Talk:Samaria/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for Comment: The toponym Samaria, in widespread use or used only in Israel?

There has been an extensive discussion here and elsewhere [1][2][3][4] whether the toponym Samaria (and the combined term "Judea and Samaria") is in widespread use (and thus compatible with WP:NCGN) or not.

• If it is, this article should present it as a modern toponym, and elsewhere as a proper alternative to "the West Bank".
• Else, it should be presented as an ancient toponym (uncontested) and not a valid alternative to "the West Bank".
• If it's found to be partisan, and thus incompatible with WP:NPOV, it should be indicated as such, or avoided altogether.

Reliable pro/con sources welcome.

A summary of the sources is available at Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources#Summary

My suggestion: Change the lead to

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) 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So, the only difference between your suggestion and the current lead is in the sentence "is used in Israel to refer to the West Bank as a whole"? There are several sources in the table above which are "outside of Israel", so I don't think your suggestion is supported by the sources you've prsented. NoCal100 (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The time qualifier "what is today" is also new, however only one editor, Jayjg, has opposed it. If you read the first section of the table, you know that WP requires more than 5-6 instances of a toponym to call it "widespread". MeteorMaker (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If we have evidence of its use outside of Israel, it is improper to claim it is 'used in Israel'. I think that's pretty obvious. NoCal100 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, we need not just evidence of usage, we need evidence of widespread usage outside Israel in order to comply with WP:NCGN. The methodology for determining the most widely used toponym is detailed here. A reliable source stating something to the effect of "Samaria is a widely used term outside Israel" would also count as evidence. Synthesized conclusions drawn from anecdotal evidence do not. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, well I would say this wouldn't I, but ... the above near-exhaustive list, and other links elsewhere, pretty much comprehensively confirm what has long been argued on several pages. It shows that -

• statistically, West Bank is by far the most commonly used English language term (even within Israel);
• other sources explicitly note this fact;
• those sources also explain that Judea & Samaria (in combination or individually) are terms that were introduced within in Israel with clear political intent, as a revival of the "biblical names" and in a bid to lay claim to land that was invaded and occupied in the Six Day War.

I have yet to see any evidence or sources that contradict these conclusions. Given all that, and taking into account that yes, on occasion the terms are used outside Israel (within very specific circles), how about "is/are sometimes used, predominantly within Israel, to refer to the West Bank". More broadly, in respect of their use on other substantive pages that are not about the terms themselves (such as Israeli Settlement etc), I would still maintain that they should be used infrequently and should certainly not be used in such a way that implies that they are the main or standard descriptions, eg by using them without qualification, or using them in the lead. Anyway I guess we know what I think. Would be interested to hear from hitherto uninvolved editors. --Nickhh (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(post by Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs) moved to Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources#Ashley kennedy3's list)

Please review WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly do you recommend this experienced editor conclude, having "reviewed" core policies he's familiar with? The question here is not the merits of "MeteorMakers's theory," but rather what term to use in Wikipedia's neutral voice.--G-Dett (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think Ashley kennedy3's suggested wording is a neutral, factual presentation that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't.--G-Dett (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

My wording is factual supported by references and accurate and is only considered POV if factual accuracy and supporting references are ignored....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are several dozen modern sources, published outside Israel, that use the term "Samaria". Despite spurious attempts to dismiss them above, and various straw-man arguments made on their behalf, they remain valid examples of uses of the term that disprove MeteorMaker's theory: (Sources moved to Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources) As is clear, MeteorMaker's theory is disproven. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It might be used but is its use NPOV...No supported by the use of Occupied territories in all official documents. The use of the term samaria should be denoted as unofficial...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That is the exact same list that has already been refuted [5]. As acknowledged, there are two (maybe up to 4-5, depending on the strictness of the definition) cites that are bona fide examples of what you want to show: non-Israelis using the term "Samaria" to mean the modern West Bank. Again, what you need is to prove that the term is in widespread use. MeteorMaker (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, that is not the exact same list, and it is the objections to these sources that have been refuted. Also, don't remove my comments again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You had one section name duplicated, which causes confusion. MeteorMaker (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Then remove the section header, don't delete the content. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not deleted, only moved, and not by me. I can't see that it's anything else than your original list, refuted here [6], with another similar list appended, refuted here [7]. Up to half a dozen cites have already been acknowledged as proper anecdotal evidence, there is no need to clog this or other pages by reposting it a fifth time. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gone through the entries in the above list in detail but as repeated in respect of equivalent lists many times, no-one needs to. Listing occasions when one or other description is or isn't used doesn't provide much illumination. It is not in dispute that the terms "Samaria" and "Judea and Samaria" are used (in varying contexts, and quite frequently to suggest or to simply point out that it is a minority, political term). An inordinate amount of effort is being expended digging up sources when it's simply not necessary. At issue is a simple point - what is the usual, standard description for the area in question, and how do we cover the fact that it is sometimes referred to by a different name. The bar set by the statistical evidence comparing overall usage (running into the 1000s for "West Bank" even for individual news sites, 3/400-1 in favour of West Bank in admittedly-my-own random book index survey etc), as well as by the specific quotes provided by MM that analyse use of the word "Samaria" and specifically describe it as a minority use/politically loaded word, appears insurmountable. This will remain the case even if Jay were to cite 500 occasions where "Samaria" is used, in Israel or outside of it. Each time this is done, someone else could come in and find 10,000 where "northern West Bank" is used, and who's actually getting anything out of that game? It's like trying to conduct an opinion poll by finding everyone who agrees with you and saying "I've got 500 people who support electing my hamster as President"; and then claiming that your hamster is clearly therefore about to move into the White House. When of course what you should be doing is looking at the overall, bigger picture and drawing opinion from the broader field, where there are 100s of 1000s of voters.

