Talk:Samaria (disambiguation)

Is "Samaria" just a biblical term?

Well, aside from the quite obvious fact that the term is used quite regularly today, the attempt to classify the term as merely "biblical" is misleading at best:

"Although William Safire is simply repeating what for years now has been the conventional wisdom of the American media, “Judea” and “Samaria,” the Hebrew “Yehuda” and “Shomron,” are not biblical words for the hill districts south and north of Jerusalem that were revived by Israeli nationalists after the 1967 war. That is, they are indeed biblical words, but they have been used by Jews through the ages and have been the standard Hebrew terms for these parts of Palestine since the beginnings of Zionist settlement in the late 19th century."[1]

"In 1938, therefore, the Districts were divided into six... The Districts of Galilee, Haifa, Samaria, Jerusalem, Lydda, and Gaza were established, centred at Nazareth, Haifa, Nablus, Jerusalem, Jaffa, and Gaza, respectively." Roza El-Eini, Mandated Landscape: British Imperial Rule in Palestine, 1929-1948, Routledge, 2006, p. 90.

"The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the sub-districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin... From here the boundary runs south-westwards, including the built-up area and some of the land of the village of Kh.Lid in the Arab State to cross the Haifa-Jenin road at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El Mansi... From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar'ara, rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi'Ara, and thence proceeding south-south-westwards in an approximately straight line joining up with the western boundary of Qaqun to a point east of the railway line on the eastern boundary of Qaqun village."[2]

Please desist from inserting misleading statements into Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As you're mostt likely aware after we've been discussing this subject for months at TALK:Israeli_settlement and TALK:Samaria, there are two legitimate usage domains: 1) Historical usage (exemplified by your second and third quote) 2) usage by Israelis (and according to a few sources, the broader group Jews, as exemplified by your first source). As has conclusively been shown ,[3] the term is not used outside those two domains, and since you share the concern that the article may be misleading, you shouldn't find the change I just made problematic. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As you're no doubt aware, we have indeed been discussing this subject for months at Talk:Israeli settlement and Talk:Samaria, and it was there that your original research claim that the term was used only in Israel or only by Israelis was conclusively disproved. Since your edits are both unsourced original research and factually incorrect, you shouldn't find my reversion of your change problematic either. P.S. "Jews" and "Israelis" are neither "domains" nor "synonyms", and U.N. resolutions and British districts are neither "Jews" nor "Israelis". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jay, I just want to (a) register my disgust at your description of my edit as "misleading at best," and (b) explain to you why I'm going to undo your revert.

The "misleading statement" I "inserted into Wikipedia" is that "Samaria is a biblical term for the Northern West Bank." This is exactly what a great many mainstream reliable sources say, including Haaretz, the New York Times, CNN, and others. As I wrote on the Israeli settlement talk page:

no one has brought sources describing "Samaria" being a neutral, contemporary geographic term. On the contrary, the reliable sources are very clear that it's a "biblical" and historical term. Haaretz says simply, "Samaria is the biblical name for the northern West Bank." (This is after quoting a West Bank settlement spokesman who uses the term "Samaria"; needless to say, Haaretz itself consistently uses the accepted terms "West Bank" and "northern West Bank" when writing in its neutral voice.) The New York Times also describes it as "the biblical name for the northern West Bank," (again here). According to the Los Angeles Times, what it calls in its neutral voice the "northern West Bank" was "historically referred to by its biblical name, Samaria" (emphasis added). According to the Washington Post, "Samaria" is "the biblical name for the northern West Bank." The Washington Times as well: "Samaria is the biblical name for the northern West Bank."

According to CNN, "Israelis often refer to the northern West Bank region by its biblical name of Samaria." And finally, here's USA Today on use of the term for what it describes in its neutral voice as "the hills of northern West Bank": Physically, the mountainous settlements are harder for the army to close off. But ideologically, for settlers who only refer to this region by its biblical name, Samaria, this land is on an even higher ground.[4] Again, the only voices claiming that "Samaria" is a neutral, contemporary, widely accepted geographic term are partisan Wikipedians. No reliable sources. Meanwhile, the actual reliable sources make very clear that the term is biblical and historical, and that its contemporary use is ideologically freighted.

