Talk:West Bank

Should this page have an infobox?

I notice that the entry for the Gaza Strip has a "country or territory infobox" with information about population, area, etc. Should the West Bank have one too? Woood (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Area's A, B and C

Hi all, firstly let me say I think this is an excellent article. There is a section where areas are discussed (A, B and C) from what I read I see that they vary in Israeli / Palestinian population densities for me I thoght it would be useful to have a map of some kin clearly colour coded with these regions on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.156.106 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

They're on the UN OCHA Closures map in the article, for example. High resolution version --JWB (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bethlehem christians

I removed an unsourced and frankly apalling paragraph which concluded that 'Arafat flooded Bethlehem with Muslems[sic] from nearby villages and Hevron[sic]. As a result of rape, assault, and murder, Christian Arabs in larger numbers felt compelled to leave the city. As of 2003, Christian Arabs comprise a mere 20% of Bethlehem.'

I cannot find any sources outside of Christian Zionist activism websites which make these bizarre claims; indeed, a Bethlehem mayor Elias Freij was cited as begging for Israel to save him from Arafat's attacks, when in fact his New York Times obituary notes that he was "a confidant of the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat" who "maintained close contact with the P.L.O. during the exile years" and later served as Arafat's tourism minister.

Whatever ethnic / religious tensions may exist in Bethlehem, they aren't serious enough to warrant attention in the article West Bank, and the article Bethlehem already deals with them in a much more neutral and factual manner. For example, it notes that in a poll of Bethlehem's Christians, "78% attributed the ongoing exodus of Christians from Bethlehem to the Israeli travel restrictions in the area." (Bethlehem's Christians had been very hard hit by the collapse of tourism in Palestine since 2000.) <eleland/talkedits> 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

British Mandate Palestine

[[::User:Canadian Monkey|Canadian Monkey]] ([[::User talk:Canadian Monkey|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Canadian Monkey|contribs]]) -->, you reverted my edit correcting the information regarding British Mandate Palestine. Though it is true that at the San Remo Conference in 1920, the British Mandate in Palestine was to comprise territory in modern-day Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in 1921, the Transjordan was split off to be administered separately. This move formalized by the addition of a September 1922 clause to the charter governing the Mandate for Palestine. Further, the British Mandate in Palestine officially began in 1923, and at that time the Transjordan was not a part of it. Would you mind restoring my edit please? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 04:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was incorrect - there was no such thing as a 'mandate of Transjordan'. It is true that the transjordanian part was administered under a different regime (which is what I noted in my edit summary), per the 1922 clause allowing this, but there was only one mandate handed out - for Palestine.Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"also known as Judea and Samaria"

All sorts of groups and individuals prefer the term "Judea and Samaria" to "West Bank", it's not just "Gush Emunim" or "the settler movement". It is, after all, officially Israel's seventh administrative district, which is why you'll find the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs referring to it that way,[1] the Jewish Agency for Israel,[2], non-governmental sources like The Jerusalem Post,[3] academic sources published by American university presses,[4] etc. Please stop inserting demonstrably false material into the lede, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Some cites were added by User:NoCal100 to bolster that exact claim, and they were by the IDF and Gush E — which is demonstrably true, not false, as you claim. I have no problems at all with adding the Israeli government, the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Agency for Israel, and certain Israeli scholars to the list of "J+S" users. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You've violated 3RR here. Please revert yourself and work it out on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

All sorts of people and groups use the term; your attempts to insist that the phrase is only used in Israel, or is only used in a biblical sense, are misleading. It is used by Americans and American groups,[5] Canadian groups,[6]. U.K. newspapers,[7] etc. Please stop inserting misleading qualifiers into the phrase and the lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle online blog post you have cited also refers to (inverted commas in the original) "Israel proper". Now do we add that sarcastic description to every mention of the Israeli state within the Green Line? And are you seriously trying to suggest that the Zionist Organisation of America is just some random, politically neutral "American group"? Amusingly of course your citing of what that group - as well as the Israeli MFA and the Jewish Agency for Israel - prefer to call occupied territory captured in war merely reinforces the point about what we are dealing with here. To give equivalence to the phrase "Judea and Samaria" (rather than simply, openly and accurately explaining that it is a minority description, used primarily by the occupying power) is fraudulent and dishonest, as you surely know unless you are simply stupid, which I doubt. This fatuous dispute has now been spread across up to five pages now, while you and others refuse to accept what is surely obvious to any rational, objective and independent observer, seemingly because it contradicts a limited and closeted view of the world. It is precisely this kind of propagandistic, ethnic-religious-nationalist-statist cr#p that bedevils Wikipedia and renders it sadly but frequently unreliable. --Nickhh (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nick, you don't appear to be addressing the point I've made, and instead have engaged in uncivil personal attacks. Please try again. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, Jayjg, you may add "The Zionist Organization of America" [8], "B'nai Brith" (an Israel-lobby group in Canada [9]), and the former literary editor of the Jerusalem Post [10] to the list of "J+S" users. Haven't I said already that I have no problems with adding Jerusalem Post?

