Talk:Samaria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment

from article

, which is currently under Israeli military occupation.

I think the West Bank article explains the control vs. occupation thing well enough. Not every mention of these disputed territories has to call them "occupied", any more than Tibet has to be called "occupied by China". See occupied territory.

South Korean movie named Samaria implies a very pure sense to the word

-- could not find related article at the URL mentioned --

For links to this interesting movie and a review check this URL out: http://urijamjari.blogspot.com

It's about an amateur prostitute that is in High School. She and her friend are seeking enough cash to travel abroad, but there is a very major price to be paid to avoid being caught in what could be considered a very puritanical country. Sorry to take you guys off topic, but this movie has some very high impact images in it.

US official view

The previous article was unsure, though that really seems irrelvant to this article. The official US position is to sit on the fence and wait for a final-status agreement to be reached by Israelis and Palestinians. Official US policy has never recognized Israeli sovreignty in Samaria, but has reluctantly tolerated the establishing of Jewish settlements with a very watchful eye. Shuki 23:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

merge Samaria/Sebastia

Merge - though this large section about the city/ruins of Sebastia in this article needs major cleanup. --Shuki 20:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if merging would be accurate, because though Sebastia is next to Samaria (site), one is a village, and one is an archaelogical/national park. One is Area B and run by the Palestinian Authority, and one is Area C and run by Israel. Tewfik^Talk 21:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If the article is written properly and clearly, confusion arising out of this will be avoided. The way I see it in general without getting POV: Samaria is a region, but also the ancient city Samaria, Hebrew:Shomron, Greek:Sebaste. Sebastia is also a nearby Palestinian hamlet (I linked to on the article). I don't know if a seperate disambiguation article would do, or a 'other article' tag enough on multi-pages, though in the end, the result[s] is relevant to Sebastia as well. --Shuki 22:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Samaria is a region" should be in a separate entry than "Samaria (site), as village, or as an archaelogical/national park". the site should have one entry clearly explaining the historical & political complexities, and the region should have another, emphasizing its natural qualities; unique climate, topography, flora-fauna, and general geography

if there's no objection, i'll write in that direction. when i get a "round toit" :) Shilonite 12:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Merged

Separating Samaria as a modern region and political bounderies, versus archaeological site makes sense, and would merit separate articles if it's long enough. I've merged the Sebastia, Middle East article to here for now, since 90% of the material was already duplicated [to or from] here. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-28 06:46Z

Hi Quarl. Today I was looking for the page on Sebastia and I was redirected here. I am going to re-create the page Sebastia, Middle East since it is a topic in its own right and while located in Samaria is not by any means its equivalent. I hope that's okay with you. Tiamut 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. What I've done is created Sebastia, West Bank. I replaced the redirect to this page with a redirect to that page which also mentions that the modern-day town is directly adjacent to the ancient ruins of Samaria-Sebaste, and remains of Sebastia (from at least as early as the Roman period onward) also lie within the modern-day town. The modern-day town itself has been scarcely excavated. I'm going to expand the other article slowly over the next little while. Your feedback there would be appreciated and also on how to untie the gordian knot between all these articles. Tiamut 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is it on the map?

Where is Samaria on the map? 131.123.231.143 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Where is Samaria on the map? Badagnani 13:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Samaria is another name for the city of 'Sebastia' located near Sebastia, West Bank as well as the area described in the 'Geographical location' paragraph. --Shuki 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Where is it on the map? Badagnani 23:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[1] or goto [2] and search for Sebastya. --Shuki 23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, where is it on the map in this article? Badagnani 23:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It says Shomron on the map. --Shuki 18:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, that's very confusing and not helpful to our readers. Either the map or the article needs to be changed to make this clear. Also, some maps I have seen depict "Samaria" as a region, not simply a dot (city). This also needs to be made clear in whatever map is used in this article. Badagnani 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The map remains highly inappropriate, not listing the name "Samaria," nor the region of the same name. Please address this. Badagnani 07:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word "Palestine" in this article is not historical

"Palestine" is a term that came about for the land in 70 AD by the Romans after the first Roman-Jewish war.

It would be "Palestine" as a term for this land before 70 AD.

Term usage note

In the "sister" article, I have presented an argument why we need a usage note to indicate that the term "Samaria" is 1) controversial and 2) not commonly used outside Israel. To keep the discussion manageable, please post counter-arguments (and arguments in support of adding a usage note) there. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested a modification of the lead in Talk:Judea#Term_usage_note that also applies to this article. Your views are welcome (but please post there, not here). MeteorMaker (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

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

I have added a "Disputed" tag to the page, until the toponym dispute started in the sister article on Judea, which also affects this article, can be resolved. To keep the discussion manageable, please post your views there, not here. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes

My edit was not vandalism. Bullet items NEVER have spaces between them. Look at any wikipedia article. Look at any references section.68.148.164.166 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"historic mountainous"

What does "historic mountainous northern part of the West Bank of the Jordan River" mean in connection with Samaria? Is the phrase intended to distinguish it from the "non-historic mountainous northern part of the West Bank of the Jordan River"? Is it intended to distinguish it from the southern part of the West Bank, which is presumably "non-historic"? Please avoid meaningless POV words. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's intended to align it with the "sister" article on Judea, which uses the same word, although slightly differently. I have now copied the exact phrase amended it slightly because using the exact phrase wouldn't be geographically correct. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The other article didn't use it that way, and the phrase "what is today" is also a pleonasm. Please stop inserting unnecessary words which serve only to confuse, not illuminate. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's a pleonasm, where else in the article is the same thing stated? If it's confusing, what confusing message does it convey? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

When you insert "what is today" before the West Bank, are you trying to distinguish it from what was yesterday the West Bank? Should we replace all occurrences of "West Bank" in Wikipedia with "what is today the West Bank"? Please avoid pleonasms. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but for consistency's sake, you will have to level your pleonasm charge against 2,800 occurrences of the phrase "what is today" on Wikipedia [3]. To take just one example:

The District of Athabaska covered the northern half of what is today Alberta. [4]

To distinguish it from what was yesterday Alberta? Hardly. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The District of Athabaska is, however, only a historical term, whereas Samaria is still used to today. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is it used? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In about 3.1 million web-pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not with the meaning "the northern part of today's West Bank". Remove refs to the Bible and biblical history, various religious orgs named after Samaria, the Samaria Gorge on Crete, the Korean movie Samaria, and you're left with significantly fewer Google hits than Athabasca [5]. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are modern sources:[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. That was done with a 5 minute Google search, there are hundreds more. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't Jerusalem Post, Israel National News, Jerusalem Newswire, Jewish World Review, Ynet.co.il, the Yediot Achronot newspaper, the IDF's official website, Tamir Eshel (a former IDF officer), and Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs have something in common? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What do they have in common with Newsweek, Defense Update, Jewish World Review, and the Jewish Virtual Library, and why would that be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you read your own sources (maybe the 5-minute time span didn't allow for that), you will find that Defense Update is run by Tamir Eshel, a former IDF officer (and his brother) [16], that the JVL article quotes the Yediot Ahronot newspaper verbatim [17], and that the Jewish World Review sometimes publishes articles by the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, such as the one you linked to [18]. Why is it relevant that 9 out of 10 of your sources are Israel-based, and that the tenth, a Newsweek article, consistently calls the area in question the West Bank, except in the Bible-alluding title? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Defense Update is published in the U.K., and what makes you think Newsweek is alluding to the Bible? And how does that tie in, for example, to Ian Lustik's reference to "the young Gush Emunim settlements in Samaria" in For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, p.54, published by the Council on Foreign Relations in 1988? And what on earth would all that be relevant to anyway? What argument are you trying to make? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Defense Update is published by an ex-IDF officer, who didn't lay off his Israel-specific terminology when he based his website in the UK. How your new quote from Ian Lustik's book on Israeli fundamentalists ties in is difficult to say without the book handy, but my suspicion is that he's quoting one of those fundamentalists. And if you read the second page of the Newsweek article, the Bible allusion is right there.

The relevance, since you asked, is that "Samaria" seems to have a very different denotation than "the northern West Bank", and the only part of the world where it isn't so seems to be Israel. Should English Wikipedia begin to use Israel-specific terminology, or should we adhere to the WP guidelines about place names? MeteorMaker (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Defense Update is a U.K. publication, Newsweek is American, GeoJournal is Dutch, Ring and Salkin refer to the modern location, and Lustik wasn't quoting anyone. Now, according to what reliable source is it the case that ""Samaria" seems to have a very different denotation than "the northern West Bank", and the only part of the world where it isn't so seems to be Israel."? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For the third time, Defense Update is a U.K. publication, owned and edited by a former IDF officer. If he chooses to publish abroad, that does not make him a non-Israeli. The Newsweek article uses "the West Bank" consistently except in the Bible-alluding title. Israeli researchers retain their nationality (and their idiosyncratic terminology) even if they publish their papers (such as the one Oboler linked to) in Dutch journals.

If, as you claim Ring and Salkin (from Oboler's link below) refer to the modern location, a full quote would be helpful. The same goes for Lustik.

