Talk:Israeli settlement/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Request

Hi, I'm trying to take a look at this, as an uninvolved admin, but there are such large amounts of text being moved around, that it's a bit difficult to follow. If I'm understanding things correctly, there's a dispute about whether or not use the word "Samaria" in the lead, and so several sources keep getting moved back and forth in the article, as the phrase in the lead keeps getting changed around. In order to try and stabilize things a bit, would it be possible to at least put those sources in a different section of the article with a ref name, so they're not getting moved around so much? I have no opinion as to whether as to whether the term should or shouldn't be used in the lead, but at least if the ref isn't being moved around as well, things might be a bit easier to follow. Also, since there seems to be a bit of a deadlock here, I'm curious, has an RfC ever been attempted on this issue? --Elonka 06:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, no RfC so far. We have operated on the assumption that the dozens of reliable sources for the "Samaria is a term used exclusively in Israel" position presented here and elsewhere [1][2], in addition to surveys (both following WP's strict protocol and more informal), would outweigh mere opinions and weak anecdotal evidence. No such luck. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

surprisingly, despite the claim of "dozens of reliable sources", to date, not one has been produced that actually says "Samaria is a term used exclusively in Israel". Perhaps if one such source could be produced, we could avoid an RfC. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, I'm not sure how MM found himself defending the argument that the term is used solely by Israelis. Like many loaded terms, it is (a) controversial within Israel and (b) common parlance among annexationists outside of Israel. For years William Safire used it prominently and frequently in his New York Times columns.

It has gone slightly out of vogue in recent years, at the same time that referring to the West Bank (and sometimes Gaza) as "Palestine" has become much more common (not only among RS writers but even among American statesman). For the moment, however, neither "Judea" nor "Samaria" nor "Palestine" are acceptable terms for Wikipedia's neutral voice.--G-Dett (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Being a partisan term, it's no surprise that "Samaria" is (or was) used by partisans like William Safire. It's closely associated with an ideology whose center is Israel, but there's clearly no perfect 1:1 geographical relationship. It's simply a convenience generalization: Instead of the technically more correct "used by the Israeli government, the settler movement and their supporters within Israel and abroad, and large groups of regular Israelis", we use "used only in Israel" for the scope of this discussion. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There is now an RfC at Talk:Samaria. Your views (preferably backed with reliable sources) are welcome. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

One week later: No new sources have been presented for the "Samaria is in widespread use outside Israel" position, except another handful of examples that show that Israelis (and people affiliated with foreign Zionist or Israel lobby groups) sometimes use the term [3], which never has been contested. The facts so far are thus still the same as the ones compiled in these two lists [4][5]. Some new cites that further confirm the findings that the term is not in widespread use outside Israel have been added to the discussion. [6]. Looking at the massive evidence on one side and the complete lack of anything beyond than a few counts of anecdotal evidence on the other, I think it has been shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that 1) the term "Samaria" is not widely used and 2) its use is confined to Israel. The article should reflect these two facts. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

One week later: No sources have been presented for the "Samaria is not a modern toponym" theory - which is, of course, the only relevant theory on the table. Looking at the massive evidence on one side and the complete lack of anything beyond than a few counts of anecdotal evidence on your side, and the massive evidence disproving it, I think it has been shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that your theory is completely bogus. I will, however, grant you the "most humorous argument" award for claiming to have proved that "its use is confined to Israel" in the face of over forty reliable sources from outside Israel using the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Generally, people try to avoid the parrot argument for two reasons:

1. It creates the impression of an obstinate four-year-old.
2. It necessitates stating falsehoods that are embarrassingly obvious to everybody. Again, I direct you to this compilation of the provable facts that have been presented this discussion so far [7]. All explicitly support the position you're down to the most puerile tactics in the book to fight. I'm aware of your list of anecdotal cites (that you have duplicated four times for good measure), it's just that none of them says what you want them to say: that "Samaria" is widely used outside Israel, and thus compliant with WP:NCGN, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the term Samaria, please provide evidence (aside from your disproved and discredited anecdotal cites) that that toponym is not widely understood outside Israel or Not widely understood outside Israel. Also, please review desist from "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". Finally, please review WP:NPA, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Still preferring the parrot argument, I hear. You have yet to explain how explicit quotes from the other major online encyclopedias [8] are "anecdotal evidence", or how you have "disproved" them. I'm also beginning to get the feeling that despite numerous requests, we will never see a proper example of the "deliberate asserting [of] false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors" that you keep deliberately asserting I've engaged in. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You keep asserting that these sources discuss the way the "toponym Samaria" is used; where do they do so? Also, which "explicit quotes" were you planning to use in this article? Regarding the rest, whenever I ask you to desist from deliberately asserting false information, it is in direct response to an example of such. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

They do so in the two columns "Samaria is in regular mainstream English use" and "Samaria is in partisan or non-English use". Here's the direct link so you don't have to scroll down.

To answer your question, I'm not planning to use any "explicit quotes" at all, I'm just posting the link to the table of sources so you can see for yourself that "Samaria" does not fulfill the requirements for neutral and widely used terms.

I note that you're still repeating the claim that I have "deliberately asserted false information", could you please back that up with something tangible? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You keep either referring to anecdotal evidence based on uses of the term, or to descriptions of the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria" - not the geographic term "Samaria". We are discussing the geographic term "Samaria" here. Regarding your deliberately asserted false information, when you say none of them says what you want them to say: that "Samaria" is widely used outside Israel, you are deliberately asserting false information. I am not trying to make the sources say anything; it is you who keep trying to remove terms from Wikipedia, based on your theories. I am merely disproving your theories, nothing more. Your constant attempts to reverse both cause and effect and the burden of proof, are "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, your claim that I have "deliberately asserted false information" was a complete fabrication. MeteorMaker (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jay's theory here is that when the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" are discussed together, then what's really being discussed is a collective singular term "Judea and Samaria," discussion of which perforce does not constitute discussion of the individual terms "Judea" and "Samaria." He believes moreover that this is the case even when the source quotes the terms separately and refers to them in the plural. His theory furthermore holds that in all such cases, the source is really talking about an "administrative district," not a geographic entity, and that this is the case even when the source in question defines its subject explicitly in terms of geography and says nothing whatsoever about governance.

The theory, it will be noted, is equal parts nonsense and balderdash, and of course there are no sources to support it. But the theory is useful, insofar as it allows him to dismiss scores of excellent sources using some version of the specious opening sentence of his post above.--G-Dett (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Samaria poll

Just so I'm understanding here, this entire dispute is boiling down to one sentence in the lead, correct? The choices are:

1. "An additional eighteen settlements formerly existed in the Sinai Peninsula, twenty-one in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank."
2. "An additional eighteen settlements formerly existed in the Sinai Peninsula, twenty-one in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank."
3. "An additional eighteen settlements formerly existed in the Sinai Peninsula, twenty-one in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank, Palestine." (suggested by G-Dett)

To help me get a sense of who prefers which version, could each editor weigh in with one comment below, on which version you prefer, or if you have any other suggestions for a compromise? Please be clear, This is not a vote, this is just a way to gauge where everyone stands. Thanks, --Elonka 19:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer the second; in this case, the use of both terms helps comply with NPOV, and "Samaria" is more geographically restricted (and therefore precise) than "West Bank". Also, in this case, the official government statements on the withdrawal referred to used exactly that phrase, "northern Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Hi Elonka. Actually there's one more choice, per the discussion above:

3. "An additional eighteen settlements formerly existed in the Sinai Peninsula, twenty-one in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank, Palestine."

The choices boil down to (1) using only the term accepted as neutral and standard by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources; (2) using the term accepted as neutral and standard by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, in addition to a minority term favored by one party to the conflict and generally regarded as ideologically loaded; and (3) using the term accepted as neutral and standard by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, in addition to two minority terms: one favored by one party to the conflict and the other favored by the other, and both generally regarded as ideologically loaded.

• Huh? How is 3 compliant at all? Its the most POV of the three. I have trouble seeing how 2 "directly and flagrantly violates core policy" if 3 does not do the same. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Cripes, Elonka, I'm making a mess of obligations not to post until that kerfuffle of misprisions about me is cleared up on my page. But, bref, I agree with Jayjg and G-Dett that the first is the only formulation that accords with wiki criteria for NPOV. It's not a matter of preference, but of using the most neutral, internationally accepted terms available. Best Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• I'm all for the first suggestion, as per Nishidani. Nomenclature issues can be (and are) addressed in the article on the West Bank and Samaria. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.12.2008 16:36
• Agree with G-Dett, Jayjg, Nishidani and Pedrito. The first one is the best stylistically and has no POV issues. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• No 1, "northern West Bank". As others have said it is the simplest, most accurate, most neutral and most common, standard description. "Samaria" (and other terms) are used, but by a small minority of sources - by some way - and are politically loaded. We shouldn't be using anything other than the simplest, most accurate, most neutral and most common, standard description in the lead. Alternative names or naming disputes can be noted elsewhere in the article and/or in a more appropriate article (as they are). And please note (for what it's worth - it's not a clincher either way), it is incorrect to say that the Israeli government always uses "Samaria", whether in the context of this withdrawal or otherwise. It does not. --Nickhh (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Option #1 - per G-Dett, Jayjg, Nishidani, Pedrito and MeteorMaker. PR^talk 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Option #2 including the official Israeli names and the names that are included in excellent RS's. It strikes me that Jayjg did not mean the first option here as his argument following his vote makes clear. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course I meant the second, as was trivially obvious. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know, you might have finally decided to disengage. --Nickhh (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Option #2 - "Samria", unlike "Judea and Samaria", is a neutral term for this geographic region, and multiple sources use that designation in the specific context of the sentence in question. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Poll discussion

Choices (1) and (3) are policy-compliant. Of the two, (1) strikes me as cleaner, more elegant, and stylistically more in line with Wikipedia's traditional handling of these situations. Choice (2) directly and flagrantly violates core policy, and is therefore not an option.--G-Dett (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, is it your contention that references to "Samaria" and "Palestine" are "generally regarded as ideologically loaded" and do not comply with NPOV? Do you propose removing them all from Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Jay, no, it is not my contention that "references to 'Samaria' and 'Palestine' are 'generally regarded as ideologically loaded' and do not comply with NPOV." It is my contention that the use of those terms to refer to the West Bank in Wikipedia's default voice violates NPOV.

Jay, also note that when you make a strawman of what I say, I pay you and everyone else the courtesy of saying exactly in what way you've misunderstood and/or misrepresented me. That way, I avoid giving the impression that I'm simply pressing the word "strawman" as a panic button upon finding myself socratically checkmated.

Joshua, 3 is compliant with NPOV, even though it's stylistically monstrous. It's compliant with NPOV because, in addition to using the standard term accepted as neutral by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, it uses both minority POV terms: "Samaria" and "Palestine." 2 directly and flagrantly violates core policy (NPOV) because it uses (and implicitly favors) only one of the two minority POV terms. I think this distinction is fairly clear to all; in the interests of keeping this talk page fairly uncluttered, if you have further questions about it please see me on my talk page.--G-Dett (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If both terms are not-neutral then putting them both in the sentence doesn't make the sentence neutral. If I had a sentence about US politics that referred to Rethuglicans and Demoncrats it wouldn't be neutral because I had use both idiotic insults common among bloggers. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Samaria" and "Palestine" are both non-neutral, but they are not comparable to "Rethuglicans" and "Demoncrats." Both are used with intellectual seriousness by a minority of RSs. Both are ideologically loaded, but neither is a slur or epithet. It is acceptable to use both or neither; it's not acceptable to use one and not the other.--G-Dett (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Palestine" is a much larger (and even less precise) term than "West Bank", much less "Samaria", so it's not clear how it would aid in understanding. Are you trying to distinguish "West Bank, Palestine" from some other "West Bank"? Also, it seems to me that the parallel structure would be "West Bank, Israel". Anyway, which sources referred to the removal of these settlements from "West Bank, Palestine"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Palestine" is no more imprecise a term than "Samaria"; at any rate not one iota of this dispute is about "aiding [the reader] in understanding," despite coy winks and nods. It's about whether we should use minority POV terms in WP's default voice, and if so, how to do so in a balanced way. No, there's no other West Bank, and if you prefer "Samaria region of northern Palestine," that will do. I don't understand your point about "parallel structure." There are countless sources referring to the region in question as "Palestine," "West Bank, Palestine," etc., and anyone can play the source-farming game.--G-Dett (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "coy winks and nods", but it's uncivil in any event. Focus on content. Are there any sources referring to the removal of the four settlements in "West Bank, Palestine"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Review your tone with me. If you wish to communicate in modesty and candor and without irony, I am open to that. Avoid double standards and excessive delicacy regarding "incivility."

