Talk:Judea and Samaria Area

Judea and Samaria" = "West Bank" ? WP:SYNTH!!

This is what happened when I added a ref to UNSC 242 in support of a longstanding assertion that the occupation of J+S isn't recognized by the UN:

• CanadianMonkey: Cited source makes no mention of Judea and Samaria
• MeteorMaker: Nothing strange, very few use the term "J+S". The UN refers to it as "territories occupied in the recent conflict".
• CanadianMonkey: If the UN does not use the term, it is original research, Find a source that explictly makes your claim
• MeteorMaker: Added cites that identify "occupied territories" with West Bank .
• CanadianMonkey: That is WP:SYNTH, or rather would be, if in fact the new source mentioned J+S, which it does not

In a nutshell: In order for User:CanadianMonkey to accept the fact that the UN has not recognized the occupation of the West Bank, he demands proof that Judea and Samaria = the West Bank, which strikes me an odd request from somebody with a moderate insight in world events in the last 50 years or so. Note that he doesn't express doubts of the reliability of the sources, only says it's WP:SYNTH as long as the ICJ doesn't use the exact phrase "Judea and Samaria" instead of "West Bank" — or maybe even if it did. Wikilawyering at its finest. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The argument you are making in the article is that "the UN does not recognize Judea and Samaria as a district of Israel". I had no idea that the UN was in the business of "recognizing" a member state's internal administrative districts, so I ask for a source for this. Instead, you have provided the following synthesized argument, incorporating many elements of original research not even found in the sources you have attempted to synthesize together, along the line of :

• "The UN says a resolution to the conflict involves Israeli withdrawal for territories it captured in 1967 " (source A, which does not mention J+S at all)
• "The West Bank is a territory captured in 1967 (source B)
• Synthesis of A+B, plus original research, to form :Israel must withdraw from the West Bank (original research conclusion C)
• Complete original research 'The West Bank and "Judea and Samaria" are the same thing (no source) (original research statement D)
• Synthesis of C+D, to argue that Israel must withdraw from Judea and Samaria, and finally
• If Israel must withdraw from Judea and Samaria, then the UN does not recognize it as an administrative district of Israel. (Pure original research)

Please stop this doing this. If there is a source that says "the UN does not recognize Judea and Samaria as an administrative district of Israel" - simply quote it. If there isn't, don't use original research in order to place this into the article, and stop your edit war against consensus. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The UN does not recognize Israel's claim to the West Bank, which Israel calls "Judea and Samaria". That Israel has declared it an "administrative district" is completely immaterial to the argument.

The misunderstanding that there has been any undue synthesising on my part may be my own fault, since I didn't include the full quote from the Lau&Cotran book (too lazy to type from Google Books):

First, it is now legally decided that the area between the Green Line and the Mandatory eastern border of Palestine is "occupied" and Israel remains a belligerent occupant. [...][The Court] defined where the territories occupied by Israel are. Second, the widely-circulated argument that [UNSC 242] does not call for withdrawal of all Israeli forces from all the occupied territories should now be put to rest.

So, as you see, the only claim that remains to be sourced is that "Judea + Samaria" = the West Bank. I believe most editors would consider such a demand blatant wikilawyering MeteorMaker (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What is this supposed 'claim to the West Bank' that Israel has, and which the UN does not recognize? Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The kind that makes them set up administrative districts? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So Israel's claim is that it can administer the West bank? And this is something that the UN does not support? The UN says Israel does not administer this territory? That's a pretty novel claim. Where can I read about it in a reliable source? Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Setting up a military administration appears to be a bit out of line with the 242's demands of "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force". Yes, you are going to respond with demands that I dig up a source that explicitly says so, but I've already shown what needs to be shown — that the UN wants the IDF and with it, their occupation administration out of the West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:SYNTH: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research... Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

When a map (Image:We-map.png) with one narrative is virtually the same geographic area as another map (Image:WestBankGovernatesNonLabeled.png), with a different narrative, it seems quite obvious that stating so is both factual, NPOV, and something like what Wikipedia is to strive toward. That naturally assumes one can read a map, is sufficiently aware of history and of course, neutral enough to accept it. Take a look at Wikipedia:Gaming the system, Jay, hopefully in an effort to follow policy, rather than perfect it as a wiki-art. I shall await your WP:OR rebuttal. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Which one of these maps makes the claim that "the UN says Israel does not adminsiter this territory"? I looked and couldn't find any mention of the UN on them. Please help me find it, perhaps it is in very small print. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your strawmen are getting stranger and stranger, as does your demand for proof of the whole basis of this article. Your original request, a source for the statement "the UN has not recognized Israel's claim to the West Bank", was fulfilled with the link to UNSC 242 I posted several days ago. Your request then morphed into "prove that the UN was talking about J+S", which was done with the Lau&Cotran quote I gave you above. Then you asked for proof that the West Bank = J+S, which was demonstrated to you in the post before yours. Now you're asking for a map that makes the claim that "the UN says Israel does not adminsiter this territory". Amusing as it may be to you, I ask you to stop this pointless game now. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You've explained that by 'Israel's claim to the West Bank' you mean its ability to administer the territory. Please point out where, exactly, does UNSCR 242 refer to recognizing Israel's administration of the West Bank, and the UN's lack of recognition of this. Please refer to specif clauses and/or line numbers in UNSCR 242, not to personal research as to what certain terms in 242 "really mean", or how they should be interpreted. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Either I expressed myself unclearly, or you have indulged in some personal research what I "really mean". Your original requests have already been fulfilled as per above. I see no point in defending a weird argument I never made in the first place. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The argument you have made, through the editsyou are attempting to edit war into the article is that "the official Israeli name of the seventh District of Israel, [is] unrecognised by the UN". Please provide a source for that argument. Not original research, not any synthesis of other arguments, not personal commentary. Just provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from not spelling out "J+S = West Bank", what fault do you see with the ones already provided? Also, the claim was there already [1], all I did was to provide a source. Then you deleted the longstanding "for historical regions, see Judea and Samaria" and inserted your own unsupported WP:OR that the regions are "geographical" rather than historical. Unless you can provide a source for that claim, it must be deleted per WP:V, and your persistent edit warring is clearly disruptive. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

