Talk:Israeli settlement

Other

A number of international bodies, including the United Nations Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the European Union, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and many legal scholars have characterized the settlements as a violation of international law, but Israel, the Anti-Defamation League, and other legal scholars disagree with this assessment.

‘Other' here is ambiguous, and that is why I challenged it. Grammatically, it can refer either to ‘many legal scholars’ or it can refer to the preceding two entities immediately before- Israel and the Anti-Defamation League - as if they too constituted the first two in a series of ‘legal scholars'. Clearly written texts of encyclopedic quality should avoid any such ambiguity. Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The parallel wording of the clauses makes it unambiguous, but I'll fix the alleged ambiguity nonetheless. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's better, but it's still questionable. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel has always been told the same thing as we were, viz, building settlements would be illegal. In 2007 Theodor Meron, then Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser, told the rest of us that he'd "secretly warned the government of Israel after the Six Day War of 1967 that it would be illegal to build Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories" and, on the 40th anniversary of that War told everyone "that he still believes that he was right". PR^talk 16:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop soapboxing. If there is a specific change you are proposing, let's hear it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose that any edit insinuating that the settlements might be legal is FRINGE and EXTREME and disruptive.

Checking links 57, 58, 59 and 60, one is a "Guide to activists", which can hardly be an RS, then Australia Israel Review and the OSCN don't comment on the legality of the settlements atall, and the CBC mentions "legal scholars" and Eugene Rostow in 1991, but can hardly be read as giving credence for this belief. Let's edit the article to policy, taking out this kind of nonsense. PR^talk 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

the CBC is clearly a reliable source, and if it finds it notable enough to report that a prominent scholar of of international law such as Rostow argues that settlements are not, in fact, illegal, that sort of does away with your claim that this is a a fringe position. As a side note, you seem to be conflating "fringe" and "extreme", so please have a look at these pages. A report on Rostow's position in CBC is, of course, neither.Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to credit you'd waste your own time and ours defending one reference (17 years old and naming just one legal source for a claim that there are many such) while ignoring the fact that the other three are false and have no place in the article. Are you here to improve articles or damage them?

And your defense of the "settlements are legal" position makes no sense - the CBC goes out of its way to lead us to believe that Rostow is wrong with "despite the fact that the resolution emphasizes "the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war.""

I'll grant you that EXTREME refers to sources, not positions, but FRINGE certainly applies "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include ... novel re-interpretations of history and so forth."

Not only do we know what legal advice Israel received in 1967 (settlements illegal), but they've admitted its illegal, only objecting that it was not a war-crime on the same level as mass killings. "Israel Minister of Foreign Affairs" conceded the point in 1998: "The following are Israel's primary issues of concern [ie with the rules of the ICC]: The inclusion of settlement activity as a "war crime" is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law." PR^talk 12:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Samaria

(a)After coming to power the Likud changed the government’s terminology for settlement in the occupied territories, substituting the term “hitnachalut” (evoking Biblical injunctions and promises to “inherit” the land through settlement) for “hityashvut,” an emotionally neutral term. The terms “occupied territory” or “West Bank” were forbidden in news reports. Television and radio journalists were banned from initiating interviews with Arabs who recognized the PLO as their representative'. Ian Lustick, 'The Riddle of Nationalism:The Dialectic of Religion and Nationalism in the Middle East', Logos, Vol.1, No-3, Summer 2002 pp.18-44 pp.38-9

(b) Samaria, like Judea, is an Israeli term with strong biblical religious connotations associated with the rise of the Likud party and extremist groups colonizing the West Bank. The West Bank is the standard (marginal 'fringe' exceptions do exist) term to designate the area.

(c) The Biblical Samaria and modern Samaria are confused geographical terms, with no precise demarcation in international law.

(d) If Samaria and Judea were allowed, then the corresponding Palestinian/Arabic designations would have to also be used to maintain NPOV.

(e) This encyclopedia's commitment to NPOV means concretely that ethnic-specific terms for contested land must yield ground to international naming conventions.