Now, given your remark on the Israeli settlement talk page saying that you weren't reading any of my posts, it is quite possible that you were unaware that I'd demolished your specious argument, in the quoted post and others. But if you're not reading my posts, then you need to stop edit-warring against me; and if you're not reading talk-page threads thoroughly, then you need to stop making claims about what they "conclusively" demonstrate.

To be clear, I never wrote that Samaria is "merely" or "only" or "just" a Biblical term. You invented that so that you could (a) pretend my edit was misleading, and (b) rhetorically shift the burden of proof (i.e. do you have any source saying it's only a biblical term, G-Dett, or is that just self-serving original research? yadda yadda blah blah blah etc. etc.) I stuck to exactly what most mainstream reliable sources say: Samaria is a Biblical term for the northern West Bank. That statement is sourced to the nines. If you have comparable sources saying it's also a contemporary geographic term, bring them. I don't think you do, because we're three months into this discussion, and all you've done is throw together a bunch of primary sources that according to you demonstrate it's a neutral modern term, along with the occasional obscure op-ed (as above) or irrelevant reference to the names of districts during the Mandate period (as above).

If you don't have sources saying Samaria is a contemporary geographic term, then stop inserting misleading statements into Wikipedia.--G-Dett (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Although I need to look more closely at the sources before I weigh in, I'm also inclined to think the Palestine (disambiguation) page should say that as a geographic term "Palestine" is historical.--G-Dett (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

here's The Forward on the topic : "the Hebrew “Yehuda” and “Shomron,” are not biblical words for the hill districts south and north of Jerusalem that were revived by Israeli nationalists after the 1967 war. That is, they are indeed biblical words, but they have been used by Jews through the ages and have been the standard Hebrew terms for these parts of Palestine since the beginnings of Zionist settlement in the late 19th century." [5]. NoCal100 (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly so. And the piece is found in the regular language column of The Forward, written by The Forward's regular language columnist. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As a source for the status of "Samaria," I would put an opinion column in a Jewish weekly on a par with an opinion column in an Arab weekly. At any rate, that opinion column doesn't contradict the definition agreed upon by Haaretz, the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and so many other sources (the consensus mainstream definition you believe is "misleading at best"); it simply adds to it. It says yes, this is a Biblical name, but it's a Biblical name that Jews and Zionists have been using for a long time. Now, if you want to add this caveat to the consensus definition, that's fine with me. This is precisely what MeteorMaker has been trying to do for three months, during which time you've accused him of original research, bigotry, and lying. Though I don't imagine you'll apologize to him for all those crazy accusations, I'm sure he will be pleased to know you've finally, quietly, reversed course.

Meanwhile I am very pleased to find you reversing course on your earlier, absurd argument that any sources dealing with both "Judea" and "Samaria" are inadmissible in discussions of "Samaria." Can you confirm that you have indeed reversed course on this? I would hate to discover that you're still upholding that baseless and bizarre injunction, while granting yourself a one-time self-serving exemption from it.--G-Dett (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not The Forward, but an op-ed in The Forward. It says they "are not biblical words," then in the next sentence says "they are indeed biblical words"...but stresses that they're biblical terms that have been used by Jews continually and by Zionists since the 19th century. This has been pretty much MeteorMaker's point for the past three months, a point which Jay says is spurious original research and which he claims to have disproved. And things get still curiouser. Jay has been steadfast in his position that any source dealing with both terms "Judea" and "Samaria" does not apply to "Samaria." This was a laughable position from the word go so it's good to see him retreating from it, even if quietly and for the wrong reasons.

My position is simple: an op-ed in The Forward discussing Hebrew terms should not outweigh the straightforward definition of the English word put forth in identical terms by the New York Times, Haaretz, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, USA Today, The Washington Post, and others.

