Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (West Bank)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The early page history for this archive is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.

Draft guidelines for placename usage

[edit]
This was the first draft; see also the updated version in the section below.
  • 1) "West Bank" or "the West Bank" (capitalized) is the most commonly used name for the land area known by that name, and is to be used when referring to that land area as a whole in the context of events after approximately 1970. In the context of events before 1970, and especially 1967-1970, it may sometimes also be appropriate, either capitalized or uncapitalized.
  • 2) In the context of events during the British Mandate, terms used by the British administration are probably most appropriate.
  • 3) In the context of events in ancient times, "Samaria" and "Judea" are appropriate placenames.
  • 4) When discussing specifically the administrative region of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area, the term "Judea and Samaria" is used.
  • 5) As of the time these guidelines were proposed (in March 2009), given the references which had been examined, some editors were not convinced that there was a proportion of nonpartisan usage in reliable sources of the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" to refer to places in the context of events in modern times sufficient that the terms could be used without qualification while conveying a sufficiently neutral voice. On the other hand, the terms are used in sources to refer to land areas which may not have other common specific names referring to exactly the same areas. The terms can be used inside quotations from sources, (for example, putting "in Samaria" in quotation marks if it's a quote from the source), in phrases such as "the area sometimes called Samaria", or in phrases such as "the biblical region of Judea", etc., but not in plain unqualified use. In particular contexts, sometimes "northern West Bank" or "southern West Bank" is sufficiently precise and conveniently concise. Ideally, the proportion of mentions of the term "Samaria" and "Judea" as compared to the mentions of "West Bank" in Wikipedia articles in general will correspond to the overall proportions of those mentions in similar contexts in reliable sources, but each case depends on what works well in the context of a given article.

I prefer that the above copy remain intact as my original proposal, but I encourage others to suggest alternative versions or to make a copy to be edited collaboratively. If people should happen to be inspired to comment on the above draft in poll format (which may not be necessary at all if other versions are discussed) I suggest that it may be helpful to indicate "Support", "Oppose: too restrictive of the use of the terms 'Judea' and 'Samaria'" or "Oppose: not restrictive enough of the use of the terms 'Judea' and 'Samaria'". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' on (1). Why 1970? West Bank, the Jordanian name from 1950, was quickly accepted in international usage, and stable by mid-50s (the American administration always talked about the 'West Bank scenario' ). Even Israel accepted this, and Government documents in Hebrew down to 1960 refer to it as 'the West Bank/Hagadah HaMaariv). I can't see why Israel's desire to rename it unilaterally after 1977 should alter this 6 decades usage.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is simply wrong to suggest that "West Bank" was in common usage prior to 1967 or '69, or that the "American administration always [without exception!] talked about the West Bank scenario'." I have demonstrated in my evidence that there was not one reference to "West Bank" in the Unispal documents prior to 1968. I am quite sure you are mistaken on this point. In fact, on page four of Benny Morris' 1999 book Righteous Victims, A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict he says, "The population has tended to concentrate, in both ancient and modern times, in the hilly central areas of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee..." This is just one more contemporaneous use of Judea and Samaria by a distinguished historian, an historian often referenced by the Palestinians as an authority. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you do your homework. Read the primary documents from official Israeli government correspondence with the United States, from 1956-1964, for example (two crisis periods) as cited in specialist histories of the period, and you will find ample use by American diplomats, Israeli diplomats and politicians, of the term 'West Bank'. As for always, Abraham Ben-Zvi, whose two books I was thinking of in particular, says 'repeatedly use'. So, back to your books, chum. They're in what they call libraries.Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When West Bank was used prior to '69, it had a different meaning from today, as it was then in Jordan, and was the "West Bank" of the river. It did not suggest "Palestine," at that time, but meant "Jordan." It had no specific boundary. Even today, the "boundary" of the West Bank is merely the '48 Armistice line with Jordan. Oh and when Ben-Zvi wrote "repeatedly used" [1] he was referring to the repeated use of the "Scenario," not the repeated use of the words. Homework doesn't help with that. Good reading skills do, however. The library is so passe ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What has changed? Surely it does still refer to the west bank of the Jordan river? That is, it's a geographical term, which has/had political implications in terms of suggesting that the area was part of Jordan (ie, not part of "Palestine" nor of Israel) And of course, the fact that it is not primarily Israeli or Palestinian terminology is presumably one thing that has helped it remain, since at least the 1960s, as the preferred standard term to this day. Today, "Palestine" would be the term to use to suggest "Palestine". --Nickhh (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, points (1) (2) and (3) are acceptable if we simply adopt the respective terms for (1)1950-onwards (2) Mandatory period refs use Mandatory period language (1920-/1948/1949) (3) References for antiquity follow sources and use Judea and Samaria for the relevant periods. (a note) A little problem exists for the Roman, Arab and Ottoman periods, but that is minor. The only sticking point I can see is that peculiar qualification in 1 ('In the context of events before 1970, and especially 1967-1970, it may sometimes also be appropriate, either capitalized or uncapitalized'), the point of which is hard to see.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work. Excellent ground-work for compromise and consensus. Thanks, Coppertwig. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideological support - it's great that someone is finally trying to resolve this in a civilized way again, and I highly appreciate the effort! IMO, it is very important however to include a geographical clause, about using the terms in a purely geographical non-political context, for example, Umm al-Qutuf is located on the Samarian foothills, near the Wadi Ara region of Israel or Reihan is located on the Samarian foothills in the West Bank. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 01:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with Ynhockey's "purely geographical clause" - NoCal100 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see actually zero movement towards a compromise in the formulation, in several points. 'the land as a whole,' just means, technically, slipping 'Judea and Samaria' in through the backdoor, for the whole period, from antiquity to 2009. I.e. it means 'West Bank' is generically acceptable as a political identification for the period 1970-2009+, but for any other geographical, political or administrative context, Judea & Samaria qualifies. Thus phrased, the minority view comes out as dominant usage. Clever tableturning. Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opposition rejected This opposition is based on an assumption of the intention of another editor. That's not the way we work here. We try to base our work on reliable sources as much as possible. When we need to assume intentions of another editor, then we are called to assume they're good, not devious. If you have a concern that the formulation might be abused, then you can address that specific concern constructively by concretely proposing how to phrase it differently. — Sebastian 18:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given attempts to replace references to "occupied territories" with "disputed territories", then maybe a policy should also include these and also "occupied Palestinian territories" (to exclude the Golan Heights and, where relevant, Sinai).--Peter cohen (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support up to a point, more clarity needed. 1) to 3) seem good, subject to Nishidani's point that West Bank would seem to be the common term for some time before 1970. Perhaps some more evidence is needed on timelines for this - as ever, one-off uses one way or the other not being enough of course. 4) and 5) seem to be a little unclear, and offer some leeway for people to start throwing in the terms, eg by saying "ah, but I am talking about the J&S administration, not the area itself" or "I'm just quoting this source which talks about Samaria" or "well 90% of settlement pages say they're in the the West Bank, so let's give this one as in Samaria/Judea, to be fair" or "ah but I don't mean one half of J&S, I'm referring the area which traditionally extends into Israel" etc. I'm afraid this is a bit of red line for me - no settlement, Palestinian town or geographical feature should ever be described as being in "Judea" and/or "Samaria". They don't add anything except for a load of political baggage, however we might try to argue around it. If we mean the top half of the West Bank, say "northern West Bank" like all mainstream contemporary sources do. Of course I agree with Ynhockey's point that beyond that we can and indeed should also be referring to more localised areas - eg "X is a Palestinian town/Y is an Israeli settlement in the Jordan Valley in the northern West Bank, 2km east of Nablus" (apologies I haven't checked if that works or not, but you get the point). It can also then specify which Israeli or Palestinian local authority (council or governate) it comes under.--Nickhh (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion regarding 4): wouldn't it be wiser to use the phrasing "the administrative district of Judea and Samaria" whenever referring to the administrative district? i.e. explicitly stating the administrative district part? This avoids confusion about using "Judea and Samaria" as a general place name. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 01.04.2009 11:54
  • I very much appreciate all the comments. When I posted the draft guidelines, I neglected to mention that I didn't create them out of thin air: they're based on the considerable work that has already been done by many in this discussion, including compromises already established or being worked on; I was inspired particularly by Nishidani and Canadian Monkey, but also by many other editors. I'm sure many of you know a lot more about these issues than I do, so I hope you'll contribute suggested changes in the wording to help improve and fill out the details in these guidelines. (By the way, I see that when I posted the draft in a hurry a few days ago, I accidentally posted to the project page instead of here as I had intended; I thank SebastianHelm for fixing that.)
    I would appreciate it if people would suggest wording for the guidelines to cover the period 1948-67, and perhaps suggest talk pages to look at where there have already been discussions about this. It may be that "West Bank" was used (sometimes uncapitalized?) during that period but not as universally as it was later; I don't know the status of other terms during that time. I'm sorry: I thought I had read "1970" somewhere within the last few days but I can't find it and I might have remembered wrong. At the same time I thought I had read about the use of "west bank" without capital letters. It might be better to just say "1967".
    I've made a copy of the draft guidelines below and invite users to edit it. I'm going to make some changes, largely to try to accomodate some of the comments above; they're just suggested changes and can be changed back if people don't like them. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that where I had seen mention of the year 1970 and "west bank" without capital letters was in Tundrabuggy's evidence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made a bunch of changes to the draft guidelines below, and invite others to also edit them collaboratively.
Some remaining questions: Should the "modern times" part say after 1948, after 1950 or after 1967 (or what)? Is "modern times" a reasonable phrase to refer to that? (Though perhaps it doesn't really matter much what it's called within the guidelines themselves.) What would be some initial proposed wording for guidelines about "occupied territories" and "disputed territories", an issue raised by Peter cohen above? (Or, where are some links to previous discussion of this issue?) ☺Coppertwig (talk)