For this reason, Samaria and Judea are not acceptable and should be reverted, whenever they are plunked it. There was no debate on Samaria that would qualify as a consensus, only vote stacking by several interested parties (Israelis or pro-Israelis) against one editor who happened to be sticking to wiki policy. Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your original research is fascinating, but hundreds of sources use the term Samaria to refer to this region. For example:

• "Its intention was to establish a Jewish settlement in the heart of Samaria, the northern bulge of the West Bank, densely populated by Arabs." Ian Lustick For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, p. 45.
• "Few in number until the late 1970s, the young Gush Emunim settlements in Samaria, the Etzion bloc, and Kiryat Arba attracted the most idealistic and dynamic fundamentalist activists." Ian Lustick For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, p. 54.
• "Rabin intended the settlement to be temporary and to relocate them later within the confines of the Allon plan, not in the heart of Samaria. The settlers, however, refused to move." Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. To Rule Jerusalem", Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 170.
• "The row houses of Ofra, a Jewish suburb to the north of Jerusalem, are planted in deep red soil at the foot of Ba'al Hatzor, the highest mountain in Samaria." Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. To Rule Jerusalem", Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 213.
• "In August 2005, reversing his longstanding position on championing settlement of the Land of Israel, Sharon evacuated all of the Jewish settlements in Gaza (some 9,000 people living in twenty-one communities) and four small settlements in the northern part of Samaria (West Bank)." Alfred J. Kolatch. Inside Judaism: The Concepts, Customs, and Celebrations of the Jewish People, Jonathan David Company, 2006, p. 270.
• "On 18 September 1978, one day after the signing of the Accord, 700 Gush Emunim members established an unauthorized settlement in Samaria..." Lilly Weisbrod. Israeli Identity: In Search of a Successor to the Pioneer, Tsabar and Settler, Routledge, 2002, p. 112.
• "LAST STAND IN SAMARIA", Kevin Peraino, Newsweek, August 15, 2005.
• SAMARIA, Martin Gilbert, The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Routledge, 2005, p. 134 (and other maps showing Samaria).
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "...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).
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "(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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "...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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "... 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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.
• "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.

There are hundreds more sources. Also, the term "Samaria" is an English, Western one, not an "Israeli" one. Israelis speak Hebrew. Please stop trying to force your political agenda into Wikipedia. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your original research is fascinating, but hundreds of sources use the term Samaria to refer to this region. For example:

• (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.

Comment. (1), (2)Cherrypicking. As shown, Lustick is citing settler language and explicitly documented that this is annexationalist language. These two quotes are thus immaterial.Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Lustick nowhere explains that he is "citing settler language", nor does he state that the term "Samaria" is "annexationalist language", nor does he include the word in quotations of any sort. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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.

Comment.3 and 4. The two authors throughout use the ‘West Bank’ as their preferred designation of the area, and identify other names for it with specific groups, the IDF or religious settlers.Note their record of an interview with a rabbi from the extremist settlement at Kiryat Arab, who echoes the sentiments of Rabbi Kook.

‘Rabbi Waldman, his dark moustached mouth waiting in a white field, bristled. We had referred to the lands where ancient Israel once stood as the West Bank. “No one ever called the country of Jordan the East Bank,” he reprimanded us. “In the same manner, you cannot call this the West Bank if you want to relate to the essence of the area.”

Naming is rarely innocent; choice of place names carries meanings, forwards claims. To those who would trade land for peace, this is the “West Bank.” The military authorities who administer these lands, for whom they are mainly a troublesome job, call them “the territories“. To the religious nationalist settlers they are Judea and Samaria (Yehudah and Shomron in Hebrew), the historical copre of the ancient Jewish nation.’ Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. To Rule Jerusalem, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 152.

The authors use "West Bank" more frequently, but they also used this term. Their interview with the rabbi is about the phrase "Judea and Samaria", this issue is about the term "Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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.

Comment. Yes, but three pages earlier he writes ‘That notwithstanding, the building of Jewish communities in the West Bank – or Judea and Samaria, as Jews refer to it – commenced.’p.268. (b) The four communities were withdrawn from what the Palestinians, under an agreement with Israel, call the Jenin Governorate. Why then the insistence that a Palestinian administrative district be called by a name favoured by the Occupying power, i.e. by neighbouring Israel?Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Again you are referring to the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria", not the term "Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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.

CommentIt is Weissbrod, by the way. She habitually glosses ‘Judea and Samaria’ with 'The West Bank' p.88 even in the pages Jayjg cites pp.112-13, and the text here uses the Gush Emunim designation, precisely those associated with the establishment of Samaria as the term. The West Bank is used as a gloss throughout these books, precisely because everyone in the reading world globally knows what West Bank means, as opposed to Samaria or Judea.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Weissbrod is referring to "Samaria", not the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria", and she does not include the term in quotes. She uses the term as a simple geographic designator, and no-where indicates she is quoting anyone. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment 2 Lily Weissbrod is an Israeli [1], which makes this source unusable as evidence of outside-Israel use of the toponym. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by a British publisher. The United Kingdom is "outside-Israel". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (7) "LAST STAND IN SAMARIA", Kevin Peraino, Newsweek, August 15, 2005.

