos, the government itself, and several other official Israeli bodies (all in your last three sources) are somehow proof of widespread international acceptance of the term "Judea" is, frankly, pretty silly. The fact that you have failed to come up with one single example in support of your position is in fact good support of mine: that such examples are exceedingly thin on the ground. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• "The administration's talented civil service worked diligently: they adamantly resisted Israeli pressure to exclude Judea and Samaria in future negotiations for a comprehensive settlement; sent secret emissaries to Arafat to have the PLO recognize Israel and accept UNSC Resolution 242; negotiated a formula for Moscow's participation; and tinkered in every way possible to solicit Syrian participation." Kenneth W. Stein, Heroic Diplomacy: Sadat, Kissinger, Carter, Begin and the Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, Routledge, 1999, p. 203.
• "Begin would not accommodate Sadat, but he decided to visit Carter and to present him with his ideas on 'home rule' for the Palestinian Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza." Herbert Druks, The Uncertain Alliance: The U.S. and Israel from Kennedy to the Peace Process, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, p. 172.

Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't own those two books, so I can't verify your claim, but it seems that one professor at Brooklyn's Department of Judaic Studies and one at the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel of Emory University have indeed used the term "Judea" at least once. Interestingly, prof. Stein seems to have rejected the term since:

Indeed, skepticism of Carter's intentions may have convinced Begin to take a harder line about the West Bank, which, in line with biblical terminology, he called Judea and Samaria. [9]

The question is: Does this constitute conclusive evidence of "widespread acceptance"? I had expected something more like hearing proof that the term is used consistently in a news network or major newspaper. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few more:

• "Let us begin with Judea. This name by which we know the southern portion of the land has not always designated the same extent of territory" - Prof. J.S. Riggs, Studies in Palestinian Geography. II. Judea, The Biblical World, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Aug., 1894), pp. 87-93
• "A photograph of the hill country of Judea showing Mount Scopus" - [10]
• "The Judea desert trails and dirt roads are paint marked by the "National Committee For Trail Marking" - Crossing the Judea Desert, Israel

Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. The objective was to find support for the theory "the term 'Judea' enjoys widespread acceptance outside Israel today", and here we get:

• one instance of the term used 114 years ago
• one instance of the term used by a person who studied in Israel at the time
• one instance of the term used by a person who apparently lives in Israel now (at least his e-mail address is with this company, which only operates in Israel).

And those were your best examples... MeteorMaker (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that these were the 'best' examples - they were merely the first ones to pop up in a simple Google search. The person who took the pictures of the Judea hill country obviously did so while in Israel - be he is neither an Israeli, nor did he put the pictures up on his web site while he was in Israel (clue: the internet did not exits back then). So this is obviously a case of a the term being used TODAY, outside of Israel. Ditto for the last example - which is usage of the term today, on the international site of a multinational company, Toyota. I'll provide more examples shortly, while you think of ever more clever ways to move the goalposts. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a reasonable assumption that the evidence a person selects to represent his view is the best he has. Else, I don't see the point in putting it forward.

Daniel Kelly Ogden did indeed study at the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Israel when he took that picture and labeled it with "Judea" in the early 80's, as I've shown you. Roni Mandelbaum, an Israeli, has submitted a one-off article to one of Toyota's sites where he uses the word "Judea". That doesn't mean Toyota endorses the term, only that they don't censor material from freelancers (or even proofread it, judging by the amount of typos). The word occurs on Toyota's site exactly one more time btw - again in a letter sent in by an Israeli, Moshi Simha[11].

I will take a look at your new evidence now. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few more for you. As a side note, please stop removing every instance of "Judea" in Wikipedia and replacing it with "West Bank".

• “Moonlight on Judea” – [12]
• ‘In the Negev and Judea hills are formed as a result of these folds.” – [13]
• “Eshtamoa (A-Samua) - Large Arab village in the south of the Judea hills, about 22 km. south of Hebron. “ [14]
• The Texts from the Judaean Desert - Discoveries in the Judaean desert , By Emanuel Tov, Martin

G. AbeggPublished 2002, Oxford University Press

• “Desert of Judea” – http://joi.ito.com/moblog/entries/2004/11/08/003199.html
• ‘Desert of Judea’ – [15]
• “Bedouin Encampment in the Judea Desert” –[16]
• ‘The Judea desert has inspired mystical contemplation since ancient times.’ [17]

Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I will assume that these are now your best sources in support of the claim "the term 'Judea' enjoys widespread acceptance outside Israel today", and not merely the next page that popped up in your simple Google search.

• Stephen R Conn consistently uses the term "West Bank" in the article. He never uses the term "Judea" for the area, except in the title, apparently for poetic effect.
• Amos Nur is a native of Israel.
• Susan Holuber, who runs the site, is also involved with the Jewish National Fund.
• Emanuel Tov is an Israeli who currently lives in the Netherlands.
• (Uncredited image, impossible to verify.)
• (Another uncredited image, impossible to verify.)
• Nir Oren is an Israeli.
• Lila Moore is, you guessed it, an Israeli. She currently lives in London however.

Re the alignment of WP articles with the accepted English usage of the word "West Bank", most of the changes I've made were reverts of changes that had gone undetected for some time. Alternative terms that obviously aren't widely accepted should not be frivolously introduced. That probably constitutes a breach of WP rules. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I am not very surprised that the goal posts have now moved to the point where, if someone is “involved with the Jewish National Fund” (meaning, ‘has been the contact person for her Oregon temple’s fund raising efforts’), then their use of the term is somehow tainted. Really, this is getting ridiculous. Please find something better to do. Canadian Monkey (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One - possible - non-Israeli remained on your list of supposed non-Isrealis that have used the word "Judea" online, and she turned out to have a web site where she pleads for donations to the Jewish National Fund. It appears to be reasonably easy to determine her sympathies towards Israel.

To avoid further accusations of "moving the goalposts": The claim by you, Jayjg and Jaakobou that the term 'Judea' enjoys widespread acceptance outside Israel today obviously excludes statements by outspoken Zionists around the world. Anything else would be like insisting Lord Haw-Haw was perfectly objective in his views. Even so, you have not found more than one possible instance of the word "Judea" on the Web that wasn't written by an Israeli, which I find telling. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing surprising with people who use the term 'Judea' to be more sympathetic to Israel than those who use 'occupied territories'. The term 'West Bank', in case you were not aware has been in use since between 1948-1967, a whole whopping 19 years, Jordan occupied the territory. Do you have any sources to support your theory that the term Judea is rejected? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the evidence of non-use that you, Jayjg and CM produced? My web searches for evidence of widespread use of the term "Judea" outside Israel have also yielded nil. Besides failing to find the evidence you postulate, how do you suggest one goes about to prove a negative? ;)

I could of course point to the fact that no English-language, non-Israeli publications or news networks seem to use the term (other than in direct quotes and letters to the editor), not even traditionally Israel-friendly ones like FoxNews. Official maps outside Israel are consistently marked "West Bank" and not "Judea and Samaria". Official government documents and speeches also seem to use the established term "West Bank" rather than the one you insist should replace it on Wikipedia. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The term is still in wide enough use today regarding current territory (rather than a biblical territory) so that this argument seems like an imposition to deem the 'Judea' title archaic, when that is not the case. This would be far easier if this was about clearly forgotten territorial subdivisions such as the Damascus Wilayah or Jerusalem Sanjak, but Judea is a term used today to refer to a current territory/region. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is it used today, Jaakobou? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mostly in Israel. Happy?

Please work with others rather than reject every source given (above) on account that it's author is somehow connected with Jews.

Thank you, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)