I am happy to move on to sourcing, but before I start typing, let me ask, is that where you've arrived in terms of your position? As long as sources use the ubiquitous terms "Palestine," "West Bank, Palestine," etc. in connection with the withdrawal from the four settlements, you're prepared to put your preferred minority POV terminology on an equal footing with the opposing minority POV terminology?--G-Dett (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing for a third option, using "West Bank, Palestine", on the grounds that it's the terminology used by one of the "sides". Without getting into the question of whether the sources supporting "nothern Samaria" are actually from a "side", I was wondering if there actually were reliable sources that referred to the withdrawal from the four settlements in the "West Bank, Palestine", as you seem to be asserting. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to understand the thrust of your question. The only source you've given for your phrase "the northern Samaria region of the West Bank" is a deadlinked op-ed from The Australian. The other sources are also op-eds. It's bananas that you're sourcing the POV terminology you want to use in Wikipedia's default voice to op-eds; only one indication among many of the absurdity of all of this. You want me to look around and find some op-eds that use the terms "Palestine," "West Bank, Palestine," etc. for this region? Um, OK. But this game of ping-pong has no relevance whatsoever. Wikipedia should use mainstream terminology when writing in its default voice.--G-Dett (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The "thrust" of my question is are there actually any reliable sources that refer to the withdrawal from the four settlements in the "West Bank, Palestine", as you seem to be asserting? All of the sources regarding the withdrawal from the four settlements in "northern Samaria" explicitly refer to "northern Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

All are op-eds, and you've been wasting our time.--G-Dett (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You claimed the "other side" used a specific terminology which you proposed as a "third option". However, that is apparently not the case. Therefore it is you, in fact, who has "been wasting our time." Jayjg ^(talk) 06:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Israel Hints at Uprooting Settlements in Palestine Peace Deal; 2. For the first time, settlements in Palestine are being removed; 3. Sharon...will be the Israeli Prime Minister to dismantle and remove settlements in Palestine...; etc., etc., etc. Stop wasting everyone's time.--G-Dett (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Now it is the Israelis who are going through the motions of disengagement from Palestine, with a similar objective in mind—to make it clear that “Israel is Israel and Palestine is Palestine"[9]; "Recent developments in the occupied Palestinian territory marked by the unilateral Israeli disengagement from Palestine had not given rise to an environment that was conducive to improving the lives of the Palestinian people." [10]--G-Dett (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "huliq.com" is, but I've read all five sources, and from what I can tell none of them refer to "West Bank, Palestine". In fact, none of them seem to refer directly to the four settlements in northern Samaria at all. Can you provide some reliable sources that actually use that terminology to refer to the location of those settlements? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, as G-Dett has pointed out, none of your sources refer to "the northern Samaria region of the West Bank" either. You claim that the Israeli ambassador to Australia has used the expression once in an interview with an Australian newspaper, however, the link is dead so there's no way to verify your claim. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources all say "northern Samaria", so that's mere Wikilawyering. As for the Australian paper, I quoted the source, therefore it said it. The claim has been confirmed by me. Period. If you are still concerned, go to a good library and look it up. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No wonder they all say "northern Samaria", that's what the place is called in Israel, and the sources are all Israeli, or Zionist orgs (except one that refers to the historical Samaria, and one that contradicts your claim altogether). How do you reason when you say the words of the Israeli ambassador to Australia somehow become Australian by being published in a local newspaper? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, there you go moving the goalposts again. First it was used only in Israel, then it was used only in Israeli sources, then it was used only by people alleged to be Israeli, then it was used only by members of Zionist organizations, then it was used only by by people who once belonged to Zionist organizations. When do these spurious and self-serving theories and rejections come to an end? As for things published in Australian papers, they're Australian. He doesn't provide a translation for the Australian audience, who, according to your "not a well-understood toponym" theory, shouldn't be able to understand it. Nor do the editors of the paper. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Those goalposts certainly haven't been moved since April 2008. This is what I said in the exact same kind of discussion @ Talk:Judea when you made the exact same accusation: "To avoid further accusations of "moving the goalposts": The claim (...) that the term 'Judea' enjoys widespread acceptance outside Israel today obviously excludes statements by outspoken Zionists around the world. " MeteorMaker (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That, however, was not what you argued regarding the term "Samaria". And, of course, we don't disqualify sources for being "Zionist", any more than we disqualify sources that are "Capitalist" or "Socialist". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Re "moving the goalposts": a pretty familiar tactic here is to take an unusual phrasal snippet from another editor's argument, put quotes around it, demand RSs who use exactly that phrase, declare the other editor guilty of "original research," then snip a new phrase and rinse/repeat while declaring the goalposts to have been moved. This ridiculous tactic is everywhere apparent on this and related talk pages; see for example the hilarious exchange on Samaria/Discussion of Sources where Jayjg rejects MM's proposed sentence "Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank; in the ensuing discussion MM points out that the West Bank and Samaria are "different-epoch names for the same area" and Jay asks for a source, and MM hits the ball out of the park with the following from Britannica –

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

– and Jay responds by "not[ing] that not one of your sources says 'Samaria and the West Bank' are 'different-epoch names for the same area'" and then thanks MM "for proving my point" – crossing his fingers and hoping that MM (and any other editor wading through these swamps of Beckettian/Carrollian/Kafkaesque/Ionescoan dialogue) will not notice that the disputed sentence said nothing at all about "different-epoch names for the same area," which was merely an incidental phrase MM used in a post, and around which Jayjg constructed an imaginary goalpost so that he could pretend MM's kick missed it. The real goalpost of course was MM's proposed sentence Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. And the Britannica source sailed through the uprights, high and dry.

Incidentally, the entire Samaria/Discussion of Sources page should be preserved by the Library of Congress. It is hilarious, truly wonderful. Here is my favorite passage; they're discussing a quotation brought by Jayjg to demonstrate that "Samaria" is a neutral, contemporary geographic term:

• (17) "(Though the northern parts of Samaria were occupied by the Iraqi army, as a Hashemite sister state, Iraq allowed Abdullah to exercise his political influence over the territories its armies controlled)." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 12.
  

Comment. Immaterial. The reference is to 1948, when Mandatory language prevailed.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Invalid objection. The book was published in 2006, 60 years after the Mandatory period. Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly historical usage, and thus irrelevant to the extent of the modern toponym's usage domain. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly published in 2006, not historical usage. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

See 13). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

See 13). Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

By all means, people, see 13). It doesn't disappoint. Oh, and just to be clear, "Holy Roman Empire" is a neutral contemporary term for today's central Europe, because a history book published in 2006 uses it when discussing the years 962-1806.--G-Dett (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To hyphenate thrust in 'The "thrust" of my question' gives a nicely adolescent macho touch to the jousting here, esp. where your interlocutor is a woman, particularly from a White knight endeavouring to salvage a desperate argument, one whose thrusts are likely to result in shooting 'blanks', as both Nabokov and James Joyce would appreciate. But the thrust of any question here is, as Elonka's (1) or (2) choices show, what formulation best fits NPOV.

'Northern Samaria in the West Bank' conflates an Israeli toponym (Samaria and Judea being in Israeli usage the 'West Bank') with the default international term for the area, 'the West Bank', thereby creating terminological dissonance. It manages to sweetly retain an Israeli tilt to language that nods towards international usage while subverting it, undoing NPOV while flourishing a conciliatory gesture in its direction. This is the default trick of much editorial imbroglios in the I/P area.

The 'thrust' of the only germane question is: why attempt a synthesis of Israeli usage and International usage when international bodies, intelligence organisations like the CIA, and authoritative area scholars simply speak of the specific event as Israel's withdrawal from the northern West Bank?

• ‘despite setbacks, 2005 witnessed the successful completion of the Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip and parts of the northern West Bank, first announced by prime Minister Ariel Sharon in February 2004 (YUN 2004, p.455). On 12 September, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and by 20 September, from four settlements in the northern West Bank, thereby putting an end to its permanent presence in the area’. Yearbook of the United Nations 2005: Volume 59, United Nations Publications, 2007 p.503

• ‘Israel withdrew from four settlements in the northern West Bank in August 2005’, The CIA World Factbook 2008, Skyhorse Publishing Inc., 2007 p.684

• ‘In February, the PA – supported by the Government of Egypt – brokered a deal between HAMAS, PIJ, and AAMB for a period of “calm” to allow Israel to withdraw from Gaza and four settlements in the northern West Bank . . The PA worked with the Israeli Government in preparation for the Israeli disengagement from Gaza and areas of the northern West Bank.' Anthony H. Cordesman, Arab-Israeli Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, D.C.), Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 p.286. With apologies to Arthur Rubin, with whom, pending his review of his judgement that I make personal attacks, rather than simply endeavouring to remind editors of their stated views, I undertook to never edit wiki again. Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani.  :) I read your post a few times, but I'm afraid I couldn't figure out which of options 1-3 you would prefer for this article. Could you please post something brief in the "poll" section above, to clarify? Thanks, --Elonka 16:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[Option #3] is a clear WP:NPOV and WP:POINT violation. We could also write up Levant or Middle East as well, but it has no correlation with the settlements themselves.Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC) clarify 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC) + 19:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support no.2 by default. I'm not really pleased with either 1 or 2 (Suggestion 3 should be retracted) but the settlements were clearly part of the Samaria. The phrasing is not that good though and I'm thinking (for now) that -- four in the Samaria district, at the northern region of the West Bank -- might work better. I would also promote a note that the political standing of the Samaria region is under dispute - which clarifies the disputed situation of the settlements. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Option #2 including the official Israeli names and the names that are included in excellent RS's. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I wonder if this post by JoshuaZ might be refactored down into the "poll discussion section," since he's responding to this post by me. I think it should be directly under Jay's question for me here (2nd half of diff), as it was originally. In my subsequent post, I respond to both Jay and Joshua. As it is now, Joshua's comment/question is in the section for "votes," even though he doesn't express a preference, and the exchange between the two of us is very difficult to follow, with his response coming before the post he's responding to.

Tundrabuggy, I wonder if I might put to you the same question I put to Jay: why should we use the "official Israeli name" but not the official Palestinian name? There are two parties to the conflict over territory and terminology, no? I agree wholeheartedly that we should use the standard term employed by the overwhelming majority of "excellent RSs," of course. I'm just asking why in addition to that accepted term, you think we should reserve a place for the "official" term of only one of the two official parties to the conflict.

Finally, I suggest all editors review the following from WP:NPOV:

A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.

In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.

Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited.

--G-Dett (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I trust now, after the policy has been clarified, that suggestion no.3 would be striken through. It is of equal value to adding "in Palestine" on the Israel article and/or "in Israel" to the Gaza and/or West Bank articles. This "suggestion" is pointy and disruptive and doesn't help working through a phrasing for the locality of the Israeli settlements in disputed territories. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following your reasoning here. Can you clarify?--G-Dett (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

reply to G-Dett: another part of my reasoning has to do with the fact that the Jewish so-called "settlers" were evacuating from settlements they themselves refer to as "Samaria." Since they are the principals involved in the drama, using their venacular is appropriate. The Palestinian territories only becomes "Palestine" when some accommodation is reached with Israel. "Palestine" does not have state status yet, thus I would ask where one finds the "official" Palestinian position? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I find this comment interesting on several levels ..

1) "So-called" settlers? Again, this is a term widely used and understood throughout the world, including Israel, so I'm afraid this hints at what we are dealing with - a group of editors who dislike and mock standard, neutral terminology and are subtly trying to elbow their preferred minority political terms into this encyclopedia.

2) "[Israeli settlers] are the principals involved in the drama". Well no, I believe other people live in the area as well. They are called Palestinians. I'm quite shocked by the apparent casual disregard you show for the other people involved in this "drama", and their views.

3) Following on from 2), you say that we should defer to the language of those living in settlements deemed illegal under international law, built on (and then removed from) land acquired by military conquest. I can think of equivalent name changes in history that could be applied, in other parts of the world. They wouldn't stand up here either.

4) To say there can be no official Palestinian position so long as there is no state of Palestine reveals a fairly limited grasp of both language and international politics, I'm afraid to say is, well, simply wrong of course

Cheers, --Nickhh (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, please comment on content, not on fellow editors. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Borderline incivility struck out, more general - and wholly accurate and legitimate - observations left in. --Nickhh (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange that nobody has pointed out that there ought to be a fourth alternative in order to maintain the symmetry:

"4. An additional eighteen settlements formerly existed in the Sinai Peninsula, twenty-one in the Gaza Strip and four in northern Palestine."

Then we would have one alternative with each form, one with both, and one with neither. For the record, I personally think bringing up the term Palestine in this context is a red herring. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett brought up the term Palestine in this context, you'll have to take it up with her. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

References

References for Samaria

What's going on here? eg article #5 is "Biblical significance of West Bank settlements" - not modern use. Other examples suggest only highly politicised use. Judging by screeds of previous work, modern, not point-making use of Samaria is almost unknown. PR^talk 08:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The article in question was published in 2005, and it doesn't use the term "Samaria" to refer to Biblical usage. As for the rest, please stop soapboxing, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, as shown on this page, source 4 acknowledges on p.1 that "most of the world refers to [J+S] as the West Bank". The rest of the 8 sources are not neutral: Refs 1, 2, 7, and 8 are quotes by Israelis, and 3 and 6 are by members or ex-members of Zionist orgs. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing the geographic term "Samaria", not the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria". Regarding the rest, Wikipedia does not discriminate against sources based on alleged ethnic or national origin, based on their having once been members of Zionist organizations, and suggesting it should do so is distasteful at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing whether the terms are neutral and thus suitable for the article or not, and one of your sources explicitly says they are peculiar to one side in the conflict (Israel). The rest of your sources, except the misrepresented IHT one, indicate the same thing by being of Israeli origin. If you had had the choice, you would probably have picked quotes by people from English-speaking countries, published in major US- or UK-based media. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

One source said the phrase "Judea and Samaria" was peculiar to one side of the conflict. It said nothing about the geographical term "Samaria". The rest of the sources were represented correctly, and were from reliable sources published in English-speaking countries. Sussex academic press, for example, is an academic press based in the UK. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The source Jay and MM are discussing is Israel's Unilateralism, by Robert Zelnick and Bob Zelnick. The passage in question refers to settlements "located in Judea and Samaria, what most of the world refers to the West Bank." Jay says the author is only talking about the collective noun phrase for the "Israeli administrative district," not the "geographical term 'Samaria'." But it's pretty clear that the authors see the individual "geographic terms" Judea and Samaria as politically loaded. Elsewhere in the same book they put both terms in scare quotes – individual sets of scare quotes, it should be noted:

Israel had committed itself to Palestinian autonomy...but Prime Minister Menachem Begin was far more intent on fortifying future Israeli claims to "Judea" and "Samaria" by building settlements there than he was to implementing the agreement.

The use of scare quotes here makes very clear the connection between the use of the term "Samaria" and the project of "fortifying future Israeli claims."

The relevant broader background here for the dispute on this page is this: Jay and Canadian Monkey are arguing that the collective singular phrase "Judea and Samaria" refers to an Israeli administrative district and is controversial, whereas the individual terms "Judea" and "Samaria" are merely geographical and uncontroversial. This claim of theirs is belied by Zelnick and Zelnick, as well as numerous other reliable sources who present not only the singular collective-noun phrase ("Judea and Samaria") but also the separate terms ("Judea" and "Samaria") as politically loaded.--G-Dett (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

References for Palestine

• Water for Agriculture: Irrigation Economics in International Perspective:...since the 1967 Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, Palestine...
• Multidisplinary Reserach in Control: ...Mohammed was born in the small town of Tulkarim in the West Bank, Palestine...
• Border Fetishisms:When I did fieldwork in Jabal Nablus (West Bank, Palestine)...
• Hate Work: In Ramallah, West Bank, Palestine, Daniel Barenboim...
• Primary Source Readings in Christian Morality: ...he became vice president for academic affairs at Bethlehem University in the West Bank, Palestine.
• Urban Water: Jericho is a town in the West Bank, Palestine
• The Metabolic Syndrome at the Beginning of the XXIst Century: Urban/rural setting has no influence on prevalence estimates of the MEtabolic Syndrome among residents of the West Bank, Palestine ...