I repeat the suggestion I made above but which got a little lost in the fog (or ignored perhaps because it was a rubbish idea?) - "Judea and Samaria/Samaria is sometimes (or occasionally) used, predominantly within Israel, to refer to the West Bank/northern West Bank". Now could anyone please explain in what way this does not accurately condense all the information and sources set out above, both MM's and Jay's? As I also suggested, in other articles not specifically about the region itself, we should be equally careful to use the majority, standard terms when referring to the area, especially in the lead. --Nickhh (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your comment above elides a very important distinction (which has been highlighted several times by Jayjg and myself) between "Samaria" and "Judea and Samaria". I don't think anyone here is arguing that "Judea and Samaria" is a term that is on equal footing with "West Bank", from either a common usage perspective or a neutrality perspective. Indeed, I said as much when MeteorMaker began his crusade to expunge any mention of 'Judea' or 'Samaria' from Wikipedia 8 months ago - see this, for example - "It is true that in the political context, there is today a pretty clear dichotomy, with users of the term “Judea and Samaria” being identified with the one camp and those using the terminology “West Bank” belonging to another one. It is also true that in the political context, the term “West Bank” is much more widespread. However, this article is not West Bank, nor is it Judea and Samaria – there are other articles for those political designations. This article is about the geographical region known as Judea and its history, and the geographical region is not identical with the borders of the southern West bank, though there is a large overlap. In the geographical context, the term Judea is still in widespread use – as numerous examples already provided have shown". And indeed, in accordance with Wikipedia:NCGN, our article on West Bank is called "West Bank", not "Judea and Samaria". However, "Samaria" is not "Judea and Samaria". It is a geographical designation for the hilly/mountainous area bounded by the Sharon Plain to the west, the hill country of Judea to the South, the Jordan Rift Valley to the east, and he Gilboa mountian range to the North. It is not an equivalent term for "West Bank" or even 'Northern West Bank' - there are villages in Samaria which lie to the west of the West Bank, wholly within Israel, and there are villages in the Northern West Bank which lie in the Jordan valley, not in Samria. The use of Samaria in this context is neutral, and quite common in various academic contexts- archeology, Hydrology, etc... Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term Samaria is not NPOV in the first place. The term itself has become politicised...Most encyclopaedias make note of that fact....There are two uses; biblical and political...the wiki article has not made the distinction clear....PS CM I like the way you portray Tel Aviv as a village.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not mentioned Tel-Aviv at all. Whatever... Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ashley. If a term is used by only one side in a conflict, as has been shown to be the case with Samaria, [8][9], it's by definition not NPOV. CanadianMonkey's two new cites do not change anything: One is about the ancient Samaria [10] (the title "The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria" could perhaps have served as a hint), and everybody agrees the ancient Samaria was called "Samaria" and not "the West Bank". The second is still one more example of within-Israeli usage [11], as if we hadn't an abundant supply of those already. I frankly don't understand the point of presenting yet more Israeli sources, as nobody has claimed that Israelis don't use the term. Above all, neither cite says anything to the effect of "Samaria is widely used outside Israel", which is what the propounders of that hypothesis need to show. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC destroyed again

You guys are ruining the RFC process; the whole idea is to post the situation and get outside comments. However, as soon as one is posted on any Israeli-Palestinian debate-related article, you all post at once to denounce each other, which completely puts off anyone else from commenting. I would suggest that you start again and refrain from squabbling under its section. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the article has been written with politicisation in the first place...There are 2 distinct uses of the term 'samaria', most encyclopaedias clarify that in the title as in 'Samaria(Biblical)' the wiki version is misleading by combining the two. It is combing the two uses in the same manner as the far right settler movement. So wiki has allowed the article to become nothing more than a settler justification and you expect that not to be contentious?...A minority view of extremists from within Israel is not going to get a smooth ride in an English wiki...I would expect the article to be split in an English wiki version and the bible taken out of the West Bank...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point. An RFC is meant to be for getting outside input on contentious issues. However, all the editors who have contributed above were already involved, and their bickering will just put off anyone else from contributing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't contributed...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you are involved in numerous other Israel-Palestinian disputes elsewhere, so you're hardly an outside party - my first point was that this issue covers other I-P articles. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've not contributed at this discussion but I count myself as "involved" and was hanging back on the understanding that an RfC is for truly non-involved editors. Perhaps what we need is administrator intervention to stop the jury-packing input of people who've already had their say.

Perhaps we could have some intervention over the archiving as well - this Rfc was raised by MeteorMaker who has gone to some considerable (perhaps exhaustive) trouble to tabulate all known uses of the word "Samaria" here. How can this RfC do anything useful if high-quality, essential evidence is archived? PR^talk 13:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Something that might help, is to better focus the RfC on the article itself. For example, give some exact examples of the disputed wording. That way the discussion gets away from a nebulous "Is Samaria widespread", and back to specific discussion of the article content. --Elonka 16:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's all stated in the first paragraph of the RfC section. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This "RfC" process was a farce from the get-go. Wikipedia:Requests for comment says "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template (ideally the same statement used in step 3)." - instead we have a 30K missive, including 2 tables, which blatantly biases the discussion in the direction desired by the originator of the RfC. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can point out exactly what factual information you see missing in the two tables [12], I will gladly insert it. I doubt I've missed any at all that discuss the modern usage of the contested term/s, and the sources for the cites were supplied mainly by Jayjg anyway, so the accusation of "bias" from your side is a little surprising.