Again, I'm not claiming anything, only requesting evidence for your claim that "Samaria" is still used today. The evidence produced has led to the conclusion that it's used exclusively in Israel. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. I haven't made any claims; rather, it is you who is claiming that the term "Samaria" is not used today, or only used in Israel, or only used by ex-Israelis, or only used in sources you don't trust. Provide sources for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As you might recall from the Judea thread, negatives cannot generally be proven. You have provided ten sources, and each one reaffirms the conclusion that Israelis use "Samaria", the rest of the world "the West Bank". If you want to present your opposing hypothesis as fact on Wikipedia, uniquely among reference works, you must be able to provide some kind of evidence for it, preferably a reliable source. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to prove a negative though, just prove your unsourced argument about the term "Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you suggest one goes about proving that X does not exist in location Y, Jayjg? One would think it's rather more easy for those who claim it does to come up with at least one good example of it. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(Remove indent) This is getting a little silly. Here are some more links showing the use of the term published by sources unconnected to the conflict, Israel, Israelis, Jews, etc. As a point of principle this should NOT be needed as it is problematic when there is well poisoning based on country / religion etc. Here are my two additional sources: Spatial analysis of historical migrations in Samaria, GeoJournal, Springer Netherlands. The author may be Israeli, but the Journal is academic, international and would have gone through blind peer review (making the author irrelevant to the question of acceptable usage interntionally). International Dictionary of Historic Places by Trudy Ring, Robert M. Salkin - 1996 (book) Published by Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers (Chicago, IL)(bought by Taylor & Francis Group in 2002). The usage is not purely historic but is used to refer to the place today. See the text in Google Books. Can we now move away from spurious allegation? Oboler (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The preface of your post summarized it well. Of your two examples, that were intended to show that many non-Israelis use the term "Samaria" for the modern West Bank, one is written by an Israeli, and the second is about historic Samaria. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we are in agreement that that least some Israelis and at least some non-Israelis use the term, that means we agree it is current and in general enough usage for Wikipedia purposes. I still maintain, by the way, that the actual sentence structure in the book is not speaking in a historic context but in a current context. Likewise the use of the term in a leading academic journal, particularly in the title, is clear evidence that an academic per review by experts had no problem with the term. I'm sure you agree this meets the need for proof you discussed in your Nov 6th comment above. It only takes one piece of evidence to disprove a theory... and I believe we have at least two, in which case it is time to come up with a new theory, or move on to more productive activities. Oboler (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's unclear to me how you came to the conclusion that we agree that one ref to historical Samaria is proof that the term "Samaria" is also used for the modern region, let alone how one alleged instance of a word is "enough usage for Wikipedia purposes". Peer reviewing does not work like you believe either, there is no obligation on the reviewers to change whatever country-specific toponyms the writer chooses to use. If you have information that that has ever happened to a text written by an Israeli academic, it would strengthen your argument somewhat. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:31, 11 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."

Now, which of your sources states that "Samaria" is "not a modern toponym" or "not well-known outside of Israel"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They all do if you read them, which I encourage you to do. However, the line that you keep deleting from the article in fact states neither:

Samaria is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank.

It's all explicitly sourced, quoted verbatim (more or less) from the sources [19] [...]. Now, where are your sources that say "Samaria" is still used for the modern West Bank, and that other than Israelis use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to it? I remind you that drawing conclusions from anecdotal evidence is a violation of WP:SYNTH. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They all do if you read them, which I encourage you to do. Please quote the source that states that "Samaria" is "not a modern toponym" or "not well-known outside of Israel"? Show us the explicit words stating that. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done that, many times (see section below). It helps if you read the cites. Now, show us where those conclusions are in the line "Samaria[...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank", and how anything in it is not well-sourced. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. None of your sources say the term is "not a modern toponym" or "not understood outside Israel". Your theory based on the fact that certain groups use "Judea and Samaria" to refer to the West Bank is irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you see that "theory" expressed in the sentence "Samaria is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank" or in the sentence "Israeli annexationists also use the combined term "Judea and Samaria" to refer to the modern West Bank"? If so, exactly where? Both statements have explicit support in all major online encyclopedias and literally thousands of other reliable sources (see section below), whereas your contrary position has none. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed: "Samaria", a historical or modern toponym? The Full Discussion edition.

Inadvertently, and contrary to the intentions I stated above, I seem to have moved the name debate from the article on Judea to here. For those unfamiliar with it, it can be read here and here. I encourage posting there, since the toponym issue is essentially the same, but we seem to have a good debate going here, so I will not try to put a lid on it.

To recapitulate: Some editors have objected to the time qualifier "what is today" in "Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank". They state that:

• "it is bad English" - if true, it must also be deleted from 2,800 other WP articles that also use the exact same time qualifier in the exact same manner [20].
• "it's a pleonasm" - not in any immediately obvious sense of the word, since it does not repeat information from elsewhere in the article.
• "it is still used today" - none of the sources that have been provided supports the hypothesis that the toponym "Samaria" is still used today, except in Israel, which was never in question but not particularly relevant for English WP. What something is called in Israel does not override the established English name in any case, and English WP should use English place names. To make a similar example, if the article on Germany implied that "Germania" is a valid alternative name in English, it would be both incorrect and confusing, regardless of the fact that Israelis still use the Roman Empire-age name. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You have been shown a number of examples above which are not "in Israel" and which refer to the location as "Samaria". Now, what reliable source supports your theory regarding the nature of the term "Samaria"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Two editors have supplied quotes (posted in the section above) to support their hypothesis that the toponym "Samaria" for the modern West Bank is used outside Israel.

• Of Jayjg's ten examples, all except one have been shown to be written by Israelis. The tenth uses "the West Bank" consistently, except in the title, which alludes to Bible-era Jewish history.
• Oboler supplied two examples. Both are dealing with the area's history, and one was written by an Israeli. Jayjg will supply a full quote to support his claim that the authors of the other book also use the term for the modern area.

The results so far:

• Miscategorized (dealing with historic Samaria): 2 cases.
• "Samaria" is used exclusively by Israelis: 10 cases.
• "Samaria" is used by others than Israelis: 0 cases, but it may change if better evidence comes along.

MeteorMaker (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ian Lustik is Israeli? Amazing. Anyway, please provide reliable sources for your theories about the term "Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ian Lustik (your 11th example) uses the term "the West Bank" consistently in his book about Israeli fundamentalist settlers, except in two or three places where he is writing from the fundamentalist settlers' perspective [21]. If he had been writing about white supremacy groups in today's Germany and used the term "Fatherland" in that context, you wouldn't conclude that that's a valid alternative to "Germany", even if some groups he writes about may be using it that way. Please stop misrepresenting sources, and please stop demanding that your opponents must prove a negative. You have still not shown that your use of the term "Samaria" is consistent with WP rules about place names. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, Lustik uses both terms, and he doesn't use it to "write from the fundamentalist settler's perspective", you just invented that, like you invented the claim that Newsweek meant the term in the Biblical sense. You really need to find some reliable sources for your thesis. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lustick uses "West Bank" 141 times and "Samaria" 8, each time when writing about settlers' ideology or ambitions, plus two where he explains that:

[...]the annexationist camp in Israel prefers to refer to the area betwen the Green Line and the Jordan River not as the West Bank but as Judea and Samaria."

Here's a link to the book[22] in case you want to see for yourself. "Samaria" is not part of Lustick's own terminology any more than of mine, despite both of us using it in discussions.

The Newsweek article uses "West Bank" 9 times, "Palestine/ian" 3, and "Samaria" twice: 1) in a direct quote from an Israeli and 2) in the title ("Last Stand in Samaria", because the article (on page 2) alludes to the Masada siege. Again, "Samaria" is not part of Newsweek's own terminology. A search on their site on "Samaria" yields 22 hits [23], six of which are found in interviews with Israelis, two deal with ancient Samaria, one with the "Trans-Samarian Highway" and no less than 12 that explicitly say "the West Bank, which Israelis call Judea and Samaria". In comparison, a search on "West Bank" yields 695 hits, "Palestine" 495. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Lustick and Newsweek qualify as reliable sources, I have now added a usage domain note in the lead. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As had been explained to you before, "Judea and Samaria" is not the same as "Samaria", and Lustick himself uses "Samaria" as a simple toponym, in that very same book. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The available evidence would not seem to support that hypothesis. If you had a source for that claim, and your claim that "Judea and Samaria" is not the same as "Judea" and "Samaria", your argument would perhaps have some merit. I am also still waiting for your evidence that "Samaria" is a modern toponym outside Israel - what you have produced so far has in fact done a good job to help disprove your own theory. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that on the heels of your failed attempt to push this POV into the Judea article, you're at it here (and multiple other articles using the term.) Please stop it. As before, you have been presented with several non-Israeli sources using the term, which you are refusing to acknowledge, using original research about what you think their users "really" meant or alluded to. Here are several more for you, knock yourself out with original research to discount them: [24], [25],[26], [27] [28] Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who want to make up their own minds about just how convincing CM's and others attempts were to prop up their hypothesis that "Judea" is a modern toponym outside Israel, here's a direct link. Suffice it to say that it didn't fare any better than the attempts on this page.

You even bring some of the same, thoroughly refuted, sources this time around, so I'll just copy and paste the refutals in the relevant places:

• On the page your first link leads to [29], there are no less than 48 maps. Every single one has the area clearly marked "West Bank", except a couple of historical ones, and most also add "(Israel-occupied territory)". The one you are probably referring to is the CIA reference bilingual one (showing what the places are called in Israel and on the West Bank, eg "Nābulus/Shekhem", better known as Nablus in English), which indeed has the word "Samaria" on it. In case you have concluded this means the CIA endorses the term, I recommend a simple search on their web site:

Samaria": Search found 0 documents from 7369 searched.

"West Bank": Search found 675 documents from 7369 searched. [30]

• [31]"Samaria Hills" is a different thing from "Samaria". The term "Samaria Hills" is, as I understand it, way less controversial than "Samaria" and does indeed occur in the text, but that is as irrelevant as support for your claim as contending that the existence of the Rocky Mountains leads to the logical conclusion that there must be a US state called Rocky.
• [32] The presence of the label "Perea" on this map where Jordan is today could perhaps have served as an indicator that it's not exactly a map of the modern area.
• [33] Studium Biblicum Franciscanum is based in Jerusalem. The article also deals with historic Samaria.
• [34] Moshe Kaufman is an Israeli.

So, the current score:

• Miscategorized (dealing with historic Samaria, or other things than the Samaria area): 4 cases.
• Misattributed (author uses "West Bank" consistently, but has used "Samaria" once for poetic or other reasons): 2 cases.
• "Samaria" is used exclusively by Israelis: 13 cases.
• "Samaria" is used by others than Israelis: 0 cases, but it may change if better evidence comes along.

MeteorMaker (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I see we'll have to repeat the entire discussion from the Judea article. very well.

You were claiming the "Samaria" is not in modern use, other than in Israel (or by Israelis). The CIA map is a clear cut case of the use of "Samaria" as a modern toponym, by non-Israelis, outside of Israel. The original research you are engaged in, to show that the CIA also uses "west bank", or uses "west bank" more often than it uses "Samaria" is of no relevance here, as this is not what we are debating. Again: you claimed Samaria is not in use, at all, and the CIA map disproves this claim.