If you insist that the Forward's op-ed should take precedence, however, then your edit should read: Samaria (Shomron in Hebrew) is a biblical word used by Jews and Zionists for a region on the West Bank of the Jordan River. --G-Dett (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read the topic of this section. NoCal100 (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I've read it, and pointed out that it has no bearing on the edit you and Jay are disputing, which says nothing about "Samaria" being "just" a Biblical name, "only" a Biblical name, "merely" a Biblical name, or anything like that. As I noted above, Jay added those qualifiers to what I wrote so that he could (a) pretend what I wrote was "misleading," and (b) shift the rhetorical burden of proof onto me, when of course it lies with you and him. What I've written is sourced to the nines. What you and Jay are substituting for it is unsourced. It really is that simple.--G-Dett (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had read it, you wouldn't make the idiotic observation that ' It says they "are not biblical words," then in the next sentence says "they are indeed biblical words"...but stresses that they're biblical terms that have been used by Jews continually and by Zionists since the 19th century. " NoCal100 (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My idiotic observation is, um, dead-straight accurate, right? I just wanted to make sure. I don't, in principle, mind you lunging and frothing at the mouth like an extra from Deliverance, but when I'm through patiently wiping your rabid spittle off my face I do want to be sure I haven't missed anything substantive.--G-Dett (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Samaria is the geographic center of western Palestine" - The Journal of Geography, p. 348, The Journal of geography, 1928. Why don't you go run this by MetoerMaker, he'll be delighted to conduct more original research that will no doubt show that a board member of the National Council of Geography Teachers went to local fundraisers for the Zionist cause every other Thursday, and thus this book can be discounted. NoCal100 (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cute, but I think what he'd be more likely to point out is that the book's from 1928. If "Samaria" is a neutral and contemporary geographic term, why have you and Jay had such enormous difficulty finding any contemporary reference materials that say that? What do you find yourself again and again coming back with materials from the mandate period, and nothing from today?--G-Dett (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Continued reversions to inaccurate definitions

As stated above, please stop reverting to the obviously inaccurate definitions. Aside from the quite obvious fact that the term is used quite regularly today, the attempt to classify the term as merely "biblical" is misleading at best:

"Although William Safire is simply repeating what for years now has been the conventional wisdom of the American media, “Judea” and “Samaria,” the Hebrew “Yehuda” and “Shomron,” are not biblical words for the hill districts south and north of Jerusalem that were revived by Israeli nationalists after the 1967 war. That is, they are indeed biblical words, but they have been used by Jews through the ages and have been the standard Hebrew terms for these parts of Palestine since the beginnings of Zionist settlement in the late 19th century."[6]

"In 1938, therefore, the Districts were divided into six... The Districts of Galilee, Haifa, Samaria, Jerusalem, Lydda, and Gaza were established, centred at Nazareth, Haifa, Nablus, Jerusalem, Jaffa, and Gaza, respectively." Roza El-Eini, Mandated Landscape: British Imperial Rule in Palestine, 1929-1948, Routledge, 2006, p. 90.

"The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the sub-districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin... From here the boundary runs south-westwards, including the built-up area and some of the land of the village of Kh.Lid in the Arab State to cross the Haifa-Jenin road at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El Mansi... From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar'ara, rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi'Ara, and thence proceeding south-south-westwards in an approximately straight line joining up with the western boundary of Qaqun to a point east of the railway line on the eastern boundary of Qaqun village."[7]

The first quote is from The Forward's language columnist, who writes for The Forward solely on linguistic matters. The other quotes are quite obvious uses of the term in non-Biblical contexts; 1938 was not during Biblical times. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, with regards to the Forward piece. It supports my edit, not yours. It supports, that is, the overwhelming consensus of mainstream reliable sources that "Samaria is a biblical name for the northern West Bank." The author is not arguing with that consensus at all. Rather, he's arguing with a different consensus opinion, in this instance articulated by William Safire, that the biblical names Judea and Samaria "were revived by Israeli nationalists after the 1967 war." This question of if and when the biblical names were revived is not touched with a ten-foot pole by the edit of mine you've been warring against. In order to keep it brief and neutral, I avoided that issue entirely, and stuck verbatim to what the reliable sources say when they're being brief and neutral: "Samaria is a biblical name for the northern West Bank." You're simply misreading the Forward columnist; you think he's disputing that Judea and Samaria are biblical names. But the writer is very explicit: "they are indeed biblical words, but they have been used by Jews through the ages and have been the standard Hebrew terms for these parts of Palestine since the beginnings of Zionist settlement in the late 19th century." I have invited you to add to the disambig page the Forward columnist's point about contemporary and historical use of these biblical names by Jews and Zionists; but again, ideally, I'd like to keep the definition brief, neutral, and rooted word-for-word in the overwhelming consensus of mainstream reliable sources, rather than in additional, marginal, disputed arguments made by a fairly obscure columnist in a Jewish weekly.