I disagree with the decision to hide the two tables on a subpage. What this discussion needs is not still more unfounded opinions, only the facts, and the tables provide a convenient and accessible compilation of all the sourced facts that have been put forward in this discussion, including and acknowledging Jayjg's list of anecdotal evidence for his position. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not again

MeteorMaker, please back away from these discussions; an RfC is to attract neutral opinion, not so you, Jayjg and the usual crowd can perpetuate arguments. The situation appears exactly the same as at Judea and I suggest a similar compromise: keeping this article historical. I hope those involved can arrange that themselves without my intervention.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your post until now (and conversely, you may have missed some posts by the other highly involved editors, since you single me out as the only RfC wrecker here). I agree completely that the article should be kept historical, that has been my point from day one. Regarding the terminolgy, there is now an ArbComm case however. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to single you out, at a quick glance your name seems more noticeable to me than those of the other parties. Don't know why. Anyway, you should all try and respect the purpose of an RfC and refrain from comment until the RfC has closed (unless the purpose of the RfC needs clarifying or something like that). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 01:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Page length

This page is currently at 162K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. As a way of condensing the page a bit, would it be possible to move any of the above tables or lists to subpages? That might make it easier to follow discussions here, and also easier for other editors to comment. --Elonka 06:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be that this is just a fast filling page, I can't see any entries over a week old. And many pages are much, much bigger than this one (I've checked regularly archived noticeboards that go well over 300K). (PS - I'm pleased to see you still around, I didn't actually check that you were still in the land of the living before removing vandalism to the effect that you were not!) PR^talk 18:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Something in this page was causing the RfCbot to fail, and repeatedly add over 100K of text on each pass.[13][14] To try and fix things, I have drastically decreased the size of this page. The long lists of sources have now been moved to /Discussion of sources. Specific source discussions can continue on that page, but please try to keep this page relatively light so that other editors can weigh in for the RfC. Thanks, --Elonka 23:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the diffs, that "something" was the fourth identical copy of his ref list [15] Jayjg deemed necessary to insert, long after it had been acknowledged as containing several counts of proper anecdotal evidence. The choice to make a section header with a name identical to the existing RfC one [16] might conceivably have contributed. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not an "identical list", and it has been conclusively proved to contain no counts of "anecdotal evidence". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Item 1 to 35 are identical to this list [17] (which also exists in one further copy in the same section and here (plus still one more copy that was deemed superfluous by an admin and deleted). Item 35 to 42 are identical to this list [18]. I think it's safe to say that pasting in a fourth copy of the first list, with the second (also thoroughly refuted) list appended, added very little to the value of discussion, a view that other admins here share. It would be immensely more helpful if you could try to find reliable sources for your Samaria-is-in-widespread-use position instead.MeteorMaker (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As you yourself have just proved, the lists were not identical. The fact that the list of sources which completely refute your theories is growing make it all the more imperative that you try to find reliable sources for your theory that "Samaria" is that toponym is not widely understood outside Israel or Not widely understood outside Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[19] MeteorMaker (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your anecdotal evidence, please review WP:SYNTH, and then provide sources which explicitly state that that toponym is not widely understood outside Israel or Not widely understood outside Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to explain how more or less verbatim quotes from the other major online encyclopedias [20] and other reliable sources is "anecdotal evidence", or how you have "disproved" them. You have also been asked about a dozen times to specify exactly where in the suggested sentences "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" you see the words "not widely understood outside Israel". My prediction is that that request will go ignored again. Everything in the suggested sentences is properly sourced [21], no sources that contradict them have yet been presented (except some weak anecdotal evidence, and I'm beginning to think such sources may not even exist.

I've lost count of how many times you've had this repeated to you. Is it any wonder the page length is exploding? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

POV Lead

The combined term Judea and Samaria, despite some geographical imprecision, is used to refer to the West Bank as a whole.

The lead has been politicised with the insertion of that sentence. So please do not make false claims of NPOV....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This mainstream naming convention is not used to promote an ideology so I don't understand the problem. i.e. there is no mention of Jewish/Arab occupation of Arab/Jewish land or anything in that POV feel and readers might be interested in the difference between Judea and Samaria and the Samaria and the geographical implications. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is used to promote an ideology...It is not mainstream at all read other encyclopaedias to see the difference... As this article is only referencing the West Bank then it is advancing the ideology of a biblical claim on the Occupied territories (using official international naming convention)...Had this article been about Samaria and not the geographical area called the occupied territories you may have a point. But since when does the article start saying that Tel Aviv and the central district is Samaria? By all means have an article Samaria (Biblical) and have all sorts of biblical links but please don't try the fanatic settler POV of West Bank=samaria and expect it to be seen as NPOV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The article nowhere even mentions Tel Aviv. This is the second time you've made this puzzling claim - perhaps you can point us to where you think this is happening,so we can correct your misunderstanding. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly CM if this was about Samaria it should mention Tel Aviv...but it doesn't. Therefore it is about pushing the POV settlers ideology...That makes it POV right from inception...If you are unaware of where Samaria was then maybe you should retire from editing the article.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would it mention Tel Aviv? Tel Aviv is not in Samaria. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As a reminder, let's please keep discussions focused on the content, and not on the contributors. It would also be helpful if we could keep discussions source-based, rather than idea-based. For example, on the "Tel Aviv" issue, do we have a source about Tel Aviv's connnection to Samaria? --Elonka 18:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't follow your argument Ashley and the "fanatic settler POV" commentary is really undue TBH. Please correct my misunderstanding, but are you saying that 'Judea and Samaria' is often used but should not be included because its usage helps promote a narrative?