"Samaria hills" is indeed different from "Samaria" - whereas Samaria is the general geographic region, "Samaria Hills" is a certain subset of it. No one is claiming that "Samaria" is a state (so let's dispense with the ridiculous strawman of a "state called Rocky") but the existence of the term 'Samaria Hills' most certainly leads to the logical conclusion that there must be a geographic region called "Samaria", in the same way that the existence of Central Siberian Plateau is an indication that a geographic region called Siberia exists, in the same way that the existence of Saharan Atlas indicates the existence of a geographic region called Sahara, and in the same way that Appalachian Mountains indicates the existence of a geographic region called Appalachia.

Studium Biblicum Franciscanum is based in Jerusalem, but is a Franciscan organization, comprised of non-Israelis. The article in question very clearly describes Samaria in a modern, non biblical contexts, contrasting as it does the location of the modern town of Qabatiya in Samaria with that of other modern toponyms.

Moshe Kaufman is an Israeli, but the source I pointed you to is a website which markets his art, which is run by non-Israelis and is based in Houston.

We've been through all this before, on Judea. Numerous examples show the term in use by Israelis as well as by non-Israelis, by organizations based in Israel as well as organizations based outside of Israel, in a biblical context as well as in a non-biblical context. Please stop these futile exercises in original research. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not original research to ask for sources when somebody makes a claim, nor is it original research to point out the flaws in the evidence that results from the request. It's in fact the standard Wikipedia procedure.

Your sources were thoroughly refuted in the Judea discussion, and why you bring them up again is beyond me. I will now refute them again, for the last time I hope.

• The CIA map: Again, it's what's known as a bilingual map, a map with the local place names in two languages (plus English). It's no more evidence of CIA adoption of the term than a Hebrew-English dictionary is evidence of "שטויות" being a word in English. Also, it's not that the CIA uses "the West Bank" more often than "Samaria" — they don't use "Samaria" at all, as my link shows.
• You surmise that there is a rule that the existence of the toponym "X hills" implies that there must also be a geographic entity "X", which probably comes as a surprise for residents of Beverly Hills and other places. If you have evidence of such a rule, by all means, show it. Else, it must be written off as original research.
• Studium Biblicum Franciscanum say they have been based in Jerusalem since 1924, and sometimes apparently use the local place names. Nothing strange, and considering your text was written by an Italian living in Israel, exceptionally weak as evidence of widespread use of the term "Samaria" in the English language.
• Moshe Kaufman is an Israeli, and nothing on the site suggests the text is written by anybody else than himself. (Don't be fooled by his use of third person, that's common practice in artist bios, even when the artist writes about himself).

If, as you claim, you have "numerous examples [that] show the term in use by non-Israelis", one would think you wouldn't have to fight so hard over a handful of highly dubious ones. Even better, maybe you could see if you can find some evidence for your hypothesis with the accepted Wikipedia method. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your original research on the CIA map is unconvincing. If it was true that this is a "bilingual map", then it would say "Shomron" below "Samaria". It doesn't. It uses "Samaria", exclusively. To say the CIA does not use "Samaria" at all, in the context of a discussion about a map where they quite plainly do use it is nothing short of bizarre.

I did not say anything about a rule, but gave you several pretty convincing examples where a geographical area's sub-regions do indicate the existence of a broader region. Perhaps you can address the examples I used, as they relate to the argument at hand. What do you make of the relationship between [[Appalachian Mountains] and Appalachia? Is it some random coincidence that these share a similar sounding name?

Please have a look at [35], which clearly describes who owns this site.

There is nothing dubious in the dozen or so examples shown to you. The only dubious aspect of this exchange is the nature of your original research and the increasingly flimsy reasons used to discount every example given to you. Nothing in your behavior so far, here and on Judea, leads me to expect that you will not similarly discount a dozen more examples, so I am not particularly motivated to look for additional examples, which are not needed. We've played this game for a while on Judea until I lost interest, and I am close to losing interest here. Please edit in accordance with WP policies. Canadian Monkey (talk)

• Again, search for "Samaria" on www.cia.gov, then tell me how many hits you get. If the CIA were endorsing the term, as your misinterpretation of the purpose of the map apparently has led you to believe, wouldn't there be at least one proper instance of "Samaria" in the entire online body of CIA papers?
• Because there is an "X Hills", there must be a place named "X"? I've already given you one counter-example, which is enough to shoot down your assumption that such a rule exists. I regret to inform you that your conclusion is a pretty basic logical fallacy.
• Owner of holy-land-landscapes.com: Moshe Kaufman, mosheko@zahav.net.il, Israel [36]. How on earth does that support your claim that the term is used outside Israel?

I will certainly try to similarly disprove a dozen more examples, if you have that many handy. Again, if you can keep your interest up, I invite you to try and support your hypothesis in accordance with WP policies. The anecdotal evidence you have produced so far hasn't done your argument much good, being much better evidence of the opposite of what you have been trying to prove. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a fascinating argument you are making. Can you guide me to some reliable source where I can read more about your theories regarding the term "Samaria"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, try this. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your specific argument regarding the name "Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 13:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My specific argument is that if you want to introduce terminology that is completely at odds with all other encyclopedias and apparent modern usage, you will have to have pretty good sources. Wikipedia's rules for determining if a toponym enjoys widespread acceptance in English can be read here. All I ask of you is that you apply the rules and see if you can find support for your hypothesis that "Samaria" is a modern toponym outside Israel. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

However, in the real world, I'm not trying to "introduce" any terminology; rather, you have made claims about the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" that you have failed to back up with reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In the real world, the idea that Samaria "is" and not "was" is unique to Wikipedia [37] and has clearly been introduced by certain editors.

Again, I'm not making claims, so I don't have to prove anything. I'm only asking for evidence that your hypothesis is not original research, and drawing conclusions from the material you produce. You wanted to prove that "Samaria" is a widespread modern toponym outside Israel, you presented 11 examples of which 9 were by Israelis, and two misrepresented ones where the author consistently uses the accepted terms "the West Bank" and "Palestine" instead. If that isn't failure to back up one's claims, the word "failure" must have been similarly redefined lately. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no hypothesis, nor have I attempted to prove anything. You, on the other hand, have a hypothesis that "Samaria" is "not a modern toponym", and have used all sorts of original research to prove your claim. Please stop playing games. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't attempted to prove anything, why did you post 11 links to alleged examples of non-Israelis using the term "Samaria" for the modern West Bank? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Because you kept promoting the unsourced theory that "Samaria" was not a "modern toponym,[38][39], and then attempted to excise from Wikipedia all existing uses of "Samaria" as a "modern toponym", in order to support your ideological campaign. Please desist from further game playing. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So, since you now say you have attempted to prove something anyway, doesn't your complete failure to do so say something about the veracity of the thing you were trying to prove? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, I didn't say I attempted to prove anything. Rather, I posted links which disproved your theory, and decisively and rather devastatingly at that. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

By showing evidence of the opposite of what you were trying to prove? Or do you contend that the vast majority of your links, purportedly demonstrating widespread use of the term "Samaria" outside Israel, were not by Israelis?MeteorMaker (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Please review loaded question. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And you take a look at red herring. It's not a loaded question to give you another chance to defend your argument. How you can claim victory in a debate when all your arguments have been so conclusively refuted is admittedly a little difficult to understand. Again, what conclusions do you draw from the fact that close to 90% of your examples turned out to show the exact opposite of what you wanted them to prove? MeteorMaker (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but it is a loaded question when you try to get me to defend your argument, which the links I brought so conclusively disproved. Unlike you, I have not been trying to prove a theory, and you have still failed to find any reliable sources to back yours. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has defended what you call "my argument" so efficiently as you, since you not only failed to find even the weakest anecdotal evidence for your hypothesis, you in fact delivered evidence against it, and not even a ton of red herrings can hide that fact. Again, since you maintain that your links support your position that the term "Samaria" is used outside Israel, do you contend that 9 out of 11 were not by Israelis? MeteorMaker (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

How odd; not only are you promoting a thesis based on your original research, and again asking leading questions, but you're even denying your thesis, even as you promote it. Very strange. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange indeed, nothing you said in that post has the remotest connection to reality. Feel free to try and back up your allegations with something. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Some new relevant material has been posted here. You might want to take a look. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reposted from the Judea & Samaria talk page:) To avoid further accusations of "original research", here's what the other online encyclopedias say about "Samaria":

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:

Samaria, central region, ancient Palestine. Extending about 40 mi (65 km) north-south and 35 mi (55 km) east-west, it was bounded by Galilee to the north, Judaea to the south, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and the Jordan River to the east. It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

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

Columbia Encyclopedia:

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

Encarta:

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

Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names:

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

Re the usage domain of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria": Encyclopedia Britannica Online says:

West Bank, area of the former British-mandated (1920–47) territory of Palestine west of the Jordan River, claimed from 1949 to 1988 as part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but occupied from 1967 by Israel. The territory, excluding East Jerusalem, is also known within Israel by its biblical names, Judaea and Samaria.

Columbia Encyclopedia says:

West Bank, territory, formerly part of Palestine, after 1949 administered by Jordan, since 1967 largely occupied by Israel (2005 est. pop. 2,386,000)[...] Israelis who regard the area as properly Jewish territory often refer to it by the biblical names of Judaea and Samaria.

MeteorMaker (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, none of the sources you've brought make the claim that "Samaria" is "not a modern toponym". In fact, that appears to be a theory you have invented entirely on your own. While I've noticed the facile way you reject all material that refutes your theory, insisting that it is Israeli (and so, presumably, disqualified for some inexplicable reason), or tainted in some way by Israeliness, or is really intended in a Biblical sense (though the author never gives any indication of this "intent"), I'm still mildly curious as to what spurious equivocations you would use to reject the following sources, which, of course, also destroy your theory:

• "Its intention was to establish a Jewish settlement in the heart of Samaria, the northern bulge of the West Bank, densely populated by Arabs." Ian Lustick For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, p. 45.
• "Few in number until the late 1970s, the young Gush Emunim settlements in Samaria, the Etzion bloc, and Kiryat Arba attracted the most idealistic and dynamic fundamentalist activists." Ian Lustick For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, p. 54.
• "Rabin intended the settlement to be temporary and to relocate them later within the confines of the Allon plan, not in the heart of Samaria. The settlers, however, refused to move." Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. To Rule Jerusalem, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 170.
• "The row houses of Ofra, a Jewish suburb to the north of Jerusalem, are planted in deep red soil at the foot of Ba'al Hatzor, the highest mountain in Samaria." Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. To Rule Jerusalem, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 213.
• "In August 2005, reversing his longstanding position on championing settlement of the Land of Israel, Sharon evacuated all of the Jewish settlements in Gaza (some 9,000 people living in twenty-one communities) and four small settlements in the northern part of Samaria (West Bank)." Alfred J. Kolatch. Inside Judaism: The Concepts, Customs, and Celebrations of the Jewish People, Jonathan David Company, 2006, p. 270.
• "On 18 September 1978, one day after the signing of the Accord, 700 Gush Emunim members established an unauthorized settlement in Samaria..." Lilly Weisbrod. Israeli Identity: In Search of a Successor to the Pioneer, Tsabar and Settler, Routledge, 2002, p. 112.