But taking a step back, Jay, may I ask why you've simply repasted your lengthy post from the top of the page, without substantively addressing any of the responses to that post? It's difficult to know how to engage with you at this point. By your own admission, you're not reading posts by me, and your engagement with MeteorMaker at this point is limited to calling him a bigot and a liar, over and over again. You appear to be also calling me a liar now, either that or you're calling the editors and personnel of Haaretz, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, the Washington Post, USA Today, and 50+ other top-notch reliable sources liars; most likely both, I suppose, since they and I are saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same words.

At any rate, I'd like to reassure you that (a) the reliable sources are not lying about the meaning of "Samaria" when they define it as "a Biblical name for the northern West Bank," and (b) I'm not lying when I add this definition, favored by the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, verbatim, to Wikipedia. To say that something's a "Biblical name" does not mean "used solely during Biblical times." This misunderstanding on your part seems to be the root cause of your incomprehension of the reliable sources, hence your strange conclusion that they're lying about the term. The biblical names "Judea" and "Samaria" were used in Mandate times for a district in Palestine; today these biblical terms are used in political and ideological contexts, to stress Jewish attachment to the West Bank. We could add all this stuff to the disambig page; e.g., we could add the info from your Forward article about how Jews and Zionists have used the term "Samaria," we could add the info from the 30+ sources brought by MeteorMaker about how current use of the biblical name is ideologically freighted, and so on, but the result would be awfully cluttered and wordy for a disambig page. And your version, locked into place by Shell Kinney ("Samaria refers to a region on the West Bank of the Jordan River"), is unsourced original research; current reference works do not define it as a contemporary geographic term, period. It really is best to stick to the concise, accurate definition used by the overwhelming majority of top-notch reliable sources: "Samaria is a biblical name for the northern West Bank." The article itself can deal with the various contexts, historical and contemporary, in which this biblical name has been used and is still used.

Finally, given that you've put editorial honesty on the discussion table, there's a question I'd like to ask you about your use of the Forward piece. That piece is responding directly and explicitly to a piece by William Safire, in which Safire writes: "Prime Minister Ariel Sharon preferred to refer to land in dispute west of the Jordan River by biblical names: Judea and Samaria, evoking Hebrew origins." When MeteorMaker brought that Safire piece as a source in previous discussions of the word "Samaria," you dismissed its relevance categorically, saying that Safire's and a related piece "aren't even about the geographical term 'Samaria', but rather are about the Israeli administrative district 'Judea and Samaria'." You have in fact for months used this rationale to dismiss countless sources: if they discuss both terms ("Samaria" and "Judea"), you say, then they are referring to "the Israeli administrative district" and are not relevant to discussion of "Samaria." I in turn have pointed out to you numerous times that Safire and these others are explicitly discussing terms plural, "Judea" and "Samaria," not "Judea and Samaria." You never responded; indeed it was at this point that you claimed not to be any longer reading my posts. But now you are introducing as relevant a source which not only discusses both terms, but discusses them in direct response to Safire's discussion of them, which you dismissed as irrelevant.

This seems to me extremely damning prima facie evidence of bad faith on your part. If your odd dismissal of the relevance of the Safire piece were a one-off, I'd put it down to the sort of unconscious bias or inconsistency we are all susceptible to. But for months you applied this mantra-like argument – X isn't about the geographical term "Samaria", but rather about the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria" – to dozens of excellent sources, a majority of which say nothing about "administrative districts" and specifically say "terms," not "a term." The specious logic of your argument was continually assailed, by me and others, without a single substantive reply from you. Months were wasted on this merry-go-round; I even went to the trouble of collating sources that never mentioned "Judea," in order to satisfy your illogical and whimsical criteria, in the vain hopes of eliciting some sort of substantive engagement from you. The source-list I gathered above for example – Haaretz, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, the Washington Post, USA Today – is entirely free of "Judea," per your bizarre request. And now you present as relevant the Forward 's rebuttal of Safire, and we discover that you never believed your bizarre argument in the first place. It was just wikilawyering, filibuster, a strategy for draining the energies of those who oppose you. Your contempt for the intelligence of fellow editors is appalling, Jay; there's really no other word for it.--G-Dett (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)