the claim you are being asked to support is that "the official Israeli name of the seventh District of Israel, [is] unrecognised by the UN". Please provide a source for that argument. Not original research, not any synthesis of other arguments, not personal commentary, not semantic games or other forms of sophistry. Just provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed the post above. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) No, I did not. I don't care who originally put that statement in - unsourced claims may be challenged and removed at any time,which is what I did, and then you re-inserted that claim. Now, Please provide a source for that argument. Not original research, not any synthesis of other arguments, not personal commentary, not semantic games or other forms of sophistry. Just provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you just ignored it then. I repeat the question: Apart from not spelling out "J+S = West Bank", what fault do you see with the ones already provided? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not ignore it. I am not askingfor a source that says "J+S = West Bank", I am asking for a source for that states "the official Israeli name of the seventh District of Israel, [is] unrecognised by the UN". None of the argumentative sources you've stitched together in a violation of our policy against original research make that claim. Just provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

UNSC 242 clearly demands a termination of all claims or states of belligerency and withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. That is enough. For the willfully obtuse who still have "difficulties" comprehending which territories that might be, the Lau&Cotran quote above makes it clear that the ICJ has defined "territories occupied in the recent conflict" as the West Bank. I honestly don't understand how anybody can still claim it's unclear what the UN's position on Israel's occupation is. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, UNSC 242 clearly requires a termination of all claims or states of belligerency and withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. It does not however, state anything like "the official Israeli name of the seventh District of Israel, [is] unrecognised by the UN", which is the claim you've made and sourced to UNSCR 242. Please provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what the misunderstanding is now. "Unrecognised by the UN" refers to "the 7th district of Israel", not the name "Judea & Samaria". The UN has not said anything specifically about the name (apart from not using it), only that Israel has no claim to the West Bank, which is what the sentence is intended to express. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Which reliable source supports the statement '"the 7th district of Israel is unrecognised by the UN"? Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

UNSC 242, that's why I put it in. Assuming we now have solved the problem of identifying J+S with the WB, it's pretty clear: Israel has no claim to the WB, and its army, including the military administration, has no business there. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, UNSCR 242 nowhere mentions 'the 7th district of Israel', nor any recognition of it by the UN, or lack thereof. Again, which reliable source supports the statement '"the 7th district of Israel is unrecognised by the UN"? Please provide a source for that statement. Not original research, not any synthesis of other arguments, not personal commentary, not semantic games or other forms of sophistry. Just provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"The 7th district of Israel" = the West Bank. UNSCR 242: "Terminate all claims, withdraw army from West Bank". I'm sorry, I can't express it any simpler. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

if you want to include a statement that says '"the 7th district of Israel is unrecognised by the UN', you will need to find source that says just that. I'm sorry, I can't express it any simpler. Have a read of WP:SYNTH. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

UNSC 242 says just that, and you have been shown a reliable source that confirms it. In case you have just invented a new WP rule that says no sentence can go in an article unless that exact sequence of words has been said by a reliable source, you'd have to scrap 99.997% of the text on Wikipedia. Kindly stop your wikilawyering now and move on to something more productive. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

UNSC 242 says the resolution of the conflict should involve Israeli withdrawal from territories it captured, and the end of all claims of belligerency. Those items of fact are already in the article. UNSC 242 says nothing whatsoever about "The 7th district of Israel" , or about "Judea and Samria", or even about the West Bank. It most certainly does not say anything about recognizing Israel's administrative districts, or not recognizing them. Please stop this attempt at pushing a POV into the article based on your ideas about how we should interpret UNSC 242 - and please, please read WP:SYNTH, which you continue to violate. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have been shown a cite from a reliable source that explains that the territories in the 242 have been conclusively identified with the West Bank, by the ICJ. Have you seen it or have you missed it? Has Israel been admonished to leave that territory or not? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And again, I am not looking for references that the ICJ has identified the West Bank with the "territories" named in 242 (notwithstanding the fact that the source you quoted does not do that at all - it just states the West bank is occupied). I am looking for a single source, not a synthesized argument, that "'the 7th district of Israel',is not recognized by the UN". Do you have such a source or not? Please do not repeat the nonsense about UNSC 242, as it is plainly obvious that UNSCR 242 does not mention "The 7th district of Israel" , or "Judea and Samria", or even the West Bank. It most certainly does not say anything about recognizing Israel's administrative districts, or not recognizing them. Please, please, please read WP:SYNTH - as your constant violations of it will eventually lead to your editing privileges being restricted. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand how you can demand that the 242 should use terms like "The 7th district of Israel" or "Judea and Samaria" long before those terms were invented. In case you still haven't read the cite from the Lau&Cotran book I provided that makes clear just what territories the "territories occupied in the recent conflict" are, here's a new opportunity (but mind you, I'll only repost it one more time):

First, it is now legally decided that the area between the Green Line and the Mandatory eastern border of Palestine is "occupied" and Israel remains a belligerent occupant. [...][The ICJ] defined where the territories occupied by Israel are. Second, the widely-circulated argument that [UNSC 242] does not call for withdrawal of all Israeli forces from all the occupied territories should now be put to rest.