Have fun! Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you need more than a few weak anecdotal examples to trump what is explicitly stated in all other online encyclopedias: That "Samaria" is a term for the ancient region, supplanted by the West Bank, but revived (or still used) in Israel, particularly by expansionists. Until you can produce something that explicitly contradicts the sources I presented above, plus Lustick, Kolatch, and every other scholar that has been brought up in this discussion (by yourself no less), you don't need to bother with scouring the web for whatever scattered instances of "Samaria" you can find to boldly misconstrue.

I see you're so short of examples that you even decided to reuse some that have already been refuted, your first two in this batch, by Ian Lustick. See above for details. In Inside Judaism, Kolatch, like Lustick, confirms what we already know, that the term "Samaria" has a somewhat limited usage domain:

[...]the building of Jewish communities in the West Bank — or Judea and Samaria, as Jews refer to it — commenced.[40]

And, following your bizarre and somewhat counterproductive tradition of presenting Israeli sources as evidence of use of the term "Samaria" by non-Israelis, you present yet another Israeli source: Lilly Weissbrod [41].

Again, see if you can find support for your hypothesis using established Wikipedia methodology instead of resorting to creative misrepresentation of sources and cites that turn out to constitute counterevidence. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering what spurious equivocations you would use to reject the sources, and you've come through with flying colors! Bravo, for predictability, if nothing else. Regarding Lustick and Kolatch, both note the phrase "Judea and Samaria" is preferred by some Israelis or Jews, but they also uses the term "Samaria" independently to refer to a specific region, and make no claim that it is similarly restricted in usage. As for the rest, contrary to your argument, your sources in no way claim that Samaria is not a "modern toponym"; indeed, they make no reference at all to this argument. Please review WP:SYNTH; you are drawing a novel conclusion based on your interpretation of the way some sources use the term. In addition, you have added a new theory, that the term is not "widely understood"; this, despite the fact that there are literally hundreds of modern sources that use the term to refer to the region. Now, you try to buttress your theory by claiming that the sources are all "Israeli", or were born in Israel, or some such; however, that in no way vitiates the fact that the sources were published in English, for non-Israeli audiences. They include Dutch scientific journals, top quality books from North American university presses, etc. You cannot modify English terminology so suit either your political agenda or your original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jayg, I have presented half a dozen exceptionally reliable sources, all established encyclopedias or well-respected scholars, that explicitly say that "Samaria" is an ancient region, that the modern toponym is the West Bank, and that the only place where they still call the place "Samaria" is Israel. You have responded with a handful of self-contradicting anecdotal evidence and liberal amounts of wikilawyering to try and force through your unsourced original research fringe theory that "Samaria" is a widespread toponym outside Israel. May I again suggest that you take a moment to ponder the implications of the fact that your pet theory so completely lacks support in the real world, and perhaps consider the possibility that you might be wrong, as wrong as you were when you thought it would be a picknick to find support for it. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You have shown how a few sources use the term, and then tried to build a theory about it based on that. I have, in turn, provided many examples of usage that contradict your theory, which you have ignored, misrepresented, or in other ways abused, using liberal amounts of wikilawyering to try and force through your unsourced original research fringe theory that "Samaria" is not a widely understood toponym. Please stop abusing Wikipedia policies, and please make more accurate talk page statements in the future. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Since the argumentation seems to be heating up to the point of losing connection with reality, maybe this is a good opportunity to recapitulate and sum up the actual verifiable points of the argument up until this point.

>> My position: The article should express the idea that "Samaria" (outside the undisputed historical domain) is an Israel-specific toponym.

Supported by: All other major online encyclopedias [42][43][44][45]. Among other reliable sources that support it, we find a literally thousands of news articles (typical sample here: ) and books by noted scholars [46][47].

My compliance with WP rules: I have applied WP's established methodology for determining if a place name is accepted in English:

1. Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name. All agree on West Bank, none says that "Samaria" is anything else than the ancient region (and a term used in Israel by people who regard the West Bank as a part of Israel). Details, see above.
2. Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question.[...] If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted. Result, Google Books (English, published after 1993): West Bank, 29,200 hits. Samaria: 2,530. If we check the first 100, the overwhelming majority are about Bible-age Samaria, and the rest, with one possible exception, are written by Israelis. Result, Google Scholar (published after 1993): West Bank, 21,000 hits. Samaria: 10,800. Of the first 100, the overwhelming majority are people named Samaria, a dozen about the rare earth metal samarium, a few are about Bible-age Samaria, and the rest are written by Israelis.
3. Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted.

A Lexis-Nexis search was carried out by User:CasualObserver'48 and posted here. A check of four individual major news sources:

• BBC: "West Bank", 32,300 hits [48]. "Samaria", 408 hits [49].
• CNN: "West Bank", 19,900 hits [50], "Samaria", 168 [51]
• FoxNews: "West Bank", 35,800 hits [52], "Samaria", 50 [53]
• Reuters: "West Bank", 237,000 hits [54], "Samaria", 129 [55]

A cursory check of a sample (the first 50) from the hits for "Samaria" reveals that they are either about people, ships, or other places named Samaria, the historical region Samaria, orgs with "Samaria" in their names, or they are from quotes or letters to the editor by Israelis. Articles generally point out that "Samaria" and "Judea" are indigenous Israeli terms for the West Bank, and it's worth noting that the terms are also generally postfixed with "(West Bank)" in the news articles, to avoid confusion about the exact geographical location.

>> Jayjg's position: The article should not express the idea that "Samaria" (outside the undisputed historical domain) is an Israel-specific toponym. Supported by: No reliable sources (or indeed any sources) have been presented that explicitly support that idea. Lacking that, Jayjg has synthesized an argument by compiling anecdotal evidence: a list of fourteen googled instances of alleged non-Israeli use of the term. When scrutinized, ten of these 14 were conclusively shown to be of Israeli origin, the other four use "West Bank" consistently except in a few cases that Jayjg contends constitutes examples of non-Israeli use. Four of these four sources explicitly support the opposite notion, that "Samaria" is an Israel-only term. [56][57][58][59]

Jayjg's compliance with WP rules: Jayg has repeatedly been encouraged to use WP's established methodology for determining if a place name is accepted in English. Each time, the request has been ignored. When reliable sources have been provided that contradict Jayjg's position, Jayjg has consistently responded with bizarre accusations of "original research", edit wars, and refusal to accept even verbatim quotes from the sources. It's hard to escape the conclusion that there might be a certain amount of fanaticism at work here. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for spelling this out, because it clearly shows what is wrong with the edits you are making. You state, above, that your position is "The article should express the idea that "Samaria" (outside the undisputed historical domain) is an Israel-specific toponym.". In order to support this position, you need to do one simple thing: Find a reliable source that says '"Samaria" (outside the undisputed historical domain) is an Israel-specific toponym.' That is what Jayjg has consistently asked you to do, and what you have consistently failed to do. Instead of doing this, you've engaged in original research, including the Google search you describe above that purports to show that "West Bank" is a term found more often on the web than "Samaria", or other original research into various encyclopedias that use the term Samaria in the historical context. And you've of course engaged in some ridiculous argumentative original research to discount every single instance presented to you of the term being used outside of Israel, and outside of the historical context.

What you fail to understand is that the guidelines you are quoting relate to naming conventions for geographic names, but the POV you are pushing has nothing to do with the most common name used for a geographical region. Once again: Samaria is not an alternate name for "West Bank" or even "Northern West Bank", and Judea is not an alternate name for "West Bank" or even "Southern West Bank". The "West Bank" is a political term, used to describe the territories previously under Jordanian occupation that Israel captured in the Six Day war. Samaria (and Judea) on the other hand, is the name of a geographical region, with specific topological and climatological attributes. There is a large overlap between the geographical area of Samaria and the Northern West Bank (and between Judea and the Southern West Bank), but they are not the same thing. To wit: The Northern West Bank includes a large swath of land along the Jordan river basin, from south of Bet She'an to Jericho - this land is part of the Jordan Rift Valley, but not a part of Samaria. Conversely, Wadi Ara is a valley which is in Samaria, but not in the West Bank . This is made very clear in the case of the village of Baqa al-Gharbiyye, which is in Samaria just like its across-the-fence sister village of Baqa ash-Sharqiyya, but while the latter is also in the West Bank, the former is not.

You have consistently failed to distinguish between the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" and the term "Judea and Samaria". The latter is a political term, just like "West Bank", and is indeed commonly in use by right-wing Israelis and other pro-Israeli advocates as an alternative name for "West Bank". Wikipedia recognizes this in the West Bank article, which is named, "West Bank" and not "Judea and Samaria", per the guidelines you quote on common names. These same guidelines also dictate that on the English wiki, we call the "Samaria" article "Samaria", and not "Shomron" or "Sebastia", and the "Judea" article "Judea", and not "Judaea" or "Yehuda", which are alternate, but less common names for the same thing. But these guidelines do not mean that we substitute a political designation ("West Bank") for a geographical region (Samaria), when the two are not the same. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't exactly a shortage of cites that explicitly say the term "Samaria" is Israel (or Jewish, or settler)-specific. If you read the last couple of posts I made, you'll find several examples, both quoted and linked. It's safe to say that it's sufficiently well supported with literally thousands of reliable sources that all state this explicitly. Unless you intend to join Jayjg in his Wikilawyering and deny the facts, you can't say it's POV pushing or OR.