Comment.Samaria is used in the title, and once in the text, which otherwise prefers West Bank. The title is followed by the gloss ‘Disengaging from Gaza will be hard. The West Bank could be harder.’ The topic links are to ‘The West Bank’. The one statement using the term quotes a fanatic:

'One right-wing parliamentarian, Arieh Eldad, has warned that Sa-Nur could become the "Stalingrad of Samaria".'Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet, the article uses the term Samaria. It uses both, just as this article (Israeli settlement) uses both. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (8)SAMARIA, Martin Gilbert, The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Routledge, 2005, p. 134 (and other maps showing Samaria).

CommentThis is the first piece of evidence worthy of attention. Distinguished historian. He uses the Mandatory terminology throughout, irrespective of changes in political and national control of these areas. To be discussed, especially since in this he is ioncoherent for he uses these designations while most, if not all, of his maps follow the international usage 'West Bank' which Israeli law abolished, and Israeli usage does not accept.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

He uses the designation "Samaria" on several maps. Period. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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.

Comment.You fail to note that before he uses this term Gerson notes,

‘On February 29, the popular term, ‘West Bank’, was by official fiat, abandoned in favour of ‘Judea and Samaria’ – the historical and geographical designation of the region and one not without nationalist and religious overtones of association with the Jewish people. p.111 Gerson through refers to the West Bank as the default term, since where the term is used he follows the language of people who use it like Moshe Dayan, and exponents of Gush Enumin. Gerson therefore supports the point made by Lustick and several others, that these terms are specifically nationalist terms, with a strong setler POV.

As before, you bring arguments based on the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria", not the designator "Samaria", which Gerson uses naturally, with no indication that he is "following the language of people who use it". Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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.

The problem is the use of the term relates to the Jordanian period of rule, when in Israel the area was still officially called the West Bank, and the modern admninistrative divisions now in place did not exist. Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The book was published in 1978, long after Jordanian rule ended. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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).

Comment. Again, Jayjg, you've been googling without reading. These three quotes come from a history of the 1948 war, when Mandatory language was employed. Our discussion is on contemporary conventioned Western usage to describe the West Bank, not on historical British or Jewish usage. All three are irrelevant, and like most of the above, to be elided as immaterial to the point.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, Nishidani, the quotes come from a book published in 2004, almost 60 years after the 1948 war. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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.

CommentAgain useless. The whole relevant chapter uses the 'West Bank' as the default term, and the specific description refers to Gush Emunim's language, in accordance with its fundamentalist concepts of Eretz Israel. Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, an invalid objection. The source uses both terms, and nowhere indicates that it is "referring to Gush Emunim's language" - no quotation markes, inverted commas, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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.

Comment. Impressive, until you actually read the whole page and find out that Shulman specifies that he is talking about the ‘northern West Bank’ p.102 Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

...and clearly uses both descriptors. Just like this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment 2 David Dean Shulman is also an Israeli [2], which makes this source unusable as evidence of outside-Israel use of the toponym. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by an American university press. The United States is "outside-Israel". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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.

Comment. Again immaterial since the reference is to the pre-1967 period, where Mandatory language was still used on occasion in foreign accounts, and not to contemporary usage.

Again, invalid objection, since the book was published in 1973, well after 1967, and decades after 1948, the Mandatory period. Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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)

• (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.

Comment. The reference is again to the West Bank, which is not Israel's preferred usage, but Western usage, and Samaria as a part of it, which is Israel's preferred usage. The contradiction subsists.

The source uses both terms, as does this article, per WP:NPOV. No contradiction exists. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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.

Comment. The West Bank against was not usage acceptable to Begin, whereas Samaria and Judea were. The areas populated were overwhelmingly Arab areas, and the Samaria here refers to areas which have perfectly legitimate Arab designations, i.e. governorates in the northern West Bank. Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Your objection doesn't even parse into English. The source uses both "West Bank" and "Samaria", as does this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment 2 Joseph Nevo is also an Israeli [3], which makes cites (17), (18) and (19) unusable as evidence of outside-Israel use of the toponym. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by a British publisher. The United Kingdom is "outside-Israel". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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.