Like, hopefully, your wikithreats and persistent WP:SYNTH-waving. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:SYNTH: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research... Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research." The sources you have used don't mention Judea and Samaria, nor come to the conclusions you invent for them. Please take the WP:NOR policy seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Again: UNSC 242 is a sufficient source in itself. Additionally, for those who have difficulties understanding what territories "the territories captured by Israel in the recent conflict" might be, the Lau&Cotran quote is a sufficient source in itself. Either is a sufficient source in itself. Hope that cleared it up for you. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that they don't discuss "Judea and Samaria". Don't invent claims for the UN that it hasn't made, much less POV-push them into the lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it "POV-pushing" to say that "Judea and Samaria" = "the area between the Green Line and the Mandatory eastern border of Palestine" = "West Bank" now? What exact WP policy do you refer to this time? MeteorMaker (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit you are inserting is not '"Judea and Samaria" = "the area between the Green Line and the Mandatory eastern border of Palestine" = "West Bank"' (which 242 is not a good source for, in any case, but is a moot point), but rather "the UN does not recognize Israel's administration of Judea and Samaria". Please provide a source for that claim, not for any other one. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For the 20th (or so) time, the source is the 242. For the small subset of people who don't understand what territories "the territories captured by Israel in the recent conflict" might be, the Lau&Cotran quote is an additional source that states the same thing, only more explicitly. For the exceedingly small subset that still don't understand, I'm afraid I can't do much. Is your problem with the fact that the UN doesn't use Israel-specific terminology, or don't you honestly understand what the sources say? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For the 20th (or so) time, 242 says nothing about "Israel's 7th district", or about "Judea and Samaria" , or about "west bank", and does not say anything at all about recognizing the Israeli administration of those territories, by whatever name. Please read WP:SYNTH. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(<---Outdent)

Arbitrary section break 1

Yes, I've heard that probably 20 times. Maybe I can help you better if you answer this question: Would you still have a problem with making sense of the 242 if it said "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from Judea and Samaria"? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If what you wanted to say instead of 'The UN does not recognize Israel's administration of Judea and Samaria" was "The United Nations has declared that Israel must withdraw from territories captured in the conflict", and base that on a reference to 242, I would certainly not have a problem with that. I'd point out that this text already appears in the article, though, so I'm not sure why we'd want to repeat that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The extraordinarily shaky legal status of this administrative district is probably the most important fact in this article, so it definitely belongs in the lead. I will rewrite it according to your suggestions. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

there is nothing "shaky" about the legal status of this district - it is governed by a military authority, as occupied territory. You seem to be under the impression that every military occupation is, by definition, illegal - but that is simply not so. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an unwarranted conclusion. Israel's occupation of the WB is illegal per UN and ICJ and has not been recognized by any country. That is a fact. Your legal gyrations to make it seem like it isn't so (by demanding that the documents say "Judea and Samaria" and similar exercises in sophistry) are not particularly convincing. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the relevant UN resolutions or ICJ rulings which claim the occupation is illegal. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not "illegal" in the strict juridical sense (except East Jerusalem), but "in breach of UN resolutions" — as illegal as Saddam's WMD, and for more than 40 years now. The UN has stated pretty clearly that Israel's armed forces have no business there, and having the IDF even set up a 7th Israel district there is against both the letter and the intent of the 242.

Your new 242 wording is fine with me, although maybe a little longish. Now, please restore the "historical" in the header that you replaced with "geographical" for unstated reasons. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Which reliable source claims that the IDF administration of the West Bank is against both the letter and the intent of the 242? Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The IDF is, by definition, the Israeli army. UNSCR 242 demands the withdrawal of Israel armed forces from what you have now conceded [2] to be the West Bank. Ergo, the presence of the IDF in any form is in breach of UNSCR 242. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand this is what you think, but I am not interested in more of your personal theories and original research. I am asking which reliable source claims that the IDF administration of the West Bank is against both the letter and the intent of the 242? Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's all in UNSCR 242. Since we're now on common ground regarding the extent of the territories that it says Israel must withdraw its forces from (the West Bank), I don't see why you need an additional reliable source besides UNSCR 242 that says "UNSCR 242 says that the IDF must withdraw from the West Bank". Maybe this time it's because the 242 doesn't mention the IDF explicitly, only the Israeli army? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