You keep stating that Samaria (and Judea) are geographical names (presumably in widespread use in the English language), but the sources simply don't support that view. After checking thousands of sources, I have not been able to find more than a few scattered instances of the word used that way (disregarding Israeli sources). I invite you to repeat the analysis, using recommended WP methodology and see if you can find support for it. Or better, reliable sources that directly support your position. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't quoted any sources that says the term "Samaria" (not the phrase "Judea and Samaria") "is Israel (or Jewish, or settler)-specific." Please avoid WP:NOR, please desist from further Wikilawyering, and please make more accurate Talk: page comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you say "Judea and Samaria" is not the same thing as "Judea" and "Samaria", you have to 1) support it with a reliable source and 2) explain how the wording "Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank" in any way contradicts that. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You keep trying to reverse the burden of evidence, but it won't wash. If you want to assert that usage of the geographical term "Samaria" is identical to the Israeli administrative district and phrase "Judea and Samaria", you'll have to support it with reliable sources. The sources certainly never make that claim about the term "Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In general: you make a claim, you prove it. If you postulate a widespread use in English of a toponym, you use established WP methodology to find out if you're right, like I did above. If you want to employ straw men (like the claim that I" want to assert that usage of the geographical term "Samaria" is identical to the Israeli administrative district and phrase "Judea and Samaria"", please desist. And if you claim the article contradicts that notion in any case, please show where. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly: you make a claim, you prove it. In this case, you postulated that "Samaria" was "not a widely understood toponym". However, you singularly failed to provide any sources which made that claim, instead introducing various synthesize arguments based on your interpretations of how sources used terms, combined with spurious dismissals of sources which contradicted your thesis, and applying irrelevant guidelines regarding geographic entities to political designations. This has all been explained to you time and again, for months now, but you stubbornly persist in trying to impose your political views on Wikipedia, using bizarre arguments that attempt to reverse the onus of proof regarding your theories, and ignoring the Talk: page consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you disagree with: That multiple encyclopedias, academic works, and thousands of news articles constitute reliable sources? That they all explicitly say that the usage domain of "Samaria" (and "Judea") is limited to Israelis (or Jews in general, or settlers in particular)? That WP methodology for establishing if a name is widely accepted should be used to establish if a name is widely accepted? That the burden of evidence is on the one who claims X exists? That you claim that "Samaria" is used outside Israel? That the overwhelming majority of your anecdotal counterevidence cites, that were intended to support your position that "Samaria" is used outside Israel, were in fact quotes by Israelis? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you disagree with: the multiple reliable sources that disprove your theory? That you continue to invent "claims" for me that I've never made, in order to reverse the burden of proof for your theory? The fact that you continually try to misapply a guideline about geographical entities to political entities? The fact that none of the anecdotal sources you bring explicitly reach the same conclusion you do? Or the fact that WP:SYNTH notes that

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,

which is exactly what you are doing? Jayjg ^(talk) 08:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen even one of those "multiple reliable sources that disprove my theory" or syntheses that you see, but feel free to link to one, like the multiple encyclopedias, academic works, and news articles I linked to above. If your position is not that "Samaria" is a term that enjoys widespread acceptance in English, then what is it exactly? MeteorMaker (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(Redoing indents) Ok, here's another source. To cut the arguments short, it is NOT from an Israeli source as it is a US Government report. It is NOT historic as it is a report on current events. It is not out of date as it was published this year. The quote is "On July 11, PCATI also submitted a complaint to the IDF and the Military Appeals Court contesting poor conditions at the Beit El (Judea) and Salem (Samaria) Courts in the West Bank." The term Samaria is clearly being used to denote a specific area (withIn the West Bank) that contains a location called Salem (just as Judea is a geographic region containing a place called Beit El). The Source US Department of State. The listing at the CIA [60] also supports this claim that Samaria is a specific region within the West Bank. Oboler (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Finally the City of Nablus, which is located in Samaria, is the largest city in Palestine and part of what is known as the West Bank" source: Dundee City (UK) [61]. Thought you;d like that one. Oboler (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The last one appears to be legit, with the proviso that we cannot know the nationality of the original provider of the Nablus info for sure. The first one is not, being supplied by the organization PCATI, based in Israel [62]. If you take a look at the actual document [63], you will find that your conjecture that "the term Samaria is clearly being used to denote a specific area (withIn the West Bank) that contains a location called Salem" is wrong, as the actual document simply uses the official Israeli names "Samaria Court" and "Judea Court", and that is what the US Government report quotes (but puts in parentheses).

The CIA listing is a cross-reference list of (less common) geographic names, many of which are used only locally (Sjaelland to make one example), and the available information does not indicate that Samaria is an exception. And again, the entire online body of CIA papers does not contain one single reference to "Samaria" or "Judea".

Current score:

• Miscategorized (dealing with historic Samaria, or other things than the Samaria area): 4 cases.
• Misattributed (author uses "West Bank" consistently, but has used "Samaria" once for poetic or other reasons): 5 cases.
• "Samaria" is used exclusively by Israelis: 15 cases.
• "Samaria" is used by others than Israelis: 1 case.

However, in the light of current findings, further anecdotal evidence is merely of academic interest. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm find it a little hard to continue working in good faith given the way you ignore and twist good sources. Samaria is an English name used by people in the area (including those in charge in official reports) and as such it is used by other organisations and governments, as shown above. That alone is more than enough evidence needed. That it is also in common enough use to require inclusion in a country index where it specifically is mentioned as a region in the West Bank is more than enough validation of the original usage. The fact that it can be shown that other government sources (who incidentally seem to be of the opposing view on the M.E.) also use it should close the case. To use an analogy, the question is not whether Washington or the US is used more when discussing American Foreign policy, the question is whether Washington is a valid term... and the answer is yes.

In our case the region (Samaria specifically) is of far less interest to people who are not in a relative close proximity i.e. in Israel. As such there is simply less information about it... but there IS enough to show it exists and is in use as a current term. The entire argument about avoiding Israeli sources (in English) is also out of place given those are the people most likely to know about it, talk about it, be looking it up, etc. Their usage (in places like academic papers) is as valid as the US State Departments. Finally the report does not use the word "court" if it is implies it is implied to the city, the name (Samaria) in brackets is a geographic notation of where that is. There is no other way to read it.

I appologise if I am getting a little fed up, but this is NOT advancing Wikipedia... it is simply wasting people's time on matters that have clearly already been settled. The point scoring being employed and the efforts to dismiss all evidence (even going so far as to raise questions without foundation over where an obviously uninvolved neutral source got it's information) is NOT working cooperatively and intelligently to solve a disagreement. If you have no interest in resolving an issue, have no interest in considering the evidence people give you and are ideologically committed to your position regardless of the discussion .... why take it to talk in the first place? 124.190.196.52 (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a long section, Oboler, and you may not have read every post in it. To recapitulate: It is not disputed that the term "Samaria" is still used in Israel. Israeli Wikipedia has every right to use it. However, this is English Wikipedia, and English Wikipedia should reflect the usage of toponyms in English. It has been shown conclusively [64] that "Samaria" does not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for widespread use, but you are still free to try to repeat the analysis, or find other non-anecdotal counterevidence.

Contrary to your assertion that the term Samaria "is used by other organisations and governments", there is no evidence that any government outside Israel has used it at all (except in direct quotes and when referring to Israeli orgs or institutions with "Samaria" in their names). This has been shown to be true of the CIA, here are links to the US State Department, USAID, the US Department of Commerce, the US Department of Defense, the UK Home Office, the UK Foreign Office, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

I have shown that my position has explicit support in all major online encyclopedias, in academic works, in news sources. I have taken the trouble to perform WP's standard procedure for establishing if a toponym enjoys widespread acceptance in English, and invited others to do the same. I have shown that most of the anecdotal counterevidence presented actually is better evidence of the opposite of what it was intended to show. All has been met with silence. I leave it to other editors to decide who have no interest in resolving the issue, no interest in considering the evidence and are ideologically committed to a particular position regardless of the evidence. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:54, 11 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."

Now, which of your sources states that "Samaria" is "not a modern toponym" or "not well-known outside of Israel"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They all do if you read them, which I encourage you to do. However, the line that you keep deleting from the article in fact states neither:

Samaria is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank.

It's all explicitly sourced, quoted verbatim (more or less) from the sources [65] [...]. Now, where are your sources that say "Samaria" is still used for the modern West Bank, and that other than Israelis use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to it? I remind you that drawing conclusions from anecdotal evidence is a violation of WP:SYNTH. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, again, I'm not trying to prove a theory, you are, that's why you started removing the term "Samaria" from all articles in Wikipedia. and, of course, none of your sources say the term is "not a modern toponym" or "not understood outside Israel". Your theory based on the fact that certain groups use "Judea and Samaria" to refer to the West Bank is irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are not trying to prove a theory, why have you posted cites of every instance of the word "Samaria" you could google up? Your theory that "Samaria" is a widely accepted toponym outside Israel has not been shown to have support in any reliable source, hence the synthesizing of anecdotal evidence and grasping for straws.