Note: All the references in the top list refer specifically to the four removed settlements described in the lede. None of the references in the bottom list do. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: shouldn't we have a set of references for "[simply] northern West Bank", without Samaria? Nishidani's belong in that category, as do the following sample ..

• Israeli Embassy in the UK - "evacuating nearly 30 settlements, including every Jewish settlement in Gaza and more in the northern part of the West Bank"
• Haaretz - "Samaria is the biblical name for the northern West Bank"
• William Safire - "Sharon preferred to refer to [the] land by biblical names: Judea and Samaria .. but Palestinians call it the West Bank and have won that terminological battle"
• Palestine facts - "the phrase West Bank has stuck, and is used to the near total exclusion of any other"

Note of course that I have deliberately chosen Israeli media, Israeli government, Israeli/American partisan sources. --Nickhh (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Only one of those quotes refers directly to the four settlements in northern Samaria. The last two aren't even about the geographical term "Samaria", but rather are about the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Click on the two examples Jay's talking about, and you'll begin to understand the shell game being played with "geographical terms" versus "the name of an Israeli administrative district." The first of the two, William Safire, describes Ariel Sharon's preference for "Biblical names," plural. The second of the two asks "What do the names Judea and Samaria refer to?" (plural in original, emphasis added) and answers "Judea and Samaria... are historical parts of the land of Israel" (plural in original, emphasis added). Then it has a map with "Judea" and "Samaria" marked separately. Then this:

The mountains of Judea are first named in the Book of Joshua, in the account of the conquering of Canaan by the Israelites during the creation of the Land of Israel. From that time to the present, more than 3,000 years, the name Judea has been consistently used to describe the territory from Jerusalem south along the Judean mountain ridge line, extending east from the mountains down to the Dead Sea.

This is one of the sources Jay claims isn't about geographical terms. Of course it's about geographic terms. Biblical language yielded geographic terms which became controversial when the Israeli government began using them in an effort to "fortify future Israeli claims," as one of Jay's own preferred sources puts it. As will become apparent to anyone who watches the pea and the shells long enough, there is no hard-and-fast distinction between these "geographic terms" drawn from the Bible on the one hand and the "name of an Israeli administrative district" on the other.

So why the shell game? So that whenever a source is introduced that talks about how these Biblical/geographic/administrative terms are (a) politically loaded and (b) part of a "terminological battle" that has been lost, Wikipedia editors can say Meh, that source is only talking about the term for an administrative district – the component geographic terms are fine, neutral, and dandy. Um, no they're not.--G-Dett (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Zelnick, there are 10 cites on the usage ref list that treat "J+S" as separate names by using plural, and say they are the preferred terms in Israel (or by settlers, or Likud). I just added one cite that also states this:

"Israelis often refer to the northern West Bank region by its biblical name of Samaria."

Technically, for Wikipedia purposes, that closes the case. (Speaking from experience, I will probably have to post that cite once a day for at least two months). MeteorMaker (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That does indeed close the case.--G-Dett (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

context

all 8 references use this term in thi scontext - that is more than enough to establish relevancy. NoCal100 (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't yet, please participate in the #Samaria poll thread above, thanks. --Elonka 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's a bit tendentious to cherrypick eight references of which almost all are from one side in the conflict, one of them even a government official. Also, as pointed out above, one of the sources contradicts the implied claim that the area is called "Samaria" anywhere else than in Israel. The only ref remaining is a reference to ancient Samaria, not the modern West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The references are from Arie Marcelo Kacowicz, Pawel Lutomski. Population Resettlement in International Conflicts: A Comparative Study, Lexington Books; The Middle East Strategic Balance 2005-2006, Sussex Academic Press, 2007; Getz, Leonard. "Likudniks Against Sharon: Rebels or Loyalists?", The Jewish Exponent; Zelnick, Robert. Israel's Unilaterialism: Beyond Gaza, Hoover Press ; International Herald Tribune, August 23, 2005; Sofaer, Abraham D. "Disengagement First", Hoover Digest 2005 No. 1, Hoover Institution; Journal of Church and State, Autumn, 2007; None of these are identifiable with "one side in the conflict". Talk about tendentious, you comment above has to be the epitome of tendentiousness. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know where the refs are from, there is no need to clutter the page with repeating them still another time. Four of the eight are of Israeli origin [11][12][13][14] [15], which we now agree makes them unsuitable as NPOV material EDIT: Over-optimistic interpretation of the fact that CM chose to not include them in the list above. Two are members or ex-members of Zionist orgs [16][17], one of them the National Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America. I think it's faily obvious that selecting these sources from all that are available isn't exactly the epitome of impartiality.

Of the two remaining sources, one, International Herald Tribune, is clearly a reference to ancient history. The article uses "West Bank" consistently, as does every article in the IHT online archive. There are 5144 instances of "West Bank", while "Samaria" is used 48 times, every time accompanied by an explanation of the term to the effect of "the name the settlers use for the West Bank". [18].

The last remaining source (Zelnick) has this to add to the terminology discussion:

"[...] Judea and Samaria, what most of the world refers to as the West Bank."[19]

So, of 8 cites, six are from one side in the conflict, one is a misrepresentation of the source, and one contradicts the implied claim that "Samaria" is widely used outside Israel altogether. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight: We do not agree that the given references are "unsuitable as NPOV material", nor do we agree that about the criteria that make a reference unsuitable. I have seen you use this tactic of falsely claiming there is agreement where none exists before, and I have seen other editors complain that this is misleading, so I will ask you once more to stop it, and will follow up at the appropriate administrators' forums if you don't.

Wikipedia does not disqualify sources or assign them a certain POV based on nationality or ethnic origin, or decades old membership in organizations. An Israeli is not automatically on "one side of the conflict" based on his or her nationality. Azmi Bishara is not on the same side of the conflict as Ariel Sharon, even though both are Israelis. An author is not automatically on "one side of the conflict" just because he was, at one point in his life, a member of a certain organization. Noam Chomsky is not necessarily on the same side of the conflict as Abraham David Sofaer, and is clearly on a different side of the conflict from Baruch Marzel, even though they all belonged to Zionist organizations in their youth. The attempt to pre-judge a person's stance on the conflict based on nationality, ethnicity or his decades-old membership in an organization is not only logically fallacious, it is quite distasteful.

The only sources that are unquestionably on "one side of the conflict" are official government sources, or those that come from organizations that are openly partisan. With the exception of the op-ed by the Israeli ambassador to Australia, none of these sources are identifiable as being on "one side of the conflict". They are academic publications, mainstream newspaper articles and Jewish magazines - all impeccable reliable sources that use the neutral term "Samaria" to describe the geographic region also cumbersomely defined as 'the mountainous part of the Northern West bank', in the context of discussion the dismantling of Israeli settlement there. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Samaria", being used almost exclusively by Israeli/Zionist sources [20], is not an NPOV term[21]. Can we agree on that and save everybody a lot of time this Christmas? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we simply do not agree that "Samaria" is used almost exclusively by Israeli/Zionist sources, as more than 3 dozen references have shown. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Will you insist it's "distasteful" to point out that most of those sources are of Israeli origin? [22] MeteorMaker (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd insist it's pointless, since, as I have described above, being an Israeli does not, in and of itself, determine your stance on the I-P conflict. You will find it instructive to look at the Bishara/Sharon example. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, so you just single-handedly made the whole NPOV policy obsolete? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't accept using 8 Iranian sources to introduce the term Zionist entity as an acceptable alternative to "Israel". MeteorMaker (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly accept 8 sources, whether Iranian or not, to support what Zionist entity says - that it is a pejorative euphemism in the Arab world for the State of Israel. If you find 8 reliable sources that say Samaria is a pejorative, or POV term , we might consider including that in the relevant article. Here, we are dealing with 8 impeccable and reliable sources that use the neutral term "Samaria" to describe the geographic region also cumbersomely defined as 'the mountainous part of the Northern West bank', in the context of discussion the dismantling of Israeli settlement there. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That was not the question — I asked you if you'd accept changing "Israel" to "the Zionist entity" in this and other articles, if the change were supported with 8 Iranian cites. Remember, being an Iranian does not, in and of itself, determine your stance on the I-P conflict.

Your respect for impeccable and reliable sources is noted. There's a lot more than 8 impeccable and reliable sources that support the position that "Samaria" is an ancient, not modern toponym [23]. Might we consider including that in the relevant article? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have not read, or understood, my answer. Since our article says that the term is pejorative, it can"t be used as a replacement for Israel, no matter the ethnicity of those who use it. In contrast, you have yet to produce even a single source for your original research claim that that '"Samaria" is an ancient, not modern toponym ". Please do so , at your convenience, as this has been requested by multiple editors, more than once. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You have probably seen these cites before. Now, where are yours, that explicitly state it is a modern toponym? Or are you relying on synthesizing of anecdotal evidence, pitifully weak at that? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I have, and I note, for the umpteenth time, than none of those sources say '"Samaria" is an ancient, not modern toponym". I am not making the opposing claim, so I don't need to support it, all I need is to quote reliable sources that use the term in the context it is discussed- and I am doing just that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(<---outdent)

(Outdent) This is how talk pages expand exponentially. Forgive me for adding to the page clutter by posting them again here, but the link I keep posting constantly goes ignored:

'"Samaria" is an ancient, not modern toponym": Encyclopedic sources

• Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:

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

• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

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

• Columbia Encyclopedia:

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

• Encarta:

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

• Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names:

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

Re the usage domain of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria":

• Encyclopedia Britannica Online says:

West Bank, area [...] occupied from 1967 by Israel. The territory, excluding East Jerusalem, is also known within Israel by its biblical names, Judaea and Samaria.

• Columbia Encyclopedia says:

West Bank, territory, [...] largely occupied by Israel [...] Israelis who regard the area as properly Jewish territory often refer to it by the biblical names of Judaea and Samaria.

And if you say you are not making the claim that Samaria is a modern, not just ancient, toponym, how do you explain this? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No-one is ignoring your sources; they just don't support the claims you make for them. And if you're going to re-post your sources, there's no reason why I shouldn't also re-post the many sources that disprove your theory:

"Samaria" is used in dozens of modern, reliable sources

1. "Its intention was to establish a Jewish settlement in the heart of Samaria, the northern bulge of the West Bank, densely populated by Arabs." Ian Lustick For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, p. 45.
2. "Few in number until the late 1970s, the young Gush Emunim settlements in Samaria, the Etzion bloc, and Kiryat Arba attracted the most idealistic and dynamic fundamentalist activists." Ian Lustick For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, p. 54.
3. "Rabin intended the settlement to be temporary and to relocate them later within the confines of the Allon plan, not in the heart of Samaria. The settlers, however, refused to move." Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. To Rule Jerusalem", Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 170.
4. "The row houses of Ofra, a Jewish suburb to the north of Jerusalem, are planted in deep red soil at the foot of Ba'al Hatzor, the highest mountain in Samaria." Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. To Rule Jerusalem", Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 213.
5. "In August 2005, reversing his longstanding position on championing settlement of the Land of Israel, Sharon evacuated all of the Jewish settlements in Gaza (some 9,000 people living in twenty-one communities) and four small settlements in the northern part of Samaria (West Bank)." Alfred J. Kolatch. Inside Judaism: The Concepts, Customs, and Celebrations of the Jewish People, Jonathan David Company, 2006, p. 270.
6. "On 18 September 1978, one day after the signing of the Accord, 700 Gush Emunim members established an unauthorized settlement in Samaria..." Lilly Weisbrod. Israeli Identity: In Search of a Successor to the Pioneer, Tsabar and Settler, Routledge, 2002, p. 112.
7. "LAST STAND IN SAMARIA", Kevin Peraino, Newsweek, August 15, 2005.
8. SAMARIA, Martin Gilbert, The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Routledge, 2005, p. 134 (and other maps showing Samaria).
9. "The relative success in establishing official settlement in Kfar Etzion and unofficial settlement in Kiryat Arba prompted groups of Israelis to attempt settlement in the major town in Samaria — Nablus.", Allan Gerson. Israel, the West Bank and International Law, Routledge, 1978, p. 139.
10. "In Samaria the voting percentage increased from 75% in the Jordanian period to 83.9%..." Allan Gerson. Israel, the West Bank and International Law, Routledge, 1978, p. 185.
11. "Nevertheless, Haganah commanders recognized that the size of the Iraqi force and its location in northern Samaria made it a dangerous threat." Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, University of Nebraska Press, 2004, p. 153.
12. "The prospects for a successful defense also improved during this period with the arrival of a large Iraqi expeditionary force in northern Samaria, enabling Glubb to withdraw..." Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, University of Nebraska Press, 2004, p. 279.
13. "...wanted to concentrate their forces along shorter defensive lines in the mountainous terrain of central Samaria." Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, University of Nebraska Press, 2004, p. 296. (many other similar examples in this book).
14. "The first actual step taken by the group was to settle in Elon Moreh in Samaria." Santosh C. Saha, Thomas K. Carr. Religious Fundamentalism in Developing Countries, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, p. 73.
15. "Northern Samaria is one of the harsest setting in the territories... In addition there have been many convoys bringing food, medical supplies, and other necessities to blockaded villages in Samaria and on the western "seam line". David Dean Shulman. Dark Hope: Working for Peace in Israel and Palestine, University of Chicago Press, 2007, p. 102.
16. "Arafat lived in the casbah of old Nablus in Samaria and held his meetings in small Nablus cafes or in the New Generation Library." John Laffin. Fedayeen; the Arab-Israeli Dilemma, Free Press, 1973, p. 26.
17. "(Though the northern parts of Samaria were occupied by the Iraqi army, as a Hashemite sister state, Iraq allowed Abdullah to exercise his political influence over the territories its armies controlled)." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 12.
18. "Kiryat Arba (near Hebron) and Elon Moree (in Samaria) were, until 1977, the only settlements founded in the West Bank outside the lines of the Allon Plan." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 95.
19. "In 1981, at the end of Begin's first term as Prime Minister, there were about 80 settlements in the West Bank, some in the densely-populated Arab areas in Samaria and elsewhere." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 96.
20. "The first settlement had been built in Samaria, and settlers believed that they had begun the task of preventing territorial compromise in the West Bank." David Weisburd. Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985, p. 30.
21. "While the government had acted quickly to forcibly uproot previous settlement attempts, it did not move against the settlers in Samaria through December 7." David Weisburd. Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985, p. 32.
22. "Success in restoring some order was due to the energy and skill of the district governors — in Hebron a Palestinian, Nairn Tucan, in Samaria another, the active Ahmed Khalil, and in Jerusalem Abdullah Tell." Ann Dearden. Jordan: history and special problems, R. Hale, 1958, p. 85.
23. "...as a reaction to the October War, and the character and impact of the illegal settlement attempts in Samaria from late 1974 onward." William W. Harris. Taking Root: Israeli Settlement in the West Bank, the Golan, and Gaza-Sinai, 1967-1980, Research Studies Press, 1980, p. 135.
24. "As regards physical activity Gush Emunim had carried all before it for two years and had planted the presence in Samaria which would be extremely difficult to curb, let alone uproot." William W. Harris. Taking Root: Israeli Settlement in the West Bank, the Golan, and Gaza-Sinai, 1967-1980, Research Studies Press, 1980, p. 157.
25. "In Samaria, the number of women employed in sewing has risen from 100 in 1967 to just over 3000 in 1972." Vivian A. Bull. The West Bank--Is it Viable?, Lexington Books, 1975, p. 123.
26. "A third sector was opened up in the north, where Gen. Elazar sent the armoured brigades of Ram and Bar-Kochva from Ugda Peled to take Nablus and Jenin in Samaria." John Laffin, Mike Chappell. The Israeli Army in the Middle East Wars 1948-73, Osprey Publishing, 1982, p. 19.
27. "For example, in the case of the settlement-city of Ariel - the largest settlement in Samaria, coincidentally named after Ariel Sharon - the design was stretched into a long, thin form." Stephen Graham. Cities, War, and Terrorism: Towards an Urban Geopolitics, Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p. 181.
28. "Likud planners designated Ariel to become the largest Jewish town in Samaria, with as many as one hundred thousand residents by the year 2010." Robert I. Friedman. Zealots for Zion: Inside Israel's West Bank Settlement Movement, Random House, 1992, p. 72.
29. "... but late on June 6 he broke through to capture Nablus, the key to road communications in Samaria... Jordanian defences in Samaria fell apart." John Pimlott. The Middle East Conflicts: From 1945 to the Present, Orbis, 1983, p. 68.
30. "On the other hand, we visited the planned city of Ariel on the top of a mountain in Samaria, one of Israel's West Bank settlements." Peter Laarman. Getting on Message: Challenging the Christian Right from the Heart of the Gospel, Beacon Press, 2006, p. 46.
31. "Yael Meivar was shot by terrorists near the settlement of Alei Zahav in Samaria." Anthony H. Cordesman, Jennifer Moravitz. The Israeli-Palestinian War: Escalating to Nowhere, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005, p. 26.
32. "Marking Israeli Arbor Day at a Jewish settlement in Samaria on Feb. 3, Shamir said...", Andrew C. Kimmens. The Palestinian Problem, H.W. Wilson, 1989, p. 211.
33. "Carter concluded that the unresolved issues included... the future of the Palestinians in Samaria, Judea, and Gaza..." Herbert Druks. The Uncertain Alliance: The U.S. and Israel from Kennedy to the Peace Process, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, p. 175.
34. "Jewish settlements in Samaria in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would be under Israeli sovereignty." H. Paul Jeffers. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Jerusalem, Alpha Books, 2004, p. 212.
35. "Instead the government based its view on the map previously introduced by Clinton Bailey which envisaged three self-governing Palestinian enclaves, with an Israeli corridor in Samaria." Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Dawoud Sudqi El Alami. The Palestine-Israeli Conflict: A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld Publications, 2001, p. 86.
36. "Instead, he chose total disengagement from Gaza and the dismantlement of four settlements in northern Samaria." Zvi Shtauber, Yiftah Shapir. The Middle East Strategic Balance 2005-2006, Sussex Academic Press, 2007, p. 123.
37. "Prior to forming his new coalition with the Labor Party, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon strong-armed members of his Likud cabinet to support Labor's idea of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and four settlements in northern Samaria." Getz, Leonard. "Likudniks Against Sharon: Rebels or Loyalists?", The Jewish Exponent, 01-13-2005.
38. "Understandably so: in the end, the Gaza withdrawal took all of six days while the pullout from four settlements in northern Samaria was accomplished in a single day." Zelnick, Robert. Israel's Unilaterialism: Beyond Gaza, Hoover Press, 2006, p. 157.
39. "The four West Bank settlements that Israel is evacuating are all located in the biblical Land of Israel — territory that observant Jews believe was promised to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria, was inhabited by the tribe of Menashe, one of the 10 tribes of Israel that were forced into exile." "Biblical significance of West Bank settlements", International Herald Tribune, August 23, 2005.
40. "Others not only support comprehensive talks but call for abandonment of Israel’s plan to disengage from Gaza and four settlements in northern Samaria." Sofaer, Abraham D. "Disengagement First", Hoover Digest 2005 No. 1, Hoover Institution.
41. "In August 2005, Israel vacated the Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip--mainly in Gush Katif--as well as four settlements in northern Samaria." Inbari, Motti. "Fundamentalism in crisis - the response of the Gush Emunim rabbinical authorities to the theological dilemmas raised by Israel's Disengagement plan", Journal of Church and State, Autumn, 2007.
42. "Four settlements will be evacuated in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank." Tamir, Naftali. "Naftali Tamir: Retreat with peace in mind", The Australian, August 15, 2005.
43. "There are many who believe that a Palestinian State should be established in the near future, with Samaria, Judea and the Gaza Strip as its territory." Gilland, Bernard. "Zionism, Israel and the Arabs", Contemporary Review, January 2003.
44. "it was discovered that the Israeli Defense Ministry had begun covertly recognizing certain "unauthorized" settlements in Samaria". Hitchens, Christopher. "The iron wall"], Salon.com, April 13, 1998.
45. "The plan favors the western slopes of Samaria..." "Israel's next war? A Chronology", PBS Frontline.
46. "During 2003, Israel's Ministry of Construction and Housing decides to finance the buying of caravans or light mobile homes by regional Jewish councils in Judea, Samaria and Gaza..." "Israel's next war? A Chronology", PBS Frontline.

As has been proven time and again, dozens of sources published in many different countries (not including Israel) use the term Samaria. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I will refrain from adding to the page length even more by copying the refutals.

Jayjg, instead of posting a fifth identical copy of that list, you could post a simple link to the static page where it's already on display (that's what I do, except on one occasion when somebody had repeatedly ignored the link [24] and kept making the absurd claim "you have yet to produce even a single source for your original research claim that that '"Samaria" is an ancient, not modern toponym" — which the reposting of cites from several encyclopedias finally put an end to.

Some day, you will have to explain your interpretation of WP:SYN. I doubt the policy makers' intention was that verbatim quotes from well-renowned encyclopedias should fall under it. Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that self-serving original conclusions drawn from as little as a dozen cases of anecdotal evidence should get off scot free. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How many time have you posted your list of sources? 6? More? Link to the sources, or put them here and hide them, I don't care which, but don't keep filling the talk page with your repetitive list even as you apologize for doing so. Everyone has seen your list multiple times, no-one is "ignoring" it as you continually claim. They just reject your original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have only posted it once, here. Small parts of it have been posted earlier, but never since the ref page went up, except the one-off clarification for CM I described above. Your thoroughly refuted list currently exists in five copies however.

Since you keep ignoring it, I must ask you again: How exactly do you see WP:OR and WP:SYN as being applicable to verbatim quotes from encyclopedias [25]? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, none of the encyclopedias says "Samaria is an ancient, not a modern toponym". None of them say anything like that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

For instance, Britannica Concise Encyclopedia says:

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

I can't see any problems with writing something similar in the Samaria article. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no discussion of "toponyms" there. Please review WP:NOR, and particularly WP:SYNTH. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Toponym" means "place name". The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia on Samaria says it's "ancient" and uses the past tense, except when explaining it corresponds to "the modern West Bank territory". Still think it's WP:OR and WP:SYN to say "Samaria" is ancient and corresponds to today's West Bank? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, this is the Israeli settlement article, not the Samaria article. In addition, I see four dozen sources using it to describe a modern region, and there are dozens more. Also, an argument from silence is a pretty weak one; Britannica's decision to use the term to describe a region in "ancient Palestine" does not mean that it does not also describe a region in modern Israel. And finally, Wikipedia is not Britannica. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is not Britannica. You assume that if an encyclopedia does not state what you want it to state, you are free to make up your own facts. The sad fact that such tactics work on Wikipedia is one thing that sets it apart from real encyclopedias like Britannica.

Also, I don't see four dozen sources using "Samaria" to describe a modern region, only about one tenth of that, but we've been through that. I think I have explained the concept of anecdotal evidence and how it relates to WP:SYNTH a few times as well. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You've have indeed discussed the concept of anecdotal evidence and how it relates to WP:SYNTH, but that doesn't seem to have stopped you from doing it. Remember, it is you who is trying to prove various theses, not me; I'm just disproving yours. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not very succesfully, I must say. Again, how are verbatim quotes from encyclopedias like Britannica "synthesized anecdotal evidence", and how are the conclusions you draw from your list of anecdotal evidence anything else than synthesized? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite devastatingly, actually. As for your anecdotal evidence, none of it actually discusses the use of term "Samaria". Which quote from Britannica were you planning to use in this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

MM, for the life of me I can't understand why you're (a) trying to discount sources on account of tenuous relationships to the Israeli establishment; and (b) allowing the burden of proof here to be placed on your shoulders by trying to knock down each and every source that uses the term.

The term "Samaria" is inappropriate for Wikipedia's neutral voice in the present context for exactly the same reasons that "Palestine" would be inappropriate: because only a tiny fraction of sources use the term in this way (as opposed to, say, historically), and because the fact that the term is politically loaded is well sourced.

Nothing more needs to be said, and really, nothing more should be said. Canadian Monkey is exactly right in saying that it's neither here nor there whether a given source is Israeli, provided that they aren't an Israeli official or a representative of a partisan organization. CM is wrong, however, when he says that the term is "neutral," but the way to demonstrate that is to cite sources saying it's non-neutral, and point to the rareness of its use. Not to go through each and every source adduced and try to demonstrate the source has some self-evident bias.--G-Dett (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with that statement. We don't use "Palestine" merely because it's POV, but also for the sake of encyclopedic accuracy and clearness. As Palestine has so many possible meanings in time and space, it is encumbent on us to use the term only when it is appropriate, and we do in fact use it in the project. It is appropriate to use Samaria in this context. We do not summarily refuse to use "Palestine" throughout the project, as some are apparently attempting to do with Samaria. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, if we limit the discussion to this article. However, I do think it's relevant to state, if nothing else in the Judea and Samaria articles, that the terms are exceedingly rare outside Israel, and the rest of the world uses them exclusively as ancient toponyms. [26] It's baffling and almost amusing how those who are intent on trying to refute that position constantly bring up Israeli sources as purported evidence of outside-Israel use. If nobody calls the cards and does the fact-checking, the sources might pass as legit. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I do agree with your position on those other articles, if your position is that we should describe use of the term outside of Israel as "exceedingly rare" because in our survey of the literature, we find its use exceedingly rare. Jay will call this original research, and in this case he'll be right. What we can (and perhaps should) do is point out that use of the term for present-day realities is seen as politically loaded. That's abundantly well-sourced.--G-Dett (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, Wikipedia does have a well-defined methodology for determining if a toponym enjoys wide acceptance in English. It has been applied here, with a pretty conclusive result, and despite repeated invitations, none of the term's proponents has yet found it worthwhile to repeat the test. That in addition to numerous sources that explicitly say that "Samaria" is not a modern toponym outside Israel (CM – they're posted here.)

Not that I propose to change the Samaria article to use the exact words "exceedingly rare" – this is the suggested sentences Jayg & co keep rejecting:

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

Given the excellent sources and impeccably NPOV tone, I can't see how it violates any WP policy, or even can be seen as problematic. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem would be that the sources show it's not just used in Israel. So, it would violate WP:V to start. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:V, do you have a reliable source for your claim "it's not just used in Israel"? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you, I haven't been making that claim in articles. Do you believe it to be untrue? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you have relied on that claim to block addition of abundantly well-sourced material in the Samaria article for two months now, and to try and add the term "Samaria" in other articles such as this one, I think it's not unreasonable to ask you to present a reliable source, like I've done here. Please don't post that [refuted list] of anecdotal evidence a sixth time, I'm asking you for a reliable source that actually states "the term Samaria is not just used in Israel". MeteorMaker (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Reversing the onus won't work here. I haven't tried to add the term "Samaria" to articles, instead you have been trying to remove or deprecate it, based on an unsourced argument using anecdotal evidence. Please provide a reliable sources that actually states "the term Samaria is just used in Israel". Also, please answer the question; do you believe that the term "Samaria" is only used in Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My bad, it was in fact user:70.23.22.223 who tried to add the controversial terminology to the article [27], not you. So, shall I post the encyclopedia excerpts again so soon? Naturally, I could also repost a selection of the reliable sources I keep linking to that all say it's Israel-specific terminology, but in that case, you will have to forgive me for forcing the admins to archive older posts again to make space. And then I hope you will give me the courtesy to finally post anything to back up your claim above that "the sources show [Samaria] is not just used in Israel", preferably a source that actually says so. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question added it to the article on January 27, 2007, and it peacefully remained there until November, 2008, when you decided to remove or deprecate all references to "Samaria" on Wikipedia. As for your synthesized anecdotal evidence trying to prove the term is "only used in Israel" or "not well understood outside Israel", I'd recommend not posting it yet again, particularly as I've posted dozens of sources published outside Israel that disprove your claim. See the references posted above to refresh your memory as to how thoroughly your theory has been discredited. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It surprises me too that it wasn't caught right away, considering how controversial it turned out to be. Again, how are verbatim quotes from encyclopedias like Britannica "synthesized anecdotal evidence", and how are the conclusions you draw from your list of anecdotal evidence anything else than synthesized? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

MeteorMaker, you have quite blatantly refused to answer a simple question. I'll bold it here, so that we can avoid further obfuscations and equivocations. Do you believe that the term "Samaria" is only used in Israel? We'll need an answer to that first before we move on. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I believe I asked first. Again: 1) How are verbatim quotes from encyclopedias like Britannica "synthesized anecdotal evidence", and how are the conclusions you draw from your list of anecdotal evidence anything else than synthesized? 2) When you say Samaria "is not just used in Israel" do you have a reliable source for that claim? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1) They are anecdotal evidence because none of them actually discuss the use of the term "Samaria". 2) Irrelevant, since I've never actually inserted the claim into the article. 3) This is the endgame, now. Do you believe that the term "Samaria" is only used in Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] The question Do you believe that the term "Samaria" is only used in Israel? is not the endgame but rather a total red herring. The endgame is as follows:

1. "Samaria" is a POV term.
2. MM and others have brought scores of excellent RSs explicitly attesting to this, and scores – perhaps hundreds – more could be added.
3. Your theory that sources discussing the term "Samaria" while also discussing the term "Judea" are in fact discussing a "administrative district" and therefore not the term "Samaria" is unproved, unprovable, disproved, and in fact ridiculous to begin with.