Comment(20/21) But Weisburd at the outset of his book states

All but one of these outposts were established in the “Occupied West Bank”, as it is generally called in the United States, though the settlers who live in these areas prefer to use the term “Judea and Samaria” when speaking of the region. The latter term emphasizes the connection of their settlements to the ancient Land of Israel’ p.9

He does not use the term in his Map of the area p.10 on page 28 he specifies Samarian hills as being in the north of the West BankNishidani (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue at hand is the term "Samaria", not the phrase (and Israeli administrative district) "Judea and Samaria". The source uses both "Samaria" and "West Bank", as does this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment 2 David Weisburd is also an Israeli [4], which makes cites (20) and (21) unusable as evidence of outside-Israel use of the toponym. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by an American university press. The United States is "outside-Israel". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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.

Comment. Again you are citing a ref. to the 1940s, when Mandatory usage prevailed, and not a source bearing on contemporary usage. Immaterial, since no one is contesting Samaria was used at that period. Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The book was published in 1958, ten years after the Mandatory period ended. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• (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.

Comment

• "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.
• "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.
• "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.

Comment: "West Bank" is again used consistently in the book, while "Samaria" occurs exactly two times [5]. One is in the bibliography (a World Zionist Org document), the other is Jayjg's quote. It seems unlikely "Samaria" is part of the author's own vocabulary, since he does not use it elsewhere [6][7]. I would say this lone instance of Stephen Graham using the term is akin to an instance of the term "das Vaterland" in a book about modern German white supremacy groups and their ideology or ambitions — a term that is in frequent use within the group, but hardly used as an acceptable alternative to Germany by anybody else. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your original research is fascinating. However, he nowhere indicates he is using the terminology of any other groups; rather the source uses both terms, as does this article. Also, comparing Jewish groups to neo-Nazis is gratuitous and distasteful. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• "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.

Comment: Another source that directly contradicts Jayjg's claims [8]. Page xxiv: "[...] Judea and Samaria are part of the Land of Israel, said Drobles [cochairman of the settlement division of the World Zionist Organization], using the Biblical names for the West Bank". Page xxxiv: "Gush Emunim's rabbis proclaimed that settling [...] Judea and Samaria, otherwise known as the West Bank was part of the divine process [...]". Restricted content on Google Books makes the rest of the instances of "Samaria" difficult to evaluate, though the one Jayg quotes appears to be another case of a neutral author using the toponym when describing the settler movement's ambitions. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, no contradiction whatsoever, since we are discussing the use of the term "Samaria", not the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria". Also, there is no indication whatsoever that the author is "using the toponym when describing the settler movement's ambitions". Continual dismissal of sources based on self-serving theories about the authors' motivations are summarily dismissed. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Jay, can you explain more fully your theory that when the author refers to "the Biblical names for the West Bank," what he really has in mind is "an Israeli administrative district"?--G-Dett (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• "... 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.

Comment: Clearly another pre-67 reference to the area. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Published in 1983, long after the Six-Day War, and decades after the mandatory period. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• "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.

Comment: The sentence actually reads as if "Samaria" were a settlement and not Ariel, which might be an indication of the level of research the author did before chatting with the settlers. I will give this one the benefit of the doubt though. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• "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.

Comment: Cordesman and Moravitz use the term "the West Bank" 107 times in the book, "Samaria" 12 [9]. Seven are direct quotes by Israelis, three (including Jayjg's quote) refer to the Israel-declared administrative districts, two could not be determined due to restricted content.

The source uses both "West Bank" and "Samaria", as does this article. There is no indication whatsoever, that the author is referring to "Israel-declared administrative districts", since there is no "Israel-declared administrative district" called "Samaria". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• "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.

Comment: With the preceding sentence "The Likud bloc led by Shamir continues to support Israeli sovereignty over all of the occupied territories", the reference to "Samaria" becomes ambiguous — is it Likud/Shamir's terminology or the authors' own? Google Books only lets us see 2 of the 7 instances of "Samaria" [10]. One is a quote by an Israeli rabbi, the other looks like an official Israeli statement, though it's difficult to say with any certainty. The preferred toponym seems to be "the West Bank" with 30 instances however. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The only "ambiguity" is the usual self-servingly invented one. The author uses the term "Samaria" naturally, nowhere indicating he is quoting or using the language of anyone else. The source uses both "West Bank" and "Samaria", as does this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• "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.