And if anecdotal evidence is all it takes now, you need not look any further than six sections up on this page: [66]. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply disproving your theory which relied entirely on the synthesizing of anecdotal evidence. Trying to attribute to me what you, in fact, are doing, is an interesting tactic, but it is also, as you put it, "grasping at straws". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Most editors would accept sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encarta [67] as reliable. Why you persist with your increasingly bizarre attempts to throw random WP policies at them in the vain hope that one will stick is difficult to understand for any editor with basic intellectual honesty. Please give up now, your struggle against reality is becoming an embarrassment not only for the pro-Israel coterie but for the project as a whole. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"annexationists"

Allow me to remind editors here what wikipedia is WP:NOT. It is not an advocacy tool and I request that sensitive issues be addressed with neutrality. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To me "annexationist" sounds perfectly neutral. What term do you suggest we use, seeing that reliable sources confirm that "Samaria" is a non-English group-specific term? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with both your presentation of what constitutes a neutral and/or reliable as well as the recent WP:TE violation. It matters not if a source uses "terrorist" or "annexationists". These are not considered wiki-neutral and are, in fact, not only pushing an agenda but are also undue for the lead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't provided any reliable sources yet that have stated anything about "non-English group-specific terms". In the future please make accurate talk page comments, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, is it the term "annexationist" you find POV, or stating the fact that many Israelis who describe themselves as belonging to that category use the toponym "Samaria" for the modern West Bank? MeteorMaker (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Judea and Samaria Area is the official Israeli (government) name for the region which is almost identical to the region called "West Bank" (you can see the difference here). I'm not sure how "annexationism" (what a weird term) became part of this conversation, but it's certainly a loaded term which should not be used, similar to 'Palestinian terrorist', 'Israeli colony', etc. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Annexationist" is a term Ian Lustick uses in his book "For the Land and the Lord" [68], see first ref. I'm not sure why you find it loaded, to me it's a simple descriptive term that indicates a desire to annex a territory to another, like the West Bank to Israel. Dictionaries I've consulted don't indicate any particular connotations either [69][70], and a Google search turns up mostly articles about Canada. What term does this group in Israel use about themselves? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't follow what "group" it is you're talking about or that you're trying to describe with a (mind the phrasing) ridiculous term. This Lustik fellow doesn't sound like an Israeli or much of a scholar of Israeli society. What are his credentials exactly that he's supposedly a credible figure for applying this term for all the people who use Judea and Samaria? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ian S Lustick is a Professor of Political Science at University of Pennsylvania [71][72]. The group he refers to as "annexationists" are those in favor of annexing the West Bank to Israel (and their opponents as "anti-annexationists"[73]). If you object to the term, is there one you would rather see in the article? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet, other sources indicate that the term is used by Jews in general, so you're clearly violating WP:NPOV by favoring one author's view. Please desist. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. It is an exemplary poorly chosen terminology by a Pennsylvania Douch (see vid) and one that I would object to. I object the notion that we need categorizing who supports adding of the territory into Israeli sovereignty and those who object as though it were a black & white issue. People have multiple shades of opinions on this issue in regards to a possible end to the conflict and the eventual fate of the disputed territories. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC) clarify 05:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of the vid, are you sure you linked to the correct one? Re the term "annexationists", I have no problem with changing it to "some Israelis", though it's interesting to note that most sources make the category much narrower. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant anyway. This article is about Samaria, not Judea and Samaria. Save the POV detail about Judea and Samaria for that article. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what the usage note is intended to make clear. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, it's designed to push your political agenda. Discuss Judea and Samaria in the Judea and Samaria article. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion there [74], but you left it four days ago when the encyclopedia cites and the result of the Lexis-Nexis search were presented. If you want to continue, by all means, please do do.

The fact that you spread your synthesized arguments over multiple pages does not mean I have to follow you to each one to refute them. The fact that your theories have yet to be sourced here or anywhere else is quite enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jayjg, you said "Discuss there, not here", I invited you to continue the discussion there that you left four days ago [75]. Then you continue to discuss here. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg is right that this dispute belongs in the Judea and Samaria article. On a side note however, I'd like to make the observation that it seems that this dispute stems from the completely incorrect belief that WP:V automatically overrides WP:NPOV. This could not be further from the truth, and WP:NPOV should be observed in conjunction with WP:V. In other words, clearly loaded terms should be toned down, no matter who uses them. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If the terms "annexationists"/"anti-annexationists" can be perceived as loaded, they may have to be changed. I have suggested "Some Israelis", would that be acceptable to you? MeteorMaker (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Some Israelis" is certainly not loaded, but it's a weasel word which should be avoided unless it is absolutely clear who those "some" are. Since, as I said, "Judea and Samaria Area" is the official Israeli terms for this region (which, again, is not synonymous with the region called "West Bank"—read my previous comment before posting), I really don't see that happenning. Moreover, can you please explain why it's important to state something that clearly belongs in Judea and Samaria in this article's very first sentence? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The remedy for weasel words is to provide a link that clarifies just who these people are, and we have three of them. If we feel that is not sufficient, thousands more can be added. The argument that a more specific expression is better does have some merit though. What about "Israelis who believe in Zionism" or the J+S article wording, "Jewish settlers and their supporters"?

I wholeheartedly agree that the J+S article needs these refs to, so I have added them (they have been requested since July 2007). I do not agree that the article would benefit from removing the information that in modern times, the toponym is used exclusively by Israelis, as has been shown in the section above. I can't see what could possibly be gained by that. Again, it would be like having a complete article on Germany under Germania, with the rationale that Israelis still use that term[76] [77]. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In light of the above reply, I believe that our argument is based on two misconceptions:

• "Judea and Samaria is a term used only by right-wing Israelis" (wrong): None of your sources state that the term is used exclusively by settlers or their supporters, and in fact, as I said 3 times so far (and you ignored), the term is also used by the Israeli government, which today is a left-wing government.
• "Samaria is a term used only in Israel" (wrong): Samaria is a Biblical name, widely used in the Bible, and therefore also in Christianity. Again, Samaria specifically (which is after all what this article is about) is a geographical location, completely unrelated to any political entity (Israel, the PNA, Mongolia or the Roman Empire). In fact, the English language has a word called "good samaritan", derived from this geographical location. Do a simple Google search and you'll see that the term is used very widely outside of Israel, mostly in a Biblical context.

I hope those two misconceptions are cleared up and we can move on.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your willingness to clear up misconceptions is a good platform to stand on in the work to improve the article. Two potential misconceptions remain in the version you reverted to:

1. "Judea and Samaria are terms that are valid alternatives to (sectors of) the West Bank" (wrong). If the article doesn't adhere to WP guidelines about place names, confusion may arise.
2. "Judea and Samaria are terms whose usage domain isn't limited to the historical regions" (wrong). If the article doesn't follow the established encyclopedic pattern of using the past tense (explicit and/or implied with keywords like "ancient") for historical regions, confusion may arise.

In short, the term "Samaria" is not used outside the historical domain, except in Israel, and the article should not give that impression either. The claim that Samaria is a (modern) geographical location has been conclusively refuted in the section above [78][79]. Please take the time to read the discussion (or at least the diffs) before making that claim or reverting again. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are now at least five editors who have expressed an opinion against your changes. You are edit warring against this consensus - please stop it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

CM, please read the arguments and evidence I have presented [80][81], then try and come up with proper refutals. Stonewalling and claiming consensus for a position that has conclusively been shown to be incompatible with WP guidelines and lacking reliable sources is clearly gaming the system. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've read your arguments, and responded to them. So have four other editors who have disagreed with you. You are edit warring against consensus, so I urge to stop it, no matter how deeply you believe your position is correct. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you consider the broken record response "OR!" a proper refutal, yes maybe. I deeply believe that multiple encyclopedias qualify as pretty reliable sources. Unlike the other two (not four) editors that have disagreed with my point that the article should reflect the fact that "Samaria" isn't a modern toponym, you have at least come up with a novel (and unsourced) objection: that "Judea" and "Samaria" are not the same thing as "Judea and Samaria". You have not yet responded to the obvious counter: Where in the (well-sourced) sentence "Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank" is anything else stated?

I hate to repeat myself, but this is the current situation: I have shown that my position has explicit support in all major online encyclopedias [82], in academic works [83], in news sources . I have taken the trouble to perform WP's standard procedure for establishing if a toponym enjoys widespread acceptance in English [84], and invited others to do the same (to no avail). I have shown that most of the anecdotal counterevidence presented actually is better evidence of the opposite of what it was intended to show [85][86]. All has been met with silence, or at best accusations of WP:OR. That is not how Wikipedia is intended to work. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intended to work by consensus. No matter how strong you believe your case is, and no matter how strongly you believe you've articulated it, it is quite clear you do not have consensus for it, and by continuing to edit war against the consensus, you are being disruptive. Please abide by Wikipedia policy, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, claiming consensus for a position that has been shown to clash with WP rules and completely lacks reliable sources is the archetypical system gaming, particularly if it's in order to suppress an exceptionally well-sourced fact for purely ideological reasons. It should be noted that at least one of the three opposing editors is openly partisan [87]. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Even worse is your edit-warring for a position that has been shown to clash with WP rules and completely lacks reliable sources, particularly if it's in order to promote a completely unsourced theory for purely ideological reasons. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's unbecoming of an admin to resort to the parrot argument, and I'm tempted to ignore you, but I will try to respond anyway. If you seriously claim that Encyclopedia Britannica, Ian Lustick et al are not reliable sources, that quoting them verbatim is a violation of WP:SYNTH, and that performing established WP procedures "clashes with WP rules", it's a cause for concern. You are expected to provide reliable sources for your position like everybody else, and the fact that you prefer edit warring, blatant wikilawyering, system gaming and childish parrot responses does not reflect well on your credibility. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's as if you haven't even read WP:SYNTH. The issue is not with the reliability of the sources, but with the fact that they nowhere make the claims you attribute to them. Lustick as already shown, uses the word "Samaria" to refer to the modern geographical region of Samaria. Britannica nowhere claims that "Samaria" is "not a modern toponym", nor does it claim that the term "Samaria" is only used in Israel, or by Israelis, or only understood by Israelis, or any of the other theories you have invented. Wikipedia is not the place for you to advance your political agenda. Take policy seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(<----Outdent)

Indeed, Jayjg. The conclusion you draw (that the toponym "Samaria" enjoys widespread acceptance outside Israel) from four anecdotal (and willfully misrepresented) examples is probably the most mindblowingly blatant attempt Wikipedia has ever seen to synthesize a theory from literally nothing. You have been shown several cites from highly reliable sources that all say, explicitly, that "Samaria" is only used as a modern toponym in Israel. I can give you thousands more. You have not been able to show even one in support of your position, yet you act as if you owned Wikipedia. And again, your effort to paint my suggested wording as "WP:SYNTH" (after having unsuccessfully tried WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:SOAP and WP:TE) is both misguided and beside the point. Take a look at the sentence you keep deleting:

Samaria is [...] a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank.