CM, please don't call claims puzzling if you misunderstand them - request clarification or note that the claim seems incorrect instead. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If something is incorrect and not understood, it is "puzzling", and requesting clarification is exactly what I have done. Please don't lecture me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Its use felt a tad personal. That is all. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal was intended - I just can't see what Tel Aviv has to do with this. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that makes two of us and I hope this will be clarified once Ashley gets unblocked. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Since we now have abundant support from reliable sources [22], the factual accuracy as well as the neutrality of the lead could be brought up to WP standards by simply rewriting it like this:

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) 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Since it is used also outside of Israel, that change would be incorrect. Sure, the more common term in the international mainstream is 'West Bank' but one overpowering the other doesn't mean that the other is not used outside of Israel. Here, for example CNN notes that "Judea and Samaria largely constitute the West Bank, with Samaria filling much of the northern section."[23] Best I'm aware, CNN is not "in Israel".

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not the CNN using the term, that is the CNN explaining it to its readers, immediately after presenting a direct quote from Sharon's disengagement plan, which contains the apparently not so well understood term. Most sources, including the other online encyclopedias, do the same [24]. What conclusion to draw from the fact that most of the 45 instances of "Judea and Samaria" on CNN.com [25] are explained as the "West Bank" (and the rest are direct quotes by Israeli sources or letters to the editor), while the around 20,000 instances of "West Bank" on the same site [26] are never explained as "Judea and Samaria", I leave to you.

I keep hearing the claim "Samaria is used also outside of Israel" a lot from you and others, and when a rare attempt is made to substantiate it, it invariably turns out to be either a direct quote from an Israeli source, or an explanation of it. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, from my perspective, that you rejected all the input given to you by fellow editors. Personal interpretation was applied to all the sources which is a bit of a WP:NPOV issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Far from rejecting it, I have incorporated it in the table of reliable sources here. Could you give me one example of the kind of "personal interpretation" you feel I applied to all the fellow editors' sources? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I could go back in time but it would be easier to just point you two comments up to the rejection of CNN. There is no mention of "an Israeli term" there (phrasing is "X largely constitute Y") and I've yet to see an equivalent situation where a fringe term is used in a manner that would make me follow your proposed perspective here. If it were an issue of a single source (or just between you and me), that would be understandable but this rejection was with all sources (suggesting the terms are not limited to Israel) and when accompanied with rejection of input from others makes for a bit of a WP:NPOV issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If that was your best example, I must disappoint you by informing you that I'm not overly impressed. Read the out-of-context quote from the CNN article, and it might perhaps appear to the casual reader as if you had a point. Read it immediately after the Sharon quote that precedes it, and it's pretty clear what it is: an explanation of an unfamiliar term, used by the Israeli PM. Was your original point that this quote is unambiguous proof that the CNN has embraced the term "Judea and Samaria"? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to impress. I'm explaining that while Sharon is quoted there, the "explanation" could have had a "an Israeli term" in it or even the usual lack of "explanation". Most Hamas quotes, for example, don't have any explanation despite their fringe capacity and the "explanation" perspective is your personal one. If this were a single source, that would have been quite fine, but this has occurred with more than just this one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Are you saying that it's just by coincidence that the explanation of the term "Judea and Samaria" occurs in the paragraph below a quote by Ariel Sharon, where he uses the term [27]? Or that it needs explaining in every paragraph what country this quoted person was Prime Minister in? Or that the CNN's audience is so accustomed to the term that the explanation is superfluous, despite the term being less than one third as common on cnn.com as the acronym MILF [28]?

Is my objection an example of that "personal interpretation" you were talking about, and, if so, how is it more "personal" than choosing to ignore the context of the article entirely and pretending that the CNN is a user of the term? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

All sorts of people and groups use the term, including academic sources published by American university presses,[29] Americans and American groups,[30][31][32] Canadian groups,[33]. U.K. newspapers,[34] etc. Claims that the term is only used in Israel are misleading at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's astounding to see such thin material produced as "evidence". The Academic link (author in Haifa) you've given is non-functional and the other links are all highly partisan supporters of an illegal policy condemned by the bulk (I think) of Israeli opinion and virtually every significant opinion in the world. Calling "The Jewish Community Online" a "UK newspaper" is laughable. The ZOA have in the past been guilty of denialism - do we really want to go there? The fact that a dozen or more supporters of Iran refer to Israel as the "Zionist Entity" would not make it the smallest bit suitable for claims that it's general, as all but the very most partisan will immediately recognise.