If, as you claim, "all sorts of groups and individuals prefer the term "Judea and Samaria" to "West Bank"", one would think it would be easy to find examples of such groups and individuals that aren't a) Israel-based or b) affiliated with Israel lobby groups or Zionist organizations. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence should probably be changed to read "The West Bank (Arabic: الضفة الغربية‎, aḍ-Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä, Hebrew: הגדה המערבית‎, HaGadah HaMa'aravit), also known variously as "Judea and Samaria" and "Palestine," is a landlocked territory on the west bank of the Jordan River in the Middle East." I'll get the necessary cites and fix the opening sentence.--G-Dett (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated, but please take a look at this first. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely better in terms of balance, but in my view we would still need some form of brief qualification added (and that would apply to any reference to "Palestine" as well) to make clear that there are political issues lying behind the phrase "Judea and Samaria", and that it is used by a minority viewpoint, and predominantly within Israel. User:Jayjg continues to assert that it is used everywhere as if on a par with the standard "West Bank", but after 10,000 words has yet to come up with any convincing evidence to show that. And if one makes the point that the sources provided so far as support are weak and appear to in fact back up the "within Israel/minority" qualifier, he doesn't address that point. By contrast, the sources accumulated by MM and others are, well, pretty overwhelming in terms of comparative numbers, as well as in terms of those which describe and analyse what sits behind the "J&S" designation. I mean come on, even William Safire's given up on this one.

It may well be instructive to look at the WP pages for some other equivalent situations, where you have a standard term or description and secondary ones. Now I've alluded to some of these previously, and of course those pages aren't necessarily perfect examples of how to solve the problem, but they do appear to provide a broad consensus and some sort of precedent ...

• Northern Ireland could immediately tell us that it is "also known as Ulster", as if it were simply an equivalent, alternative name. I mean the former main Unionist party in the province even calls itself the "Ulster Unionist Party", and various of the paramilitary factions (UDA, UVF etc) also use the word "Ulster", all partly in a bid to stress their "separateness" from the Irish Republic/Republic of Ireland. But the article doesn't do that - it merely notes at the end of the first paragraph that the province consists of 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster proper.
• Scotland could say it is "also known as Northern Britain". By comparison to the above, this is an extreme minority and/or anachronistic or historical usage, but it is not unheard of even today. The page however simply notes that Scotland occupies the "northern third of the island"
• The Falkland Islands could say "also known as the Malvinas" to acknowledge the Argentinian claim on them. Er, it doesn't, and simply notes that Islas Malvinas is the Spanish name in the usual parentheses
• Cornwall could say "also known as Kernow" in a sop to Cornish nationalism, but instead follows the pattern above, simply noting instead in brackets that it is the Cornish language name for the county.
• Devon could simply say "also known as Devonshire", but instead gives some detail as to in what context that alternative name is used in or suggests.
• Mumbai could say "also known as Bombay" .. but it says "formerly known as Bombay". Same for Chennai/Madras. See also Sri Lanka/Ceylon, Bangladesh/East Pakistan, California/Northern Mexico etc

Apologies for boring everyone with mostly UK-related analogies and examples (I could go on you know, and did at least try to go a bit global), but as far as I can see the simple and unqualified "also known as ..." formulation is something that we should be trying to avoid - and which it seems is rigorously avoided on other similar pages here. Instead, if there's a former, secondary or minority-use alternative name, the lead will - if it mentions it at all - make clear that is what we are dealing with. As opposed to appearing to suggest that it is an equivalent, second name for exactly the same thing, magically free of any history, politics or other baggage. --Nickhh (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, here are anyway the choices regarding the lead:

1. Provide alternate names ("Judea and Samaria," "Palestine," etc.) with references to their political implications
2. Provide alternate names ("Judea and Samaria," "Palestine," etc.) without reference to their political implications
3. Leave discussion of alternate names and terminology out of the lead

Which option do you all think is optimal?--G-Dett (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have left out the other option, leave the lede as it is, since the alternative terminology is also the official government terminology. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the official Israeli government terminology; the official Palestinian government terminology is different. Why would we offer one "alternative name" and not the other, given that both are disputed?--G-Dett (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel happens to be the country that controls the territory; quite legally too, from what I can tell. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is your position on the editing dispute at hand a function of your opinion that Israel's control of the West Bank is legal?

More broadly, is it your position that NPOV terminology is set by the party "that controls" a disputed territory?--G-Dett (talk) 03:54, 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 the term into all sorts of articles; rather, in the half dozen or so articles where it was already found, I objected to the attempts of an SPA to purge Wikipedia of the term 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) 04:04, 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 "Israel happens to be the country that controls the territory." What I want to know is why you think our NPOV terminology should be a function of who "controls the territory."--G-Dett (talk) 04:09, 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) 04:21, 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 not asking you to make your position any simpler than that first articulation; on the contrary, I'm asking you to elaborate.--G-Dett (talk) 07:21, 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. Now, a question for you; are you proposing that all terminology that you consider to be biased, including "Palestine" and "Samaria", be removed from Wikipedia articles? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No. I am proposing that terminology used by a small minority of sources and widely considered to be ideologically loaded should not be used in Wikipedia's passive voice.