Now compare to the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia cite I gave you:

Samaria, central region, ancient Palestine. [...] it was bounded by Galilee to the north, Judaea to the south, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and the Jordan River to the east. It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory. [88]

Where is your "synthesis"? I see only a virtually verbatim quote. In case you're now going to shift the focus of your WP:SYNTH "argument" to the usage domain note, allow me to point out that it is a virtually verbatim quote too, from the Ian Lustick book you, ironically, brought up yourself:

"For political purposes, and despite the geographical imprecision involved, the annexationist camp in Israel prefers to refer to the area between the Green Line and the Jordan River not as the West Bank but as Judea and Samaria." [89]

I see the article is protected now, which is probably a good thing. Your ideologically motivated obstructionism and persistent failure to comply with WP policy has been taking everybody's time for two weeks now. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out countless times, Lustick and other sources only discuss the usage of the phrase "Judea and Samaria", they nowhere discuss the usage of the term "Samaria" alone, and use it themselves without qualification. Find sources that actually discuss the "toponym" "Samaria", and say that it is not modern, or only understood in Israel, or only used by Israelis, or whatever else you have invented. Please stop inventing theories about the term's usage that is found nowhere in the sources you cite. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Each of those countless times, you have had it pointed out to you that the phrase "Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank" does not discuss the usage of the term "Samaria" alone. I trust we have seen that lame red herring for the last time now. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can see why you'd want to "trim" the statement that you had quoted earlier, - '"Samaria is [...] a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank.'. It kind of works against the POV you've been pushing, doesn't it? Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you really got me there. Yes, let's just include this sentence that kind of works against the POV I've been pushing. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

For a month. Stop edit warring and discuss. I'd expect better from some, especially administrators and long-time users. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that the entire dispute revolves around the edits of a single editor, and that this editor has been warned to avoid further warring [90], there is no longer cause to keep the page protected. — Coren ^(talk) 05:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll just note here, however, that continued edit warring by any party will result in blocks. Quite frankly, I'm surprised in myself that I chose the protection route. We've got a former ArbCom member participating in the edit war here and that is unacceptable. It doesn't matter who is "right" in the dispute; edit warring is edit warring and there is no reason that these users couldn't have initiated dispute resolution. Very disappointing. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Amazing!

First of all, even if only Israelis called it Samaria, that is good enough for me, as it is a whole country. Second of all, I am an American, and always knew that Samaria was part of the West Bank. I suspect the Samaritans call it Samaria too. Puh-leeze. This is ridiculous. Tis Samaria, plain and simple. Is it EXACTLY the same as the West Bank? I thought not, so therefore calling it anything but Samaria is just plain wrong. I am not going to edit or watch this article, but the huge consensus is aligned with Jayjg as far as I can tell. Sposer (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To repeat an argument that has invariably gone ignored: using country-specific toponyms in English Wikipedia is against Wikipedia guidelines about place names. That something is "good enough for you" is not sufficient reason to include it in a WP article, particularly if that something lacks reliable sources entirely.

Also, Sposer, if you take the trouble to actually read a few posts in the above sections, you will find that nobody has stated Samaria is "EXACTLY the same as the West Bank". What the controversy is about is whether we align this article with all other sources and present the toponym as the ancient name of the region (with a note that it is still valid in Israel) or try to create Wikiality and hide that fact.

The "huge consensus" that you think you see seems to consist only of Jayg after Oboler left the discussion and CanadianMonkey finally admitted he can't find anything wrong with the suggested wording:

Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank.

MeteorMaker (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Heyo MeteorMaker,

While there is some level of merit in discussion over whether or not the term Samaria is more relevant as a biblical term or as a modern term, the "annexationists" version is just not right. This wording is not only weasel-ish and extremely rare (a single source) but it is incorrect as well, as has been noted by several editors. There is no real value in indefinite repetition of a resolved issue.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Several alternatives have been suggested (and ignored) in this section: [91]. You preempted the resolution of that minor dispute over which word to use by reverting the whole text to an unsupported version that has been shown to contradict every reliable source presented in this discussion. As a temporary compromise, I suggest you restore the now uncontested (except by Jayjg) first sentence ("Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank") and leave out the second ("Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank") until we have found a viable alternative to Ian Lustick's term "annexationist". MeteorMaker (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm don't think it's good to ask someone to revert to a non consensus version. Regardless, my main concern is lack of encyclopedic integrity in the inflated term 'annexationists'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent other editors. Canadian Monkey didn't agree with your version, nor did Oboler. The sentence still has the pleonasm "what is today" in it. It was the West Bank yesterday too, and the day before that. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Far be it from me to misrepresent others editors. Look at this diff: [92]

Suggested phrase: Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank.

CanadianMonkey: It kind of works against the POV you've been pushing, doesn't it?

It's difficult to interpret that in any other way than as an acknowledgment of the NPOV-ness of the phrase, particularly since CM left the discussion immediately after that. I haven't heard Oboler object either after the conclusive evidence was presented [93][94]. Other editors have suggested the word "annexationist" be changed, but haven't objected to the facts stated. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

MeteorMaker, I see no problem is saying "Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of the West Bank." That would be consistent with all the sources perviously discussed. Would you agree with that? Oboler (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It would, but so would truncating it even further to "Samaria is a term". For it to be meaningful and consistent with the sources, it needs to reflect the by now well-proven fact [95][96] that "Samaria" simply isn't used for the modern area, except by Israelis. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been watching this discussion, but would like to comment. Lustick's book, reliable as it may be, was written twenty years ago. Israeli political discourse has changed since. Here we see Haim Ramon, Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, telling the Israeli Cabinet in September 2008 that "The evacuation of residents of Judea and Samaria is an unavoidable step for those who believe in two states for two peoples - and that includes most of the Israeli public". So saying that it only used by "annexationists" seems to me anachronistic. I could search for more non-Israeli sources using the term Samaria, but it seemss enough of those have already been provided. I would support Oboler's suggestion above. -- Nudve (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find a couple more non-Israeli examples of "Samaria", but as Jayjg found out when compiling his list, they are exceedingly hard to come by. I couldn't find more than two bona fide examples on his list (Gilbert, Druks) [97], the rest either explicitly contradict his hypothesis (by stating that "Samaria" is used only in Israel), or offer no support at all of it (by being written by Israelis, or using the term in a historical context).

However, I agree that we may have to settle for something like "some Israelis", qualified with a cite from one of the sources Jayjg unwittingly contributed. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone denies that West Bank is the more common term, or that Samaria is used mostly in Israel (although that's impossible to prove). However, saying that it is used only by Israeli annexationists, or even only by Israelis, would simply be wrong. "Some Israelis" would be meaningless and problematic per WP:WEASEL. What we could do is add the fact that in 1967 it became the official Israeli name for the West Bank (I can provide a ref for that). Would that be OK? -- Nudve (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a fact that certainly merits inclusion in the article, but it's no substitute for stating the simple fact that "Samaria" is entirely a historical term. I disagree that it cannot be shown to be used exclusively by Israelis; Wikipedia has a well-defined methodology for determining precisely if a term enjoys widespread acceptance in English, and with statistically insignificant exceptions, every instance of "Samaria" is indeed from an Israeli source. I encourage you to try it yourself if you disagree with mine and User:CasualObserver'48's findings.

If "some Israelis" is too weasely despite the suggested ref attribution, how about "Israelis who believe in Zionism", "Jewish settlers and their supporters", or simply, if somewhat too broadly, "Israelis"? MeteorMaker (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Best I'm aware, Samaria is not "entirely a historical term". I'm not sure on why this is repeatedly stated and to be a little blunt - I think you should give a look at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It is stated because the sources explicitly tell us so [98][99], and "repeatedly" precisely because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you are aware of any (non-anecdotal) sources that state otherwise, this would be a good opportunity to present them. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with MeteorMaker here. I think Jayjg's list above shows it's still used today. Maybe we could say something like "since 1967, it has been used mostly in Israel". I don't think WP:NCGN is relevant here, since nobody is considering moving the article. -- Nudve (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg's list above has suffered the same fate as his earlier attempts to provide evidence for his position that "Samaria" is a current term outside Israel: most of the sources were found to contradict him, the rest, with few exceptions, are irrelevant because they either use the term in a historical context or are Israeli [100]. I have only been able to find two sources on his list that can unequivocally serve as evidence for his position (Gilbert and Druks) — but what he needs now is not anecdotal evidence but a reliable source that clearly states that "Samaria" is a widespread term outside Israel, because that is what the opposing position has — and in spades, I might add. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this is what he needs to prove, then he is probably at a loss, because I can't believe that a source that explicitly says that can be found. However, I'm not sure whether this is indeed what he must do, or if the burden of evidence lies with him. -- Nudve (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, however, I have not tried to prove the "position that "Samaria" is a current term outside Israel". Instead, I have simply pointed out again and again that your claims that that toponym is not widely understood outside Israel, Not widely understood outside Israel are false. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources I have provided [101][102] clearly show his position to be inconsistent with reality, and basic intellectual honesty should lead to full acknowledgement of that fact. I don't doubt there are a few sources outside Israel — as I said, two on Jayjg's list are unambiguous, and a couple more on the same list could probably be considered further anecdotal evidence for his position with a stretch. However, for a term to be considered widespread in the Wikipedia sense, it needs more than a few scattered instances. I have repeatedly suggested to Jayjg to apply the recommended WP methodology, an opportunity he has chosen to ignore every time. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The position you attribute to me is a convenient straw man; one which, of course, I have never advanced. Meanwhile, you have singularly failed to prove your theory regarding "Samaria" that that toponym is not widely understood outside Israel, Not widely understood outside Israel. In fact, it has been spectacularly disproved. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

We are running in circles here, but I repeat one last time that the suggested wording does not directly express the fact you seem to dislike so much (that the toponym "Samaria" is not widely understood outside Israel), simply that "Samaria" is a term used for what is today the West Bank, and that is pretty well supported in dozens of reliable sources [103][104]. In case you want an example of just how esoteric the term is, look no further than to the tenth section above: "Where is it on the map?" MeteorMaker (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that West Bank is the common term. This is why Samaria is defined as "a term used for the mountainous northern part of the West Bank", instead of West Bank being defined as a term used for Judea and Samaria. However, I don't think it's true that the term Samaria is used only by Israelis or scholars of ancient Middle Eastern history. As I said, we could say that it is used mostly in Israel, but I think it should be done by adjusting the end of the first paragraph. -- Nudve (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(<---Outdent)

The available sources seem to be pretty unanimous in their classification of "Samaria" as an ancient (ie not modern) toponym [105][106]. If you have factual evidence to the contrary, you are encouraged to put it forward. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think what Britannica and Encarta are referring to the ancient region because they are writing mostly about the ancient capital. They have another entry for West Bank (not sure what their index says). Babylon simply calls it "area of land between Israel and Jordan". Here's a suggestion: We change the last sentence of the first paragraph to: "The combined term Judea and Samaria, despite some geographical imprecision, is used in Israel to refer to the West Bank as a whole." -- Nudve (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Babylon is a Wikipedia derivative [107], based in Israel [108]. Sorry, but no cigar.