And "final opportunity" demands that other editors produce sources which say "Samaria is the ancient toponym, the West Bank is the modern toponym" as here hardly look like collegiate discussion either. PR^talk 10:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

1. All of the links I provided work, including "the Academic link" to an author published by the State University of New York Press, an American academic press.
2. "The Jewish Community online" is the website of The Jewish Chronicle, and, like most newspaper websites, it reproduces the articles it publishes in print. The Jewish Chronicle is the oldest Jewish newspaper in the world, arguably one of the most influential Jewish newspapers in the world, and published in the United Kingdom since 1841. That would undoubtedly make it a U.K. newspaper. Exactly what is laughable about that? By the way, its editorial stance is fairly left-wing.
3. The "final opportunity" comment was in direct response to MeteorMaker's statement 5 days earlier that "I give you one final opportunity...", which included the edit summary How Jayjg was given a final chance to explain his "pleonasm" objection Despite his comment being on the talk page for almost a week, and being directly above my own response, you chose to highlight only my response as not looking like a "collegiate discussion". Please desist from making such absurdly one-sided presentations in the future.
4. Regarding your comments about "highly partisan supporters of an illegal policy" etc., please stop soapboxing. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that the word "Samaria" is used in English by anyone other than POV-pushers appears to be extremely thin. Certainly nowhere near enough to persuade anyone it should go into the project (except where necessary as well-labelled pointy jargon). The arguments in favor of using it generally look very much like wiki-lawyering.

Meanwhile, where potentially strong evidence has been produced, much of it seems to be false, context proving that the author intended treating the word as being POV. I strongly suspect that MMs case is entirely proven - all it needs now is some neutrally-minded administrator to come along and announce the RfC closed. PR^talk 15:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions aren't particularly relevant here. Please stop soapboxing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

More examples of what Jayjg claims to be "all sorts of people and groups [that] use the term". Let's take a look at his new examples, one by one.

• Aaron Kellerman is Vice-President for Administration at the University of Haifa, Israel. [35]
• The Zionist Organization of America: I don't have to waste space explaining how Zionism is ideologically tied to Israel.
• Mandell I. Ganchrow is the Executive Vice President of Religious Zionists of America [36].
• Rabbi Rafael G. Grossman is Chairman of the Board of Religious Zionists of America [37].

• "B'nai Brith" is an Israel-lobby group [38].

• Miriam Shaviv is the former literary editor of the Jerusalem Post [39], even when she writes for foreign publications like The Jewish Chronicle.

I'm afraid none of the new cites are particularly good as examples of outside-Israel use of the term "Samaria". Frankly, this is becoming pathetic. Jayjg, if you can't find even the weakest anecdotal evidence for your position, please desist from wasting space and fellow editors' time. Thank you. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Miriam Shaviv was born and raised in Canada, and is currently a U.K. citizen living in London. Your claim that the British newspaper The Jewish Chronicle is a "foreign publication" regarding her is the kind of "pathetic" dismissal of sources that we have had to put up with on this discussion for weeks. And, keeping in mind that only you are trying to prove a theory, I'm just debunking your theory, the rest of your statement is only applicable to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are suggesting a change in the current wording to "The combined term Judea and Samaria, despite some geographical imprecision, is used in Israel to refer to the West Bank as a whole." the above examples show usage outside of Israel. Therefor, your suggested change is demonstrably incorrect. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what is missing here is the fact that the use of the term to describe the West Bank is also rejected by some. I think it is indisputable that some people (including some outside Israel) use Samaria (together with Judea) to describe the West Bank -- but an NPOV problem arises from the fact that the article currently makes that point without also noting that some people reject this usage, as an Israeli symbolic claim on land that is not part of Israel proper. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This again confuses "Samaria", which is a neutral term for a geographic entity which is not synonymous with "West bank" or "Norther West Bank", with "Judea and Samria" - which is a POV term for the West Bank. The POV you note, and the fact that some people strongly object to 'Judea and Samaria] is described in detail at Judea and Samaria as well as at West Bank. This article, however, is "Samaria". Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but the sentence in question refers to "Judea and Samaria", which is what we have been discussing. Are you suggesting that that sentence be removed from this article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that sentence just confuses the issue, and has no place here. It is a recent addition, btw.Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Samaria", just like "Judea & Samaria" is neither used by the other side in the conflict nor by neutral sources. [40]. That is a reasonably well established fact by now, having all the evidence and several reliable sources behind it. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

MeteorMaker, your disproved theories are not "reasonably well established fact"; quite the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

With several cites from reliable sources that explicitly support it [41], the fact is in fact well supported by WP standards, like it or not. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Nomoskedasticity,

You do have some type of point but I'd like to see how this is dealt with in reliable sources before making any phrasing suggestions.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

CM: I have no problem with adding "used in Israel and by Zionist and Israel lobby groups abroad", if you insist the above six cites, showing usage "outside" of Israel, by three such organizations (plus two by regular Israelis) merit changing the suggested lead. I'd say it is pretty self-evident that national lobby groups use their nation's imperative terminology however. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And what next? Will we also add "and by the CIA" to account for the CIA geographical map clearly labeled "Samaria", which I have I shown you several times? And then add "and by Historians of the I-P conflict" to account for the Gilbert atlas? There are over 40 sources here, demonstrating use 'outside of Israel", and there are hundreds more. This is getting ridiculous. The sentence is not required in this article at all - but if it is to stay, it will stay without a ludicrous long list of qualifiers that push a POV. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The CIA does not use the terms (see for yourself here). I thought that had been made clear to you in this long discussion. Of the 70-80 cites of claimed outside-Israel use you and a couple of others have managed to dig up in more than a month, more than half have turned out to be of Israeli origin, (and the rest split equally between texts about the historical Samaria and contrived attempts to enroll neutral sources like Newsweek, CNN and Ian Lustick against all the evidence). Only two cites (Gilbert, Druks) use "Samaria" consistently, a couple of others who don't could perhaps be considered proper anecdotal evidence with a stretch. Acknowledged here [42], in case you missed it. Now, if there were 40 counts of anecdotal evidence instead of 5-6, would you say that even that would be enough to throw all reliable sources that say "Samaria"/"Judea & Samaria" is an Israel-only term out the window, along with WP:NCGN, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinions about the sources, which are comprised of roughly equal parts self-serving interpretations of what you think the sources are alluding to; and distasteful rejection of sources based on ethnicity are of no interest to me. Hundreds of sources are available showing use of "Samaria" outside of Israel, so the statement "'Judea and Samria' is a term used in Israel" is demonstrably incorrect. As I wrote, that sentence, whichh you added a month ago, is not required in this article at all - but if it is to stay, it will stay without a ludicrous long list of qualifiers that push a POV. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your suggested list would be particularly long, or even necessary at all — there is no need to add every single marginal case of a person using a term to a usage note that states that said term is group-specific. If you know of any such list of qualifiers anywhere on WP, I'd be interested to see it. Regarding your distasteful borderline accusation of racism, please see WP:CIVIL. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