UNSCR 242 obvioulsy does not say that the IDF is violating it. If you make that claim, you need to support it with reliable sources. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this the point where I'm supposed to break down and laugh maniacally? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's all you're capable of, yes. Alternatively, you could try to actually find a reliable source that supports your claims. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that you regard reliable sources as mandatory even for the most obvious statement: would you happen to have one on hand for this? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking for a reference that Judea and or/Samaria is a geographic region, a reference would be the geographical map, by the CIA, which I've presented to you several times. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Every time you bring up that CIA map, it has been pointed out that it's simply a map with the place names the locals use, and that the word "Samaria" is nowhere to be found in the entire body of online CIA document (except once, in a cross-reference list of little-used foreign toponyms). If you want to introduce country-specific terminology on Wikipedia, you have to have better evidence of widespread acceptance than that. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a geographical map, and it labels the area "Samaria". End of story. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It also labels eg. Nablus with the local names, Nabulus and Shekhem. It's clearly a map of local place names. Neither the CIA nor any other (non-Israeli) government uses the term "Samaria", a fact that has been pointed out to you numerous times and which renders your interpretation of the map a violation of WP:FRINGE. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

it does not label "Samaria" with a local name - which would be "Shomron" or "as-Samarah". It uses the non-local, English toponym "Samaria", which is all the references we need for the claim that Samaria is a geographic region. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

<----Outdent>

The names the locals are likely to use when speaking English, obviously. One (deliberately misinterpreted) map is also far from being "all the references we need" for widespread usage of a toponym. Please review Wikipedia guidelines for place names. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The locals speak Hebrew and Arabic. When speaking in foreign languages they use the terminology of those foreign languages. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. Israelis use the term "Samaria" rather than "Shomron" when speaking English, for instance with CIA operatives. From that doesn't follow that those same operatives, or anybody within the CIA, or for that matter anybody within any US gov't org uses the term. If that were, the case, we should be able to find examples of it. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

We have an example of it - the very map we are discussing. Your amusing contortions ("Oh, it says "Samaria" because that what the locals would call it if they were speaking to CIA operatives") are original research which is nowhere to be found on the map itself. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary — under WP:NCGN you are required to show that a geographical term enjoys widespread acceptance in English before you present it as a valid toponym. One single map wouldn't suffice even if you had one whose function and purpose you didn't have to creatively misconstrue to suit your agenda. Also, drawing unfounded conclusions from single examples is against both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who came up with the imaginative "it says "Samaria" because that what the locals would call it if they were speaking to CIA operatives" and I'm the one "creatively misconstrue[ing]" things? Please, be serious. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've informed you that the CIA map is what is known as a bilingual map, with the local Arabic and Israeli names on it. You believe it's proof of some kind of conspiracy to suppress the real name of the area and that the CIA secretly endorses the term "Samaria", while outwards maintaining a clever façade of sticking unfailingly to "West Bank", which conveniently explains why there isn't one proper occurrence of "Samaria" in the entire online CIA archive. I think it's pretty obvious who's the one with the vivid imagination here.

And again, even if your interpretation of the purpose of the map were perfectly accurate and not a total fabrication, you'd only have one isolated anecdotal example. WP:NCGN requires you to show that a term enjoys widespread acceptance in English. Do you have a reliable source that "Samaria" does? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You've certainly asserted, several times, that this a bilingual map, with the local Arabic and Israeli names on it, only to have me and Jayjg point out to you that "Samaria" is neither a local Arabic name nor an Israeli name, and that "Samaria" appears on the map alone, not accompanied by any local name. Instead of imagining what I believe is the purpose of the map, please refocus on the matter at hand - you asked for a reference that "Samaria" is a geographical region, and I gave you one - a geographical map with the area labeled "Samaria". Let's move on. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The place names aren't in Arabic or Hebrew letters either, so it's clearly intended for English speakers who need to familiarize themselves with what the places are called locally. What's your point, that the CIA released a secret map by mistake? What do you make of the fact that only one CIA online document (a cross-ref list of little-used place names) contains the name "Samaria", while the West Bank occurs 720 times [[3]]? Could your interpretation perhaps be a little inconsistent with reality?

And again, even if your interpretation of the map were correct, one instance of a term hardly constitutes evidence of widespread acceptance, something you need in order to present a toponym as valid on Wikipedia. It's as if a hypothetical map with "Zionist Entity" on it would legitimize that as a proper NPOV alternative to Israel. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

again, if the intent was to familiarize English speakers with what the places are called locally, it would have been transliterated, as "Shomron" or "As-Samarah". My point is that if you are looking for a reference that Samaria is a geographical region, I've given you one. Move on. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you will have to comply with WP:NCGN for geographical terms. One (creatively misinterpreted) map won't do. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who came up with the imaginative "it says "Samaria" because that what the locals would call it if they were speaking to CIA operatives" as well as the alternative "it's clearly intended for English speakers who need to familiarize themselves with what the places are called locally and I'm the one "creatively misinterpret[ing]" things? Please, be serious. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

SInce you keep ignoring the important part, let's pretend I've never refuted your interpretation of the purpose of the map. Now, how many isolated examples would you say it takes to satisfy WP's requirements for presenting a toponym as valid? MeteorMaker (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The important part, as far as I can tell, was your request (which started this exchange) for a reliable source for the claim the "Samaria" is a geographical region. One reference is enough for that claim - and I've given it to you. Time to move on. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If one single map were enough, we'd have to accept "Occupied Palestine" as a synonym for Israel as well [4]. One instance of a toponym on a map (even if your interpretation of it had been correct) is clearly not evidence of widespread acceptance. Please review WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:NCGN. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that I have to actaully explain this to you, but The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a proven antisemitic hoax, is not a reliable source on wikipedia. Seriously, this game playing has gone on long enough. Further attempts to disrupt the project along [this line will be taken to the appropriate administrators' forum. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2008

