Talk:Israeli settlement

User:Nickhh's compromise

I like it. Can we leave it at this? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.12.2008 14:01

I like it too (obviously .. although I never like to suggest that countries speak with one voice, especially the voice of their government). Now, that aside, can the obsessive reverters actually address both the balance of sources point above, and either Nudve's or my compromise suggestion rather than just continuing to edit war over this one word? I am really not sure how "Samaria in the [northern] West Bank" is a genuine compromise (nor has it ever been presented as such until now), or NPOV, simply on the basis that it includes both words. As with saying "Birmingham is a city in Mercia, in the Midlands", it's just doubling up as well as giving equivalence to a minority terminology. --Nickhh (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why does anyone bother? Another member of the tag team has resurfaced to join in the revert war, claiming that 20,000+ sources are suddenly "not relevant", without bothering to come and explain on what basis they believe that. So, the minority of sources that use the phrase Samaria are magically relevant, while the vast majority that very explicitly do not - and do not for a reason - are not. On this basis we can rename the London article Londinium. The fact that 20m sources will use "London" and not "Londinium" is not relevant of course. Now I get it. --Nickhh (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nick on your comment (related to changed I've just reverted) saying you have a zillion references that DON'T say something is... well... rather meaningless. It's like the scientific proof, I have seen a million sheep, all of them were white, therefore all sheep are white. When someone comes to you with some black sheep, saying "yes, but I see millions of white sheep, so black sheep don't exist!" it's just logically flawed. Now this situation is a little different (as some editors including myslef have had long discussion about elsewhere) because we're not quite talking about the same thing. One group of editors is saying look at those these white goats! And another group is saying "black sheep are a real type of sheep". Mean time one group removed all references to black sheep (while making arguments about goats) and other edits naturally revert the passages so statements saying "some sheep are black" are not deleted from Wikipedia. This is perhaps not the right place for a full on discussion on Samaria (yet again) but... there are plent of discussions on this and so far references have always been produced when asked and it has only been one editor (neither of you two) who has refused to listen to reason on this and kept moving the goal posts. Please lets not waste time on debates that have already been had? All the best (appologiesyou updated here before I could post my comment) Oboler (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidently I do think 13 minutes to comment on talk is a reasonable response time. It shows a lack of good faith for you to complain 10 minute after a revert that there is no discussion on talk. That's to say nothing of your insinuations. At least you didn't revert... please respond here first (now that the comment is posted). Also please note that the evidence does clearly show the term being used internationally. This is a key part of what the references and related discussion resolved. Oboler (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I well understand the fallacy of simply asserting that because there are 1000s of instances where something is not observed, that it does not exist (subject to what David Hume might have to say). But as you seem to half-acknowledge this is really irrelevant here - we know that sources exist which use the term "Samaria" instead of "northern West Bank" to describe more or less the same region. I have never denied this, and I haven't see anyone else do it either. The point is that they are a clear minority of the sources by quite some way - the majority by far use the second phrase. Hence it is the standard, mainstream neutral term. Hence it should be the simple term used in the lead. The minority language can be referred to elsewhere (as per my compromise proposal)

I am also aware of the related fallacy which assumes that because a source avoids a certain phrase or description on one or more occasions, we can infer that the source would never use that term. So when someone describes London as "a big city", we could not infer that they do not also think London is an "crowded city", purely on the basis that they happened not to mention it on this occasion. But this is not relevant either, because with the debate here, we are talking about direct and contradictory alternatives, one of which is politically loaded and used by a minority, but actively avoided by the majority. We can for example be sure that any source for information on the UK's capital which describes it as a "big city" does not think that it is a "small city".

You also write and edit as if this debate has been settled. The length of this talk page surely makes clear that this assertion falls under the headings "optimism" and/or "misplaced claim of triumph"? As for your point about giving you time to write on talk - from where I am sitting I of course had no idea whether you were going to do that or not, or that you were in the middle of writing a comment, such that if I waited 13 minutes it would suddenly appear. Responding to two new, separate compromise proposals on talk before making the same old revert would seem to have been the easier way forward. --Nickhh (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to get embroiled in this lame edit war, but if I may - an observation: At least part of the problem, it seems, is the cuastic editing style and attitidue displayed by some of the participants. As far as I can tell, there are two groups of editors here, one of them (Meteor Maker, Nickhh, Pedrito) advocating for removal of Samaria, and another group (Jayjg, Oboler, Nocal100, Canadian Monkey) advocating for keeping it. Both sides have engaged in an on-going edit war - so it is not helpful, Nickhh, to refer to one side as 'obsessive reverters' or 'members of the tag team ', when the other side, yourself included, has done excatly the same. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I used those phrases out of frustration that three or four separate editors had come in and simply reverted and disappeared again without even responding to additional statistics placed on the talk page, or more recently to the two different compromise proposals that I and another editor put up today. I'm aware there is reverting taking place on both "sides". However since daylight over here (and until Oboler finally spoke up after I expressed that frustration), none of those on the other "side" have even opened their mouths on the talk page. It is a lame edit war, but as usual the smaller the issue, the less each side feels inclined to let the other "get away with it". And having said that, although it is only one word, it is nonetheless a loaded word in the context.--Nickhh (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, you didn't get frustrated when Pedro did exactly that, "simply reverted and disappeared again". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, I am far less likely to get over-excited when the editor agrees with me. Human nature I guess, for better or worse. Although more importantly of course - and this is what really irks me - at that point there was no compromise proposal waiting for a response on the talk page (in furtherance of which I had actually added the word Samaria to the article, albeit further down), as there was yesterday when a succession of editors reverted the lead paragraph. Anyway I give in, this is way too dull and too much of a waste of time (unfortunately as it turned out I have had too much of that over the last couple of days). I cede this page to the Hasbara committee, and to the line of the Israeli government. I mean, screw what everyone else in the rest of the world (including Israeli academics and media, and even the government itself half the time) calls this region - which is not part of Israel of course - by a margin of 1000s. What do we care about that? --Nickhh (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

so, you are not in fact frustrated by the behaviour of editors who revert and disappear (in fact, you welcome such actions when it furthers your agenda), you are frustrated by your inability to get your favored version into the article, which is quite a different matter. Numerous example of Israeli academics using the term have been shown, in academic publications of prestigious American and British universities, only to be discounted by MetoerMaker on the grounds of their author's ethnicity. It is distasteful, as is your remark regarding "Hasbara committee". I don't see anyone alleging that you are doing this on behalf of the PLO's propaganda efforts, so I wonder why you would accuse your opponents of something like that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it the position of Nocal100, Jayjg, Oboler CM et al that Samaria is not a loaded term? Or is that even if it is loaded, Wikipedia should use it as long as some RSs use it?--G-Dett (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, count me in. Of course it's loaded, just as "Israel" is a loaded word and often referred to as "the Zionist Entity" by some. And the word "Palestine" is loaded as well, as there is some confusion generated between the British Mandate for (Arab and Jewish) Palestine & the non-yet existent country presumably named "Palestine." There is, however, officially an Israel, even if the Arab countries in the region do not want to recognize it. When we are talking about Israeli settlements, we are not talking about Israeli settlements in Palestine, but about Israeli settlements in Israeli territory referred to specifically & officially as Samaria & Judea. We are not here to chose the most popular usage, but the most accurate one. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"Israel", a loaded word? Perhaps if prefixed by "Eretz" or "Zionist", but on its own, it's as neutral as it gets, just like "West Bank", and the term news media have chosen. The opinion that the West Bank is Israeli territory (and hence theirs to decide what to call) is neither neutral nor factually correct. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, your position seems to be that "Samaria" is the best term because in your view the settlements are built on "Israeli territory" and the official Israeli term for this territory is "Samaria." Your position, in short, tends to support MeteorMaker's argument that the term is loaded in a way that makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia's neutral voice.