Also note that when you make a strawman of what I say, I pay you (and everyone else following the dialogue) the courtesy of specifying exactly in what way you've either misunderstood or misrepresented me. That way, I avoid giving the impression that I'm simply pressing the word "strawman" as a panic button when I find myself socratically checkmated.[11]--G-Dett (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL! "Socratically checkmated". Fantasies aside, please desist from uncivil comments, and Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If you were not socratically checkmated, but in fact were misunderstood and/or misrepresented, then I trust you'll specify exactly in what way. Fantasies aside. Regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please understand that accusations about "strawman" arguments impute dishonesty to the accused. This is a serious matter, all the more serious when the accusations are routine and robotically repetitive, and consistently unaccompanied by clarifications of the supposedly misunderstood/misrepresented position.--G-Dett (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Do you have anything you wish to add regarding article content? Any comments or points regarding article content that you have not yet already made? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh indeed. The question is not whether I have anything to "add," but whether you have an actual, substantive response to my question[12], beyond pressing "strawman" as a panic button.--G-Dett (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any new comments or points relevant to article content that you wish to make? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Do you have an actual, substantive response to my question[13], beyond pressing "strawman" as a panic button?--G-Dett (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already given substantive replies, several times. Please desist from asking loaded questions, making straw man presentations and from deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Do you have any new comments or points relevant to article content that you wish to make? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

New? No. If novelty of utterance were the operative test you'd have stopped posting to this page six weeks ago. But again, regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please understand that accusations about "strawman" arguments impute dishonesty to the accused. This is a serious matter, all the more serious when the accusations are routine and robotically repetitive, and consistently unaccompanied by clarifications of the supposedly misunderstood/misrepresented position. As for your reference to "deliberately asserting false information," you've provided zero evidence of that, so I can only assume you're trolling and making gratuitious bad-faith personal attacks. Try to avoid that in the future.--G-Dett (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are asking loaded questions and making straw man presentations does not impute dishonesty to you; you may be doing so for other reasons, including, among others, the very reasons you have falsely attributed to me. Nevertheless, your questions have been answered, and I am not not really planning to co-operate with your attempts to reduce a complex, contextual argument to a simplified caricature. In the future, please desist from making uncivil comments, and Comment on content, not on the contributer. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 06:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If you feel a question is loaded, say exactly why; if you feel a position of yours has been misunderstood or misrepresented, specify how. These terms ("strawman," "loaded question," etc.) are not talismans to be waved around or panic buttons to be pressed in an argumentative impasse. Again, I suggest you revisit the tone you take with me; unanswerable imperiousness does not yield fruitful discussion, and sarcasm cuts both ways.--G-Dett (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(Reset) The constant "Strawman!" accusations, as well as the frequent rather childish repetition of other editors' phrasings back at them (on this page and elsewhere) helps no-one. Nor do the constant firing off of WP civility rules at other editors, while skirting on the limits of them yourself, per the above. As for the lead .... as noted above, although I generally prefer to avoid importing the detail of debates into lead sections, if we are going to have "also known as J&S" here, we need qualification. Otherwise the article is simply misleading (I'll row back from "fradulent and dishonest" here), and gives the impression of false equivalence. As I also noted above, most WP pages where there are similar issues don't present alternative names as synonymous, especially in the first sentence, and nor should this page. --Nickhh (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration listing piqued my curiosity. In the (non-Israeli) news, it is nearly always the "West Bank", Judea and/or Samaria more in historical documentaries. To most, the latter have become historical/Biblical, not contemporary, terms even though "West Bank" is only a recent term. As unjust as it is to the true names of the region, here is no denying how deeply the term "West Bank" has taken root. That said, it's quite untrue that "Judea" and "Samaria" are only Israeli terms, that's a patently false contention.

   Furthermore, it's painfully obvious that the introduction dances on heads of pins to avoid using the words Judea and Samaria at all costs--that is totally inappropriate. The article can stay titled as "West Bank" since that's most likely how the historically uninitiated will look for it, but it can't ignore Judea and Samaria in the introduction. PetersV       TALK 05:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

The whole terminology issue is handled in the main text body, and it is stated quite succinctly there that it is a sensitive issue. Removing it from the first sentence is therefore not deleting it from the article.

Since the nomenclature is discussed in full in the body -- it even has its own sub-section --, there is no need to put it (and all the pretty sources surrounding it) in the lead.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.12.2008 09:28

I am fine with moving it out of the lead and into the body. What I am not going to agree to is the ridiculous re-insertion of a demonstrably false claim - that the WB is know only in Israel as "Judea and Samaria" , when even the first line of the first reference used for this false claim says "Only some right wing Jewish media in Israel and abroad". NoCal100 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, then it looks like we have an agreement. I will remove the sentence from the lead and move the source to the sub-section West Bank#Political terminology, where you can work out the exact wording (e.g. nobody ever said that it was known as Judea and Samaria only in Israel). Cheers, pedrito - talk - 19.12.2008 15:47

That is what is implied when you say X (also known as Y in Z). Have a look at Gricean maxims. NoCal100 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion

15% are Jews? in the West Bank and Gaza? and the referrer link is not working btw! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.9.89 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)