(UTC)

(<---Outdent)

(Outdent) Just showing you where your "one map is enough, to hell with the context" technique would lead if it were allowed on Wikipedia. You are in fact required to evaluate the context, not just blindly embrace anything with a superficial similarity to proof. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You have attempted to equate a CIA map, from a reliable source, with a known antisemitic hoax. Please read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Point, specifically, this section. Further disruption will be dealt with appropriately. Canadian Monkey (talk)

Wrong, I have demonstrated the potential consequences of further spreading of your lax source checking: "If something exists as a label on one map, any map, it's WP material, regardless of the purpose of the map itself". The CIA map is not what you purport it to be, or else the CIA would use the term "Samaria" on their web site [5] at least as many times as "West Bank" (turns out the actual numbers are 1 to 720). And I repeat, you need to show proof of widespread acceptance if you want to present a toponym as extant on Wikipedia. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Quoting to you from the section I referred you to: 'Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper'. Other editors have previously warned you about this. Don't do it again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I have mischaracterized your actions (and I will accept your apology as well for claiming that I "have attempted to equate a CIA map [...] with a known antisemitic hoax.") Still, you haven't yet commented on my repeated request to abide by WP:NCGN. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am following WP:NCGN, which states 'The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article'. the title of this article is 'Judea and Samaria' - and that's the name I'm using consistently throughout the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the dispute is about, it's about your promotion of Samaria and Judea to "geographical" rather than "historical" terms [6]. WP:NCGN requires you to show that a toponym enjoys widespread acceptance in order to use on WP, and I haven't seen a shred of evidence for that position. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:NCGN is relevant to this dispute Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Naming conventions (geographic names) apply to geographic names. You changed the text to "For the geographic regions of Judea and Samaria see Judea or Samaria"[7], where it before said "historical". MeteorMaker (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the lead of WP:NCGN, as it appears you have skipped over it: "our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called." This article is named Judea and Samaria, because that is what the district is called. Other articles are also appropriately named, ad the text there makes clear the names are not only historical. I don't see how WP:NCGN is relevant to this dispute Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

One week later: No new evidence has surfaced that would support the position that "Samaria" is a current term anywhere else than in Israel. Since attempts to insert it in WP articles thus violate WP:NCGN, [[WP:UNDUE], and [[WP:NPOV], [8], Canadian Monkey's edit that changed the reference to the articles on Judea and Samaria to "geographical" areas rather than historical will have to be reverted. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

One week later, asserting what you have failed to establish and declaring victory is not the way Wikipedia works. Dozens of sources establish use of the term outside of Israel. Please edit according to policy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if they were a dozen (scroll down for the refutals that decimate the list quite a lot), that wouldn't really constitute wide usage in the WP sense. Note that several of the sources do comment on usage, and all that do unanimously agree that the term is confined to Israel. Even your best evidence turns out to be better support for the opposite view, which I find telling. Please give up now and revert back. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

what you call "refutals" is referred to on wikipedia as self-serving original research. More than 3 dozen sources establish use of the term outside of Israel. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you take off the proverbial blinders and actually read the "self-serving original research", you will find proof that most of those sources are, in order of prevalence, 1) Israelis/members of Zionist orgs, 2) references to the old British Mandate region name, or even older incarnations of the area, 3) misrepresentations of neutral sources like Newsweek and Ian Lustick. Only a couple remains, and anecdotal evidence is not enough for Wikipedia. Now, if you could find a source that actually says the term is in wide use outside of Israel... MeteorMaker (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not disqualify sources because they are Zionist. You have been presented with 40+ sources outside of Israel that use the term, so it is wrong to claim that it is used exclusively in Israel. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does disqualify partisan views and partisan terminology. And as you've already been informed numerous times, the list of "sources outside of Israel that use the term" you keep referring to has been conclusively shown to contsist mostly of quotes by Israelis. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this is starting to get into WP:LAME territory. Instead of going back and forth like this, how about filing an RfC, and trying to get some comments from other editors? --Elonka 02:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It would also require a re-statement of the basic issue to avoid the copious indentations. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why does this exist?

Shouldn't this page redirect to West Bank because the latter name is more common internationally? Or do we give separate articles for disputed names to satisfy different groups? It seems that Burma has been chosen over Myanmar, and Sea of Japan chosen over other alternatives. Of course the dispute would receive note on the West Bank article (as it already does receive to some extent) but having two articles seems odd. Chedorlaomer (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the Israeli Administrative District, which is different from the "West Bank" - a political term. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am just used to seeing it in a more heated context (the naming dispute) than as a mere district. Sorry, Chedorlaomer (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The naming dispute is described in detail both here, and the West Bank article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a classic POV fork, but somebody let it slip by. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they are different things, as explained to you time and again, by multiple editors. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How are they different, Mr Multiple Editors? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For one, the Israeli district does not include the areas of Jerusalem which Israel has annexed, whereas "West Bank" does. This has been explained to you by Ynhockey. Rather than being rude, you should simply refresh your memory about these discussions. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ynhockey has not taken part in this discussion, only you, I, Jayjg, and Chedorlaomer.