That said, I take your point that almost any term will be seen as loaded by some parties. Terms like "Israel" and the "West Bank," however, are widely seen as neutral, and are used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. At the other extreme are terms like "Zionist entity," which almost no reliable sources touch with a ten-foot pole. In the middle are terms like "Judea," "Samaria," and "Palestine" (for present-day West Bank, Gaza, and sometimes East Jerusalem). Yes, Jay and others have dug up sources using the term "Samaria" for the northern West Bank, and inserted as many of these as possible into the article in order to buttress the case for using this term in Wikipedia's neutral voice. Editors who disagree with your view that the settlements are built in "Israeli territory" could easily dig up an equal number of reliable sources describing "Israeli settlements in Palestine," and start edit-warring to use the term "Palestine" for the occupied territories in Wikipedia's neutral voice. Their rationale would be identical to yours, and equally wrong-headed.

"Israel" and the "West Bank" are the widely accepted terms. "Judea," "Samaria," and "Palestine" are not.--G-Dett (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No-one is suggesting "West Bank" be removed. In this case, however, "Samaria" reflects a moderately widely used term that also happens to reflect the terminology used in the official government statements regarding the withdrawal. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that the minority POV terminology ("Samaria") was used in Israeli government statements regarding the withdrawal. What terminology was used in the Palestinian government statements?--G-Dett (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Israeli government is currently the government legally in charge of the territories, pending a final resolution/peace treaty etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Good. Is it your position that NPOV terminology on Wikipedia is set by the party "in charge of" a disputed or occupied territory?--G-Dett (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is set by Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which insists that multiple views be sought. The terminology here hasn't been "set" by the party that controls the territory; rather, the article uses multiple terms, per NPOV. And I haven't been trying to insert these terms into all sorts of articles; rather, in the half dozen or so articles where they were already found, I objected to the attempts of an SPA to purge Wikipedia of them based on faulty original research and blatant political POV. And finally, if you want to compare it to the term "Palestine", when we're down to a half dozen or so articles using the term "Palestine" on Wikipedia, as opposed to the several thousand or so that link to it now, then we'll be discussing a comparable situation. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your broader thoughts and feelings; right now, however, I'm just trying to understand why we should use one "alternative name" and not the other, one "government terminology" and not the other. You say the reason is that "the Israeli government is currently the government legally in charge of the territories." What I want to know is why you think our NPOV terminology should be a function of who is "in charge of the territories."--G-Dett (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My argument is an argument in full, with all of its details and nuances, set in a very specific context. I'm not really planning to co-operate with your attempts to reduce a complex, contextual argument to a simplified caricature. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked you why NPOV should prefer one vocabulary to another; you responded succinctly, saying that your preferred vocabulary was used by the party "in charge." I'm asking you to elaborate on that.--G-Dett (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Who said we should "prefer one vocabulary to another"? That appears to be your argument. When did I say my "preferred vocabulary was used by the party "in charge""? I presented a complex, contextual, nuanced argument. I won't co-operate with your straw manning it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's where I asked you why we should offer one side's "alternate term" but not the other's. Here's where you responded by saying we should prefer the terminology of "the country that controls the territory." I won't cooperate with your pretending to have been "strawmanned" when you haven't. If you think your position needs clarifying, then clarify it.--G-Dett (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've explained my views quite clearly here. My argument is an argument in full, with all of its details and nuances, set in a very specific context. I'm not really planning to co-operate with your attempts to reduce a complex, contextual argument to a simplified caricature. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I'm trying to take a look at this, as an uninvolved admin, but there are such large amounts of text being moved around, that it's a bit difficult to follow. If I'm understanding things correctly, there's a dispute about whether or not use the word "Samaria" in the lead, and so several sources keep getting moved back and forth in the article, as the phrase in the lead keeps getting changed around. In order to try and stabilize things a bit, would it be possible to at least put those sources in a different section of the article with a ref name, so they're not getting moved around so much? I have no opinion as to whether as to whether the term should or shouldn't be used in the lead, but at least if the ref isn't being moved around as well, things might be a bit easier to follow. Also, since there seems to be a bit of a deadlock here, I'm curious, has an RfC ever been attempted on this issue? --Elonka 06:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, no RfC so far. We have operated on the assumption that the dozens of reliable sources for the "Samaria is a term used exclusively in Israel" position presented here and elsewhere [1][2], in addition to surveys (both following WP's strict protocol and more informal), would outweigh mere opinions and weak anecdotal evidence. No such luck. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

surprisingly, despite the claim of "dozens of reliable sources", to date, not one has been produced that actually says "Samaria is a term used exclusively in Israel". Perhaps if one such source could be produced, we could avoid an RfC. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, I'm not sure how MM found himself defending the argument that the term is used solely by Israelis. Like many loaded terms, it is (a) controversial within Israel and (b) common parlance among annexationists outside of Israel. For years William Safire used it prominently and frequently in his New York Times columns.

It has gone slightly out of vogue in recent years, at the same time that referring to the West Bank (and sometimes Gaza) as "Palestine" has become much more common (not only among RS writers but even among American statesman). For the moment, however, neither "Judea" nor "Samaria" nor "Palestine" are acceptable terms for Wikipedia's neutral voice.--G-Dett (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Being a partisan term, it's no surprise that "Samaria" is (or was) used by partisans like William Safire. It's closely associated with an ideology whose center is Israel, but there's clearly no perfect 1:1 geographical relationship. It's simply a convenience generalization: Instead of the technically more correct "used by the Israeli government, the settler movement and their supporters within Israel and abroad, and large groups of regular Israelis", we use "used only in Israel" for the scope of this discussion. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is now an RfC at Talk:Samaria. Your views (preferably backed with reliable sources) are welcome. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

One week later: No new sources have been presented for the "Samaria is in widespread use outside Israel" position, except another handful of examples that show that Israelis (and people affiliated with foreign Zionist or Israel lobby groups) sometimes use the term [3], which never has been contested. The facts so far are thus still the same as the ones compiled in these two lists [4][5]. Some new cites that further confirm the findings that the term is not in widespread use outside Israel have been added to the discussion. [6]. Looking at the massive evidence on one side and the complete lack of anything beyond than a few counts of anecdotal evidence on the other, I think it has been shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that 1) the term "Samaria" is not widely used and 2) its use is confined to Israel. The article should reflect these two facts. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

One week later: No sources have been presented for the "Samaria is not a modern toponym" theory - which is, of course, the only relevant theory on the table. Looking at the massive evidence on one side and the complete lack of anything beyond than a few counts of anecdotal evidence on your side, and the massive evidence disproving it, I think it has been shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that your theory is completely bogus. I will, however, grant you the "most humorous argument" award for claiming to have proved that "its use is confined to Israel" in the face of over forty reliable sources from outside Israel using the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally, people try to avoid the parrot argument for two reasons:

1. It creates the impression of an obstinate four-year-old.
2. It necessitates stating falsehoods that are embarrassingly obvious to everybody. Again, I direct you to this compilation of the provable facts that have been presented this discussion so far [7]. All explicitly support the position you're down to the most puerile tactics in the book to fight. I'm aware of your list of anecdotal cites (that you have duplicated four times for good measure), it's just that none of them says what you want them to say: that "Samaria" is widely used outside Israel, and thus compliant with WP:NCGN, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the term Samaria, please provide evidence (aside from your disproved and discredited anecdotal cites) that that toponym is not widely understood outside Israel or Not widely understood outside Israel. Also, 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 ^(talk) 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Still preferring the parrot argument, I hear. You have yet to explain how explicit quotes from the other major online encyclopedias [8] are "anecdotal evidence", or how you have "disproved" them. I'm also beginning to get the feeling that despite numerous requests, we will never see a proper example of the "deliberate asserting [of] false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors" that you keep deliberately asserting I've engaged in. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Samaria poll

Just so I'm understanding here, this entire dispute is boiling down to one sentence in the lead, correct? The choices are:

1. "An additional eighteen settlements formerly existed in the Sinai Peninsula, twenty-one in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank."
2. "An additional eighteen settlements formerly existed in the Sinai Peninsula, twenty-one in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank."
3. "An additional eighteen settlements formerly existed in the Sinai Peninsula, twenty-one in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank, Palestine." (suggested by G-Dett)

To help me get a sense of who prefers which version, could each editor weigh in with one comment below, on which version you prefer, or if you have any other suggestions for a compromise? Please be clear, This is not a vote, this is just a way to gauge where everyone stands. Thanks, --Elonka 19:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer the second; in this case, the use of both terms helps comply with NPOV, and "Samaria" is more geographically restricted (and therefore precise) than "West Bank". Also, in this case, the official government statements on the withdrawal referred to used exactly that phrase, "northern Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Hi Elonka. Actually there's one more choice, per the discussion above:

3. "An additional eighteen settlements formerly existed in the Sinai Peninsula, twenty-one in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank, Palestine."

The choices boil down to (1) using only the term accepted as neutral and standard by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources; (2) using the term accepted as neutral and standard by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, in addition to a minority term favored by one party to the conflict and generally regarded as ideologically loaded; and (3) using the term accepted as neutral and standard by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, in addition to two minority terms: one favored by one party to the conflict and the other favored by the other, and both generally regarded as ideologically loaded.

• Huh? How is 3 compliant at all? Its the most POV of the three. I have trouble seeing how 2 "directly and flagrantly violates core policy" if 3 does not do the same. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Cripes, Elonka, I'm making a mess of obligations not to post until that kerfuffle of misprisions about me is cleared up on my page. But, bref, I agree with Jayjg and G-Dett that the first is the only formulation that accords with wiki criteria for NPOV. It's not a matter of preference, but of using the most neutral, internationally accepted terms available. Best Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'm all for the first suggestion, as per Nishidani. Nomenclature issues can be (and are) addressed in the article on the West Bank and Samaria. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.12.2008 16:36
• Agree with G-Dett, Jayjg, Nishidani and Pedrito. The first one is the best stylistically and has no POV issues. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• No 1, "northern West Bank". As others have said it is the simplest, most accurate, most neutral and most common, standard description. "Samaria" (and other terms) are used, but by a small minority of sources - by some way - and are politically loaded. We shouldn't be using anything other than the simplest, most accurate, most neutral and most common, standard description in the lead. Alternative names or naming disputes can be noted elsewhere in the article and/or in a more appropriate article (as they are). And please note (for what it's worth - it's not a clincher either way), it is incorrect to say that the Israeli government always uses "Samaria", whether in the context of this withdrawal or otherwise. It does not. --Nickhh (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Option #1 - per G-Dett, Jayjg, Nishidani, Pedrito and MeteorMaker. PR^talk 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Option #2 including the official Israeli names and the names that are included in excellent RS's. It strikes me that Jayjg did not mean the first option here as his argument following his vote makes clear. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course I meant the second, as was trivially obvious. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know, you might have finally decided to disengage. --Nickhh (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Option #2 - "Samria", unlike "Judea and Samaria", is a neutral term for this geographic region, and multiple sources use that designation in the specific context of the sentence in question. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Poll discussion

Choices (1) and (3) are policy-compliant. Of the two, (1) strikes me as cleaner, more elegant, and stylistically more in line with Wikipedia's traditional handling of these situations. Choice (2) directly and flagrantly violates core policy, and is therefore not an option.--G-Dett (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, is it your contention that references to "Samaria" and "Palestine" are "generally regarded as ideologically loaded" and do not comply with NPOV? Do you propose removing them all from Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jay, no, it is not my contention that "references to 'Samaria' and 'Palestine' are 'generally regarded as ideologically loaded' and do not comply with NPOV." It is my contention that the use of those terms to refer to the West Bank in Wikipedia's default voice violates NPOV.

Jay, also note that when you make a strawman of what I say, I pay you and everyone else the courtesy of saying exactly in what way you've misunderstood and/or misrepresented me. That way, I avoid giving the impression that I'm simply pressing the word "strawman" as a panic button upon finding myself socratically checkmated.

Joshua, 3 is compliant with NPOV, even though it's stylistically monstrous. It's compliant with NPOV because, in addition to using the standard term accepted as neutral by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, it uses both minority POV terms: "Samaria" and "Palestine." 2 directly and flagrantly violates core policy (NPOV) because it uses (and implicitly favors) only one of the two minority POV terms. I think this distinction is fairly clear to all; in the interests of keeping this talk page fairly uncluttered, if you have further questions about it please see me on my talk page.--G-Dett (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If both terms are not-neutral then putting them both in the sentence doesn't make the sentence neutral. If I had a sentence about US politics that referred to Rethuglicans and Demoncrats it wouldn't be neutral because I had use both idiotic insults common among bloggers. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Samaria" and "Palestine" are both non-neutral, but they are not comparable to "Rethuglicans" and "Demoncrats." Both are used with intellectual seriousness by a minority of RSs. Both are ideologically loaded, but neither is a slur or epithet. It is acceptable to use both or neither; it's not acceptable to use one and not the other.--G-Dett (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Palestine" is a much larger (and even less precise) term than "West Bank", much less "Samaria", so it's not clear how it would aid in understanding. Are you trying to distinguish "West Bank, Palestine" from some other "West Bank"? Also, it seems to me that the parallel structure would be "West Bank, Israel". Anyway, which sources referred to the removal of these settlements from "West Bank, Palestine"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Palestine" is no more imprecise a term than "Samaria"; at any rate not one iota of this dispute is about "aiding [the reader] in understanding," despite coy winks and nods. It's about whether we should use minority POV terms in WP's default voice, and if so, how to do so in a balanced way. No, there's no other West Bank, and if you prefer "Samaria region of northern Palestine," that will do. I don't understand your point about "parallel structure." There are countless sources referring to the region in question as "Palestine," "West Bank, Palestine," etc., and anyone can play the source-farming game.--G-Dett (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "coy winks and nods", but it's uncivil in any event. Focus on content. Are there any sources referring to the removal of the four settlements in "West Bank, Palestine"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Review your tone with me. If you wish to communicate in modesty and candor and without irony, I am open to that. Avoid double standards and excessive delicacy regarding "incivility."