Though I do accept your suggested change of the second sentence. I can't find any fault with it, as long as the first one clearly states that "Samaria" is a term for the ancient region. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How would you phrase the first paragraph? -- Nudve (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Similarly to Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta: [109]:

"Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank".

Nobody has found that wording inconsistent with the sources or even particularly problematic after the evidence was presented, with the sole exception of Jayjg. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So the bone of contention is the words "what is today". Jayjg considers this a pleonasm, and he may have a point. Britannica starts with a description of the ancient region, so it was important for them to qualify the modern term. Anyway, would you settle for substituting "what is today the" with "the modern", as per Britannica? I think that would at least solve the "yesterday and the day before" problem. -- Nudve (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't quite say the same thing, does it? MeteorMaker (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Jayjg's "pleonasm" charge, it was difficult to understand to begin with, but his recent reverts in another article [110] made it positively bizarre. Had he not kept repeating the mantra "it was also the West Bank yesterday and the day before yesterday", it could perhaps have been understood as some kind of assertion that the West Bank carries the inevitable connotation of modernity and thus renders the attribute "today's" superfluous. Then he reverts a ref to the pre-48 area as the West Bank with the note "please avoid anachronisms", which seems to clash with his own position that "the West Bank" has always been the name of the region. The only way I can make sense of that is if he means "today" in the literal sense, November 28th. I think we can safely disregard the "pleonasm" objection until Jayjg has formulated it in a comprehensible way. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Beside Jayjg, is there still anybody who won't accept bringing the article in line with the other online encyclopedias [111] and present the fact that in English, "Samaria" is used as a term for the ancient region only (with Nudve's note above that it's also used in Israel, in the phrase "Judea and Samaria", to mean the West Bank)? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree that "Samaria" is used as a term for the ancient region only , and there are numerous sources on this talk page that show that claim to be false. I see above that Jaakobou says "Best I'm aware, Samaria is not "entirely a historical term" and that Nudve says "I don't think it's true that the term Samaria is used only by Israelis or scholars of ancient Middle Eastern history". It seems it is only you who belives that statement. NoCal100 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you should read more than just a few posts near the end in order to form an opinion. You will find that the amassed evidence [112][113] easily outweighs three "I don't think it's true". Personal opinions are of little consequence here on Wikipedia, what counts is reliable sources, and they are unanimously against the "modern toponym" hypothesis. Feel free to try and find a non-anecdotal one in support your opinion. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

you asked 'is there still anybody who won't accept...the fact that in English, "Samaria" is used as a term for the ancient region only'. The answer to that is , yes - I don't accept that as a fact, neither does Jayjg, nor Jaakobu, nor Nudve. Please get consensus for controversial edits, thanks. NoCal100 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from putting words in other editors' mouths. It would also be helpful if you could elaborate a bit on the factual basis for that reluctance to accept what's plainly stated in mulriple reliable sources [114][115]. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You original research is of no interest to me. I have not put words in anyone's mouth - I've quoted to you exactly what those editors have written here. Please get consensus for controversial edits, thanks. NoCal100 (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You have not quoted anything at all, you whipped up a synthesized conclusion about where those four editors stand without asking them. Apart from you and Jayjg, editors here do tend to respect WP policies and are prepared to sensibly back off from positions that have been shown to be untenable. Now, I ask you again: You say you're opposed to bringing the article in line with the other major online encyclopedias [116] and present the fact that in English, "Samaria" is a term that is used for the ancient region only. Is there any factual basis for that reluctance to let the article reflect well-sourced facts, or is it just your opinion? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I must question your ability to read properly, if you think I have 'not quoted anything at all'. Reread what I wrote above, especially the section that says 'Jaakobou says "Best I'm aware, Samaria is not "entirely a historical term" and that says Nudve says "I don't think it's true that the term Samaria is used only by Israelis or scholars of ancient Middle Eastern history'. Note the words that are between quotes, which indicate someone being quoted. NoCal100 (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, you did quote them (and later paraphrased them, which is what I replied to). However, both Nudve and Jaakobou qualify their statements with an "I think". That qualifier generally indicates a readiness to adapt one's belief to reality, should it become clear that they are incompatible. For the third time, I ask you: Is there any factual basis for your reluctance to let the article reflect well-sourced facts? If so, could you present a reliable source, or any source at all that states anything to the effect of "Samaria is a widespread toponym outside Israel"? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection nor any reluctance to let the article reflect well-sourced facts. I just disagree that "Samaria is entirely a historical term" is such a fact. NoCal100 (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources unanimously present "Samaria" as a historical term [117] and as a term that is used specifically in Israel [118]. That is also what any simple Google check indicates, as well as the more thorough WP procedure for determining if a term enjoys widespread acceptance in English. I recommend you try it, it will probably be an eye-opener for you. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of sources on this page show the term in use by non-Israelis, and outside of Israel. I find it amusing that you would ignore such sources for reasons such as the fact that the person using them is a Zionist, but your personal preferences for sources has little impact on reality. NoCal100 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

About half a dozen sources on this page are bona fide examples of use by non-Israelis (see review of Jayjg's latest list here). Far from ignoring them, I have acknowledged that several hundred such examples may theoretically exist, by people ideologically aligned with Israel's expansionist camp or otherwise. However, isolated examples do not constitute evidence of widespread use, something Wikipedia's guidelines require for a toponym to be presented as extant. You need either a direct quote from a reliable source that says "Samaria" is an accepted (non-Israeli) term for the modern region, or enough anecdotal evidence to satisfy Wikipedia's procedure for determining if a term enjoys widespread acceptance in English. Drawing your own conclusions from such a small sample is a violation of both WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As other editors have pointed out to you, you have the burden of proof reversed. It is you making a claim that "Samaria" is exclusively a historical term, or one that is not used or understood outside of Israel - you are the one who needs to find a reliable source that says just that. NoCal100 (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(<---Outdent)

(Outdent) As other editors have had it pointed out to them (and chosen to ignore), that fact is thoroughly anchored in a multitude of reliable sources [119][120]. What this discussion hasn't seen yet is solid evidence (or indeed any evidence beyond weak anecdotal) of the contrary. Again, the exceedingly few unequivocal examples of outside-Israel use of the exonym "Samaria" do not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for presenting a term as extant. If you disagree with my findings, feel free to repeat the test and see if you can come to another conclusion. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

None of those sources make the claim that "Samaria" is exclusively a historical term, or one that is not used or understood outside of Israel. Keep looking. NoCal100 (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look closely, the suggested wording does not make those claims either:

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

MeteorMaker (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It still contains the pleonasm "what is today", which merely adds words, but no meaningful content. The sentence Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of the West Bank. expresses the idea equally well - better, in fact, since it does not have the pleonasm. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you consider the term "the West Bank" so synonymous with modernity that it would be a pleonasm to add a time qualifier like "today's"? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you think the pleonasm "what is today" adds meaningful content? If so, what is that meaningful content? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the obvious rationale. Assuming you have the same understanding as I of the word pleonasm, where exactly is the time qualifier that you think the phrase "what is today" duplicates? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your answer. What information does the pleonasm "what is today" add to the sentence? Should every Wikipedia occurrence of the term "the West Bank" be preceded by the phrase "what is today"? Please be explicit. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last question first, every Wikipedia occurrence of the term "the West Bank" should indeed be preceded by the phrase "what is today" if the context is historical, just like in the other 2,800 articles that use the same phrase [121]. "The West Bank" is a relatively recent term, geographical designators like "Samaria" or "United Monarchy" that overlap with the area geographically but not temporally should be indicated as ancient terms, just like in all other major online encyclopedias [122].

Maybe you can now answer mine: Assuming you have the same understanding as I of the word pleonasm, where exactly is the time qualifier that you think the phrase "what is today" duplicates? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In what way is the sentence Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of the West Bank a "historical context"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the way it's written, it's actually not clear at all that it is. I've got an idea. How about changing it to "Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank, to make clear that the term "Samaria" isn't used much any more, like all other online encyclopedias have chosen to do [123]? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you're changing your theory again? Now you're claiming the term "Samaria" isn't used much any more? And, even if your theory were true, "isn't much used any more" is not the same as "historical". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes Jayg, in fact it is. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Uncommon" is not a synonym for "historical", and that's ignoring the fact that you still have no source for either claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Terms that aren't used much anymore are indeed known as "historical". I have presented tons of reliable sources [124][125] for the suggested phrase Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank, it's just that you have chosen to ignore it. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Err no. Less common does not mean "historical". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Not used much any more" does. If all other online encyclopedias call Samaria an ancient term for what is today the West Bank, Wikipedia should too. Good to see that you have finally conceded that "Samaria" is a minority tern btw. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And which reliable source says the term Samaria is "not used much any more"? Regarding what other online encyclopedias do, Wikipedia isn't other online encyclopedias. As a simple example, no other online encyclopedias have an Israel and the apartheid analogy article; in fact, none even discuss the topic. And finally, never attribute anything to me that I have not explicitly stated. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Which reliable sources say the term Samaria is ancient and today only used in Israel? You may have seen these before: [126][127]

"Wikipedia isn't other online encyclopedias", and "contains an article on Israel and the apartheid analogy", so we don't have to bother with agreeing with reliable sources any more? Don't make me laugh. There are tons of reliable sources behind the "Samaria is not used outside Israel" position, and none at all behind yours, a fact that no amount of wikilawyering and disruptive obstructionism can hide. Can we safely conclude that your "pleonasm" objection had no substance now? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

none of these sources say the term is "only used in Israel". Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's also used in Vanuatu, I believe at least the encyclopedia writers would have mentioned it:

The [West Bank] territory, excluding East Jerusalem, is also known within Israel by its biblical names, Judaea and Samaria. (Encyclopedia Britannica Online)

Israelis who regard the [West Bank'] area as properly Jewish territory often refer to it by the biblical names of Judaea and Samaria. (Columbia Encyclopedia)

Your objection is irrelevant however, because the suggested phrase does not exclude that remore possibility either:

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

MeteorMaker (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)