Comment: Herbert Druks [11] uses "Samaria" consistently and avoids the term "the West Bank" entirely, so, finally, some bona fide anecdotal evidence for Jayjg's hypothesis.

Just one source among many disproving your hypothesis. I have no hypothesis, I'm just disproving yours. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• "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.

Comment: Jeffers is simply paraphrasing Ehud Barak, a fact that would have been evident to Jayjg had he bothered to read the preceding paragraph: "Barak arrived with his position on the public record:" [12]. There are four instances of "Samaria" in the book, two of the ancient Samaria, two from Barak quotes. The term "the West Bank", in comparison, occurs 30 times.MeteorMaker (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The author "paraphrases" Barak using the term "Samaria". The source uses both "West Bank" and "Samaria", as does this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• "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.

Comment: Sherbok-Cohn and El Alami use "West Bank" consistently in the book, except in three places [13], one of which (again) acknowledges the fact this list was intended to refute: "The Israelis insisted on referring to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria". Of the other two, one is a paraphrased statement by Menachem Begin (where the term is again glossed with "The West Bank"), the second (the one Jayjg chose) appears to be another paraphrased statement, this time by Benjamin Netanyahu. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is about the term "Samaria", not the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria". The authors use both "West Bank" and "Samaria", as does this article. The notion that these are "paraphrases" is another example of that self-serving theory regarding the motivations of the authors. The authors, however, simply use the term. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds more sources. Also, the term "Samaria" is an English, Western one, not an "Israeli" one. Israelis speak Hebrew. Please stop trying to force your political agenda into Wikipedia. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a copy and paste job from Talk:Samaria, and has already been refuted there. The first seven quotes (from four sources) have conclusively been shown to be misrepresentations of the sources (plus one case (Lilly Weisbrod) of using an Israeli source as evidence of outside-Israel use of the term "Samaria"[14]. Why you bring them up again is difficult to understand. All of these sources use "West Bank" consistently, and "Samaria" only when describing settlers and their ideology or ambitions (in the Newsweek case, in a poetic title alluding to Bible-age Jewish history). Four of these four sources actually confirm the opposite position of yours:

*For political purposes, and despite the geographical imprecision involved, the annexationist camp in Israel prefers to refer to the area not as the West Bank, but as Judea and Samaria. [15]

*To the religious nationalist settlers, [the territories] are Judea and Samaria, the historical core of the ancient Jewish nation.[16]

*[...]the building of Jewish communities in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as Jews refer it, commenced. [17]

*And it stretches to the fanatical Jewish chauvinists who want to expel the Arabs from the land they call Judea and Samaria.'[18]'

I don't have time to check out the rest of your cites now, but I'm pretty convinced they are of similar quality as evidence for your position. And please review WP:SYNTH. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The sources are all non-Israelis who use the term to mean the Samaria, no more no less. Not one has been "disproven" in any way, and your references to the quite different phrase "Judea and Samaria" are irrelevant to that fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Of the five I've checked [19], one (Lilly Weisbrod) is an Israeli, the rest all say — explicitly — that "Samaria" is an Israeli term, and use "West Bank" and/or "Palestine" consistently, except in a few cases when writing from the Israeli perspective. Not the strongest evidence in support of your hypothesis I can imagine. Yes, they all use the term "Samaria" when discussing settlers and Zionists — but so do I, and I definitely wouldn't appreciate a Jayjg parading the book version of these talk pages as proof that I endorse the term. Why don't you write to Ian Lustick and ask him if he agrees with you that "Samaria" is a widespread term outside Israel? Because what you need is a reliable source for your claim, not synthesized theories based on the flimsiest anecdotal evidence.MeteorMaker (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you quote them explicitly stating that the term "Samaria" - not the phrase "Judea and Samaria" - is an "Israeli term"? So far you have not been able to. And then can you provide the sources that explicitly say that the "toponym" is "not widely understood outside of Israel", as you have claimed? Because I have dozens of reliable English speaking sources printed outside Israel for non-Israeli audiences that use the term without any difficulty. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the suggested phrase "Samaria is [...] a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank" doesn't say anything particular about the usage of the toponym "Samaria" in isolation, I don't quite see the relevance of that objection. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as has been explained to you, it was also the West Bank yesterday, so the pleonasm "what is today" is not required, except for polemic purposes. Also, attempt to tie the term "Samaria" to settler use of the phrase "Judea and Samaria" is WP:NOR and (and polemical). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it "polemical" to state that settlers use the combined term "Judea and Samaria" to refer to the modern West Bank? Either every non-Israeli news source, reference work (including Wikipedia), and government org is "polemical" and you are perfectly neutral, or your position has a few issues with reality. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I have a 'political agenda'. Jayjg, the paladin of Israeli POVing on I/P pages, does not, even when he is patently endeavouring to wikilawyer his way round the standard English terminology dee rigueur for these articles.