That's the endgame, the checkmate, my friend. If you would like me to hold your hand through #3, or show you the demolition of your theory in slow motion, let me know.--G-Dett (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I think you are conflating "Judea and Samaria", which is a politically loaded term (and I have written as much, in response to MM, two months ago when he embarked on this crusade), and "Samaria", which is a neutral geographical term, used in many places, from the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine to modern day maps produced by the CIA. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain there are excellent sources documenting that the terms (plural) "Judea" and "Samaria" are politically loaded. I know there's been an effort on Wikipedia to discount these sources by saying that they're only talking about the single term "Judea and Samaria," used solely in an administrative sense, but that effort seems doomed, belied as it is by the sources in question.--G-Dett (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I'm now positive (not "fairly certain" as I was above) that there are excellent sources for "Samaria" being a politically loaded term (and not just the singular administrative term "Judea and Samaria").--G-Dett (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Arabs Against Discrimination (and I am amazed that there is no wiki article on them)-- in their online site, use the term "Samaria" in some 67 articles. This would demonstrate to me that it is used by people on the other side of conflict as well as Zionists, Israelis, Jews, Christian Zionists, "settlers", historians, archeologists, assorted wackos and others... [28]Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I thought I would do a little research as well, to demonstrate "general usage," & studiously avoiding any Israeli authors, and steering clear of most "Jewish" sources, though I do think that doing so is discriminatory and against the spirit of wiki. Don't believe I've duplicated any of Jay's sources.

1. Arabs against Discrimination use it 67 times: [29]

Comment: I haven't checked all 67, but it appears that all instances of "Samaria" on aad-online.org are simply reposts of Israeli news articles and Israeli official documents. (The same, incidentally, goes for the vast majority of the occurrences on bbc.co.uk). MeteorMaker (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• If nothing else it demonstrates that they are quite aware of the usage and understand it and "use" it in communicating with others, whether it is their own words or not...Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, it demonstrates your commitment to your stated ambition to "studiously avoid any Israeli authors", if the very first one is a collection of news clips from Israeli media and press releases from the Israeli government. I don't think there is even one of the 67 pages with "Samaria" in them on aad-online.org that wasn't originally from an Israeli news source or organization. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Zionism, Israel and the Arabs [30]fny, Jan, 2003 by Bernard Gilland -- "There are many who believe that a Palestinian State should be established in the near future, with Samaria, Judea and the Gaza Strip as its territory."

Comment: Appears to be legit. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Though Bernard Gilland seems to be an ardent anti-Muslim, writing letters to the Jerusalem Post where he advocates desecrating dead bodies of Muslims and blowing up the Al-Aqsa mosque. [31][32]MeteorMaker (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevance to the issue at hand? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Chistopher Hitchens in Salon.com[33] despite occasional use of "scare quotes" around Judea and Samaria, does not use them here: ...."it was discovered that the Israeli Defense Ministry had begun covertly recognizing certain "unauthorized" settlements in Samaria"

Comment:

The covenant made by Jabotinsky [...] calls for permanent Israeli control of "Judea and Samaria" along with the aspiration for so much of what is now Jordan.

Note the quotation marks. If "Samaria" were a part of Hitchens' own terminology, he would probably have used the term more than in one single article on salon.com. Compare to the 80 hits for West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, he uses it minus "scare quotes" -- it is in common use and clearly understood by both "sides" in this conflict.

If you have a source for that claim, feel free to present it. After Hitchens has distanced himself from the term in the beginning of the article, there's no need for further "scare quotes", because he has already established that it's not his own terminolgy. Claiming otherwise is just silly, particularly in light of the fact that he hasn't used the term ever again [34]. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Hitchens distanced himself from the phrase "Judea and Samaria" at the beginning of the article, not from the geographical term "Samaria", which he clearly uses without scare quotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

He distanced himself from "Judea and Samaria", but not from "Samaria"? How did you arrive at that conclusion? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

By reading his words. "Judea and Samaria" is the name of an Israeli administrative district. Hitchens comments on it. Where does Hitchens comment on the term "Samaria"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by reading his words. So, what exact words does he use to say he distanced himself from the phrase "Judea and Samaria" at the beginning of the article, not from the geographical term "Samaria"? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You're now asking me to prove that Hitchens has not distanced himself from the geographical term "Samaria"? Again, stop trying to reverse the burden of proof; Hitchens doesn't comment on the term "Samaria", it is you who claims he distances himself from it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you have determined that "by reading his words", could you please indicate which words? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"it was discovered that the Israeli Defense Ministry had begun covertly recognizing certain "unauthorized" settlements in Samaria" Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Those words don't say "Hitchens distanced himself from the phrase "Judea and Samaria" at the beginning of the article, not from the geographical term "Samaria"". You must have arrived at that conclusion through some other method. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did Hitchens distance himself from the word "Samaria"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I quote you: "Hitchens distanced himself from the phrase "Judea and Samaria" at the beginning of the article." MeteorMaker (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And where did Hitchens distance himself from the word "Samaria"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly where MM says he did.--G-Dett (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

4. The UK Guardian: [35] "Israel will leave Gaza and four settlements in Samaria [the West Bank]."

Comment: The fact that it's a verbatim Ariel Sharon quote is obvious if you read the preceding sentence.

"Disengagement is on the way," the prime minister said last night. "The government has decided that by the end of 2005 Israel will leave Gaza and four settlements in Samaria [the West Bank].

MeteorMaker (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

5. American Thinker: Israeli settlements, withdrawal and peace [36]"On Monday August 22, 2005, the settlement called Kadim ceased to exist. Established in 1984 in north central Samaria, it was within walking distance to ..."

Comment: Scroll down a little and read this: "Benay Katz writes from Timrat, Israel". MeteorMaker (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear! He writes from Israel! Well, disqualify him, he is in Israel, lol. Never mind the impeccable source...Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, so much for your ambition to "studiously avoid any Israeli authors" (and Benay Katz is an Israeli [37]). MeteorMaker (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The American Thinker is, well, an American source. Not Israeli. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes and? Does that make Benay Katz an American source, not Israeli? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Things published in America are American. Of course, there's nothing wrong with Israeli sources either. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Except, of course, when you're trying to prove that non-Israelis use a particular term. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is trying to prove that? Remember, a) there's nothing wrong with Israeli sources, and b) in any event we don't discriminate against sources based on alleged ethnicity or national origin. It was in an American publication. Period. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Who is trying to prove that?" Indeed. Also. it's pointless to prove that the term is used in Israel, because everybody agrees it is. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The American Thinker is published outside Israel. Do you believe that the term "Samaria" is only used in Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I know "The American Thinker" is published outside Israel, but how is that relevant? Do you believe that the nationality of a writer changes when he/she is published abroad? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the provenance of a publication changes based on the author of each article? Do they hire a whole new set of editors too? Also, as explained many times, Wikipedia does not discriminate against sources based on alleged ethnicity or national origin, and it's distasteful to suggest it should. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Benay Katz using the word "Samaria" in "The American Thinker" is an example of an Israeli using the word, not an American. When e.g. CNN publishes a speech by an Israeli PM, they don't change it to "northern West Bank" either. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Using it in an American publication, which felt no need to explain or paraphrase his words for the general reader, contrary to your "not well understood outside Israel" theory. Also, as explained many times, Wikipedia does not discriminate against sources based on alleged ethnicity or national origin, and it's distasteful to suggest it should. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Benay Katz is an Israeli, not an American. Period. He even says so, explicitly, in the letter, so it's not like that's a secret. As proof of non-Israeli use, it's as worthless as your constant uncivil accusations of racism. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Peace Now’s Settlement Report: April 2005 [38] "In the first months of 2005 construction was continued in order to quickly expand as much as possible the settlements in the area of the Samaria road (near ...

Comment: Dror Etkes is an Israeli. [39] MeteorMaker (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ditto for this guy... Except that if you check you will see that Peace Now often uses the expression in its articles. Here is the Americans For Peace Now site search [40] with some 386 uses of the term and I assure you they are not all direct quotes. Can you disqualify these Americans? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "assuring" me they exist, kindly find me one clear, unambiguous example. I postulate all occurrences of Samaria are from texts written by Israelis (and FWIW, Peace Now is an Israeli organization). MeteorMaker (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Americans for Peace Now is an American organization. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Using lots of material from their parent site. If you have a tangible example, please show it, else kindly refrain from posting. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

7. Reagan and the "New" Israel - The New York Review of Books [41]"He contends that Reagan will not allow Israel to expand settlements in Samaria and Judea because that would endanger the revenues of American industries ..."

Comment: Paraphrase of Bernard Avishai. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter. Paraphrase or not. He could have said "what he refers to as J&S..." but did not. It is used and understood in common English. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't follow logically at all. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The claim that it is a "paraphrase" is more of that self-serving original research. He uses the term, period. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious to anybody who bothers to read it. If "Samaria" were in such wide use as you claim, shouldn't it be easy to find a clear-cut example? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"It's obvious to anybody who bothers to read it." = self-serving original research. There are many "clear-cut" examples, despite your attempts to dismiss them on entirely spurious grounds. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If such clear-cut examples exist, why do you keep defending a murky case like this one? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning is circular. It is you who claims it is "a murky case", based on self-serving original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The ones that are clear-cut, I acknowledge as such (Case in point: Bernard Gilland above).MeteorMaker (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment of which are "clear-cut" consists entirely of self-serving original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Self-serving original research that the original propounder of the example list should have undertaken to weed out things like the Samaria Gorge and direct quotes by Ariel Sharon. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use any references to "Samaria Gorge", though, nor is this instance a reference to "Samaria Gorge", so your response is irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you have clear, unequivocal, irrefutable evidence of the widespread non-Israeli use of the term you postulate, show it. The fact that you have to fight so hard to scrape together even a handful of anecdotal evidence is in itself evidence against your theory. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

8. Hotel Listings & Destination Guide for Europe & Russia[42] "We ate lunch at the deserted settlement of Samaria village, about 6 km down the trail. Be warned that there are markers telling you how far you've come and ... "

Comment: I see you have commandeered Crete's Samaria Gorge in your campaign now. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• If so, that would have been a error, for sure. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is an error, for sure, because the Samaria Gorge is on Crete and nowhere else. If you managed to overlook that, it speaks volumes about your fact-checking. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

9. After Attacks, Settlers Bend On Hitchhiking - The Forward [43]"The main settler organization, the Council of Jewish Settlements of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, has followed only slowly and reluctantly."

Comment: That's the name of a settler organization, aka Yesha Council. Can't be changed to "the Council of Jewish Settlements of Palestine" in a news article, can it? ;) MeteorMaker (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• No indeed, and considering that we are talking about settlers and settlements in this article, just another point in determining the appropriateness of the use in this particular wiki article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you didn't get the point, I'll rephrase the rebuttal: No news media, even in Israel, change the name "Palestine Liberation Organization" into "Judea and Samaria and Gaza Liberation Organization", and conversely, no news media change the name "the Council of Jewish Settlements of Judea, Samaria and Gaza" into anything else either, because it's the group's official name. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

10. PBS Frontline Chronology : [44]

10a. 1977-"The plan favors the western slopes of Samaria..."

Comment: "A Vision of Israel at Century's End" is written by then-Minister of Agriculture Ariel Sharon.

• My quote is not from the report, but from PBS commenting on the report. If PBS had wished to it could have used a disclaimer there ie [West Bank] or "the report refers to ..." etc. But the fact that it did not again demonstrates that the word is commonly used and understood.Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It has already been established in the chronology that when Israeli PMs speaks about "J+S", they mean the West Bank (which is the term pbs.org uses consistently). The full quote:

In June, Prime Minister Begin states: "Israel will not be able, under any circumstances, to withdraw to the June 4, 1967 lines, and will not do it. … We will not agree under any circumstances that in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip, a state called Palestine will arise. …" In September Minister of Agriculture Ariel Sharon unveils "A Vision of Israel at Century's End," a proposal for two million Jews to live in the occupied territories that builds on existing plans for additional settlements, homes and infrastructure. The plan favors the western slopes of Samaria in order to divide Palestinian population areas and offers many incentives for Israelis to move to settlements. "Make no mistake about it, this government will establish many new settlements. That's what it was elected to do and that's what it will do," says Sharon.

But in this case the source is talking about the geographical term "Samaria", not the Israeli government district "Judea and Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Because that's what Sharon did in the paraphrased text. Your point? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The don't have the term in quotes. The claim that the text is "paraphrase" is more self-serving original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It clearly is a representation of a passage in Sharon's report, which makes it a paraphrase by definition. Or do you disagree? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"It clearly is a representation of a passage in Sharon's report, which makes it a paraphrase by definition." = self-serving original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So what do you think it is? The compiler of the timeline, inserting his/her own thoughts where the yet-unbuilt settlements should be located? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done any original research on the subject. I don't really plan to, either. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to do some original research and look up the definition of the word paraphrase. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to less original research, and look up the definition of "self-serving". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In my dictionary, it's defined as "having concern for one's own welfare and interests before those of others", and here I am, wasting valuable work time to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, while you've been monomaniacally trying to re-shape Wikipedia's language to fit your political POV, I've actually written several Featured Articles, Good Articles, and Do You Knows. So, who is really "improving" Wikipedia? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

God knows what I could have done with just the time I've been trying to explain the meaning of simple concepts like paraphrase to you. I'm not getting paid to do this, I have to support myself with a real job. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

10b. 2003 -"During 2003, Israel's Ministry of Construction and Housing decides to finance the buying of caravans or light mobile homes by regional Jewish councils in Judea, Samaria and Gaza..."