Comments after editable version below was started

[edit]
I reorganized the draft guidelines to be in chronological order and what seems to me to be a somewhat logical order. I reduced the level of indentation compared to the previous edit. I added a sentence about "northern West Bank" and "southern West Bank", and made some other smallish changes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put notices about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine#Draft guidelines for use of placenames and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel#Draft guidelines for use of placenames. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Guidelines are at least something to hang your hat on and specific problems can be argued in that context. The draft is really quite good on first look. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second comment/broad support still: the updated version seems fair enough to me too (if very legalistic .. although I guess that's what we need), however I will be quite honest and say that given that it seems to be garnering support from the "other side" I'm a little confused as to whether a) I've missed something; or b) people have actually come round to understanding the problems with the use of "Judea" or "Samaria" as simple, neutral descriptions for placing things that are found in what everyone else refers to as the West Bank. One problem sentence I have spotted though is this one - "On the other hand, the terms are used in sources to refer to land areas which may not have other common specific names referring to exactly the same areas". I know this has been claimed quite frequently, but I'm not sure this is the case - to my mind they are not commonly used in a modern context, individually or combined, to refer to anything other than the geographical areas more usually known as northern and southern West Bank, whatever the history behind them. As noted, I wouldn't want to see this used as a get-out clause to slip the words in on the basis that they were somehow being used in a different, and supposedly totally neutral way. Anyhow, this is being looked at (in respect of Samaria at least) in more detail here. And if it is not the case, then the sentence becomes redundant anyway. --Nickhh (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To try to address this, I've changed "the terms are used in sources" to "the terms may be used in some sources". I clicked the "minor edit" box unintentionally. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re whether you've missed something: I'm guessing it was probably a combination of factors. Some people may have shifted their position slightly. I think I may have shifted my position slightly; I'm not sure. I think part of it was that there was really a lot more agreement all along than seemed evident. I think people were arguing without stating what they were arguing about, or were stating the most extreme version only of their position, and that there were misunderstandings. Another part of what happened is that there was a lot of discussion, with compromise reached on some pages (on at least one page?) and these guidelines codify such compromise (or at least one such). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.The aim of wiki is to present to the public articles drawn optimally from the highest quality sources. Israel-Palestine, its history, politics, society and culture is one of the most intensely and comprehensively covered areas in modern publishing. All of this replication of the Madrid Conference, Oslo Accords, Wye Agreement, Annapolis, Road Map style negotiating, which got the Israeli and Palestinians nowhere, and arguably led only to more fighting, is not likely to get us anywhere. Tanya Reinhart wrote a book on the former called The Roadmap to Nowhere(2006). The increasing complications, still at an early stage and provisory, here look like replicating the same, political process.

Cut the Gordian knot. Simply have stated as part of future Arbcom regulations that:- In the I/P area, articles are to be sourced and written according to the best available academic works by area specialists, and that this optimal, vast secondary literature may only be ignored if the problem, or field is not covered (contemporary or recent events). There can be little objection to this extremely simple condition for,

  • a) it fits the highest aims of the encyclopedia
  • b) most of the literature is from Israeli/Jewish sources
  • c) it follows the strictest reading of WP:RS
  • d) thus obligating all editors to live up to a level of contribution that exacts from them a far greater dedication to the goals of the encyclopedia than has otherwise been the case.
  • e) the alternative, as is developing under Coppertwig's otherwise valiant stewardship, is a set of protocols as complex and ambiguous as Israeli-Palestinian negotiations themselves, which have never produced results, just as the preceding wiki framework in the area has never produced GA/FA articles.
  • f) Editors wishing to work here should be given 2 months, if they haven't done so yet, to produce a GA article, nominated by each individual, to qualify for participation, and then be held to a more stringent set of policy rules governing behaviour. Members of each side, to test their abilities and bona fides by qualifying for the honour of working here, should be asked to work on a GA-quality article dealing with some event in the history of, or some figure from, the other side. 'Pro-Palestinians' producing a GA article on an Israeli/Jewish matter or person, and vice versa (This essentially is User:Ashley kennedy3's only request, but I have often asked for it myself in the past). That would sort the boys (girls) from the goys (wo)men. Perhaps, since people don't laugh in here, I should say, 'separate the men from the Mensch', in the splendid Yiddish sense, even if it ain't in the plural.

Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, I'm very happy to see you here commenting. I may have to reread your comment a few times to digest it. Using good-quality sources sounds like a good idea. Maybe I'll make a trip to the library one of these days. Your suggestion reminds me of this proposal of IronDuke – hey, didn't ID say ID got the idea from you? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an outsider I would say that this sounds excellent and lives up the the ideals of a meritocracy. Unomi (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by "7B) All three of the following conditions hold (or there is rough consensus that each of them holds)": The first part of the clause seem much more strict to me than the second, so that it becomes superfluous. It sounds to me like "x>100 or x>0". (I'm assuming that we can only say that all three hold if there is at least rough consensus that they hold.) Maybe someone has a concrete example for when the parenthesis is useful? — Sebastian 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Technically you're quite right, but I think it's easier to understand the way it is. The meaning of "All three of the following conditions hold" is clear, I think. The part about rough consensus is a softening of that. But if you had only the part about rough consensus, it might be confusing: somebody might get confused and think you only had to have one of the conditions or something. However, maybe the first part is unnecessary. Feel free to suggest alternative wording or go ahead and edit it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind! I misread the second clause to mean that "at least one of them holds". This misunderstanding was caused because "all three" and "each of them" are two different ways of saying the same thing. I think you're trying to address two concerns at once in this sentence: (A) Definition of when to use qualified uses as described in (6), and (B) definition of what constitutes consensus. The latter has always been a problem in disputed areas, and I ideally I would prefer to address this issue separately. But since it's in there, and nobody actually has a problem with it, let's not keep that from adopting the current version. — Sebastian 18:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There, that proves it! You misread the second clause; that's why the first clause is there, because the second is too easy to misread. Also, the first clause is for when only one person is editing, e.g. an initial bold edit. Then they only have to convince themselves that the three conditions hold. If we had only the second clause, then they might think they had to discuss it before they could put in the edit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That I'm misreading things only proves that I'm alive. ;-) I don't see a proof or even an argument for keeping the second clause. But as I said, I don't have a strong case for removing it, either. As far as I'm concerned, we can just close this little discussion. — Sebastian 22:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt the current version?

[edit]

It seems the discussion has died down, and we have a fairly stable version. So what's next? Should we post it on the project page, under a new section "Resolutions"? — Sebastian 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to wait a bit. For example, MeteorMaker has not been very active the past few days and may not have had time to comment. Also, before making it official I guess we should do an RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on policy and conventions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to make an edit below to the effect that J&S is officially an administrative area not a district.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving me time to catch up after my vacation. I've now given my views below. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments, MeteorMaker. I'm going to change the header to make the section you commented in into a discussion section, and make another new section containing just the guidelines, for further editing. I'll then make some edits to the guidelines to try to address some of your concerns. Such changes are of course subject to being accepted, rejected or changed by consensus. You and others are also welcome to edit with a goal of achieving consensus. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • April 8th until nightfall on April 15th is the Jewish holiday of Passover. The first and last days are observed as holidays and no work can be done on these days. For many Jews this is an important time spent with family and friends, and means that WP may not be a priority for Jews at this time. As a matter of fairness, I would hope that there will be quite a bit more time given after the 15th before anything is officially adopted. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for many Christians of my acquaintence over Lent and Easter, so I presume no one, except an indifferentist like myself, will have much time for work over the next week. I'm happy to join in the religious abstention, even if only to profit by having more time for convivial drinking. We should have some workable version by Ramadan. Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got an edit conflict. I'll edit in my comments in the section below later. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point re Jewish and other holidays. I'm vexed that I didn't think of it myself. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draft guidelines: with discussion