So, we have now determined that "Judea and Samaria" is a geographical subset of the West Bank, is that true? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Here is User:Ynhockey's comment to you, on this exact issue, making this point: [9].

And no, what he have determined is that one of the differences between the two terms is that one refers to a different geographical area - J&S cover a subset of what is known as the West bank. That is far from the only difference. The more fundamental difference is that 'Judea & Samaria' is a clearly defined administrative entity - it is subject to a certain set of laws, administered by a known governing authority etc... By contrast, the "west bank' is a political term that lacks all of these. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume we agree now that when we speak of "Judea and Samaria", we speak of a territory that is entirely contained within the West Bank. At least that's what Ynhockey's map (posted in another, unrelated discussion) shows. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this is a "POV fork" the pro-"Judea and Samaria" slant should be obvious from the material, in that this article would be an alternative of the West Bank article that exclusively favors the minority term. This article, however, appears to be very much about its status as a district (in fact, it is quite boring). Yet even in this small article there is generous note taken of the controversy both over its name and its international legality. Unless we are expected to deny that Israel has an administrative district under this name, I don't see how this article particularly advocates the term, so I'm inclined to agree that it is not a POV fork. Chedorlaomer (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article appears to validate Israel's claim to the West Bank by presenting the district as just another administrative district, while in fact it is on occupied territory. Also, take a look at what links here instead of to the more appropriate West Bank: [10]MeteorMaker (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article states this district is governed by a military commander, and describes that its final status is subject to on-going negotiations between Israel and the PNA, so it most certainly does not present the district as "just another administrative district". Again, what is this "claim to the West Bank" that Israel has? Where can we read about it? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Israel has no claim whatsoever to the West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

so when you were saying teh UN does not recognize Israel's claim, what claim were you talking about? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The one that makes them set up administrative regions on occupied territory and populate them with half a million religious fanatics and people imported from Russia? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in your political rants. Just answer the question. If Israel has made no claims on the West Bank, as you wrote above, then what is the Israeli claim that the UN does not recognize, that you were referring to earlier? Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Change "Israeli claim" to "Israeli exploitation and military presence", if that can end this pointless discussion. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So you are not proposing that we add to the article a sentence that says the UN is opposed to Israeli exploitation and military presence in Judea and Samaria"? which reliable source are we going to reference for that bit of POV-pushing? Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, as I said above, your edit is OK if a little wordy. The important thing is stated, that Israel's presence in the West Bank is in violation of UNSCR 242. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not stated there, because it is false. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. We have reached consensus without being able to agree; no small feat. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

List of sub-districts and natural regions of the Israeli-controlled Judea and Samaria

What are the sub-districts and natural regions of the Israeli-controlled Judea and Samaria? jlog3000 (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's in the article. See Judea_and_Samaria#Administrative sub-regions Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-district context

I've been observing the drawn-out dispute at this article (over what I believe is just a case of reading too much into things), but I am confused about this "does not mention a district of Judea, uses Samaria in non-district context." Why would we mention a non-district context? With this article it seems that we are having trouble deciding whether or not to write about the district alone or about the name itself. Chedorlaomer (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I took a stab at rewording this section. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"biblical geographical regions"

Neither the Samaria article nor the Judea article describe these regions as "biblical geographical regions", and the discussion on Talk:Israeli settlement led to a formulation that these are geographical regions whose names are of biblical origin - a formulation which has since then been removed from that article. Please don't renew your months old edit war over this. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only "terms with biblical origin", biblical terms period. At least that's what all the sources we have amassed in the lengthy discussion @ TALK:Israeli_settlement say. The Judea and Samaria articles used to conform with all the other online encyclopedias in describing the areas as "historic" until somebody edited the articles to hide that fact - same story as with this article, where somebody changed "historical" into "geographic" without consensus or discussion.. [11] MeteorMaker (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, some sources which you have cherry-picked say this. Other sources say something different, and use the term in a non-biblical context. The Judea and Samaria articles do not describe the regions as "biblical", so we should not push this POV in the disambiguation link of this article, either. Canadian Monkey (talk)

No cherrypicking, the list is in fact every single comment on the usage of "Samaria" (and "Judea") that exists in the sources that have been brought up in this three-month discussion [12][13] by all editors involved, including yourself I believe. All say it's ancient/historical/biblical. Contrary to your claim above, no sources at all say it's current outside Israel. You might not have been aware of that fact when you changed the disambiguation link in November [14], but in the light of the evidence now available, there's no excuse to keep insisting it should state a falsehood. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Biblical names" (MeteorMaker & G-Dett) vs. "Just Biblical names" (Canadian Monkey)

Canadian Monkey, can you explain more fully why you think biblical names implies biblical names only? The many, many, many sources who say explicitly that these are "biblical names" do not think it implies this. On the contrary, almost all of them say this precisely in the context of the terms' current use. For example:

1. "Weiss has been one of Israel's most recognizable settler activists since 1975, when she moved from her home near Tel Aviv to a tent in the hills of Samaria, the biblical name for the northern West Bank." (The Washington Post)
2. "Israelis often refer to the northern West Bank region by its biblical name of Samaria." (CNN)
3. "Referring to the Gaza Strip cease-fire deal that Israel struck with Hamas, Yigal Amitai, a Yitzhar spokesman, said that 'only those who make a deal with terrorists in the south and abandon Gilad Shalit and the residents of Sderot have the strength and the gall to fight residents of Samaria.' Samaria is the biblical name for the northern West Bank." (Haaretz)
4. "The operation began just before midnight, as the leaders of the regional council of Samaria, which takes the biblical name for the northern West Bank, gathered at a nearby army base. Boarding a bulletproof minibus, they headed for Nablus." (The New York Times)
5. "Physically, the mountainous settlements are harder for the army to close off. But ideologically, for settlers who only refer to this region by its biblical name, Samaria, this land is on an even higher ground." (USA Today)

Of course, contemporary use of the terms is rare enough that some excellent sources do say things like the northern West Bank was "historically referred to by its biblical name, Samaria" (Los Angeles Times). But most sources do not mean by "biblical names" what you (and Jay) think they do: "used in biblical times." On the contrary, nine times out of ten they're talking about contemporary use of these biblical names.

Now, we've provided you scores – and there exist perhaps hundreds – of superb reliable sources saying explicitly that these are "biblical names," regardless of whether the context is ancient or contemporary usage. What are your sources saying this is a contemporary "geographic term"? I'll give you one freebie: The Middle East, by William Bayne Fisher. That was written in 1978. Everything else I can find describing these as "geographic terms" is from the 19th century up through the Mandate period at the latest. Needless to say, canonical reference works such as Encyclopedia Britannica do not define them as current geographic terms.

So my questions for you are:

1. Why do you ardently want the disambig page to not tell readers what so many mainstream reliable sources believe important to tell their readers, to wit, that these are "biblical terms"?
2. Why do you want the disambig page to tell readers that these are contemporary "geographic terms," when few if any mainstream reference works define them as such?--G-Dett (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that 'few if any mainstream reference works define them' as contemporary "geographic terms". Over 40 such exampels have been produced. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Where?! I hope you're talking about contemporary secondary sources defining them as geographic terms (as opposed to contemporary primary sources using them in ways you deem geographic, or contemporary sources writing about the Mandate period, etc.). If you can point me to those sources, I'll consider the second question answered. What about the first question?--G-Dett (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon is a biblical name. It's also a modern name. Same with Jericho, Jerusalem, etc. See also this:

"Although William Safire is simply repeating what for years now has been the conventional wisdom of the American media, “Judea” and “Samaria,” the Hebrew “Yehuda” and “Shomron,” are not biblical words for the hill districts south and north of Jerusalem that were revived by Israeli nationalists after the 1967 war. That is, they are indeed biblical words, but they have been used by Jews through the ages and have been the standard Hebrew terms for these parts of Palestine since the beginnings of Zionist settlement in the late 19th century."[15]

"In 1938, therefore, the Districts were divided into six... The Districts of Galilee, Haifa, Samaria, Jerusalem, Lydda, and Gaza were established, centred at Nazareth, Haifa, Nablus, Jerusalem, Jaffa, and Gaza, respectively." Roza El-Eini, Mandated Landscape: British Imperial Rule in Palestine, 1929-1948, Routledge, 2006, p. 90.

"The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the sub-districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin... From here the boundary runs south-westwards, including the built-up area and some of the land of the village of Kh.Lid in the Arab State to cross the Haifa-Jenin road at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El Mansi... From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar'ara, rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi'Ara, and thence proceeding south-south-westwards in an approximately straight line joining up with the western boundary of Qaqun to a point east of the railway line on the eastern boundary of Qaqun village."[16]

As has been shown, the term is used in modern language too, to refer to modern regions. Your definition is misleading, as was your wording. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To recapitulate: It has never been contested that "Judea" and "Samaria" are A) historical terms and B) terms that Israelis use (occasionally, one sees the scope broadened to "Jews"). Let's examine your new sources and see if they say that the terms are used outside these two domains, which is what you need to prove in order to claim it in a WP article:

• 1) Hillel Halkin (aka "Philologos") says the terms "have been used by Jews through the ages and have been the standard Hebrew terms for these parts of Palestine since the beginnings of Zionist settlement in the late 19th century." In the same piece, he explicitly contradicts your conclusion that the terms enjoy wide acceptance in the rest of the world: "Eventually, “West Bank” became a term used by the “West Bankers” themselves, as well as by the rest of the world."
• 2) and 3) In the last decade of the British Mandate of Palestine, there was indeed an official district named "Samaria", which is not contested either. Since the Mandate has now been defunct for more than 60 years, it's safe to say that Mandatory-specific terminology falls in the category "historic".

"Biblical terms" indeed seems to be the standard way to describe "Judea" and "Samaria", judging from the collection of refs [17] we have accumulated during the more the three months this discussion has been going on. We still don't have even one source that describes these toponyms as "geographic", still you insist on using that term. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

U.N. documents are not "biblical", nor are British districts. The theory that this term is solely "Israeli" or "biblical" has been conclusively disproved. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has presented a "theory" that the term is biblical, or used primarily by Israelis and others trying to buttress Israeli claims to the territory; rather, these are simply things said by countless mainstream reliable sources, and contested by none. (The word "solely," meanwhile, is simply Jay's strawman addition, as has been noted numerous times with no reply from Jay.)

The supposed "refutation" of this is Jay's original research; what he's trying and failing to refute is excellent sourced content.