MeteorMaker, your rejections of sources disproving your theories, based on self-serving interpretations of what you think the sources are alluding to, or on distasteful discrimination against sources based on alleged ethnicity or national origin of the authors, have been roundly rejected. Please find reliable sources for your theory that "Samaria" is that toponym is not widely understood outside Israel or Not widely understood outside Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, are you copy'n'pasting from Canadian Monkey now? There have in fact been no "rejections of sources disproving [my] theories", because such sources have been sorely lacking from day one. Most of your cites have been dismissed, that is true, but that's what you get for not subjecting your sources to basic scrutiny before you present them. The anecdotal evidence that remains has been duly acknowledged and included in the compilation of facts presented in this debate so far [43]. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your anecdotal evidence has been thoroughly disproved and discredited. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If I follow your link, there is a indeed a list of anecdotal evidence, thoroughly disproved and discredited in comments a little further down, but the list appears to be yours, not mine. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ashley. Since we apparently have no evidence that supports this claim in the lead:

The combined term Judea and Samaria, despite some geographical imprecision, is used to refer to the West Bank as a whole,

I have now removed it, pending further discussion. Note that we do have firm support for the original version suggested by User:Nudve [44]:

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) 12:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What we actually have here are dozens of examples of use outside of Israel. I am happy with the compromise of removing this contested statement from the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm fully aware we have a handful of examples, the exact number of which is a function of the strictness of one's fact-checking. However, even a dozen examples are easy to find for any term. Please read WP:FRINGE and also WP:NCGN for a better understanding of what constitutes wide acceptance in the Wikipedia sense, and why proof of that is required. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We have tens of examples, and hundreds more can be provided. I am happy with the compromise of removing this contested statement from the article.Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand everything that's going on at this TalkPage. But one thing is clear, at least parts of what you're relying on is clearly hopeless and it's use, until it's corrected, is disruptive. The first two on that list are from an author who also says "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."[45] PR^talk 17:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

PR, would you agree to removal of the sentence in question? I think it's the best way forward, especially given that CM is in agreement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how deeply I want to get involved. I can see claims being made that have (I'm almost certain) been thoroughly discredited. When this disruptive conduct stops, then collegiate editing can resume. I see statements such as "Political control - The contemporary history of Samaria begins when the territory of Samaria, formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire, was entrusted to the United Kingdom etc" which seem like nonsense. PR^talk 20:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Different uses of the term

I'm not going to touch the main page here, due to the ongoing ArbCom case, but I think it's worth flagging up some issues that have come up out of the wider debate and to note that the article as currently written isn't clear about the term. Over the years the term "Samaria" seems to have been used to refer to widely varying areas. We have the biblical kingdom, the term as used during the British Mandate and at other times in the past, and also the term as used now. Everything I have ever seen would suggest that currently it is used - insofar as it is used at all - to refer very specifically to the "northern West Bank". However this section, which appears to have been here for a long time, mostly untouched, does not seem to reflect that, instead setting out what I would have assumed were "older" boundaries. I would suggest at some point a re-write along the lines of "historically it referred to a region stretching from x to y etc, however currently it is normally used, usually only within Israel, to refer to the northern half of what is more commonly referred to elsewhere as the West Bank". Obviously each element of that needs proper sourcing etc, but it seems to be a fair approximation. Sources for current standard use, such as it is, below -

• CNN - Israelis often refer to the northern West Bank region by its biblical name of Samaria.
• Foundation for Middle East Peace - In Samaria, the biblical name for the northern West Bank
• USA Today - "We are in a situation of total closure in the area of Samaria," Ben-Eliezer said, using the biblical name for the northern West Bank. I assume as well that Ben Eliezer is not suggesting that he is locking down towns the other side of the Green Line
• The Israeli Foreign Ministry - the post-1967 map here would seem to show the individual terms Judea and Samaria attaching pretty specifically to the southern and northern halves of the West Bank. The language used here (link on to the word document near the bottom, entitled "anti-terrorism fence, an overview") would appear to support a claim that this is the way the Israeli government uses the terms, when it uses them - it refers to Samaria specifically as "the northern West Bank" and also talks about how Israel has administered "Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip" since the Six Day War; not "Judea and Samaria, and the Gaza Strip" or "those additional parts of Judea, and of Samaria"

