Talk:Rimonim
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
"West Bank region of Samaria"?[edit]
I wonder, is there really a reliable source for the claim that a part of the West Bank is called "Samaria"? To me, it appears to be Israel-specific (and thus POV) terminology. I suggest simply "The northern part of the West Bank". MeteorMaker (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- yes - the article uses terminology which is used here. NoCal100 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, no case. The site hosting and linking the map calls it "West Bank - Far North (North of Nabulus)" (see here). Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17.02.2009 15:03
- The map itself is quite clear, the name is in bold, bigger than any other name on the map. Close your eyes to the evidence - it's still there. NoCal100 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- You've lost this argument in so many places already... Why do you bring it here too? pedrito - talk - 17.02.2009 15:11
- A more interestign question is how you happened on this page. NoCal100 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I fail to see why you find that interesting. Your map is a bilingual map, showing what the areas are called locally (and it has never been in question that the area is called "Samaria"/"Shomron" by Israelis). The CIA, the organization that issued the map 15 years ago, never uses the term "Samaria" (see for yourself in their online archive, so it's clearly a misrepresentation of the purpose of the map to claim that the CIA uses this Israel-specific terminology. Here's another example of a bilingual map, you would not use that to claim that "Exhibition Center" is a Chinese word. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- The map does not say "Samaria"/"Shomron" - It says "Samaria". Not bilingual- English only. In big, bold letters. Your original research is amusing, but not convincing. NoCal100 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Samaria", as you probably know, is the English word for "Shomron", the Israeli local name for the northern West Bank, and the one Israelis are most likely to use when speaking with Americans (for which the map was made). MeteorMaker (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- The map does not say "Samaria"/"Shomron" - It says "Samaria". Not bilingual- English only. In big, bold letters. Your original research is amusing, but not convincing. NoCal100 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I fail to see why you find that interesting. Your map is a bilingual map, showing what the areas are called locally (and it has never been in question that the area is called "Samaria"/"Shomron" by Israelis). The CIA, the organization that issued the map 15 years ago, never uses the term "Samaria" (see for yourself in their online archive, so it's clearly a misrepresentation of the purpose of the map to claim that the CIA uses this Israel-specific terminology. Here's another example of a bilingual map, you would not use that to claim that "Exhibition Center" is a Chinese word. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- A more interestign question is how you happened on this page. NoCal100 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- You've lost this argument in so many places already... Why do you bring it here too? pedrito - talk - 17.02.2009 15:11
- The map itself is quite clear, the name is in bold, bigger than any other name on the map. Close your eyes to the evidence - it's still there. NoCal100 (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, no case. The site hosting and linking the map calls it "West Bank - Far North (North of Nabulus)" (see here). Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17.02.2009 15:03
Actually, NoCal100, why don't we just apply the same standards you used here? Regarding the use of "Israel" vs. "Zionist Entitiy" on Al-Jazeera, you argue:
- As has been pointed out to you time and again, the above is WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed on this project. In order to include something along those lines, you need to find a reliable sources that says it, explicitly. If the Weekly Standard article said something like "the word "Israel" is standard usage on al-Jazeera, who do not use "Zionist entity" " - it would be Ok to include it. But for Kauffner to deduce it, is original research. The cherry picking I am reffering to is taking one line out of a long article that discusses how Arab textbooks AVOID using Israel, in order to push the opposite POV. NoCal100 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
So, applying that (i.e. your) logic to this debate, please find a source that says "the term 'Samaria' is standard usage outside Israel". Otherwise, by your criteria, saying that the term "Samaria" is standard usage outside of Israel is original research.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17.02.2009 16:11
- If you could point out to the section in the article that says "Samaria" is standard usage outside of Israel", you will have a point. Until then, you are making an obviously faulty analogy.
- Please review WP:NCGN. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you could point out to the section in the article that says "Samaria" is standard usage outside of Israel", you will have a point. Until then, you are making an obviously faulty analogy.