I am happy to move on to sourcing, but before I start typing, let me ask, is that where you've arrived in terms of your position? As long as sources use the ubiquitous terms "Palestine," "West Bank, Palestine," etc. in connection with the withdrawal from the four settlements, you're prepared to put your preferred minority POV terminology on an equal footing with the opposing minority POV terminology?--G-Dett (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing for a third option, using "West Bank, Palestine", on the grounds that it's the terminology used by one of the "sides". Without getting into the question of whether the sources supporting "nothern Samaria" are actually from a "side", I was wondering if there actually were reliable sources that referred to the withdrawal from the four settlements in the "West Bank, Palestine", as you seem to be asserting. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to understand the thrust of your question. The only source you've given for your phrase "the northern Samaria region of the West Bank" is a deadlinked op-ed from The Australian. The other sources are also op-eds. It's bananas that you're sourcing the POV terminology you want to use in Wikipedia's default voice to op-eds; only one indication among many of the absurdity of all of this. You want me to look around and find some op-eds that use the terms "Palestine," "West Bank, Palestine," etc. for this region? Um, OK. But this game of ping-pong has no relevance whatsoever. Wikipedia should use mainstream terminology when writing in its default voice.--G-Dett (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The "thrust" of my question is are there actually any reliable sources that refer to the withdrawal from the four settlements in the "West Bank, Palestine", as you seem to be asserting? All of the sources regarding the withdrawal from the four settlements in "northern Samaria" explicitly refer to "northern Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

All are op-eds, and you've been wasting our time.--G-Dett (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You claimed the "other side" used a specific terminology which you proposed as a "third option". However, that is apparently not the case. Therefore it is you, in fact, who has "been wasting our time." Jayjg ^(talk) 06:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Israel Hints at Uprooting Settlements in Palestine Peace Deal; 2. For the first time, settlements in Palestine are being removed; 3. Sharon...will be the Israeli Prime Minister to dismantle and remove settlements in Palestine...; etc., etc., etc. Stop wasting everyone's time.--G-Dett (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Now it is the Israelis who are going through the motions of disengagement from Palestine, with a similar objective in mind—to make it clear that “Israel is Israel and Palestine is Palestine"[9]; "Recent developments in the occupied Palestinian territory marked by the unilateral Israeli disengagement from Palestine had not given rise to an environment that was conducive to improving the lives of the Palestinian people." [10]--G-Dett (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "huliq.com" is, but I've read all five sources, and from what I can tell none of them refer to "West Bank, Palestine". In fact, none of them seem to refer directly to the four settlements in northern Samaria at all. Can you provide some reliable sources that actually use that terminology to refer to the location of those settlements? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, as G-Dett has pointed out, none of your sources refer to "the northern Samaria region of the West Bank" either. You claim that the Israeli ambassador to Australia has used the expression once in an interview with an Australian newspaper, however, the link is dead so there's no way to verify your claim. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To hyphenate thrust in 'The "thrust" of my question' gives a nicely adolescent macho touch to the jousting here, esp. where your interlocutor is a woman, particularly from a White knight endeavouring to salvage a desperate argument, one whose thrusts are likely to result in shooting 'blanks', as both Nabokov and James Joyce would appreciate. But the thrust of any question here is, as Elonka's (1) or (2) choices show, what formulation best fits NPOV.

'Northern Samaria in the West Bank' conflates an Israeli toponym (Samaria and Judea being in Israeli usage the 'West Bank') with the default international term for the area, 'the West Bank', thereby creating terminological dissonance. It manages to sweetly retain an Israeli tilt to language that nods towards international usage while subverting it, undoing NPOV while flourishing a conciliatory gesture in its direction. This is the default trick of much editorial imbroglios in the I/P area.

The 'thrust' of the only germane question is: why attempt a synthesis of Israeli usage and International usage when international bodies, intelligence organisations like the CIA, and authoritative area scholars simply speak of the specific event as Israel's withdrawal from the northern West Bank?

• ‘despite setbacks, 2005 witnessed the successful completion of the Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip and parts of the northern West Bank, first announced by prime Minister Ariel Sharon in February 2004 (YUN 2004, p.455). On 12 September, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and by 20 September, from four settlements in the northern West Bank, thereby putting an end to its permanent presence in the area’. Yearbook of the United Nations 2005: Volume 59, United Nations Publications, 2007 p.503

• ‘Israel withdrew from four settlements in the northern West Bank in August 2005’, The CIA World Factbook 2008, Skyhorse Publishing Inc., 2007 p.684

• ‘In February, the PA – supported by the Government of Egypt – brokered a deal between HAMAS, PIJ, and AAMB for a period of “calm” to allow Israel to withdraw from Gaza and four settlements in the northern West Bank . . The PA worked with the Israeli Government in preparation for the Israeli disengagement from Gaza and areas of the northern West Bank.' Anthony H. Cordesman, Arab-Israeli Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, D.C.), Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 p.286. With apologies to Arthur Rubin, with whom, pending his review of his judgement that I make personal attacks, rather than simply endeavouring to remind editors of their stated views, I undertook to never edit wiki again. Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani.  :) I read your post a few times, but I'm afraid I couldn't figure out which of options 1-3 you would prefer for this article. Could you please post something brief in the "poll" section above, to clarify? Thanks, --Elonka 16:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[Option #3] is a clear WP:NPOV and WP:POINT violation. We could also write up Levant or Middle East as well, but it has no correlation with the settlements themselves.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC) clarify 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC) + 19:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support no.2 by default. I'm not really pleased with either 1 or 2 (Suggestion 3 should be retracted) but the settlements were clearly part of the Samaria. The phrasing is not that good though and I'm thinking (for now) that -- four in the Samaria district, at the northern region of the West Bank -- might work better. I would also promote a note that the political standing of the Samaria region is under dispute - which clarifies the disputed situation of the settlements. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Option #2 including the official Israeli names and the names that are included in excellent RS's. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I wonder if this post by JoshuaZ might be refactored down into the "poll discussion section," since he's responding to this post by me. I think it should be directly under Jay's question for me here (2nd half of diff), as it was originally. In my subsequent post, I respond to both Jay and Joshua. As it is now, Joshua's comment/question is in the section for "votes," even though he doesn't express a preference, and the exchange between the two of us is very difficult to follow, with his response coming before the post he's responding to.

Tundrabuggy, I wonder if I might put to you the same question I put to Jay: why should we use the "official Israeli name" but not the official Palestinian name? There are two parties to the conflict over territory and terminology, no? I agree wholeheartedly that we should use the standard term employed by the overwhelming majority of "excellent RSs," of course. I'm just asking why in addition to that accepted term, you think we should reserve a place for the "official" term of only one of the two official parties to the conflict.

Finally, I suggest all editors review the following from WP:NPOV:

A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.

In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.

Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited.

--G-Dett (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I trust now, after the policy has been clarified, that suggestion no.3 would be striken through. It is of equal value to adding "in Palestine" on the Israel article and/or "in Israel" to the Gaza and/or West Bank articles. This "suggestion" is pointy and disruptive and doesn't help working through a phrasing for the locality of the Israeli settlements in disputed territories. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following your reasoning here. Can you clarify?--G-Dett (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

reply to G-Dett: another part of my reasoning has to do with the fact that the Jewish so-called "settlers" were evacuating from settlements they themselves refer to as "Samaria." Since they are the principals involved in the drama, using their venacular is appropriate. The Palestinian territories only becomes "Palestine" when some accommodation is reached with Israel. "Palestine" does not have state status yet, thus I would ask where one finds the "official" Palestinian position? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I find this comment interesting on several levels ..