[edit]
See also the discussion in the previous section, and an editable version of the guidelines in the next section.
  • 1) References for antiquity follow sources and use Judea and Samaria for the relevant periods.
    • Support. Note that by "antiquity", we mean the time up to roughly the first century CE. Between that period and 1920, the terms were apparently not used except in reference to biblical history. The most widely accepted name to use for this period is "Palestine". MeteorMaker (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment When "Palestine" is used, it should be specifically noted that it does not refer to "modern day" ie "Arab" Palestine, as understood today, as that is a recent phenomenon, generally attributed to the leadership of Yassar Arafat. Further, it seems to escape people that what was understood as "Palestine" at that time included much more than Judea and Samaria. Each period should be defined carefully. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • When used in references to antiquity, it's probably obvious from the context that "Palestine" doesn't refer to the ""modern day" ie "Arab" Palestine", "generally attributed to the leadership of Yassar Arafat". In the few cases where ambiguity may arise, your objection also applies to "Judea" and "Samaria". MeteorMaker (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Of course. While it is true that there was an area was known as "Palestine," that area was much larger than merely Judea and Samaria, which was a portion of "Palestine." Since they are not the same, they cannot be used interchangably. If the sources use those terms in the discussion of antiquity, they can be used. They would in fact be more appropriate, since there was no "West Bank" so-named at the time. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2) In the context of events during the British Mandate (1920-1948/1949) , terms used by the British administration are probably most appropriate.
    • Comment. Some side effects would be that WP would place the Deir Yassin massacre in Samaria. I think this is a can of worms that is best left unopened. My suggestion is to minimize the use of the terms and where their use is called for, prefix them with "the British Mandatory district". MeteorMaker (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Sources would support that usage at that time (and frankly later}. If there is a "West Bank" source relevant both to the time period and the article under discussion there would be no reason not to include "West Bank," "northern West Bank" for example, at least in some fashion eg a quote, some minor explanatory text to help the reader understand. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) Guidelines 4–10 refer to modern times (After 1949? After 1950? After 1967?).
    • Comment. I see no break in standard narrative histories of the region, of international diplomacy on the region, in Israeli official documents to foreign countries, in US and British documents of the period, describing from 1949 onwards, down to our day, the area as 'the West Bank'. The 1967 break proposed is purely arbitrary. Since all major specialists accept in their histories of 1949 onwards the designation West Bank, except for Herbert Druks, who is not a chaired historian of note, I think the 'West Bank' as the vox propria for the area 1949-2009 is non-negotiable for NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note Tundrabuggy's evidence, which also showed usage of "Samaria" in UN documents during that time period. However, I'm impressed by your statement about major specialists. I really appreciate your input, as I think you have vastly more familiarity with the literature than I. It's fine with me to remove the mention of 1967 and have the guidelines cover the period 1949–present. If anyone disputes this, perhaps they can come up with examples of good-quality reliable secondary sources using some other terminology than "West Bank" when discussing that time period. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. See this link for serious evidence that the term was rarely used as a proper name prior to 1967. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see only a collection of links to 1948-1967 mentions of the West Bank (sometimes without capitalization, which I assume is what TB interprets as "serious evidence that the term was rarely used". It's interesting to note that "West Bank" gets 2,800 hits while "Samaria" gets only 613 (the vast majority of which are irrelevant, being about ships and racing horses). 450% more serious evidence that the term was rarely used as a proper name prior to 1967? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • samaria+israel gets 96 and judea+israel gets 443 while "west bank"+israel gets 2800. Nableezy (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • "West Bank" is often referring to "WEst Banks" of other rivers, as well as to banks in the west. We have had the discussion before regarding capitalization in the past and proper nouns, and I will not get into with you again here; suffice it to say that in general "west bank" was not used as a proper noun prior to 1967. I did not say never, but in general. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Of the first 50, 32 are relevant (way higher than the ratio for Samaria), and 7 are capitalized (exactly the same ratio as Samaria, and remember there are at least 450% more total hits for WB to begin with). Even if capitalization mattered, your argument and your own evidence work equally well (or better) against Samaria. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • ...C'mon now, as if capitalization doesn't matter when one is talking about naming! conventions in an American English encyclopedia. Further, you had to go into the articles to notice that "west bank" was not capitalized. Further, we cannot use raw Google numbers when half the references refer to the "west bank" of some other river, not to mention "West, Bank" (the bank where you have your checking account) etc. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Again: Of the first 50, 18 are about financial insitutions and other rivers like you observe. When you say "half", do you base that on a thorough check or just a gut feeling? Also, is your position that, in spite of the evidence indicating a <1/5 ratio, "Samaria" was more common than "West Bank" (capitalized)? MeteorMaker (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Tundrabuggy's comment
For its use before 1967, or in narrative histories for all countries in the area and their diplomatic language, to cite any of hundreds of examples, see:-
1949-1967 See generally, Shaul Mishal, West Bank/East Bank, the Palestinians in Jordan, 1949-1967, Yale UP 1978
1955-1958. 'American diplomacy was now fully prepared to at least implicitly endorse and repeatedly use the West Bank Scenario.' Abraham Ben-Zvi, Decade of transition: Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the origins of the American-Israeli alliance, Columbia University Press, 1998 p.82
1955-1959.‘Clearly, American diplomacy was now fully prepared to at least implicitly endorse and repeatedly use the West Bank Scenario (according to which Israel would occupy the West Bank of Jordan if the Hashemite Kingdom were on the verge of disintegration) as a potential deterrence weapon vis-è-vis Egypt’. Abraham Ben-Zvi, John F. Kennedy and the politics of arms sales to Israel, Routledge, 2002 p.16
1956. 'West Bank town of Kalkilya' in October 1956. Zach Levey,Israel and the western powers, 1952-1960, UNC Press, 1997 p.136
1958. Context the overthrow of Nuri Said in Iraq in July 1958 led to planning for an operation requiring Israel clearance for overflight on its territory for Operation Fortitude by Great Britain and the US. Ben-Gurion thought this might complicate ongoing Israeli plans for the invasion of the West Bank. See Zach Levey,Israel and the western powers, 1952-1960, UNC Press, 1997 p.108
1963.‘Every change in the status quo (of Jordan) must lead to the demilitarization of the West Bank. . . Our goal is to prevent the fall of the West Bank under the control of a hostile power. That is why the demilitarization of the West Bank is so vital’. The General Director of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, letter to the US Ambassador in Israel. Cited Zakai Shalom, The superpowers, Israel and the future of Jordan, 1960-1963: the perils of the pro-Nasser policy, Sussex Academic Press, 1999 p.82-3
1963. The ambassador at the time Walworth Barbour wrote a memo at the time, ‘Under what conditions would Israel move to occupy the West Bank?’ p.85
1963. 'The British ambassador in May 1963 speaking of reducing the possibility of an Israeli operation in Jordan required ‘some arrangements (by which) Israel’s security demands on the West Bank could be satisfied’ Zakai Shalom, ibid.p.94
1967 before the war. Hussein to the US ambassador Findlay Burns, repeated in negotiations:’They’re (the Israelis) going for the West Bank’ (Richard Parker, citing official memos, in The Six-Day War, University Press of Florida, 1996p.186
I only hope for mercy's sake, on this absolutely clear-cut issue, Arbcom is familiar with Charles Dickens, Bleak House, and the premonitory account there of what is known as wikilawyering in order not to arrive at the obvious conclusion of a case, namely Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nishi, I am looking at what was actually published at that time. The more recently published books would indicate a back-formation unless it was actually published that way at the time, and some of your notes illustrate that some people did so refer to it at the time. My link does demonstrate that some did in fact use "West Bank" at that time, as they did "Samaria." It is not a moot point that they were talking re Jordan at the time, not "Palestine," as the implication is now. Perhaps we can distinquish that usage from the more modern usage today that implies Arab "Palestine." At the same time I am wondering if it was not equally often referred to as "Samaria" or the Judean Hills etc at that time. Based on UN documents and from material that I can find, I think it so.

Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you look at Israeli official reports, on agriculture, land census, published by the various ministries, over 1967, the first year or so, the official reports designate the area by the Hebrew translation of the Arab/Western default term 'West Bank, and then begin after government policy changed, gradually to replace that with 'Judea & Samaria'
To clip from a file I composed to make myself sure my remarks were textually grounded, see this excerpt:-
One can observe the transition in usage quite simply, by looking at official Israeli publications for the period 1967-1969.For example for 1967 we have
  • Israel’s Prime Minister’s Office, the Authority for Economic Planning',Hagadah Hamaaravit, Skirah Klalit (The West Bank:general outlook) Jerusalem, 1967.
  • The IDF’s West Bank of the Jordan, Gaza Strip and Northern Sinai, Golan Heights: Data from full enumeration publication No 1 of the census of population 1967, puboished by the Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem 1968.
  • Bank of Israel Research Department, Omdany ha-Mekorot ha-Shimushim ve-Kishray ha-Gomlin bayn Anfy ha-Meshek ba-Gada ha-Maaravit, (Sources estimates, usages and mutual relations between the West Bank’s economy and branches) Jerusalem, 1967
  • By 1969 Ministries were using Judea and Samaria
  • Thus the Ministry of Agriculture-Water Commission, issued its Yehuda ve-Shomron luhot Shtahim Shel Admot-Kefar, (Judea and Samaria, tables of village land) in December 1969 See Avi Plascov The Palestinian refugees in Jordan 1948-1957 Routledge, 1981 p.235
  • As throughout this huge thread, personal impressions are not evidence. Only sources count, and these could be multiplied infinitely, as could the direct quotes from Israeli politicians and diplomats talking to international observers, military and diplomats pre 1967 in which the standard 'West Bank' term is explicitly used by them, and Samaria and Judea is only used by Israelis talking among themselves, in referring to, as Ben-Gurion's often recited phrase from 1948, after the failure of the Latrun assault put it, the intention to put an end to the Bechiya leDorat, of failing to secure what for Jewish nationalists was 'Samaria' and 'Judea'. Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may have an argument, i.e. and opinion. You don't have sources.Nishidani (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4) "West Bank" or "the West Bank" (capitalized) is the most commonly used name for the land area known by that name, and is to be used when referring to that land area as a whole in the context of events after 1967. In the context of events before 1967, it may sometimes also be appropriate, either capitalized or uncapitalized. The terms "northern West Bank" and "southern West Bank" can be used to refer to parts of it.
  • 5) When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area, the term "Judea and Samaria" may be used. The first time it is mentioned in an article, it is to be clarified by the use of a phrase such as "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria", or by a wikilink to its article or both.
    • Request for clarification: Would this allow eg. "Tubas is a small Palestinian city in the administrative area of Judea and Samaria"? MeteorMaker (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my opinion, not if that's the first sentence of an article, and probably not elsewhere either. It sounds to me as if that sentence is using it as a geographical specification, which would not be allowed under these guidelines. The only context where that would be allowed would be where somehow the administrative area is being talked about as an administration rather than a geographical area, e.g. "Some Palestinian cities are administered by Israel. For example, Tubas is a small Palestinian city in the administrative area of Judea and Samaria," (if true) but even then some other wording would probably be preferable in my opinion, for example "under" instead of "in". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request for clarification. The Palestinian administrative maps (Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority), irrespective of Oslo interim agreements, define the administrative districts and governorates as covering the whole of the West Bank. For example Susya is placed in the Hebron governorate, or as Hebron district in many sources like OCHA, but in the Israeli administrative system belongs to Judea's Har Hebron Regional Council, a designation never employed by the UN's OCHa reports. Massive confusion will ensue, unless one works this out by looking at the specific articles, collegially, and sorting out an unequivocal neutral and correct way to address the overlap and conflict in Israeli and Palestinian administrative divisions.Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the J&S article has been renamed to Judea and Samaria Area, I've changed the editabel version below in line with this.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6) As of the time these guidelines were proposed (in March 2009), given the references which had been examined, some editors were not convinced that there was a proportion of nonpartisan usage in reliable sources of the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" to refer to places in the context of events in modern times sufficient that the terms could be used without qualification while conveying a sufficiently neutral voice. On the other hand, the terms may be used in some sources to refer to land areas which may not have other common specific names referring to exactly the same areas. The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice; for example, it cannot be asserted without qualification that a place is "in Samaria". Any uses of the terms must be in one of the situations described in (7) and must use one of the following qualifications.
    • Comment: "The terms may be used [...] to refer to land areas which may not have other common specific names referring to exactly the same areas" also leaves articles wide open for attempts to sneak in partisan terminology. We have "northern WB" and "southern WB" and the need for further precision has been neither explained nor addressed with the suggestion to use terms without exactly specified denotations. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6A) The terms are used inside quotations from sources, (for example, perhaps putting just "in Samaria" in quotation marks if the source uses that phrase), or
      • The most common way to deal with quotes (used by virtually all major news sources) seems to be to insert a gloss along the lines of "(Israeli term for the [norther/southern] West Bank)" the first time the terms appear, or after the quote. I've added that requirement. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6B) In phrases such as "the area sometimes called Samaria", etc., or
      • Oppose. Exactly the type of unqualified and misleading statement that has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. With the specification "the area sometimes called Samaria in Israel", it's acceptable. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've changed it to "the area called Samaria by some people". In my opinion, we can't say "the area sometimes called Samaria in Israel", as that would imply that it isn't called Samaria outside Israel; and I think many readers would interpret "in Israel" as indicating physical location within the borders of the country; and many examples have been presented of use physically located in places other than Israel (i.e. the author was not in Israel, and/or the publisher is not located in Israel). Perhaps you can come up with a concise phrase that more clearly expresses the pattern of usage. I strongly(00:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)) oppose including the example with "in Israel" in the guidelines, as that would enshrine in the guidelines an example which in my opinion violates NPOV; however, if an accurate, unambiguous, objective, verifiable (in a word, acceptable) description of the pattern of usage can be found, it may be OK to mention it as an example. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Changing from "strongly oppose" to "oppose". It's not that "in Israel" is all that bad; it's just that if an example is to be included in the guidelines, it should be an example that clearly has strong consensus support. I've changed it to "the area called Samaria by many Israelis and Zionists", which I think is an improvement but may still have room for further improvement. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        But are there any sources that support the view that the terms J&S are used (other than very marginally) outside Israel? I'm asking because there's a large number of sources that explicitly say they aren't. Media and other online encyclopedias make no secret of the fact, I can't see why WP should be an exception, particularly as that would entail violating several policies and guidelines [5]. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The modified version I gave ("called Samaria by many Israelis and Zionists") is based on the quotes in this table. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Great, I endorse that fully. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6C) In phrases such as "the biblical region of Judea", etc., or
      • Comment: Already covered in (1). MeteorMaker (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, (1) is about ancient times. This is about modern times. The purpose of this clause is to build on the compromise hammered out for the article Hebron, as described in this comment by Nishidani. Once people have done a lot of work negotiating compromises, it may save time if such compromises are also applied to other articles, where appropriate and always subject to consensus in each case. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe Nish's position was that that particular compromise was a necessary evil and that there was no factual reason for it, besides the fact that some editors were very reluctant to let WP reflect the well-documented fact that J&S are extreme minority and partisan terminology. We have a much better opportunity now to achieve neutrality and factual accuracy. To address the point, what use would phrases such as "the biblical region of Judea" be outside the historical context? Could you make an example of how you imagine it used in an article about modern times? MeteorMaker (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Just to clarify. I gave that example, in fact, to illustrate how a difficult point was resolved with relative rapidity, and not subject to endless wikilawyering of the farcical kind we have seen over the past several months. It did not represent what I would have preferred. I mentioned it as an example of how, a year and a half ago, on one page, two people of opposed views compromised in a gentlemanly fashion. No beating abnout the bush. Since Hebron is almost totally Palestinian, its location would technically require the Arabic term for that hill-area in the lead. Note that my main point was that we do not call it Al-Khalil, the Arabic name for the city, because international usage refers to it as Hebron, and this is an English encyclopedia. Just as we should not refer to Judea and Samaria as a geographical term, since the default international nomenclature is 'West Bank'.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6D) As an adjective as part of a phrase which appears in a source, for example "on the Samarian foothills", or
      • Comment: "Samarian hills" and variations thereof is largely uncontroversial usage and should be allowed. Other uses of the adjective "Samarian" should be avoided. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've edited in the word "geographic" to make it clear that the clause was intended to apply only to such uses. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That would still allow constructions such as "Samarian village", "Samarian region", "Samarian district", which can all conceivably be used to circumvent any prescription of the term "WB". I suggest simply stating something along the lines of ""Samarian hills" and variations thereof are allowed". MeteorMaker (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, although "Samarian hills and variations thereof" seems to me to be of unspecified degree of vagueness: does it allow only very closely related constructions (such as "Samarian foothills") or does it allow a broad range of variations ("Samarian village", etc.)? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • We may have to make a list of allowed variations, though my gut feeling is that that's unnecessary. It should be sufficient to state that the hills themselves, and nothing else, may be described as "Samarian"/"of Samaria"/[...]. To counter over-nationalistic zeal that may manifest itself as describing every locality in the northern West Bank as "in the hills of Samaria", we may need some kind of restriction how often it can be used. Note: "Judean hills" is also, as I understand it, uncontroversial. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6E) The term is being mentioned rather than used, as in "Samaria is a term used for ...", or
    • 6F) The term is being used within the article about itself, where its meaning and usage has already been explained to the reader; although additional qualifications may be needed for some uses even there.
    • 6G) The term is being used in an infobox field specifying the geographic region, as long as the administrative district is also specified in the same infobox (Israeli regional council/sub-district, or Palestinian governorate)
This clause seems obvious to me and is a prerequisite for supporting this guideline. MeteorMaker claims some sort of consensus against this, but in fact there are none. Perhaps MeteorMaker would like to enlighten everyone here about which geographical region Elon Moreh and Immanuel (town) are located in. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly: The articles you link to give the geographical region as the West Bank, which (perhaps with the suffix "of the river Jordan") is as much a purely geographical designator as one can hope to find. This I find self-evident, but there are obviously sources to back it up. Sources being essential for all claims made in these guidelines, what sources are there for the claim that J&S are geographical regions? (NB, it is not contested that they are often considered such in Israel, but per WP:NCGN, what something is called locally by one country has no bearing on English Wikipedia — especially if the term is an exonym). MeteorMaker (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
West Bank is not a geographical region. Can you perhaps inform everyone of the geographical features that delimit the West Bank (of the Jordan River), other than the Jordan River in the east? Even better, provide a source informting us of these geographical features? —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I inform everyone of the geographical features that delimit the West Bank, other than the Jordan River in the east? No, but since you cannot do that with Judea or Samaria either, that argument falls flat on its face. When you say "West Bank is not a geographical region" (despite it clearly being composed of two entirely geographical terms), and imply that Samaria is considered a geographical region elsewhere than Israel, do you base that on sources or your own opinion? There are numerous sources that explicitly state that J&S are Israel-specific and that West Bank is a more neutral geographical term. For instance, Eli Avraham says the terms Judea and Samaria are "preferred by the settlers to describe the geographical area of settlement" (Avraham 2003), and Ran HaCohen calls them "(biblical) Hebrew geographical terms [...] officially adopted and successfully promoted by the right wing governments", while Sharkansky calls them "ancient Hebrew terms which are favorites of the Israeli right wing" and speaks of "the more neutral West Bank (i.e., the geographical designation as the west bank of the Jordan River)" (Sharkansky 1999). Eva Etzioni-Halevy also refers to "The West Bank” (of the River Jordan)" as "a more neutral geographical connotation." (Etzioni-Halevy 2002). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually serious? Samaria and Judea and both geographical terms, and are not the same as the political term Judea and Samaria. I have already provided numerous sources for this in previous discussions. I don't think anyone can seriously argue that either Samaria or Judea are not geographical regions, or that the Green Line (delimiting the West Bank) is based on geographical features. The Samaria article clearly outlines the geographical boundaries of the region: To the north, Samaria is bounded by the Jezreel Valley; to the east by the Jordan River; to the west by the Carmel Ridge (in the north) and the Sharon plain (in the west); to the south by the Jerusalem mountains.
Actually that's not entirely correct, but even the editor who didn't provide sources clearly thought that it was a geographical region. To remind you, Samaria is not limited to the West Bank, and certain villages in 'Israel proper', such as Umm al-Qutuf, are located on the Samarian foothills. Here's what Zev Vilnay, a professor of geography, says about Samaria (from 1980):
Samaria—land
Stretches from Judea in the south, the Jezreel Valley in the north, the Sharon plain on the Mediterranean coast—in the west, and the Jordan Valley—in the east. Samaria is mountainous. Its highest point is on its southern boundary: the mountain Ba'al Hatzor, about 1,016 m above sea level. Other high points: Mount Ibal, ~940 m, across from it Mount Grizim, ~771 m above sea level. Between them lies Nablus (Schechem), the most important city in Samaria in the past and in the present.
There are numerous other sources which I have pointed out in the past (on the main ArbCom case talk page) and do not mind pointing out to you again on your talk page. So far your comments seem like a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT—there was a huge discussion about this on the ArbCom case talk page before the evidence stage started, which I'm sure you read, and if not, please read it now. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<----(Outdent)