Comment: The paraphrased report is written by former Israeli state prosecutor Talya Sason. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• PBS is an American broadcaster. Wikipedia does not discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnicity or national origin, and suggesting it should do so is distasteful at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• See comment above. In fact, it is clear that the expression "West Bank" is every bit as "politically charged" as it is claimed that "Samaria" is, though no one is trying to cleanse wiki of the expression. Clearly it is in common usage today, and understood by Arabs, Israelis, Americans, journalists, writers around the world. Obviously a "modern toponym." Tundrabuggy (talk)

Do you have a source for that claim, or is it the same synthesis of weak anecdotal evidence that Jayjg has been relying on for two months now? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit ridiculous. The sources "speak for themselves." And Jayjg's evidence is not anectodal. You seem not to understand the concept. If it were not in common usage and understood by Arabs, Israelis, Americans, journalists and writers around the world, why in the world would they use it? The name has been in use for just this land for centuries. It is the preferred use of half of the parties to the conflict as well as others. When exactly did "West Bank" get its modern toponym officially established? At one time (and not so long ago) "West Bank" was the minority "toponym". If your argument had been used at that time, it would never have been allowed to morph into "West Bank." Is it somehow more politically correct to say "West Bank" instead of "Samaria"? Why is it you seem to want to wipe out the perspective of one side of the conflict and justify it under the banner of "modern toponym" or "wiki's neutral voice"? What is neutral about "West Bank?" Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"In the preferred use of half the parties in the conflict", that made me LOL. That's a novel way to say "to hell with the NPOV policy". Well, news for you, "Judea and Samaria" is not the preferred term even in Israel.

You seem to have granted Wikipedia nomenclatural powers when you say "if your argument had been used at that time, it would never have been allowed to morph into "West Bank." Remember, WP can only describe, not prescribe. From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names):

By following English usage, we avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it. If English uses different names in different historic contexts, use the name appropriate to the specific historic context.

"What is neutral about "West Bank?"" Well, every single neutral source is using it, in addition to some not so neutral ones.

Your sources above indeed speak for themselves, and practically refute themselves, but with a little better fact-checking you could have found some that might have qualified as at least anecdotal evidence (as did a couple of Jayjg's [45]). The claim that "Samaria" is in wide use and understood by everybody is entirely unsupported by your cites. Of eleven, four are direct quotes by Israelis or full-text reposts of Israeli newsclips/documents, three are paraphrases of such texts, one is a case where you chose to not see the "scare quotes" around the term, one is the official name of a settler org (which cannot be changed in international media), and the pièce de résistance, one where you thought Crete's Samaria Gorge is in the West Bank. Remains one that is legit, but written by a person who also propagandizes for desecrating dead bodies of Muslims and blowing up the Al-Aqsa mosque. Very neutral.

MeteorMaker (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad you find my comment "the prefferred us of half the parties in the conflict" amusing, however you have done what you have accused me of, and that is to mischaracterise my position, as I am not arguing "Judea and Samaria" as you say, but Samaria only. I am still looking forward to your explanation of why, despite numerous contemporary and neutral references you are still insisting that Samaria is not a "modern toponym." Or when exactly the "modern toponym" of the West Bank was actually established as the only "correct" and "neutral" way of describing the place. Or when exactly Samaria became a banned word on wiki? Do we now refer only to al-Aqsa Mosque and no longer to Temple Mount because one can find more references to it than to Temple Mount? Perhaps we can rename Israel "Palestine" using your same logic. After all, the Arab nations studiously avoid calling it Israel, thus surely you will be able to find more references to "occupied Palestine" then to "Israel" in the media.

Samaria is an ancient and a contemporary usage. As for your contention that "every single neutral source" is using only "West Bank" -- well, that is simply untrue. I was not aware that we did background checks on reliable sources in wiki. I have had this discussion in the past, and if a report is published in a reliable source, that is all we ask in order to include it in our article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Many claims, no facts to support them.

• "It is untrue that every single neutral source is using "West Bank". OK. I think you'll have to look long and hard to find even a partisan source that doesn't. Jerusalem Post: 11,500 hits.
• "Samaria is a contemporary usage". Then it shouldn't be so damn difficult to find evidence of such usage outside Israel.
• "The Arab nations studiously avoid calling it Israel." I think you need to look up the word "studiously", this is the second time you use it differently from everybody else. Arab nations in fact use the name "Israel" a lot. [46][47][48][49]
• "You have mischaracterised my position, as I am not arguing "Judea and Samaria" as you say, but Samaria only". Despite four of your examples being about "Judea and Samaria", all refutals are based on the assumption that you are talking about Samaria only. Additionally, I have pointed out that "J+S" is a minority term even in Israel, but that is just bonus information and not essential to any of my arguments.
• "Numerous contemporary and neutral references [show] that Samaria is a modern toponym." If by "numerous", you mean the (at most) 5-6 cases of use by non-Israelis that have been presented so far in this discussion [50], yes. I'm convinced there are more than that out there. However, even a hundred instances of outside-Israel use does not satisfy WP's requirements for wide acceptance. Either you find a reliable source that explicitly states that "Samaria" is in wide use as a modern toponym outside Israel, or you perform this procedure, like I did here, and then present your findings
• "If a report is published in a reliable source, that is all we ask in order to include it in our article."Sorry, you're wrong. Please read this. Verifiability never trumps neutrality. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to the editors to determine the neutrality of what has been determined to be a RS. It has been argued that PBS is not neutral or the BBC, but they are still considered RS that we are permitted to quote and use. Same is true of the JP, Ha'aretz, etc. Take another look at WP:RS.Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not discussing the neutrality of the sources, we are discussing the neutrality of a term that has conclusively been shown to be used only by one side in the IP conflict.

Unlike you, I haven't been making any claims, and, in marked contrast to you, I haven't been marking arguments using the same synthesis of weak anecdotal evidence for two months now. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you, I don't use the parrot argument much [EDIT: After some refactoring, the post that Jayg copied and reversed the pronouns in can be found in this diff (the last one). I find it rather boring and non-constructive, just like your constant uncivil borderline accusations of racism. [EDIT2: The (last in the long line of) borderline accusation of racism, also detached from the reply through Jayjg's refactoring, is here] You keep insisting that verbatim quotes from Encyclopedia Britannica is anecdotal evidence and WP:SYN, care to explain roughly how you think? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should strike that "borderline accusations of racism" bit. It does nothing to bolster a weak argument, and is most unattractive. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I strike it if he strikes the claim that I'm "distastefully" "suggesting Wikipedia should discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnicity or national origin". Keep the discussion on topic, and kindly avoid misrepresentations of other editors' positions. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop noting your distasteful attempts to disqualify sources based on alleged ethnicity or national origin as soon as you stop doing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You claim the term "Samaria" is used outside Israel, scour the Web for examples, then respond with highly uncivil accusations of racism when it's pointed out to you that most of your examples are in fact of Israeli origin. I have warned you several times now. Please stop willfully misrepresenting my position in such a slanderous and uncivil manner or I have no choice but to report you. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

On the Talk: page of this article I claimed the term "Samaria" was used outside Israel because I have four dozen examples of such use. I have not inserted that claim into the article, and none of the sources I have used are "inside Israel". As for your "warnings", I haven't misrepresented you at all; you have repeatedly tried to dismiss sources published outside Israel because of their alleged ethnicity or national origin. In fact, at times you have gone further; you disqualify anyone who belongs to a Zionist organization, or even, in the case of Abraham D. Sofaer, because he belonged to one as a youth.[51] Here's an example where you try to claim that Miriam Shaviv, born and raised in Canada, living in London, and currently a Canadian and U.K. citizen, and for the last 3 1/2 years an editor at The Jewish Chronicle, is somehow also "Israeli" and writing for "foreign publications" when she edits the Chronicle.[52] Stop trying to disqualify sources on spurious grounds, including their alleged ethnicity and national origin, and I will stop noting how distasteful it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that I "have tried to dismiss sources because of their alleged ethnicity" is 1) highly uncivil and slanderous and 2) a complete lie. I have not reported you yet but I have warned you repeatedly that I cannot continue to assume good faith forever. I advise you to strike that accusation, here and in the dozens of other places you've made it. [53]

The additional claim that I'm "dismissing sources because of their nationality" is highly misleading if you fail to mention that the whole rationale for presenting the sources was that they are (purportedly) of other nationalities. Nobody contests that "Judea" and "Samaria" are used by Israelis, what you have been trying to prove is that other nationalities do too — and not very successfully, hence the change of tactics and lashing out with accusations of racism.

Re your two examples (from a long list of supposedly non-Israeli users of the term "Samaria" which on closer inspection turned out to be Israeli): According to her WP article, Miriam Shaviv is "an Israeli writer", so don't blame me if she isn't, blame sloppy WP editors. It's an uncontested fact that Abraham D. Sofaer was a member of a Zionist org (he even admits it himself) and has to my knowledge not renounced the ideology, and I shouldn't have to waste space explaining how Zionism is ideologically tied to Israel. You even presented the National Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America as a "neutral" user of the term "Samaria", which I find telllng. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

According to whom is it the case that the whole rationale for presenting the sources was that they are (purportedly) of other nationalities? Certainly not according to me. You've been regularly moving the goalposts on this, whereas I have consistently pointed out that a) there is nothing whatsoever wrong with Israeli sources, b) sources published outside of Israel are not Israeli, and c) it is inappropriate to discriminate against sources based on alleged ethnicity or national origin. I'll continue to point out all of these to you, including the latter, until you stop doing it. Regarding Abraham Sofaer, the allegation that he was a member of a Zionist organization as a youth is also an irrelevant attempt to move the goalposts; Wikipedia also doesn't discriminate against sources based on past or current membership in Zionist organizations, or on their failing to "renounce the ideology". And I'll also point that out to you as often as you bring it up. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(<---Outdent)

(Outdent) Jayjg: Claiming that I "have tried to dismiss sources because of their alleged ethnicity" is a complete lie. This is the second time I ask you to strike that libelous accusation. MeteorMaker (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said. In operative terms, we have several editors from around the world England, the United States, Europe, of different nationalities, saying Samaria is an Israeli term widely used within the Jewish world for understandable reasons, as opposed to several Jewish or Israeli editors saying it isn't. As far as I can see, there are no non-Jewish, non-Israeli editors on this page who share the latter view (though many Jewish and Israeli scholars and writers are comfortable with calling the area, 'the West Bank'). The interpretation given is that 'we', the other side, are pro-Palestinian, and therefore influenced by a 'Palestinian' POV, at least as ideological as their own perspective. Personally I find it hard to understand why sources like the CIA yearbooks can be construed as 'pro-Palestinian' simply because they refer to the area Israelis call 'Judea-Samaria' as 'the West Bank'.

Yet, one group does privilege the language customary to its specific cultural milieu, the other group draws on the language generally shared by newspapers throughout the world, which may be 'ideological', but only in so far as the conventions of established international usage are interpreted as being seamed with a parti pris, merely because the terms they favour do not overlap with Israeli/Jewish usage. In this sense the conflict here is one between a national vision, and one that is more comfortable with international terminology. It perhaps, therefore, requires further mediation by several administrators, Elonka included, with area experience with articles where inter-ethnic disputes occur, who can draw on precedents that have resolved these semantic issues to the satisfaction of the parties (even if, exceptionally here, one party to the dispute has no ethnic interest, but simply wishes that NPOV be construed in terms of standard international terminology). I think Elonka herself has suggested something along these lines, as one possibility. It is useless arguing these issues from page to page over I/P articles. One needs some defining guidelines on NPOV criteria where territorial naming is vexed by ethnic conflict, and political interests.Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, could you explain this, especially the section

When we are talking about Israeli settlements, we are not talking about Israeli settlements in Palestine, but about Israeli settlements in Israeli territory referred to specifically & officially as Samaria & Judea. We are not here to chose the most popular usage, but the most accurate one.

From this it is evident you believe Samaria is an Israeli territory, something which is both false, and cannot be corroborated by reliable sources. I ask for clarification on this because it would be pointless proceding in dialogue if this kind of private fantasy lies behind our differences. For a minimum requirement for consensus is that all parties subscribe to what constitutes verifiable evidence, as distinct from personal convictions. Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is true that the Israelis have pulled all settlements out of Gaza, and it is now demonstrably in Hamas' (Palestinian) hands. But until and unless there is a state of Palestine, and until and unless Israel pulls out its citizens from Samaria and no longer administers the area, and until and unless 2 countries with clear separate borders is established, and until and unless Palestine has a working government and honors its borders ... as far as I can see it is still Israeli territory. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, please comment on content, not on fellow editors. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read closely before venturing vacuous comments like that. I asked Tundrabuggy to clarify why he holds a position on this which is not that of the Israeli government, of Israeli or Jewish scholars, let alone of the rest of the world. He answered my request with due politeness, without trying to twist my request into the semblance of a personal attack, which it wasn't. That does him credit, though of course, the problem remains. He believes what Israel and the world regards as disputed land to in fact be Israeli territory (curiously, one where Jordanian law is being administered by the Israeli occupying powers in several areas, child labour etc.) Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nishidani,

1. WP:NPA: Asserting a personal 'original' conclusion about a fellow editor' as The Truth™ just before asking a rhetorical "explanation" (e.g. quite loaded) is a violation of NPA. This is not how we do things here and about 5 admins already mentioned this issue in your presence quite recently. To clarify, we don't care much what you believe or what anyone believes as long as WP:NPA as WP:SOAP are respected.
2. Logical analysis: I've noticed a logicval claim that X is overwhelmingly Y, [hence it] identifies itself as Z (a sub-product of Y). This is clearly an error and I would suggest invovled editors review 'over-representation' in statistics as well as the concept of informal fallacies.

p.s. Nishidani, something about your comment reads badly, as though it suggests "Israeli or Jewish scholars" are all alike. I would request you rephrase/strike through that one.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As known, I regard the NPA violation warning on my page as possibly rigged, as improper or as the result of poor reading abilities, and have undertaken, much to my displeasure, never to edit articles, (I make an exception to this one talk page where a serious and chronic problem is still under consideration), until a completely neutral administrator reviews what happened. There is no substance in your persistent attempts to get me on this. I use adult language, take my interlocutors as mature people, and do not harass them. We are in the presence of Elonka, who will attend, as she always does, to abuses of the rules. If my interactions constitute personal attacks, then she will be the first to drop me a note. There is no need for the rest of us to interrupt the analysis by this gamesmanship on manners. So let's drop this niggling. In fine, for the record, in 2 years of editing, I have been blocked for twice violating (once because I did not understand the rule) the 3RR protocol, and never for an NPA violation. The two NPA violations registered on my talk page were self-imposed, and severe, because in the first I spoke my mind and imposed my own sanction, the second because I used the word 'fuck' in exasperation. That is not, contextually, a record that bespeaks a tendency to attack people or harass them. To the contrary. This is why I take extreme exception to the way that notice was manoeuvered into my talk page. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Puqu

Puqu was established by China in occupied Tibet in 2004 for Tibetean inhabitants. Is Puqu considered an "illegal settlement" by the international community? Chesdovi (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Research would be welcome. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources describing, as requested, the usage of terminology, highlighting the ideological valency of Samaria and/or Judea

Samaria I am intentionally gathering sources that discuss the POV implications of the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" separately – as in, not on the same page. This is a challenging task, of course; since the POV implications of both terms are the same, most sources tend to discuss them jointly. It is also an unfortunately frivolous task, arising out of Jayjg's capricious habit of dismissing any source that discusses the POV implications of both terms jointly. You will recall Jay's specious and discredited argument that any source that discusses the terms jointly – even if the author clearly refers to them in the plural as "terms," uses separate sets of quotation marks, etc. – is in fact really talking about a collective singular term, "Judea and Samaria," and that any POV implications attested to explicitly by the source don't apply to the individual terms "Judea" and "Samaria," because these constitute an entirely separate matter, because Jay says so, in the face of both the spirit of common sense and the letter of the very RSs he's discussing.