1) "So-called" settlers? Again, this is a term widely used and understood throughout the world, including Israel, so I'm afraid this hints at what we are dealing with - a group of editors who dislike and mock standard, neutral terminology and are subtly trying to elbow their preferred minority political terms into this encyclopedia.

2) "[Israeli settlers] are the principals involved in the drama". Well no, I believe other people live in the area as well. They are called Palestinians. I'm quite shocked by the apparent casual disregard you show for the other people involved in this "drama", and their views.

3) Following on from 2), you say that we should defer to the language of those living in settlements deemed illegal under international law, built on (and then removed from) land acquired by military conquest. I can think of equivalent name changes in history that could be applied, in other parts of the world. They wouldn't stand up here either.

4) To say there can be no official Palestinian position so long as there is no state of Palestine reveals a fairly limited grasp of both language and international politics, I'm afraid to say is, well, simply wrong of course

Cheers, --Nickhh (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, please comment on content, not on fellow editors. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Borderline incivility struck out, more general - and wholly accurate and legitimate - observations left in. --Nickhh (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

References

References for Samaria

What's going on here? eg article #5 is "Biblical significance of West Bank settlements" - not modern use. Other examples suggest only highly politicised use. Judging by screeds of previous work, modern, not point-making use of Samaria is almost unknown. PR^talk 08:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The article in question was published in 2005, and it doesn't use the term "Samaria" to refer to Biblical usage. As for the rest, please stop soapboxing, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, as shown on this page, source 4 acknowledges on p.1 that "most of the world refers to [J+S] as the West Bank". The rest of the 8 sources are not neutral: Refs 1, 2, 7, and 8 are quotes by Israelis, and 3 and 6 are by members or ex-members of Zionist orgs. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing the geographic term "Samaria", not the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria". Regarding the rest, Wikipedia does not discriminate against sources based on alleged ethnic or national origin, based on their having once been members of Zionist organizations, and suggesting it should do so is distasteful at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing whether the terms are neutral and thus suitable for the article or not, and one of your sources explicitly says they are peculiar to one side in the conflict (Israel). The rest of your sources, except the misrepresented IHT one, indicate the same thing by being of Israeli origin. If you had had the choice, you would probably have picked quotes by people from English-speaking countries, published in major US- or UK-based media. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

References for Palestine

• Water for Agriculture: Irrigation Economics in International Perspective:...since the 1967 Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, Palestine...
• Multidisplinary Reserach in Control: ...Mohammed was born in the small town of Tulkarim in the West Bank, Palestine...
• Border Fetishisms:When I did fieldwork in Jabal Nablus (West Bank, Palestine)...
• Hate Work: In Ramallah, West Bank, Palestine, Daniel Barenboim...
• Primary Source Readings in Christian Morality: ...he became vice president for academic affairs at Bethlehem University in the West Bank, Palestine.
• Urban Water: Jericho is a town in the West Bank, Palestine
• The Metabolic Syndrome at the Beginning of the XXIst Century: Urban/rural setting has no influence on prevalence estimates of the MEtabolic Syndrome among residents of the West Bank, Palestine ...

Note: All the references in the top list refer specifically to the four removed settlements described in the lede. None of the references in the bottom list do. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: shouldn't we have a set of references for "[simply] northern West Bank", without Samaria? Nishidani's belong in that category, as do the following sample ..

• Israeli Embassy in the UK - "evacuating nearly 30 settlements, including every Jewish settlement in Gaza and more in the northern part of the West Bank"
• Haaretz - "Samaria is the biblical name for the northern West Bank"
• William Safire - "Sharon preferred to refer to [the] land by biblical names: Judea and Samaria .. but Palestinians call it the West Bank and have won that terminological battle"
• Palestine facts - "the phrase West Bank has stuck, and is used to the near total exclusion of any other"

Note of course that I have deliberately chosen Israeli media, Israeli government, Israeli/American partisan sources. --Nickhh (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Only one of those quotes refers directly to the four settlements in northern Samaria. The last two aren't even about the geographical term "Samaria", but rather are about the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

context

all 8 references use this term in thi scontext - that is more than enough to establish relevancy. NoCal100 (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't yet, please participate in the #Samaria poll thread above, thanks. --Elonka 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's a bit tendentious to cherrypick eight references of which almost all are from one side in the conflict, one of them even a government official. Also, as pointed out above, one of the sources contradicts the implied claim that the area is called "Samaria" anywhere else than in Israel. The only ref remaining is a reference to ancient Samaria, not the modern West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The references are from Arie Marcelo Kacowicz, Pawel Lutomski. Population Resettlement in International Conflicts: A Comparative Study, Lexington Books; The Middle East Strategic Balance 2005-2006, Sussex Academic Press, 2007; Getz, Leonard. "Likudniks Against Sharon: Rebels or Loyalists?", The Jewish Exponent; Zelnick, Robert. Israel's Unilaterialism: Beyond Gaza, Hoover Press ; International Herald Tribune, August 23, 2005; Sofaer, Abraham D. "Disengagement First", Hoover Digest 2005 No. 1, Hoover Institution; Journal of Church and State, Autumn, 2007; None of these are identifiable with "one side in the conflict". Talk about tendentious, you comment above has to be the epitome of tendentiousness. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know where the refs are from, there is no need to clutter the page with repeating them still another time. Four of the eight are of Israeli origin [11][12][13][14] [15], which we now agree makes them unsuitable as NPOV material EDIT: Over-optimistic interpretation of the fact that CM chose to not include them in the list above. Two are members or ex-members of Zionist orgs [16][17], one of them the National Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America. I think it's faily obvious that selecting these sources from all that are available isn't exactly the epitome of impartiality.

Of the two remaining sources, one, International Herald Tribune, is clearly a reference to ancient history. The article uses "West Bank" consistently, as does every article in the IHT online archive. There are 5144 instances of "West Bank", while "Samaria" is used 48 times, every time accompanied by an explanation of the term to the effect of "the name the settlers use for the West Bank". [18].

The last remaining source (Zelnick) has this to add to the terminology discussion:

"[...] Judea and Samaria, what most of the world refers to as the West Bank."[19]

So, of 8 cites, six are from one side in the conflict, one is a misrepresentation of the source, and one contradicts the implied claim that "Samaria" is widely used outside Israel altogether. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight: We do not agree that the given references are "unsuitable as NPOV material", nor do we agree that about the criteria that make a reference unsuitable. I have seen you use this tactic of falsely claiming there is agreement where none exists before, and I have seen other editors complain that this is misleading, so I will ask you once more to stop it, and will follow up at the appropriate administrators' forums if you don't.

Wikipedia does not disqualify sources or assign them a certain POV based on nationality or ethnic origin, or decades old membership in organizations. An Israeli is not automatically on "one side of the conflict" based on his or her nationality. Azmi Bishara is not on the same side of the conflict as Ariel Sharon, even though both are Israelis. An author is not automatically on "one side of the conflict" just because he was, at one point in his life, a member of a certain organization. Noam Chomsky is not necessarily on the same side of the conflict as Abraham David Sofaer, and is clearly on a different side of the conflict from Baruch Marzel, even though they all belonged to Zionist organizations in their youth. The attempt to pre-judge a person's stance on the conflict based on nationality, ethnicity or his decades-old membership in an organization is not only logically fallacious, it is quite distasteful.