(Outdent) Re your reference to the Samaria article and how Samaria is defined there, I don't have to remind you that you cannot use Wikipedia as a source. Re the "numerous other sources" you say you have pointed out in the past on the main ArbCom talk page, you have made exactly one comment on each of the ArbCom talk pages [7][8], and none of them addresses this question. In the preliminary discussion, you claimed numerous times that such sources exist, but never actually produced one, instead acknowledging the lack of the English-language sources that WP:NCGN requires: "It's not my fault that there are not many English-language sources about Israeli geography". In the Proposals section, all I can find is this unsubstantiated assertion by you: "there is no point in checking sources as long as a sufficient amount use each terminology (and in this case, they do)" (and you ignored the obvious follow-up question how we know if we don't check.) I have in fact not seen one non-Israeli source from you or anybody else that states that "Samaria" is a geographical region. If, as you say, numerous such sources exist, a link would be helpful. Re the Umm al-Qutuf article, its region is given as "Samarian foothills" for no other reason than that you edited in that unsupported location info. Also, as pointed out above, the geographical term "Samarian hills" is largely uncontroversial but its acceptance does not in itself support the conclusion that the more controversial term "Samaria" must also be the widely accepted name of a modern geographical region. We need sources for such claims, particularly if we want to state things that no other modern encyclopedias or news/government sources outside Israel seem to do [9]. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 7) Qualified uses as described in (6) will be used only in one of the following two situations
    • 7A) The term is part of a longer quote from a source; or
    • 7B) All three of the following conditions hold (or there is rough consensus that each of them holds):
      • 7B (i) The term is used in the source; and
      • 7B (ii) the term is being used primarily in a geographical sense; and
      • 7B (iii) use of the term allows for a more precise, concise geographical specification than "northern West Bank" or "southern West Bank" or avoids awkward phrases such as "in northern southern West Bank".
        • Comment: Unlike WB, J&S are not properly defined (is Ma'ale Adumim in Judea or Samaria? Do the regions extend into Israel proper or not? If so, how far?) Awkward phrases such as "in northern southern West Bank" are best avoided with formulations like "near Hebron in the southern West Bank". MeteorMaker (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          I've considerably shortened and simplified clause 7B. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8) Since some sources do use the terms in modern times, phrases such as "what was once Samaria" or "what was once Judea" are not appropriate in the NPOV neutral voice, although e.g. "what was once the kingdom of Samaria" may be OK in some contexts, for example when discussing archeology, or in one of the situations in (7).
    • Oppose. That some Israeli sources still use an archaic term for an area should not oblige English WP to give the impression that the term has any modern currency outside Israel. Despite "Germania" being the Israeli name for Germany, we still describe Germania as an ancient toponym in all relevant articles. Question: Would this suggestion also block phrases like "what is today the West Bank"? MeteorMaker (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9) Ideally, the proportion of mentions of the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" as compared to the mentions of "West Bank" in Wikipedia articles in general will correspond to the overall proportions of those mentions in similar contexts in reliable sources, but each case depends on what works well in the context of a given article.
    • Oppose. This again would open a back door for the disputed terms. Some editors have erroneously interpreted WP:NPOV as a requirement to represent conflicting terminologies in proportion to their Google incidences and this proposal appears to be based on the same conflation of "minority views" and "minority terminologies". A frequently cited consequence of this class of suggestions is that "Zionist entity" would become a proper alternative to "Israel". MeteorMaker (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10) However, when one of the placename terms appears in a quote from a source which is being used for other reasons, the placename is not to be elided from the quote for the purpose of reducing the number of mentions of the placename.
    • Strong oppose. This would allow partisan editors to cherrypick sources that contain instances of their desired terminology, no matter how huge the majority for more neutral terms. We've had enough trouble with that already [10][11]. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've deleted this clause, although I support it in spirit whether or not it's stated explicitly in the guidelines. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The proposal is unacceptable unless this clause is put back in. Nobody should be allowed to censor the sources. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You might see better how treacherous this kind of clauses are if I bring out this well-worn example again: In the Barack Obama article, any editor would be allowed to write "President Obama has vowed unconditional commitment to the security of the illegal Zionist entity", using this quotation from Iranian radio:

            "Pointing out that the US government has never ceased its unconditional support for the Zionist entity and its flagrant crimes, such as those committed during the recent events in Gaza, Ayatollah Khamenei added that even the new American president, who came to office with the slogan of bringing change in the policies of the White House, vows unconditional commitment to what he calls the security of the illegal Zionist enity, which means defending state terrorism, defending injustice and oppression, and defending a 22-day-long massacre of hundreds of Palestinian men, women and children." [12]

            Neither you nor I would want that. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your analogy is absurd, not to mention that it has the result (whether intended by you or not) of loading yet more Israel-bashing onto yet another page in Wikipedia, as if Wikipedia was not already groaning under the heavy weight of the tons of anti-Israel propaganda that is on this site already. If that was your intention, you are very clever. (By the way, the President's name has only one "r" in it.) 6SJ7 (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, we are dealing with fringe national usage as opposed to international usage, and therefore MM's analogy is completely logical. If you break NPOV by according Israel an exceptional status (its toponyms are to be used for land it occupies as a belligerent), then this sets a precedent for all minority terms, or nationalistic labels, throughout wiki. This is obvious. MM's point is not Israel-bashing: it accords with the aims of neutrality, precisely, to not open up a precedent for anti-Israeli POV-warriors who might exploit the infra-Israeli usage precedent for the Occupied Palestinian territories in order to push for fringe terminology for Israel from other countries who refuse to view Israel as anything more than 'Occupied Palestine'. As throughout, every attempt to be logical, source- and policy-based in a comprehensive fashion has been met with by obloquy, racist-whispering campaigns of innuendo and insinuation, and it should stop. It persuades no one but the true believer.Nishidani (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • (EC) 6SJ7: Thank you for your opinion and for your spell checking. I'm certain you got the point. The example was less of an analogy than a plain demonstration of the inevitable consequence of distorting established sourcing practices to fit your notion of "censorship". MeteorMaker (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I disagree about your Barack Obama example, MeteorMaker, because quotations would still be subject to common-sense rules such as not quoting out of context. If a source says "The people of village X, Samaria, gathered together for a ceremony", I think that the Wikipedia article should not present this as "The people of village X ... gathered together for a ceremony", but should allow the term naturally used in the quote to be displayed, in order to enrich the variety of terminology used on the project. All the more so if the term used is an unusual formulation, in my opinion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • My example was intended to illustrate that we have absolutely no control over what gets added if such a policy was introduced. You would not be able to veto the malicious inclusion of "Zionist entity" or "Samaria", because that would be a violation of your proposed guideline. Guess what, there are thousands of partisan sources that could be used to sneak these terms into otherwise neutral articles. Your suggestion would invite a deluge of them. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • MeteorMaker, if I understand right, what you're concerned about is that people might choose quotes purposely in order to include certain placenames, and come up with arguments to include those quotes, thus including the placenames more often than would be representative of the frequency of their use in reliable sources. 6SJ7, if I understand you right, you're concerned about the possibility of people deleting placenames from quotes just to eliminate the mention of those placenames. I'd like to suggest a possible compromise: having a version of clause 10 but making it subject to clause 9. Something like this: "Placenames appearing as parts of quotes, when such quotes are present for other reasons, can enrich the encyclopedia by showing readers the variety of placenames that are in use by various people. However, if such inclusions cause a placename to appear more often in a group of related articles than is proportionate to its use in reliable sources, the placename can be elided from some quotes." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Correct, except "more often than would be representative of the frequency of their use in reliable sources" is not the issue here. Replace it with "in contravention of the principles stated in these guidelines, WP:NCGN and WP:NPOV". The amendment "Placenames [...] can enrich the encyclopedia by showing readers the variety of placenames that are in use by various people" suffers from the same flaws. What's the point in drafting guidelines if the last clause effectively annuls the rest? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Could you elaborate on that, please? What are the principles in NCGN and NPOV that you're referring to? How do you see my suggestion as annulling the rest of the guidelines? I don't see it that way at all; there's nothing in the rest of the guidelines preventing placenames from appearing as part of quotes, nor do I think there ought to be. What do you think of my proposal below for a method of discussion? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • NCGN states that the most widely used toponym in English should be used, which disqualifies "Samaria" due to its clear and proven minority status. This guidelines draft is a special case of NCGN and specifies a number of exceptions to that rule. NPOV, in addition, requires us to use neutral terminology and attribute minority views (such as the view that the West Bank area is called Judea & Samaria). Your suggested amendment, to override those basic rules with a rule that specifically allows problematic terminology as long as it's contained in quotes, and motivating the arrangement with "Placenames [...] can enrich the encyclopedia by showing readers the variety of placenames that are in use by various people" runs counter to both core policy and the spirit of this document.
                          One word on your method-of-discussion proposal: I understand Ynhockey's argument very well. What I disagree with, strongly, is his "sources are not needed" approach, and doubt I can bring myself to express that stance in my own words. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