In other words, I am going to jump this hurdle even though it's entirely spurious. The sources jointly discussing the POV implications of both terms, "Samaria" and "Judea," are of course still excellent and valid. I'm just going to take the trouble to demolish what is left of a ridiculous argument, lest it remain the source of continued disruption and distraction.

I understand that the editor who most needs to read this section will not, but perhaps someone he's comfortable with can impart the news to him, gently.

Here's the first source, from Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary:

(1)Samaria - (in Hebrew, Shomron) The northern area of the West bank of the Jordan river that includes the ancient home of the Samaritans and modern Nablus, Jenin, Qalqilieh and Tulkarm. The name Shomron means watchtower or lookout point, and it is the name of a hill near Nablus (Shechem). Shomron is mentioned several times in the Old Testament as the scene of battles and attempts by northern kings to conquer it.

This historic term assumed political significance after 1967. It is used by the Israeli government , Zionists and Israelis, to refer to the modern region, but it is no longer used by others, who prefer the Jordanian term for the entire portion of the land occupied by Israel - "West Bank" which they coined after World War II.

(The Zionism and Israel Center describes itself as "supporting fair play for Israel by providing basic facts and informed opinion," and committed to the following positions: "The Jewish people have the right to a national home in Israel"; "Israel has the right to exist"; "Jewish nationalism is as legitimate as the nationalist movement of any other people.")

Other sources will follow.--G-Dett (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential ArbCom sanctions

Just as a heads-up, I would like to remind all editors here that this page falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, which says, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."

I am not currently placing any restrictions on this article, but I am strongly considering a revert limitation. Sanctions may also be placed on editors who are simply reverting but not engaging in any other substantive edits of the article. Another option is that an uninvolved admin (myself or any other admin who chooses to participate) could review the above discussions and make a formal determination of "consensus" on the Samaria question. I am also open to any other suggestions for creative restrictions which may help to stabilize this article, or even better, creative suggestions for a compromise version of text for the article, so we can get away from this "either/or" cycle that the article appears to be in. Surely there must be some alternative form of the text which would satisfy both sides in this dispute? Or if nothing else, another step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution should be followed, such as an RfC, or mediation. --Elonka 05:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, per the discretionary sanctions authorized via WP:ARBPIA, I'm placing a restriction on this article: No more Samaria-related reverts in the lead of the article. Changes to the text to try and find a compromise are acceptable, but just putting the wording back to something that was used in the previous revert wars, will be considered a revert. All editors are also cautioned that if all they are doing on this article is edit-warring about Samaria, and they're not doing anything else on the article, this may be considered disruptive as well. Everyone: Edit wars do not work. They are a completely ineffective way of forcing through a desired change. Instead, work through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, engage in discussion at the talkpage, request comments from uninvolved editors, build consensus, and try to find a compromise. Thanks, --Elonka 20:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

So, I assume Jayjg will be reprimanded for sneaking in "Samaria" yet one more time [54], apparently just one hour later. Odd that it went unnoticed for so long.MeteorMaker (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It was not a revert, it was a compromise edit, to add the information elsewhere in the article than the lead. It's also worth pointing out that since the change, the article has been stable for the last two weeks. --Elonka 04:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Elonka, but where is the compromise in that edit? It's not in the lead, sure, but leads are revised according to the content of the article, which they must synthesize. By placing that edit in the text, immediately after sanctions were notified for the lead, observes the letter of the law, not its spirit. For two weeks we have argued on the lead, precisely on the propriety of using Samaria. Yyou are technically correct, re the lead, but that was immediately challenged by the article section Jayjg re-edited after you placed the lead sanction. Had I noticed I should have been tempted to edit in the following (probably would not have since it would have generated another edit war, which will follow invariably if we do not resolve the lead question, while taking the battle to the article where the key language of the lead is challenged).

At this point therefore, anyone disputing the propriety of that edit should be equally entitled to put that in 2005 Israel decided ‘to dismantle all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank’ Gershom Gorenberg, The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977, Macmillan 2007 p.363, As Gorenberg notes, the Israeli decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by settlers, and the government won the case. Both parties, arguing in Hebrew, used 'northern Samaria' but the government won by noting these four serttlements were in territory whose legal status was that of 'belligerent territory'. What we have here is the reintroduction of terminology used by the belligerent' occupier, as the government's language before the Supreme Court admitted. It can be cited in the notes, as per Jayjg's sources, or in the text as 'what the Israeli government called', but to keep it as it is, is to infringe wiki's neutral voice.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani here. At this point, Jay and CM's approach has been reduced to (a) pretending not to read my posts, in particular those that systematically dismantle spurious arguments; (b) synthesizing primary sources in an attempt to discredit passing comments of MeteorMaker's – comments, that is, of only secondary relevance to the content dispute; (c) continually assuming that secondary sources addressing the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" together have no bearing on the term "Samaria," while steadfastly refusing to discuss the logic of this odd assumption; and last but not least, (d) rampantly, wantonly, and wholly unjustifiably accusing MeteorMaker of being a liar and a bigot.

These stances, (a) through (d), do not constitute positions to be "compromised" with. They constitute willful disruption and should be dealt with as an ongoing behavioral problem.

Meanwhile, there is Brewcrewer's position. I'll admit that it strikes me as eccentric, but it is internally consistent and articulated in good faith, and he's willing to discuss without the smokescreens, mudslinging, and other tactics of evasion and aggression that have lain waste to so much time, trust, and good will on this talk page over the past few months.--G-Dett (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that roughly this compromise (ie "Samaria" noted elsewhere in the article but not the lead, although also - as Nishidani suggests it should be above - qualified, appropriately albeit slightly clumsily in this version, with "what Israel refers to as ..") was placed in the article by, ahem, my good self over a month ago, with this edit. Another editor then opened a talk page section that was supportive of the compromise, here. Then, regardless, it was immediately reverted twice without any response or counter-argument on the talk page, here and then here, as well as subsequently I believe. As I believe I have said elsewhere, Jay and others have dragged everyone into a fatuous debate and wasted the time of a lot of contributors here, who had to put in a massive effort to demonstrate something that was pretty obvious to anyone who was genuinely neutral and objective in this debate about a single - but nonetheless extremely significant - word. And while they were doing that, they engaged in constant personal attacks (not-so-subtly masquerading as appeals to others to not engage in such attacks), misrepresented what others had said previously on the talk page (while wrongly accusing them of doing the very same thing) and openly claimed that they were "not reading" others' well-argued posts. All for what? To more or less end up where we could have been 30-odd days ago in terms of article content, for better or worse? --Nickhh (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As a proper compromise, one that does not compromise WP's neutrality or compromises with the facts, I have now changed the line to "In August 2005, all settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in the northern West Bank (referred to as Samaria by Israeli sources) [8] were forcibly evacuated as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan". Note: This is just a patching fix and does not settle the larger question if partisan terminology should be allowed at all in supposedly neutral WP articles. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

these sources (e.g: Sussex University Press, The Hoover Inst.) are not 'Israeli'. If we're going to describe them, let's do so accurately, and in accordance with WP policy on sources. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All right, if you could show that there is support in policy or at least some kind of precedent on WP for your claim that sources that have been proven to be non-American and non-British suddenly become "American and British" by virtue of having been cited or printed in American or British publications, your position would be better. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources, on Wikipedia, "are credible published materials with a reliable publication process" - it is the medium, not the author. IHT is an American source. The BBC is a British source as is Sussex U's academic publishing house. On Wikipedia, when Sofaer (an American jurist) is published by the Hoover Inst. (an American research organization), we call that an "American source", and we don't go around conducting personal research into at what organizations Sofaer may have belonged to in his youth, in order to disqualify or otherwise caveat his opinions as 'Zionist'. Canadian Monkey (talk)`

I suspected you'd fail to come up with any kind of support for your claim that sources magically take on the nationality of the publisher, so please stop claiming that they do. Israeli sources are Israeli, and you simply cannot transform them arbitrarily to "British" or "American" nationality. I offered a perfectly good compromise, to keep the partisan term "Samaria", with the proviso that the article mentions it's Israel-specific terminology. If you insist it's not, despite all the evidence, show one reliable source that says so. Until you can do that, your attempts to reinsert partisan terminology must be considered disruptive. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I quoted to you directly form the wikipedia policy on reliable sources. A source is not a person, it is the medium. In addition, I pointed out to you that at least one of the sources is both an American source (the Hoover Inst.) as well as having an American author, making in aply clear that your characterization of the sources as "Israel-specific" is simply false, even using your incorrect classification of sources. Please stop your game playing. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You were supposed to back up your claims "these sources are not 'Israeli'" and that WP policy on sources allows us to change the nationality of a source, none of which you found any support whatsoever for. It is also not correct to state, like you did, that the term "Samaria" is "used in Britain and America" — if you want that in WP, you have to back it up with a reliable source like everybody else. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And I did. The IHT is not an Israeli paper. The Hoover Inst. is not an Israeli research institution. The BBC is not an Israeli news outfit. I quoted to you from a WPY policy page, which explains that sources are the venues in which material is published - not the authors themselves. In addition, the authors themselves are not Israeli - Sofaer being a case in point. You have now compounded your disruptive editing by twice reverting my addition - I think this will go to the ARbCom enforcement page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your quote from the policy page ("Sources, on Wikipedia, "are credible published materials with a reliable publication process"") does not in any way support your claim that arbitrarily changing the nationality of an original source is "in accordance with WP policy on sources". It is not wrong to state, like I did, that "Samaria" is used by Israeli sources, but it is wrong to claim, like you did, that it's also used by American and British sources. If that were the case, you wouldn't have such problems to find a reliable source that says so, or even one example of such a source that isn't Israeli (or Zionist) in origin [55]. Note that the most recent addition you made (the interview with Israel's then-ambassador to Australia) explicitly supports the notion that "Samaria" is Israel-specific terminology, by adding this footnote when mr Tamir mentions "Samaria": Nombre israelí de una parte de Cisjordania, Israeli name for a part of the West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead of debating nationality of sources here, how about falling back to WP:ASF and just listing the names of the sources exactly? So instead of "a British source said" just say "The BBC said", etc.? --Elonka 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a complete joke to do what CM did and say that "the International Herald Tribune, the Journal of Church and State, Sussex Academic Press, Lexington Books, Hoover Press and others" call the area "Samaria"[56]. They don't. Sometimes, they publish Israeli writers who naturally use their own nation-specific terminology, but that does not mean the IHT et al themselves use the terms. I request that CM reverts this edit. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Totally misleading edit, with or without the BBC included. --Nickhh (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The IHT reference does not publish or quote any Israeli writer. It is the IHT itself, an American/French source, using that terminology. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, even being generous that's one out of "[five, was six] and others", which is pretty flimsy evidence to base an assertion of "nonsense" on. And of course that article is titled "Biblical significance of West Bank settlements". QED. I'm sorry, we've been through all this. That horse isn't even twitching. --Nickhh (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I brought up the IHT simply because it was being directly referenced in MM's comment, supposedly as a case where the IHT is quoting an Israeli, which is simply false. The same is true of several of the other references, such as Sofaer in the Hoover Inst., Zelnicjk in the Hoover Press or Getz in the Jewish Exponent. The article may be titled "Biblical significance of West Bank settlements", but the statement related to Samaria reads "The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria". We've had quite enough of trying to twist this into the obviously false and self-serving claim that this is "Israeli perspective". It is simply not the case. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The IHT one, for the hundredth time, is a reference to ancient history. Just read it: "Biblical significance of West Bank settlements (Published: TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2005) IT'S IN THE BIBLE: The four West Bank settlements that Israel is evacuating are all located in the biblical Land of Israel — territory that observant Jews believe was promised to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria, was inhabited by the tribe of Menashe, one of the 10 tribes of Israel that were forced into exile. [57]'" As explained many times before, International Herald Tribune routinely attaches an explanation to the term (to the effect of "Israeli name for the northern West Bank"), whenever it quotes an Israeli source that uses it [58]. Leonard Getz is the National Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America [59]. Zelnick states the opposite of what you are trying to prove: " Judea and Samaria, what most of the world refers to as the West Bank."[60]. The rest of the sources are of Israeli origin. At least try and find sources that haven't been utterly refuted already. And remove the silly claim that "the International Herald Tribune, the Journal of Church and State, Sussex Academic Press, Lexington Books, Hoover Press and others" call the area "Samaria"[61]. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding all the spinning, according to its plain meaning,The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria is referring to the current status.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It may seem so to anybody who reads that phrase in isolation. The context, as you can see, is indeed biblical. The IHT is not exactly known for using "Samaria" either — of 72 instances on their site, all that are not comments from Israeli readers are accompanied by an explanation that the term is an Israeli/biblical name for the northern West Bank (and are almost exclusively quotes by Israelis, various PMs in particular). The West Bank, in comparison, is mentioned 9,170 times. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's just stick to this one source for now. The article is clearly referring to the current usage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Which one source? Please tell me you're not talking about this sentence: "The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria, was inhabited by the tribe of Menashe, one of the 10 tribes of Israel that were forced into exile."--G-Dett (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about that sentence, which quite obviously says that how the area is known. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Gdet: Your theatrics are funny. As you're well aware, saying "known by" indicates that it's not the official name. According to your reading of the article, the article writer is asserting that in 12 A.D. the area was known as "northern Samaria" but it was not its official name. Why would a person reading the International Herald Tribune on a nice August day in 2005 give a flying crap whether in 12 A.D. the area was only known as "northern Samaria" but it was not the official name at that time? Additionally, the writer of the article does not represent to be a scholar of ancient Israel who would know about this unimportant distinction. The logical understanding of the sentence is as follows: in 2005, the area is known as "northern Samaria" despite the fact that Israel currently has not officially named that area "northern Samaria". Indeed, not only does this article establish the term's common usage, it also disproves the theories promulgated here at this talk page that the term "northern Samaria" is an Israeli government term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Learn to spell my name, learn what a participial clause is, and learn to read, Brewcrewer.--G-Dett (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: Even if this particular passage could theoretically be seen as ambiguous (to me and most other neutral observers however, the references to the Bible and the Manassa tribe indicate quite clearly that it's historical usage), what do you make of the fact that the IHT site yields only 72 hits for "Samaria" (most of which are direct quotes by Israelis or explanations that it's Israeli/biblical/settler terminology) while "West Bank" gets over 9,000? Doesn't that indicate that your interpretation of this quote, and the conclusions you draw from it (that the International Herald Tribune is a user of the term "Samaria") might be inconsistent with reality? MeteorMaker (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes the IHT article so damning to the neologism-pushers is that not only does it use the term Samaria, it states that the region is known by that name.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're having grammar difficulties again; the IHT article certainly does not say the region is known by that name. "West Bank" is not a neologism, and you are, once again, wasting everyone's time with nonsense.--G-Dett (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested that other editors not change my position. I have yet to argue for the non-usage of the term "West Bank". All my arguments are strictly limited to "northern West Bank" and "southern West Bank", terms that have probably been used more often at this talk page then in reliable sources. I hate to say this, but I am harder and harder time assuming that these that these repeated incorrect assertions are good faith mistakes. I am beginning to suspect that you are doing it to hoodwink a neutral reader. I'm sorry that the IHT source you were banking on turned around and bit you in the ass. Btw, if you think I'm not understanding the IHT article correctly, it would be a reading comprehension problem, not a grammar problem, gde-t. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a grammar problem alright: you don't know the difference between participial phrases on the one hand, and verbs in the passive voice on the other. And there's a vocabulary issue in that you think putting an adjective in front of a proper place name yields a new "term" or "neologism." Finally, there's a reading-comprehension issue in that you think a sentence about the 10 tribes of Israel in an article about the biblical resonance of the West Bank for Jewish settlers establishes that the term "Samaria" is a standard, current geographic term as opposed to a biblical and ideological one.--G-Dett (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pseudo-grammar lessons aside, you can't change the plain meaning of the article. Remember, this is a daily newspaper, not a scholarly article. To that end, it's ridiculous to argue that the writer of the article was delving into an etymological and historical exegesis about the difference between Samaria's official name and the name it was "known by" during the times of Menashe. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] It would be very ridiculous indeed to argue that "the writer of the article was delving into an etymological and historical exegesis about the difference between Samaria's official name and the name it was "known by" during the times of Menashe" – which, I think, is why no one is saying that or anything remotely like it. I do not even understand that hypothetical "argument," much less subscribe to it; and I certainly don't see what it could possibly have to do with what we've been talking about.