The only sources that are unquestionably on "one side of the conflict" are official government sources, or those that come from organizations that are openly partisan. With the exception of the op-ed by the Israeli ambassador to Australia, none of these sources are identifiable as being on "one side of the conflict". They are academic publications, mainstream newspaper articles and Jewish magazines - all impeccable reliable sources that use the neutral term "Samaria" to describe the geographic region also cumbersomely defined as 'the mountainous part of the Northern West bank', in the context of discussion the dismantling of Israeli settlement there. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Samaria", being used almost exclusively by Israeli/Zionist sources [20], is not an NPOV term[21]. Can we agree on that and save everybody a lot of time this Christmas? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we simply do not agree that "Samaria" is used almost exclusively by Israeli/Zionist sources, as more than 3 dozen references have shown. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Will you insist it's "distasteful" to point out that most of those sources are of Israeli origin? [22] MeteorMaker (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd insist it's pointless, since, as I have described above, being an Israeli does not, in and of itself, determine your stance on the I-P conflict. You will find it instructive to look at the Bishara/Sharon example. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, so you just single-handedly made the whole NPOV policy obsolete? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't accept using 8 Iranian sources to introduce the term Zionist entity as an acceptable alternative to "Israel". MeteorMaker (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly accept 8 sources, whether Iranian or not, to support what Zionist entity says - that it is a pejorative euphemism in the Arab world for the State of Israel. If you find 8 reliable sources that say Samaria is a pejorative, or POV term , we might consider including that in the relevant article. Here, we are dealing with 8 impeccable and reliable sources that use the neutral term "Samaria" to describe the geographic region also cumbersomely defined as 'the mountainous part of the Northern West bank', in the context of discussion the dismantling of Israeli settlement there. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That was not the question — I asked you if you'd accept changing "Israel" to "the Zionist entity" in this and other articles, if the change were supported with 8 Iranian cites. Remember, being an Iranian does not, in and of itself, determine your stance on the I-P conflict.

Your respect for impeccable and reliable sources is noted. There's a lot more than 8 impeccable and reliable sources that support the position that "Samaria" is an ancient, not modern toponym [23]. Might we consider including that in the relevant article? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have not read, or understood, my answer. Since our article says that the term is pejorative, it can"t be used as a replacement for Israel, no matter the ethnicity of those who use it. In contrast, you have yet to produce even a single source for your original research claim that that '"Samaria" is an ancient, not modern toponym ". Please do so , at your convenience, as this has been requested by multiple editors, more than once. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You have probably seen these cites before. Now, where are yours, that explicitly state it is a modern toponym? Or are you relying on synthesizing of anecdotal evidence, pitifully weak at that? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I have, and I note, for the umpteenth time, than none of those sources say '"Samaria" is an ancient, not modern toponym". I am not making the opposing claim, so I don't need to support it, all I need is to quote reliable sources that use the term in the context it is discussed- and I am doing just that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(<---outdent)

(Outdent) This is how talk pages expand exponentially. Forgive me for adding to the page clutter by posting them again here, but the link I keep posting constantly goes ignored:

'"Samaria" is an ancient, not modern toponym": Encyclopedic sources

• Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:

Samaria, central region, ancient Palestine. [...] it was bounded by Galilee to the north, Judaea to the south, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and the Jordan River to the east. It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory.

• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

Samaria, an ancient city of central Palestine in present-day northwest Jordan (Pre-67 edition - MM). It was founded in the ninth century B.C. as the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, also known as Samaria.

• Columbia Encyclopedia:

Samaria, ancient city, central Palestine, on a hill NW of Nablus (Shechem). The site is now occupied by a village, Sabastiyah (West Bank).

• Encarta:

Samaria, ancient city and state in Palestine [...] In modern times, a sect of Samaritans practices a religion similar to that of the biblical Jews, with some admixture of Islam. Few in number, they make their home around their ancient temple site of Mount Gerizim, near modern Nābulus, in the area now known as the West Bank.

• Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names:

Samaria, Samaria, (Hebrew: Shomron), West Bank. The central region of ancient Palestine and its capital, now called Sabasṭiyah.

Re the usage domain of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria":

• Encyclopedia Britannica Online says:

West Bank, area [...] occupied from 1967 by Israel. The territory, excluding East Jerusalem, is also known within Israel by its biblical names, Judaea and Samaria.

• Columbia Encyclopedia says:

West Bank, territory, [...] largely occupied by Israel [...] Israelis who regard the area as properly Jewish territory often refer to it by the biblical names of Judaea and Samaria.

And if you say you are not making the claim that Samaria is a modern, not just ancient, toponym, how do you explain this? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No-one is ignoring your sources; they just don't support the claims you make for them. An if you're going to re-post your sources, there's no reason why I shouldn't also re-post the many sources that disprove your theory:

"Samaria" is used in dozens of modern, reliable sources

1. "Its intention was to establish a Jewish settlement in the heart of Samaria, the northern bulge of the West Bank, densely populated by Arabs." Ian Lustick For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, p. 45.
2. "Few in number until the late 1970s, the young Gush Emunim settlements in Samaria, the Etzion bloc, and Kiryat Arba attracted the most idealistic and dynamic fundamentalist activists." Ian Lustick For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, p. 54.
3. "Rabin intended the settlement to be temporary and to relocate them later within the confines of the Allon plan, not in the heart of Samaria. The settlers, however, refused to move." Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. To Rule Jerusalem", Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 170.
4. "The row houses of Ofra, a Jewish suburb to the north of Jerusalem, are planted in deep red soil at the foot of Ba'al Hatzor, the highest mountain in Samaria." Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. To Rule Jerusalem", Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 213.
5. "In August 2005, reversing his longstanding position on championing settlement of the Land of Israel, Sharon evacuated all of the Jewish settlements in Gaza (some 9,000 people living in twenty-one communities) and four small settlements in the northern part of Samaria (West Bank)." Alfred J. Kolatch. Inside Judaism: The Concepts, Customs, and Celebrations of the Jewish People, Jonathan David Company, 2006, p. 270.
6. "On 18 September 1978, one day after the signing of the Accord, 700 Gush Emunim members established an unauthorized settlement in Samaria..." Lilly Weisbrod. Israeli Identity: In Search of a Successor to the Pioneer, Tsabar and Settler, Routledge, 2002, p. 112.
7. "LAST STAND IN SAMARIA", Kevin Peraino, Newsweek, August 15, 2005.
8. SAMARIA, Martin Gilbert, The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Routledge, 2005, p. 134 (and other maps showing Samaria).
9. "The relative success in establishing official settlement in Kfar Etzion and unofficial settlement in Kiryat Arba prompted groups of Israelis to attempt settlement in the major town in Samaria — Nablus.", Allan Gerson. Israel, the West Bank and International Law, Routledge, 1978, p. 139.
10. "In Samaria the voting percentage increased from 75% in the Jordanian period to 83.9%..." Allan Gerson. Israel, the West Bank and International Law, Routledge, 1978, p. 185.
11. "Nevertheless, Haganah commanders recognized that the size of the Iraqi force and its location in northern Samaria made it a dangerous threat." Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, University of Nebraska Press, 2004, p. 153.
12. "The prospects for a successful defense also improved during this period with the arrival of a large Iraqi expeditionary force in northern Samaria, enabling Glubb to withdraw..." Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, University of Nebraska Press, 2004, p. 279.
13. "...wanted to concentrate their forces along shorter defensive lines in the mountainous terrain of central Samaria." Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, University of Nebraska Press, 2004, p. 296. (many other similar examples in this book).
14. "The first actual step taken by the group was to settle in Elon Moreh in Samaria." Santosh C. Saha, Thomas K. Carr. Religious Fundamentalism in Developing Countries, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, p. 73.
15. "Northern Samaria is one of the harsest setting in the territories... In addition there have been many convoys bringing food, medical supplies, and other necessities to blockaded villages in Samaria and on the western "seam line". David Dean Shulman. Dark Hope: Working for Peace in Israel and Palestine, University of Chicago Press, 2007, p. 102.
16. "Arafat lived in the casbah of old Nablus in Samaria and held his meetings in small Nablus cafes or in the New Generation Library." John Laffin. Fedayeen; the Arab-Israeli Dilemma, Free Press, 1973, p. 26.
17. "(Though the northern parts of Samaria were occupied by the Iraqi army, as a Hashemite sister state, Iraq allowed Abdullah to exercise his political influence over the territories its armies controlled)." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 12.
18. "Kiryat Arba (near Hebron) and Elon Moree (in Samaria) were, until 1977, the only settlements founded in the West Bank outside the lines of the Allon Plan." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 95.
19. "In 1981, at the end of Begin's first term as Prime Minister, there were about 80 settlements in the West Bank, some in the densely-populated Arab areas in Samaria and elsewhere." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 96.
20. "The first settlement had been built in Samaria, and settlers believed that they had begun the task of preventing territorial compromise in the West Bank." David Weisburd. Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985, p. 30.
21. "While the government had acted quickly to forcibly uproot previous settlement attempts, it did not move against the settlers in Samaria through December 7." David Weisburd. Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985, p. 32.
22. "Success in restoring some order was due to the energy and skill of the district governors — in Hebron a Palestinian, Nairn Tucan, in Samaria another, the active Ahmed Khalil, and in Jerusalem Abdullah Tell." Ann Dearden. Jordan: history and special problems, R. Hale, 1958, p. 85.
23. "...as a reaction to the October War, and the character and impact of the illegal settlement attempts in Samaria from late 1974 onward." William W. Harris. Taking Root: Israeli Settlement in the West Bank, the Golan, and Gaza-Sinai, 1967-1980, Research Studies Press, 1980, p. 135.
24. "As regards physical activity Gush Emunim had carried all before it for two years and had planted the presence in Samaria which would be extremely difficult to curb, let alone uproot." William W. Harris. Taking Root: Israeli Settlement in the West Bank, the Golan, and Gaza-Sinai, 1967-1980, Research Studies Press, 1980, p. 157.
25. "In Samaria, the number of women employed in sewing has risen from 100 in 1967 to just over 3000 in 1972." Vivian A. Bull. The West Bank--Is it Viable?, Lexington Books, 1975, p. 123.
26. "A third sector was opened up in the north, where Gen. Elazar sent the armoured brigades of Ram and Bar-Kochva from Ugda Peled to take Nablus and Jenin in Samaria." John Laffin, Mike Chappell. The Israeli Army in the Middle East Wars 1948-73, Osprey Publishing, 1982, p. 19.
27. "For example, in the case of the settlement-city of Ariel - the largest settlement in Samaria, coincidentally named after Ariel Sharon - the design was stretched into a long, thin form." Stephen Graham. Cities, War, and Terrorism: Towards an Urban Geopolitics, Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p. 181.
28. "Likud planners designated Ariel to become the largest Jewish town in Samaria, with as many as one hundred thousand residents by the year 2010." Robert I. Friedman. Zealots for Zion: Inside Israel's West Bank Settlement Movement, Random House, 1992, p. 72.
29. "... but late on June 6 he broke through to capture Nablus, the key to road communications in Samaria... Jordanian defences in Samaria fell apart." John Pimlott. The Middle East Conflicts: From 1945 to the Present, Orbis, 1983, p. 68.
30. "On the other hand, we visited the planned city of Ariel on the top of a mountain in Samaria, one of Israel's West Bank settlements." Peter Laarman. Getting on Message: Challenging the Christian Right from the Heart of the Gospel, Beacon Press, 2006, p. 46.
31. "Yael Meivar was shot by terrorists near the settlement of Alei Zahav in Samaria." Anthony H. Cordesman, Jennifer Moravitz. The Israeli-Palestinian War: Escalating to Nowhere, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005, p. 26.
32. "Marking Israeli Arbor Day at a Jewish settlement in Samaria on Feb. 3, Shamir said...", Andrew C. Kimmens. The Palestinian Problem, H.W. Wilson, 1989, p. 211.
33. "Carter concluded that the unresolved issues included... the future of the Palestinians in Samaria, Judea, and Gaza..." Herbert Druks. The Uncertain Alliance: The U.S. and Israel from Kennedy to the Peace Process, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, p. 175.
34. "Jewish settlements in Samaria in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would be under Israeli sovereignty." H. Paul Jeffers. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Jerusalem, Alpha Books, 2004, p. 212.
35. "Instead the government based its view on the map previously introduced by Clinton Bailey which envisaged three self-governing Palestinian enclaves, with an Israeli corridor in Samaria." Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Dawoud Sudqi El Alami. The Palestine-Israeli Conflict: A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld Publications, 2001, p. 86.
36. "Instead, he chose total disengagement from Gaza and the dismantlement of four settlements in northern Samaria." Zvi Shtauber, Yiftah Shapir. The Middle East Strategic Balance 2005-2006, Sussex Academic Press, 2007, p. 123.
37. "Prior to forming his new coalition with the Labor Party, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon strong-armed members of his Likud cabinet to support Labor's idea of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and four settlements in northern Samaria." Getz, Leonard. "Likudniks Against Sharon: Rebels or Loyalists?", The Jewish Exponent, 01-13-2005.
38. "Understandably so: in the end, the Gaza withdrawal took all of six days while the pullout from four settlements in northern Samaria was accomplished in a single day." Zelnick, Robert. Israel's Unilaterialism: Beyond Gaza, Hoover Press, 2006, p. 157.
39. "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." "Biblical significance of West Bank settlements", International Herald Tribune, August 23, 2005.
40. "Others not only support comprehensive talks but call for abandonment of Israel’s plan to disengage from Gaza and four settlements in northern Samaria." Sofaer, Abraham D. "Disengagement First", Hoover Digest 2005 No. 1, Hoover Institution.
41. "In August 2005, Israel vacated the Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip--mainly in Gush Katif--as well as four settlements in northern Samaria." Inbari, Motti. "Fundamentalism in crisis - the response of the Gush Emunim rabbinical authorities to the theological dilemmas raised by Israel's Disengagement plan", Journal of Church and State, Autumn, 2007.
42. "Four settlements will be evacuated in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank." Tamir, Naftali. "Naftali Tamir: Retreat with peace in mind", The Australian, August 15, 2005.

As has been proven time and again, dozens of sources published in many different countries (not including Israel) use the term Samaria. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I will refrain from adding to the page length even more by copying the refutals.

Jayjg, instead of posting a fifth identical copy of that list, you could post a simple link to the static page where it's already on display (that's what I do, except on one occasion when somebody had repeatedly ignored the link [24] and kept making the absurd claim "you have yet to produce even a single source for your original research claim that that '"Samaria" is an ancient, not modern toponym" — which the reposting of cites from several encyclopedias finally put an end to.