As a process to develop the guidelines with consensus, I propose new sections on this talk page, to be used as follows:

  • Discussion
  • Understanding the arguments
  • Combined rationale

Each of these will address a number of issues we still need to discuss: proposed pieces of text for the guidelines, and perhaps proposed statements of principle or of fact that can help in developing the guidelines. The idea is that the process of writing these can help us to understand each others' positions.

In the "Understanding the arguments" section, as I propose it, there will be separate subsections for the arguments on different sides (for example, for and against some proposed wording for the guidelines), and each subsection is to be edited only by editors who disagree with that side. In other words, editors are to write the arguments of the side they disagree with. Proponents of an argument who feel that their argument is not well represented are to explain in the discussion section, talking about what's missing, and then others who don't agree with it are to paraphrase it and put it into the debate section. This process of paraphrasing helps demonstrate or develop understanding of the argument.

The Combined rationale section, to be edited by everyone, will combine the arguments for and against into a single paragraph, in NPOV fashion. I see it as coming after the arguments have been explored in the "Discussion" and "Understanding the arguments" sections. Most useful during the development of the guidelines, it may also be useful later when new editors later wonder what the motivation behind the guidelines was.

This is loosely based on a suggestion by Abd, (in the 2nd paragraph here) whose consensus-building work at the Cold fusion articles helped inspire me to write the proposed guidelines above in the first place. I've used similar techniques before, although not on-wiki, and it can have a transforming effect. The process of writing the other side's arguments helps one understand it. Perhaps more importantly, seeing the other side express one's arguments helps one to feel understood. One has to make allowances: when people express arguments they disagree with, they tend not to express them very well, even if they're trying hard. This should not be misinterpreted as bad faith: instead, you thank them for trying and gently explain what's missing.

Comments on this proposal are welcome. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this whole topic should have it's own talk subpage? I was waiting for discussion to end before moving it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues where it belongs but it looks like the kind of thing that needs to have a permanent page of its own, rather than just end up in archives. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the guidelines definitely should be on a page of their own (any suggestions for the name?) and that having an associated talkpage for the discussion would be convenient. This can be done any time. I've put a link to here from WP:NCGN#Israel–Palestine; it should be directed to the guideline page when it's created. At some point we should do an RfC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have not seen this page before and am faced with a wall of text and lots of comments everywhere, so I haven't a clue on what consensus there is on first look. Proper layout would be extremely helpful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a good idea to wait until we find out who is topic-banned and who is granted an exemption to work on the guidelines, before making any substantial changes to the guidelines. (I don't want to discourage discussion. I'm not in charge here and don't know what the usual practice would be in such a situation.) I'm thinking of putting the guidelines on a separate page, (This has been done; this is the page.)(01:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)) moving struck-out text to the talk page, and writing a summary of the discussion, trying to make it clear what has consensus, what is still under dispute, and what the arguments are on each side. If there's no objection I might go ahead and do that relatively soon (if I have time; it might take me more than a week to find the time, anyway; meanwhile if someone else wants to do that I don't object). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to have a separate subsection for commenting on each clause and not just an in-text separation. That will make it easier to seek consensus on each and for people to be able to use the edit history to spot discussion of clauses in which they are particularly interested.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If arguments are to be paraphrased, I think it's better to do so now, before the blanket topic ban goes into effect. That way, editors can comment if they feel the paraphrases don't accurately represent what they've said. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my timing is off, but I think I'll go ahead now. I may not have time to do it completely; if not, I may continue to fix it up several days later, or others can fill in things I've missed. I would hope that if anyone thinks I've misrepresented or omitted something they've said that they would feel free to contact me; email is always a possibility. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm putting the struck-out text from the draft guidelines in sections here, intended as being like questions. If I have time I'll copy many of the comments that have already been made into the appropriate sections. When an entire clause was struck out, I'm expressing the question as a positive, e.g. "Including this subclause"; this is not an endorsement but just one way of phrasing the question, so that if someone says "support" it will mean supporting keeping that clause. 21:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC) I've refactored part of the discussion but don't have time to continue now and will be on wikibreak for several days. I got as far as a discussion about infoboxes. 22:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC) People are welcome to add new comments in each section where it says Comments. I or anyone else can also add comments from the earlier discussion above into the appropriate sections; I'll probably continue with that in a few days, as I said. I've decided to copy only some comments and only parts of them, to try to form a concise summary of the discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've closed a couple of discussions on this page. I'm an involved editor, but those seemed like clear cases to me. If anyone disagrees or wants to add more comments they can re-open them.
    My primary purpose here is to help form compromises among other editors. Therefore, in the discussions on this page, (unless I retract this), if I'm the only one who has argued for a certain version or position, it can be assumed that I'm willing to "stand down" and allow the other version to go in, for the sake of consensus, unless I've stated that I feel "strongly" (e.g. "strong support", "strong oppose"). I describe my role in these discussions here and here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've finished refactoring the previous discussion. I've summarized and haven't included every comment. Others can edit my refactoring (or comment via talk page or by email) if they think it's not a good summary. Further discussion is welcome in each section. I hope we can come to consensus here on all or almost all the remaining points of dispute, and then do a policy RfC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Exact name of "Judea and Samaria Area"

[edit]

Result: Nobody has objected to this edit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to "Judea and Samaria Area" to reflect the (new) article title and striking out some text about clarification:

  • 5) When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area, the term "Judea and Samaria" "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used. The first time it is mentioned in an article, it is to be clarified by the use of a phrase such as "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria", or by a wikilink to its article or both.
Comments:
  • "the J&S article has been renamed to Judea and Samaria Area, I've changed the editabel version ... in line with this" (Peter cohen [13])

Whether there are other common names for the same areas

[edit]
Result: Withdrawn. (Closed by Coppertwig 01:22, 11 May 2009)

Striking out the following from clause 6:

  • On the other hand, the terms may be used in some sources to refer to land areas which may not have other common specific names referring to exactly the same areas.
Comments:
  • "...I know this has been claimed quite frequently, but I'm not sure this is the case - to my mind they are not commonly used in a modern context, individually or combined, to refer to anything other than the geographical areas more usually known as northern and southern West Bank, whatever the history behind them...." (Nickhh [14])
  • "...We have "northern WB" and "southern WB" and the need for further precision has been neither explained nor addressed with the suggestion to use terms without exactly specified denotations." (MeteorMaker [15])
  • Withdrawn. Since I don't think anyone has explicitly supported the proposed sentence, which had been written by me, I'm withdrawing it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical region

[edit]
Result: Withdrawn. (Closed by Coppertwig 01:26, 11 May 2009)

Including this subclause:

  • 6C) In phrases such as "the biblical region of Judea", etc., or
Comments:
  • Withdrawn. I had put this in based on a compromise on a particular article that Nishidani had mentioned earlier. Since I don't think anyone has explicitly supported this clause, I'm withdrawing it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It did not represent what I would have preferred. I mentioned it as an example of how, a year and a half ago, on one page, two people of opposed views compromised in a gentlemanly fashion." (Nishidani [16])

Specifying re geographic phrases

[edit]

Striking out "as part of a geographic phrase which appears in a source, for example":

  • 6D) As an adjective as part of a geographic phrase which appears in a source, for example in the term "the [Samarian/Judean] hills" or variations thereof, or
Comments:

Limitations on qualified uses

[edit]
Result: Withdrawn. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including clause 7, and mentioning it in the last sentence of clause 6 by including the italicized text in clause 6:

  • 6) ... Any uses of the terms must be in one of the situations described in (7) and must use one of the following qualifications below:
    • ...
  • 7) Qualified uses as described in (6) will be used only in one of the following two situations
    • 7A) The term is part of a longer verbatim quote from a source; or
    • 7B) The term is used in the source; and the term is being used in Wikipedia as a means of specifying a geographical location.
Comment to 7A: "Quote" should be changed to "attributed quote" to avoid ambiguity. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to 7B: The first part is self-evident (it's the definition of "verbatim" after all, which is covered by 7A) and the second part is both ambiguous and questionable: By "being used in Wikipedia", do we mean "once, in any article", or "consistently"? Neither seems to have any support in sources anyway (see 6G). I suggest we strike it. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to MeteorMaker: I don't understand: you want it to say "verbatim attributed quote"? That seems unnecessary to me. A hypothetical example of a problematic situation might help. Quotes in Wikipedia are always supposed to be attributed. "We do not want to plagiarize, so be sure to attribute it to the source" Wikipedia:Quotations, so such a problem should never come up anyway. Your comment on 7B doesn't seem to make sense when you notice that the proposed text is suggesting using either 7A or 7B, not both at once. By "being used in Wikipedia", I meant the particular use being discussed: that is, the use in the proposed edit being allowed or not-allowed by this guideline. Maybe there's a better way to word it.
However, including this clause complicates things, and much of this is already covered in the other clauses anyway. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Again, I had proposed this text, but I don't think anybody has explicitly supported it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was once Samaria

[edit]
Result: Withdrawn. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including this clause:

  • 8) Since some sources do use the terms in modern times, phrases such as "what was once Samaria" or "what was once Judea" are not appropriate in the NPOV neutral voice, although e.g. "what was once the kingdom of Samaria" may be OK in some contexts, for example when discussing archeology, or in one of the situations in (7).
Oppose. It seems unnecessary to specifically exclude a particular phrase (that hasn't even been identified as problematic in the extensive discussions) in the guidelines. The rationale also appears to be flawed: It's well documented that the terms J&S are historical and have been universally superseded by "West Bank". They're still in use in Israel, but so are many other terms that we don't automatically consider appropriate for Wikipedia's neutral voice. I also fear that this, by extension, would be interpreted by some editors as a prohibition of phrasing similar to Encyclopedia Britannica's "Samaria corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory". [17] MeteorMaker (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (but willing to stand down if I'm the only one supporting). I disagree with you that "the terms J&S are historical and have been universally superseded by "West Bank"": you admit in the very next sentence that the terms are still used by Israelis. This clause is not stating that the terms are appropriate for Wikipedia's neutral voice. The neutral voice needs to say only things that people from all significant POVs can accept as valid. If there is disagreement about a point, the neutral voice cannot say either A or not-A, but must restrict itself to saying things like "source X asserts A". The phrase "what was once Samaria" seems to me to pretty directly contradict the Israeli POV that Samaria is still Samaria; therefore, that phrase is not NPOV and can't be used. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Again, I had proposed this text, but I don't think anybody has explicitly supported it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Proportion of mentions

[edit]
Result: Withdrawn. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including this clause:

  • 9) The proportion of mentions of the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" as compared to the mentions of "West Bank" in a collection of related Wikipedia articles should not exceed the overall proportions of those mentions in similar contexts in reliable sources.
Oppose. This follows automatically from the above points, and would only be interpreted by nationalist editors as a carte blanche to introduce the terms up to what they perceive as the overall proportions of mentions in similar contexts in reliable sources. Endless discussions and wikilawyering would ensue. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Apparently (unless I've made a mistake) nobody has sxplicitly expressed support for this clause. My intention in including this clause was to limit the use of the terms "Samaria" and "Judea", yet it's opposed by MeteorMaker, who wishes to limit the use of those terms. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Periods covered in antiquity

[edit]

Replacing "the relevant periods" with "the period up to the first century CE":

  • 1) References for antiquity follow sources and use Judea and Samaria for the relevant periods the period up to the first century CE.
Comments:

West Bank "preferred" or "to be used"

[edit]

Replacing "preferred" with "to be used":

  • 4) "West Bank" or "the West Bank" (capitalized) is the most commonly used name for the land area known by that name, and is preferred to be used ...
Comments:


Periods for use of West Bank

[edit]

Striking out some text re when to use "West Bank" in the last part of clause (4);

  • ... , especially in the context of events after 1967. It can also be used in the context of events before 1967, especially 1949-1967. The terms "northern West Bank" and "southern West Bank" can be used to refer to parts of it.
Comments:
  • "...Read the primary documents from official Israeli government correspondence with the United States, from 1956-1964, for example (two crisis periods) as cited in specialist histories of the period, and you will find ample use by American diplomats, Israeli diplomats and politicians, of the term 'West Bank'. ..." (Nishidani [18]) "Since all major specialists accept in their histories of 1949 onwards the designation West Bank, except for Herbert Druks, who is not a chaired historian of note, I think the 'West Bank' as the vox propria for the area 1949-2009 is non-negotiable for NPOV." (Nishidani [19]) Nishidani gives a list of uses prior to 1967 here, leading to a discussion ending with Nishidani's comment here.
  • "When West Bank was used prior to '69, it had a different meaning from today, as it was then in Jordan, and was the "West Bank" of the river. ..." (Tundrabuggy [20]) "...See this link for serious evidence that the term was rarely used as a proper name prior to 1967..." (Tundrabuggy [21]) (Discussion about the link to a search engine result for "west bank" for 1948-1967, whether capitalization matters etc. continued, ending with MeteorMaker's comment here)
  • "...Surely it does still refer to the west bank of the Jordan river? That is, it's a geographical term, which has/had political implications in terms of suggesting that the area was part of Jordan (ie, not part of "Palestine" nor of Israel)..." (Nickhh [22])


Period covered by the guidelines for modern times

[edit]
"Guidelines 4–10 refer to modern times (After 1948? After 1950? After 1967?)."
Comments:

Infobox

[edit]

Including subclause 6G re infobox:

  • 6G) The term is being used in an infobox field specifying the geographic region, as long as the administrative district is also specified in the same infobox (Israeli regional council/sub-district, or Palestinian governorate)
Comments:
  • As I stated above, I don't really see a need for this, as neither "Samaria" nor "Judea" themselves are widely regarded to be geographic regions [23] (but sources to the contrary would be welcome). The only place where J&S are used as geographic and not historic, terms is Israel, and while that makes the terms perfectly OK to use in Israeli Wikipedia, it has been shown that their use as alternatives to West Bank in English Wikipedia is not compatible with WP:NCGN, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. (Footnote: I notice the blanket topic ban of Samaria-dispute participants hasn't taken effect yet, so technically I'm still allowed to comment). MeteorMaker (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Samaria and Judea [are] both geographical terms ...The Samaria article clearly outlines the geographical boundaries of the region ... Here's what Zev Vilnay, a professor of geography, says about Samaria (from 1980):
Samaria—land
Stretches from Judea in the south, the Jezreel Valley in the north, the Sharon plain on the Mediterranean coast—in the west, and the Jordan Valley—in the east. Samaria is mountainous. ...
(Ynhockey [24])

Placenames within quotes

[edit]

Including this clause:

  • 10) However, when one of the placename terms appears in a quote from a source which is being used for other reasons, the placename is not to be elided from the quote for the purpose of reducing the number of mentions of the placename.
Comments:
  • "The proposal is unacceptable unless this clause is put back in. Nobody should be allowed to censor the sources" (6SJ7[25])
  • "treacherous ... any editor would be allowed to write "President Obama has vowed unconditional commitment to the security of the illegal Zionist entity", using this quotation from Iranian radio ... "... vows unconditional commitment to what he calls the security of the illegal Zionist enity.."" (MeteorMaker [26])
  • "... MM's analogy is completely logical. If you break NPOV by according Israel an exceptional status (its toponyms are to be used for land it occupies as a belligerent), then this sets a precedent for all minority terms, or nationalistic labels, throughout wiki. ..." (Nishidani [27])
  • "I disagree about your Barack Obama example, MeteorMaker, because quotations would still be subject to common-sense rules such as not quoting out of context." (Coppertwig [28])
  • Strong oppose. As I pointed out above, this would only allow partisan editors to cherrypick sources that contain instances of their desired terminology in complete defiance of the spirit of these guidelines. See the long discussion above for the arguments why this is a singularly bad idea. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or alternatively:

  • 10A) Placenames appearing as parts of quotes, when such quotes are present for other reasons, can enrich the encyclopedia by showing readers the variety of placenames that are in use by various people. However, if such inclusions cause a placename to appear more often in a group of related articles than is proportionate to its use in reliable sources, the placename can be elided from some quotes.
  • Proposed as compromise by Coppertwig [29]
  • "What's the point in drafting guidelines if the last clause effectively annuls the rest?" (MeteorMaker [30])
  • "I don't see it that way at all; there's nothing in the rest of the guidelines preventing placenames from appearing as part of quotes, nor do I think there ought to be." (Coppertwig [31])
  • "...Your suggested amendment, to override those basic rules with a rule that specifically allows problematic terminology as long as it's contained in quotes, and motivating the arrangement with "Placenames [...] can enrich the encyclopedia by showing readers the variety of placenames that are in use by various people" runs counter to both core policy and the spirit of this document." (MeteorMaker [32])
  • How about replacing "quotes" with "direct quotes"? This would take care of the Barack Obama example above, which involves a paraphrase rather than a direct quote. I meant direct quotes (verbatim, inside quotation marks) when I wrote it; maybe that wasn't clear. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