Boundaries do shift, and names over the years do attach themselves to different areas. Some names fall out of favour altogether. As with any other WP article, this page needs to be clear about what the situation is here. --Nickhh (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a suggested wording for the first sentence: "Samaria is a term used for an area of land which in ancient times was a kingdom, and which, with modified borders, was referred to by that name during the British Mandate and subsequently in UN documents, and continues to be referred to by that name by Israelis and Zionists." It might need some tweaking for verifiability (and length, etc.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to cover all major uses, so support from me, with the proviso that if the UN is mentioned, it should be made clear that the UN only used it sporadically after the first post-mandate decade, and not at all in the last 45 years. Perhaps it also could be broken up into separate sentences for better readability, but content-wise, quite OK. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible wordings include "and subsequently in some UN documents" or "and subsequently sometimes in UN documents". I agree that it's awfully long, but have trouble finding a way to break it into smaller sentences without changing the nuances. I'm not sure if these work or not: "Samaria is a term used for an area of land. It ..." or "Samaria is a term used for an area of land which in ancient times was a kingdom, and which, with modified borders, has been referred to by that name more recently. During the British Mandate ..." The goal is not to give the impression that the term is used either more or less today than it actually is. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What region is covered?

We need a source for the description of the boundaries of Samaria.

• Google books snippet " SAMARIA (SHOMRON) THE REGION of Samaria extends from the Judean Hills in the south to the Jezreel Valley in the north, and from the Jordan Valley in the ..." The new Israel atlas: Bible to present day‎ - Page 33 by Zev Vilnay, Karṭa (Firm) - History - 1968 - 112 pages [46]
• Google books page view [47] p. 399 Jesus and archaeology By James H. Charlesworth Contributor James H. Charlesworth Edition: illustrated Published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006 ISBN 080284880X, 9780802848802 This one describes the extent of Samaria, but may be talking about ancient times (although it uses present tense
• Google books page view [48] Says it's using biblical names loosely. Says that Samaria extends from Jezreel to about Jerusalem, and Judea from approx. Jerusalem to Negeb. p. 43 A History of Ancient Israel and Judah By James Maxwell Miller, John Haralson Hayes Photographs by John Haralson Hayes Contributor John Haralson Hayes Edition: illustrated Published by Westminster John Knox Press, 1986 ISBN 066421262X, 9780664212629
• Google books snippet "Samaria, roughly covering the same region as the ancient kingdom of Israel ... Its northern boundary runs south-eastwards along the Carmel ridge to the edge " [49] p. 16 Palestine and Transjordan By Great Britain. Naval Intelligence Division Published by H.M.S.O., 1943 Item notes: v. 1 621 pages

☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, see my point above. I think the conclusion I can come to is that in contemporary usage (such as it is), the term is synonymous with "northern West Bank", ie (unsurprisingly) that part of "Judea and Samaria" which is "Samaria"; whereas historically it has referred to a wider or different area. This is not unusual in geography or toponymy of course, and as far as I can see it would be anachronistic to use the term to cover the historical region when discussing contemporary geographical or political areas. I'd happily see anything which suggests it is commonly used that way these days. The article should explain this progression and development, probably split three ways - a) biblical/historical; b) British Mandate; c)50s-70s onwards. --Nickhh (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's clearly false that Samaria is synonymous with "northern West Bank". Read Tzur Natan and the references given therein to see why. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for entering into this discussion in the same co-operative, open-minded and non-confrontational manner in which it was started. Anyhow, I've looked at those sources (again) and can only see the word "Samaria" in the first one, where it simply mentions the word once, referring to an archaeological dig being conducted in a site that would seem to be just west of the Green Line, as being "on the fringes of western Samaria". I don't see that this provides strong evidence for a conclusion that "Samaria" as understood in modern times refers to an area other than the northern West Bank. We have sources that do assert very specifically that they are effectively synonymous, and hence we'd need something more than one-off use which may - or may well not - simply and vaguely indicate otherwise. As I said, I would happily see these if they exist - all I am after here is clarity and accuracy. I'm not on some politically motivated trip. --Nickhh (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about doing it this way: the article is not about one specific land area, but is about Samaria which has varied in extent at different times. The article can state that some sources consider "Samaria" nowadays to refer to "northern West Bank" (or something; whatever statement is actually supported by the sources) without actually stating that "Samaria" today means nothing more nor less than "northern West Bank", which is probably not a NPOV statement. A bit of vagueness can be good sometimes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree in principle (it's very hard to be 100% certain about most things) but equally I'm not sure we should tend to vagueness where we seem to have fairly overwhelming evidence that this is how the term is used today, in so far as it is used at all. Anyway as noted here I don't want to get bogged down here, I've set out my view now I guess, and provided some evidence and links (on top of all those that are scattered around everywhere else). Good luck with it! --Nickhh (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow. I've shown you an example where a locality which is West of the Green Line is described as being in Samaria. That shows pretty conclusively that Samaria is not a synonym for 'northern West Bank'. Certainly the majority of Samaria, probably in excess of 95%, is within the West Bank, but they are not the same thing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this is merely one individual example of usage, not a statement about usage. Even then all it says - when referring to an archaeological dig - is that a site just outside of the West Bank is "on the fringes of" western Samaria. In my view that can hardly be used to discount and override explicit statements from the MFA, mainstream media organisations etc that "Samaria" in modern (albeit occasional, Israeli) usage in fact refers to exactly the same geographical area and political sub-unit more usually known as the "northern West Bank". The origins of the term as currently used, yes, look back to the wider, biblical/historical area - but the term itself is no longer really used in that way, at least as far as I can tell. Anyway, as I say, I think I'm done here. --Nickhh (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you claim "X is the same as Y", all it takes is one example which shows that X is not Y to disprove your claim. You are welcome to your personal view that the terms are the same, but they are quite clearly not, as usage in sources show.. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with "quite clearly". I think we have yet to see a source that explicitly states that modern Samaria extends beyond the Green Line. The evidence value of the example you put forward is weakened significantly by the archaeological context and the qualifier "fringes of Western Samaria". MeteorMaker (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, if I understand correctly, the example you provided is this (Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Journal 120, final report, 7/12/2008) which says "The excavation area is located on the fringes of western Samaria". That's the only use of the term "Samaria" I found in it. I think "on the fringes of" can be used to refer to something that's near the area, or in a zone that's of unclear status as to whether it's in the area or not. It doesn't seem to me to be a clear statement that it's in Samaria. In addition, I also agree with MeteorMaker and Nickhh that the archaeological context makes a difference: it could be taken as meaning it's on the fringes of where ancient Samaria was, or something. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The example I provided is the Moshav of Tzur Natan, which is in Samaria. The article gives 2 references, one which you mention, which places a dig to the west of the Moshav in the fringes of Samaria, and another reference which says "the Modern Moshav" is in the Samaritan hills. And no, the implication that this is reference to "ancient Samria" is not in either reference, and is directly contradicted by the reference which talks about "the modern moshav of Zur Natan". There are other examples as well, which have been mentioned in the course of this long-lasting debate - the Israeli Arab village of Umm al-Qutuf, and perhaps the most obvious example - the village of Baqa, whose Eastern part (Baqa ash-Sharqiyya) is in the West bank, separated from its Western part (Baqa al-Gharbiyye) by nothing more than a fence. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Samarian Hills" is a distinct geographical entity and not the same as Samaria the region. Like the Judean Hills, they extend into Israeli territory. Do you have a definition of Samaria (the modern region) that defines the borders as anything else than the northern West Bank? I ask because there are several sources that do define it that way. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The Samarian hills are exactly the same as Samaria, which is not a "modern region" at all, but a geographical region, defined as the mountainous area north of Jerusalem, South of the Jezreel valley, west of the Jordan valley and east of the Mediterranean coastal plain. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And the source you base those assertions on? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can be found here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of them supports your claim that "the Samarian hills are exactly the same as Samaria". MeteorMaker (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you are most welcome to it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