Some day, you will have to explain your interpretation of WP:SYN. I doubt the policy makers' intention was that verbatim quotes from well-renowned encyclopedias should fall under it. Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that self-serving original conclusions drawn from as little as a dozen cases of anecdotal evidence should get off scot free. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How many time have you posted your list of sources? 6? More? Link to the sources, or put them here and hide them, I don't care which, but don't keep filling the talk page with your repetitive list even as you apologize for doing so. Everyone has seen your list multiple times, no-one is "ignoring" it as you continually claim. They just reject your original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have only posted it once, here. Small parts of it have been posted earlier, but never since the ref page went up, except the one-off clarification for CM I described above. Your thoroughly refuted list currently exists in five copies however.

Since you keep ignoring it, I must ask you again: How exactly do you see WP:OR and WP:SYN as being applicable to verbatim quotes from encyclopedias [25]? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, none of the encyclopedias says "Samaria is an ancient, not a modern toponym". None of them say anything like that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

MM, for the life of me I can't understand why you're (a) trying to discount sources on account of tenuous relationships to the Israeli establishment; and (b) allowing the burden of proof here to be placed on your shoulders by trying to knock down each and every source that uses the term.

The term "Samaria" is inappropriate for Wikipedia's neutral voice in the present context for exactly the same reasons that "Palestine" would be inappropriate: because only a tiny fraction of sources use the term in this way (as opposed to, say, historically), and because the fact that the term is politically loaded is well sourced.

Nothing more needs to be said, and really, nothing more should be said. Canadian Monkey is exactly right in saying that it's neither here nor there whether a given source is Israeli, provided that they aren't an Israeli official or a representative of a partisan organization. CM is wrong, however, when he says that the term is "neutral," but the way to demonstrate that is to cite sources saying it's non-neutral, and point to the rareness of its use. Not to go through each and every source adduced and try to demonstrate the source has some self-evident bias.--G-Dett (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with that statement. We don't use "Palestine" merely because it's POV, but also for the sake of encyclopedic accuracy and clearness. As Palestine has so many possible meanings in time and space, it is encumbent on us to use the term only when it is appropriate, and we do in fact use it in the project. It is appropriate to use Samaria in this context. We do not summarily refuse to use "Palestine" throughout the project, as some are apparently attempting to do with Samaria. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, if we limit the discussion to this article. However, I do think it's relevant to state, if nothing else in the Judea and Samaria articles, that the terms are exceedingly rare outside Israel, and the rest of the world uses them exclusively as ancient toponyms. [26] It's baffling and almost amusing how those who are intent on trying to refute that position constantly bring up Israeli sources as purported evidence of outside-Israel use. If nobody calls the cards and does the fact-checking, the sources might pass as legit. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I do agree with your position on those other articles, if your position is that we should describe use of the term outside of Israel as "exceedingly rare" because in our survey of the literature, we find its use exceedingly rare. Jay will call this original research, and in this case he'll be right. What we can (and perhaps should) do is point out that use of the term for present-day realities is seen as politically loaded. That's abundantly well-sourced.--G-Dett (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, Wikipedia does have a well-defined methodology for determining if a toponym enjoys wide acceptance in English. It has been applied here, with a pretty conclusive result, and despite repeated invitations, none of the term's proponents has yet found it worthwhile to repeat the test. That in addition to numerous sources that explicitly say that "Samaria" is not a modern toponym outside Israel (CM – they're posted here.)

Not that I propose to change the Samaria article to use the exact words "exceedingly rare" – this is the suggested sentences Jayg & co keep rejecting:

Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. The combined term Judea and Samaria, despite some geographical imprecision, is used in Israel to refer to the West Bank as a whole.

Given the excellent sources and impeccably NPOV tone, I can't see how it violates any WP policy, or even can be seen as problematic. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem would be that the sources show it's not just used in Israel. So, it would violate WP:V to start. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:V, do you have a reliable source for your claim "it's not just used in Israel"? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are conflating "Judea and Samaria", which is a politically loaded term (and I have written as much, in response to MM, two months ago when he embarked on this crusade), and "Samaria", which is a neutral geographical term, used in many places, from the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to modern day maps produced by the CIA. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain there are excellent sources documenting that the terms (plural) "Judea" and "Samaria" are politically loaded. I know there's been an effort on Wikipedia to discount these sources by saying that they're only talking about the single term "Judea and Samaria," used solely in an administrative sense, but that effort seems doomed, belied as it is by the sources in question.--G-Dett (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I'm now positive (not "fairly certain" as I was above) that there are excellent sources for "Samaria" being a politically loaded term (and not just the singular administrative term "Judea and Samaria").--G-Dett (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Arabs Against Discrimination (and I am amazed that there is no wiki article on them)-- in their online site, use the term "Samaria" in some 67 articles. This would demonstrate to me that it is used by people on the other side of conflict as well as Zionists, Israelis, Jews, Christian Zionists, "settlers", historians, archeologists, assorted wackos and others... [27]Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I thought I would do a little research as well, to demonstrate "general usage," & studiously avoiding any Israeli authors, and steering clear of most "Jewish" sources, though I do think that doing so is discriminatory and against the spirit of wiki. Don't believe I've duplicated any of Jay's sources.

1. Arabs against Discrimination use it 67 times: [28]
2. Zionism, Israel and the Arabs [29]fny, Jan, 2003 by Bernard Gilland -- "There are many who believe that a Palestinian State should be established in the near future, with Samaria, Judea and the Gaza Strip as its territory."
3. Chistopher Hitchens in Salon.com[30] despite occasional use of "scare quotes" around Judea and Samaria, does not use them here: ...."it was discovered that the Israeli Defense Ministry had begun covertly recognizing certain "unauthorized" settlements in Samaria"
4. The UK Guardian: [31] "Israel will leave Gaza and four settlements in Samaria [the West Bank]."
5. American Thinker: Israeli settlements, withdrawal and peace [32]"On Monday August 22, 2005, the settlement called Kadim ceased to exist. Established in 1984 in north central Samaria, it was within walking distance to ..."
6. Peace Now’s Settlement Report: April 2005 [33] "In the first months of 2005 construction was continued in order to quickly expand as much as possible the settlements in the area of the Samaria road (near ...
7. Reagan and the "New" Israel - The New York Review of Books [34]"He contends that Reagan will not allow Israel to expand settlements in Samaria and Judea because that would endanger the revenues of American industries ..."
8. Hotel Listings & Destination Guide for Europe & Russia[35] "We ate lunch at the deserted settlement of Samaria village, about 6 km down the trail. Be warned that there are markers telling you how far you've come and ... "
9. After Attacks, Settlers Bend On Hitchhiking - The Forward [36]"The main settler organization, the Council of Jewish Settlements of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, has followed only slowly and reluctantly."
10. PBS Frontline Chronology : [37]

• 1977-"The plan favors the western slopes of Samaria..."
• 2003 -"During 2003, Israel's Ministry of Construction and Housing decides to finance the buying of caravans or light mobile homes by regional Jewish councils in Judea, Samaria and Gaza..."

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)

Puqu

Puqu was established by China in occupied Tibet in 2004 for Tibetean inhabitants. Is Puqu considered an "illegal settlement" by the international community? Chesdovi (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Research would be welcome. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: The terms "Judea", "Samaria", and "Palestine"

Template:RFChist 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. [38]). 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 [39][40][41] and elsewhere [42][43][44]. 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)