Jay has been steadfast in his refusal to address any of this seriously, and his editing at this point is aggressively disruptive, so I think we'll need formal dispute resolution. Elonka, your policing of the situation is appreciated, but the problem with your approach is that it's toothless in the face of Jay's misrepresentation of source material, his endless repasting of defeated arguments, and his refusal to engage other editors.--G-Dett (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom restrictions

Per the discretionary sanctions authorized at WP:ARBPIA, MeteorMaker (talk · contribs) has been banned from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days.[18] He is still welcome to make other non-revert changes to the article, and to bring up concerns at the talkpage, to build consensus for desired changes. --Elonka 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be based on a misconception: I did not remove Jayjg's (cherry-picked) cites, I just moved them to the proper place in the article, the part that actually discusses the usage of the name "Samaria". [19] I humbly request that you lift that ban. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

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

"...what those sources supported" = original research. What the sources (scores of them) say is that these are biblical terms used primarily by Israelis for political purposes. Jay is trying to refute the secondary sources using primary sources, which is a classic violation of original research.--G-Dett (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, where did MeteorMaker remove reliable citations? In the diff he provides above, he's simply moved them to what he felt was a more appropriate location in the same article.--G-Dett (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Compromise edit

From what I can gather, the opposition to following the sources in describing these as "Biblical terms" or "Biblical names" is that some Wikipedians understand this to mean "used only in Biblical times." This is certainly not what the sources mean when they explicitly say that Judea and Samaria are biblical names for the southern and northern West Bank, respectively. On the contrary, the scores of mainstream, contemporary, top-notch reliable sources that designate them as Biblical names do so explicitly in the context of the terms' contemporary use:

1. CNN:"Israelis often refer to the northern West Bank region by its biblical name of Samaria."
2. New York Times: "The operation began just before midnight, as the leaders of the regional council of Samaria, which takes the biblical name for the northern West Bank, gathered at a nearby army base."
3. New York Times again: "In Samaria, the biblical name for the northern West Bank, and in Binyamin, the central district around the Palestinian city of Ramallah, settlers recently ousted their more mainstream representatives in local council elections, voting in what they called “activist” mayors instead."
4. Washington Post: "Weiss has been one of Israel's most recognizable settler activists since 1975, when she moved from her home near Tel Aviv to a tent in the hills of Samaria, the biblical name for the northern West Bank."
5. USA Today:"Physically, the mountainous settlements are harder for the army to close off. But ideologically, for settlers who only refer to this region by its biblical name, Samaria, this land is on an even higher ground."

In short, it is precisely in the context of the term's current use that the sources underscore that these are biblical names. Other, more in-depth and/or academic sources go further, and point out that the contemporary use of these terms is politicized and controversial, that they are used primarily by annexationists, and so on. But there is no need to add that sort of background information here.

By the same token, there is no argument for obscuring the key fact about these terms as they are used today: they are biblical names.

I am implementing a compromise edit, one that makes very clear that "biblical names" ≠ "used only in biblical times," that these biblical names are still used today:

For the geographical regions known by the biblical names Judea and Samaria, see Judea or Samaria.

This should clear up the confusion Jay, NoCal, and others have about what scores of top-notch sources mean when they say "biblical names," and ensure that readers do not suffer from similar confusion. If editors find the compromise edit unsatisfactory, please discuss your concerns in detail here, and please address my concerns in detail as well. If you want to go ahead and modify it, knock yourself out – just make sure that your version includes the fact that these are biblical names. That fact is relevant, undisputed, and sourced to the nines; and as long as it's phrased in such a way that the reader won't misunderstand it to be saying "used only in biblical times," there's no argument for removing it.--G-Dett (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That actually sounds very reasonable to me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This works for me, as well. NoCal100 (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm touched, guys. Seriously. I could kiss y'all.--G-Dett (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Me first!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither NoCal nor I were "confused" by what the sources said; rather, we objected to your use of the sources to make inaccurate assertions. In the future, when proposing new wording, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Your current proposal more accurately reflects both reality and the sources, and seems reasonable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My edits were always exactly and only and word-for-word what the sources said, so no kiss for you mister; but here's a tepid, half-assed high-five for not obstructing this marvelous-delicate thing we've got going.--G-Dett (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Article name.

Why is this article not called Judea and Samaria Area which is what Districts of Israel gives as the official term?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved -- Aervanath (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The main use of this page is to describe the administrative area to which most of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. As set out in Districts of Israel, the official name of the administrative area is Judea and Samaria Area. The article names for each of the districts end in "District" and this move will mean that this article has a matching name.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Improving consistency can never be a bad idea. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't fault the logic in this suggestion, however there is a slight problem in that the more informal - and equally politicised - phrase "Judea and Samaria" is also of course used, mostly by settler or pro-settler groups, to refer to the West Bank as a whole, eg "Judea and Samaria is the biblical heartland of Israel" etc etc. They both of course refer ultimately to the same land area, but the usage is distinct, and in the latter case does not include "District" or "Area" at the end of it. --Nickhh (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment: There is an argument for having two articles: one on the area where it is appropriate to have the map of the districts of Israel and listing of the settlements etc.; the other on the phrases which can be dealt with in the same manner as other politicised phrases such as Zionist Entity, Land for peace, A land without a people, Right to Exist etc. In any case material about the administrative area should be in an article where the area is named in line with the districts of Israel using its full name.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.