None of your sources even mentions the Samarian hills, much less equates them with Samaria. If Kirill gets his way, this may be our final exchange. You don't want to end your career on such a weak note. I'll give you another chance to come up with proper support for your claim, or do the right thing and retract it. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Umm al-Qutuf is another locality that's inside "Israel proper" and also in Samaria. The source is Ariel Encyclopedia, vol. 1, p. 218. Moreover, I cannot see how one can seriously make an argument that "Samarian hills" or "Samarian mountains" is not part of Samaria. But if someone is not convinced, Zev Vilnay says, in Ariel Encyclopedia, vol. 8, p. 7719: "Samaria is mountainous." I don't think anyone can say it more clearly. I think the English-language book by Vilnay is actual a translation of parts of the Ariel Encyclopedia, so it should say the same thing in English in the Samaria entry (although I don't have access to the English version). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A note on the terms "Judea" and "Samaria"

Usage of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" in article space as modern alternatives to "West Bank" appears to contravene 3 key Wikipedia policies: Naming Conventions, Undue weight and Neutral Point of View. [50][51] A large body of evidence [52][53] has been collected during extensive discussions (see list below) that unequivocally shows that these terms, alone and in combination, are almost entirely peculiar to Israel. As of today, no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been put forward that contradict this finding.

Discussion links (most closed, included for reference only):

• Judea (archive)

• Samaria (archive)

• Samaria

• Judea and Samaria (archive)

• Judea and Samaria

• West Bank

• Judea

• Israeli settlement (archive 6)

• Israeli settlement (archive 7)

• Israeli settlement (archive 8)

• Israeli settlement (archive 9)

• Israeli settlement

• [54][55][56][57][58][59]

MeteorMaker (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria now accepted

It is great that Judea and Samaria are to be accepted over the whines of pro-Palestinians. With this settled, we should do something about another distortion they're attempting to force. Lets take out their use of "settlers", a word they're increasingly using as an expression of abuse and call them by their correct name, yishuvim. Brave people deserve better against terrorists and apologists for terrorists. 81.159.169.19 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the attempt by pro-Palestinians/anti-Israelis to make sure that the dehumanizing terms such as settler and settlement are given undue weight over Israel or Jew and village/city, then you are right. It's been accepted that 'yishuv' on the English wp only refer to the Old Yishuv. Otherwise, the status/size of the locality should be NPOV acceptable: village, town, city not unlike the way Arab localities are termed. --Shuki (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to me the terrorists are those who come on tanks and bulldozers to uproot me, my kids, my trees and my house and then claim to be attacked by aboriginal people living there. You don't want to call Israelis coming from Poland and Russia "settlers", then probably they'd better be referred to as invaders or aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atubeileh (talk • contribs) 10:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever we do, it should as much as possible avoid promoting one point of view (POV) at the expense of another. If you want to argue for a change, please base your argument on the occurrence of such terms in reliable sources and on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Usage is covered by the recently established naming convention, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank), which strives to find a balance and avoid undue promotion of any one POV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2