You are trying to demonstrate that "Samaria" is a standard, contemporary, geographic term rather than a biblical, historical, and ideological one. Astonishingly, you hope to do this with a sentence about the 10 historical tribes of Israel in an article called "The Biblical Significance of West Bank Settlements":

IT'S IN THE BIBLE: The four West Bank settlements that Israel is evacuating are all located in the biblical Land of Israel — territory that observant Jews believe was promised to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria, was inhabited by the tribe of Menashe, one of the 10 tribes of Israel that were forced into exile. One of the settlements, Sanur, is in the Dotan Valley, an ancient trade route where the Bible says Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers.

You're clutching the phrase "known as northern Samaria" to your chest because you think it's a present-tense verb in the passive voice. It isn't. It's a participial phrase. Participial phrases function adjectivally. Their temporality is ambiguous, and has to be deduced from the context.

When the IHT was reporting on the flattening of Rafah camp in Gaza in 2004, they wrote the following:

For Palestinians the scenes broadcast Sunday and Monday of refugees carrying mattresses and clothes as they streamed from the camp recalled images of the Nakba, or catastrophe, when some 700,000 Paslestinian Arabs fled or were forced from their homes during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948.

That's front-page reporting, not an op-ed. Does this (and other quotes like it) mean we should use the word "Nakba" in Wikipedia's neutral voice to describe the expulsion and flight of Palestinians in 1948? I say no, because the context here is clearly Palestinian perceptions, the Palestinian experience. This technique – whereby word choice is influenced by the subjective views of those being discussed – is called free indirect discourse. It is extremely common in novels, essays, and so on; somewhat less common in straight journalism; and unheard of in encyclopedic prose.--G-Dett (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(Reset) No-one is disputing that the area is sometimes "known" as Judea and Samaria, or Samaria alone for some portion thereof (was that one of those "strawman" attacks that Jayjg complains of so often?) What does appear to be in dispute - although I am a little confused as to how this dispute is still going on - is whether it is an equivalent or standard alternative term to the mainstream "West Bank"; or rather one used by a small minority of sources, and which attempts to revive biblical terminology in order to assert a (minority, again) political viewpoint based around Israeli irredentism. To labour the point, we could of course always open up the Israel article by saying it is "also known as the Zionist Entity", or that George W. Bush is "also known as Dubya". Both statements are entirely true, however are of course equally misleading because they suggest a false equivalence and provide no context. WP will better serve its readers if it explains that Judea and/or Samaria are not standard terms, while nonetheless briefly explaining that they are occasionally used in some places by some people, for very specific reasons. --Nickhh (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The current compromise is getting too overlawyered and we are doing a disservice to our readers. How about just putting "northern West Bank" and "southern West Bank" in parentheses after each mention of "Judea" and/or "Samaria"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We should use a controversial, ideologically loaded biblical term in the neutral voice, and then put the ubiquitous standard accepted term in parentheses? Wtf?--G-Dett (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to an editor's comment with "wtf?" is not the most conducive way to further a civil discussion. It's also slightly annoying when you act shocked when you really know that the proposal is not that shocking. Indeed, you responded with less theatrics on this talk page to other editors stances' that were less appealing to your POV. In any case, I have offered a resolution. You think it's "wtf?". Fair enough. Would you like to offer a compromise or are you entrenched in your position? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Offering a "compromise" that ignores everything that's been discussed and established on this talk page is not the most conducive way to further a civil discussion, Brewcrewer.--G-Dett (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read the arguments and accordingly modified my position. You haven't budged. I'm the one that's ignoring what's being discussed? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Budge? I'll budge this way and that, and I'm fine with any number of compromise positions – including but not limited to MeteorMaker's. I only ask that what we end up with should reflect the conclusive upshot of the months-long discussion we've had here, that "Samaria" is an ideologically loaded Biblical term for the northern West Bank.--G-Dett (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lovely, you'll accept any compromise that does not involve you actually compromising. Won't fly, but you gotta appreciate the effort. Some people might actually fall for that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources say that "Samaria" is a Biblical term and a loaded one. All literate people including you know this; the fact that you've wasted such a colossal amount of time forcing editors to "prove" it is not an argument for "compromise."--G-Dett (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sources say that, others do not, and many sources have been shown using it in a non-biblical non-loaded context. All literate people including you know this; the fact that you've wasted such a colossal amount of time forcing editors to "prove" it is not an argument for non-compromise. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The appearence of the parrot argument generally marks the point where argumentation ceased and the discussion entered the WP:IDHT phase. Try and find reliable sources for your claims, or kindly stop wasting everybody's time. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Which claim would you like a reliable source for? Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You can begin with "the terms [J+S] are not biblical" [62]. Then, if you can find some support for your claim above that "the authors themselves are not Israeli" (sources 36-42 on this list, and if you have time, your claim that "sources are the venues in which material is published - not the authors themselves", which you claimed entitles you to insert "British and American", the nationalities of the publishers, in the sentence "the northern West Bank (referred to as Samaria by Israeli sources)" [63]. Above all, what RS do you base your persistent attempts on to add "Samaria" to this and other articles despite the overwhelming evidence that it's both partisan and Israel-specific? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The statement ""the terms [J+S] are not biblical" does not seem to appear in the article. The statement ""the authors themselves are not Israeli" also does not appear to be in the article. Same goes for "sources are the venues in which material is published - not the authors themselves". Perhaps you are a little confused on the topic of "reliable sources", and their use in Wikipedia - WP:RS are required for claims made in articles, not for user comments on talk pages. So, again, Which claim would you like a reliable source for? make sure it actually a claim made in the article this time. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the confusion is on your part. If you base an edit on something, that something needs to be a reliable source. I take your above post as an admission that your recent edits have not been based on reliable sources but on something that is apparently your mere opinion. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to budge on. You've an opinion. This is going to be decided on evidence and on wiki principles of NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. Did you think I was just budging from my personal preference? I was budging from my position that the evidence, wiki principles, and npov do not allow for usage of new cool terms. CM and I are the only editors that have offered or agreed to any sort of compromise offer here at this talk page. A position of "There's nothing to budge on" is not ideal for a project that is built through a collaborative effort.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How a term that has been in use for at least 40 years is too "new and cool" to be allowed on WP is beyond me, and FWIW, Judea and Samaria is also from the class of '67. Roughly what year would you suggest as a breakpoint for terms that are too new and cool for Wikipedia? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yada, yada. You have made no attempt to address the evidence, and have misrepresented matters by defining 'West Bank' as a 'new cool term'. Wiki procedures, as frequently mentioned, do not mean that where there is an impasse, a compromise must be the solution. That only lends itself to gaming, for technically, any falsehood could be half-admitted if anyone chose to insist that he would not relent in his or her opposition until at least part of his POV is accepted. Finally, at the bottom of the page, two editors have asked those who are holding out to answer a few simple questions. No one has deigned so far to reply. You're here, please reply, with logic and evidence, not an opinion.Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, you accuse me of "misrepresenting matters" in the same sentence in which you misrepresent what I said. I never claimed that "West Bank" is a "new cool term". It's also a slight "misrepresentation" to consider us "holdouts" and you guys the great progressives when it is the "holdouts" that have offered and agreed to compromise their positions. The only thing the "holdouts" have received in return are insults. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the "bottom of the page questions". If you're referring to the snide summary in which the editor established conditions for any response, my reply there answers your question. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay the 'new cool' term consists of adding the adjective 'northern' to the West Bank? Those who have argued for the positions you oppose are not 'progressives' (a political term). They are people who have worked assiduously to reply in great detail, with much time focused on sources, to both demonstrate what is obvious, and to show the partisan character of the formulation you and a few others prefer. The argument is strictly one of NPOV terminology, and the range of quality sources adduced that specifically identify the terms Samaria and Judea as settler-language, with a strong POV, is overwhelming. (b) The range of sources that explicitly analyse this very problem, and define 'West Bank' as the most neutral term outweigh any argument advanced against it. This has been done exhaustively, and most of the counterthread has consisted of challenges to Meteormaker, or factitious hairsplitting. We are still arguing here only out of politeness. Because it has been evident that the two positions cannot be synthesied without infringing NPOV, or making for a wiki-specific horror of compromise jargon for what is a simple territorial designation. As to the bottom of the page, I placed in the second last section, a simple logical question. 'Judea and samaria' are, according to academic sources, POV terms. It was argued that 'Samaria' or 'Judea' alone weren't, and we were asked for sources to show that the terms, in isolation, had been proven to be POV. Even that request was satisfied, but holdouts fell silent. So I raised a simple question dealing with the logic of classes. What applies as a definition of a class or subset applies in logic to the elements that constitute that class or subset. If 'Judea and Samaria' constitute a subset of the class 'terms in Palestinian topology', and it is established that 'Judea and Samaria' is regarded as POV, it follows in logic that either of the two terms, viewed as an element of the collective subset, must be POV (as indeed G-dett showed with a specific source). So tell me why the logic of definitions is to be suspended uniquely here?Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: Your proposal is, like CM's edit here, pretty outrageous. If you're really concerned about potential disservices to the readers, how about not introducing biased and (in CM's case) incorrect information in the first place? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume that CM was kidding, or there is some serious confusion on his part about the relationship between academic freedom in publishing, NPOV, and citation protocols on Wikipedia. Brewcrewer by contrast appears to be serious about his proposal, even though it's offered in complete ignorance of everything that's been discussed and established on this talk page for several months.--G-Dett (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Elonka I know you are only using the BBC as an example here, but CM did cite it above more explicitly as a "British" source which used the word Samaria. Anyway, just to note - as far as I can tell, this is the BBC page being cited, however the word Samaria does not in fact appear in it, even in the reader comments. As I have maintained at length here, the word "Samaria" or the combined term "Judea and Samaria" is virtually never used in the mainstream UK media, or in political discourse in the UK more generally. For the same reasons as it is not used in most parts of the world - as pointed out, explained and referenced ad nauseam. Note Nishidani has started a new section below about the exact wording that might be best here. --Nickhh (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - the BBC is not one of the sources. I'll correct it momentarily. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there are a several "Samaria" quotes from Israeli politicians and newspapers on the BBC site, you can certainly wikilawyer the BBC into the article too, like you can every news provider that has ever quoted an Israeli source, and like you are trying to do with several publishing houses now [64]. It would just make the joke more obvious however. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Nickhh, I have now added a note on Judea and Samaria in the terminology section. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)