[edit]

As the outcome of this page will be linked to an arbitration case, I am curious to see how the participants and other observers see it as progressing. Please comment below, but please keep comments on other comments to a minimum (I will ask noninvolved admins remove or trim ad hominem or off-topic or unduly long statements). I am setting up some subheadings to maintain some order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is heading towards a policy

[edit]
  1. Probably. No guarantee. Very little discussion activity at the moment. Planning to do an RfC, but perhaps waiting first to (a) find out who among the "Judea & Samaria 8" get exemptions to participate in the discussion, and (b) hopefully get consensus on a single version, if possible, before putting out an RfC. There seems to be disagreement on a few points in the threads above, but the people who expressed disagreement are not currently actively discussing. Not sure what process to follow: perhaps asking uninvolved admins or uninvolved editors to close discussions in some threads. Some questions may need to be left open during the RfC, but hopefully not too many so it won't be too complex for participants. (I.e. easier if there's just one version to consider.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Probably. As Coppertwig says, it is remarkably quiet in here. I do think it will be useful to have things set as policy but it will help to have a substantial number of people be seen to support it. At Talk:Israel#Disputed Territories there is a discussion that is about to reach its 3-month anniversary with a small number of editors fighting for a minority terminology to be used for the occupied territories. Such a discussion could potential crop up in any number of other articles. A centralised policy will at least confine discussion to one place. However, I think we should reach a near-consensus here before throwing things open for editors who have not even considered the principles behing IPCOLL.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Probably. Hopefully, now that the arbcom case is closed, we can have some civilised discussion motivated by common sense and encyclopedia-building. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, do you support the current wording

[edit]
  1. Acceptable, but room for improvement. For example, the year when the modern period starts should probably be given as a single number rather than several choices. Also there are suggestions in the threads above that could be incorporated. I'm not strongly opposing anything (not blocking consensus if I'm the only one opposing anything, at least for now). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Acceptable Willing for minor changes to happen. Also want Occupied Territories covered.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Acceptable Overall structure and tone is good. Minor points may need further clarification/adjustment. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Acceptable Ditto OrangeDog & Peter cohen. Just some tweaking needed. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't heading towards a policy

[edit]

If not, why not

[edit]

Shall we split voting for consensus on individual segments of guidelines to facilitate process

[edit]

Yes

[edit]
  1. Yes. It will be easier to get consensus that way. Otherwise, if it's all put into one bundle, then many people will vote "oppose" on the whole thing because there's one little part that they oppose. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes Agree with Coppertwig's rationale.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes Seems to be a good idea. Let's not go overboard with it though. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No

[edit]

Occupied etc Territories

[edit]

A first mulling over in my head, inviting initial responses and redrafting before someone puts a proposal on the main page.

"# When refering collectively to those areas captured by Israel during the Six Day War, the terms the Israeli-Occupied Territories or the Occupied Territories are most widely used internationally may be used. The terms include the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.

"##The terms may or may not include the Sinai Peninsula, according to whether a historical or the present-day situation is being discussed. If, in a particular instance, the reader may be left in any doubt whether Sinai is included, then editors should make this clear in the text.

"##The Status of Jerusalem is particularly complicated. East Jerusalem, excluding the former enclave of Mount Scopus, is generally regarded as part of the Occupied Territories. It is sometimes explicitly listed as such but is also sometimes implicitly included as part of the West Bank. Editors should be aware of the potential for differences in usage between sources and should make the sense being used clear in the article.

"##The terms the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Palestinian Territories refer to those of the territories that were part of pre-1948 territory of the Mandate of Palestine. It therefore includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and, usually, East Jerusalem and excludes the Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula. Whilst these terms are not deprecated, in most many cases it will be simpler and less likely to cause dispute just to refer to territories explicitly, for example as "the West Bank and the Gaza Strip".

"##The term the Disputed Territories is strongly associated with one side of the debate and for that reason is generally deprecated. However, it may be used:

"###in verbatim quotes, where it is generally best not to paraphrase it,

"###or when discussing and explaining the use of the term itself."

--Peter cohen (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. Mostly it looks good to me (although I don't know enough about the topic to be able to judge). I have some concerns about the statement "the terms the Israeli-Occupied Territories or the Occupied Territories are most widely used internationally." This is the type of statement that would require verification by one or more reliable sources, which you haven't provided. The guidelines should reflect consensus, and I'm not sure whether there would be consensus for a statement of that nature. Even if true (and generally agreed upon) now, it could change in future, so I'd hesitate to make such a statement in the guidelines. I did a couple of Google News searches which, without doing a proper investigation, looking only at the number of hits and the nature of the hits on the first page or two, seem to suggest that "West Bank" may be used far more often than "Occupied territories" in this context (remembering that each of those terms will have hits that are talking about other parts of the world). Generally, the guidelines should talk about how to write the articles, not make statements about the real world such as whether a certain term is used more often out there; those sorts of statements can appear in articles, where they can be edited more easily if things change in the real world.
How about changing "are most widely used internationally" to "may be used" in the first clause?
Hmm. If the United Nations considers East Jerusalem to be occupied, and if Israel considers it to be part of Israel, can it be called "occupied" in Wikipedia's neutral voice? If not, maybe many other parts of the world also couldn't be called "occupied" because the occupying force might tend to issue a decree that the territory is now part of their country. Would such a decree tend to be considered by Wikipedia to represent a significant minority POV? I'm not sure. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I've made a couple of alterations to the draft above. What I was thinking as part of the complication is that the likes of Britain and the Vatican believe that Jerusalem as a whole should have been a corpus separatum or that it should be an internationally administered holy city. The corpus separatum issue is why most countries avoided siting embassies there even before 1967 and why some have Consulates General there to this day. It's a whole layer of extra complication on top off the situation with the rest of the land captured in 67.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To remove a double negative (which I find hard to follow) and generally simplify while keeping the same meaning, I suggest that "The terms the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Palestinian Territories exclude those areas that were not in the pre-1948 territory of the Mandate of Palestine (i.e. the Golan Heights and Sinai). Whilst these terms are not deprecated, in most many cases it will be simpler and less likely to cause dispute just to refer to "the West Bank and Gaza Strip"." be changed to "The terms the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Palestinian Territories refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and while these terms are not deprecated, in most many cases it will be simpler and less likely to cause dispute just to refer to "the West Bank and Gaza Strip"."
I've taken the liberty of editing the above proposed text, changing the order of the 3rd and 4th point so that East Jerusalem is discussed along with Sinai as potentially included in "occupied territories", and I've added some wikilinks. I hope you don't mind me editing your text here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I've tried again reversing the hrasin in the second point and explaining the third and fourth points further. I don't mind your changes at all. Feel free to make more until it is ready to go on the main page.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gloss for quotes

[edit]
Summary: Four editors opposed including the phrase. (☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Extended content
"where it should generally be glossed with "(Israeli term for the [northern/southern] West Bank)"," Added by MeteorMaker here: [33]
Comments:
  • Oppose (but willing to stand down if I'm the only one opposing). There are two possible purposes to such a gloss: (1) to inform readers who might not know what the term means, and (2) to affect the POV, i.e. to distance Wikipedia from the term, making it clear that we don't talk that way in our neutral voice. As far as (1) is concerned, I think we can leave this up to the editors of a particular article: it will depend on context, for example whether there's a wikilink nearby to a page that explains the placename. Generally I think this additional information would be unnecessary, as the reader can just type "Samaria" into the search box if they don't know where it is and want to know. Those who want to delete "Samaria" entirely from the quote can't think it's all that essential that the reader know where it is. I consider (2) unnecessary, since the quotation marks already distance us from the terminology. Material presented within quotation marks is obviously expressed in the dialect and political viewpoint of the speaker, not in Wikipedia's NPOV. Adding a gloss like that distances us too far: makes it look as if we are not only not presenting that POV ourselves, but are uncomfortable even quoting it, as opposed to other POVs that we describe or quote without any problem.
    It's not clear to me whether this gloss is supposed to go within the quote (where it would interrupt the flow) or immediately after the whole quote (where it wouldn't be clear what term it's referring to). If inside, it should be in square brackets, not parentheses. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 6A and 6B seem overly skewed to affect the POV. In particular, "Zionists" may come under WP:TERRORIST guidelines, being a label that can have negative connotations. I agree with Coppertwig that the best way to clarify such a usage is with a wikilink. I Support 6D through 6F, especially that Samarian/Judean should be used as a geographical adjective where appropriate (rather than political adjective). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 6A is needless; the terms are ancient, originally Roman. 6B is POV against Israelis & Zionists, & wrong, implying these groups originated the names. I suggest using Samaria/Judea & the local name, as (for instance) in the case of Moscow (Moskva). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mostly per Coppertwig. Quotes should be exact where possible, we shouldn't rephrase them. We can explain the unusual terms where they aren't explained already (I'm somewhat less supportive of "just type into the search box"; an article should be able to stand alone). --GRuban (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank)/Archive_1&oldid=1137425334"