(A)For the record, for every I quote, reflecting Israeli or Jewish POVs, on Samaria, there are hundreds referring to that area as the northern West Bank. No one denies that in Jewish/Israeli usage Samaria is the preferred term. What Meteormaker, myself and any one else interested in NPOV maintain is that Samaria is POV, and West Bank NPOV. Your list merely shows the Israeli/Jewish POV.

(B)Even in the list, little stands up to examination, since many of the books cited, if examined use West Bank as consistently, if not often more consistently, than Samaria. It's called cherry-picking.

(C as illustration of B)You cite the Newsweek article

Had you actually read it, you would have noted that 'Samaria' is the title, and only used to gloss the following quote:

'One right-wing parliamentarian, Arieh Eldad, has warned that Sa-Nur could become the "Stalingrad of Samaria", '

And that the Newsweek links classify this under West Bank.

(D) The other wiki language sites confirm the point

(i)La Samarie est le nom de la capitale d'une région historique de Palestine qui était située au nord de la région de Judée, dans ce qui représente aujourd'hui le tiers septentrional de la Cisjordanie, dont la ville principale est Naplouse.

(ii)Samarien bezeichnet im Wesentlichen den nördlichen Teil des heutigen Westjordanlands (Gebiet von Nablus). . . .Israel bezeichnet das Gebiet als Bezirk Judäa und Samarien, wobei dies von der UNO dem Westjordanland zugeordnet wird.

(iii)Samaria, .. è la regione centrale della biblica terra d'Israele. La maggior parte della regione si trova nel nord della Cisgiordania. Alcuni, specialmente coloro che appoggiano la legittimità della creazione dello Stato di Israele e l'annessione di territori conquistati in seguito ad un conflitto armato, preferiscono il termine Giudea e Samaria, a volte viene usato anche il nome inglese (West Bank, "Sponda occidentale", equivalente all'arabo الضفة الغربي, "al-Diffa al-gharbī").Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(E)And please don’t try to fudge evidence by cherrypicking international experts like Anthony Cordesman or Ian Lustick to throw my way in support of your blatant political agenda. If you do I will throw them back at you. I.e.

(1)'In February 2004, Ariel Sharon declared his plans to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip and some small settlements in the northern West Bank. This proposal became a reality in August 2005 when within one week the 25 settlements slated for evacuation, 21 from the Gaza Strip (all the Gaza Strip settlements) and 4 from the West Bank (the area around Jenin), were evacuated’ Anthony Cordesman, Arab-Israeli Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars', Praeger Security International/Greenwood Press, m2006 p.85

(2) ‘According to Israeli sources, the security barrier system in the West Bank area began to be effective even in its early stages, when many key sections were still incomplete. From April to December 2002, there were 17 suicide attacks directed from the northern part of the West Bank, referred to by some as Samaria.’ 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.90 Nishidani (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(3) 'Even as Gush Emunim seeks ways to institutionalize itself and its program, it already has created powerful myths for contemporary Israeli society. These myths, and the attitudes and policies they encourage, will mold Middle Eastern affairs for decades. Israelis now entering the army were born after the 1967 war. For them, the West Bank is Judaea and Samaria.' Ian S. Lustick, ‘Israel's Dangerous Fundamentalists’, in Foreign Policy, No. 68 Fall 1987 pp. 118-139 p.120

(4)‘Judea and Samaria are the biblical names for the general areas south and north of Jerusalem. (respectively) Historically, they include substantial portions of pre-1967 Israel, but not the Jordan Valley or the Benyamina district (both within the West Bank). For political purposes, and despite the geographical imprecision involved, the annexationalist camp in Israel prefers to refer to the area between the green line and the Jordan River not as the West Bank, but as Judea and Samaria.’ Ian S.Lustick, For the Land and the Lord, 1988 p.205 n.4

Lustick has argued specifically that Samaria is a loaded extremist term indicating 'annexationalist' claims (2) that it is geographically imprecise being a vague biblical term. Meteormaker raised this several times, and none of you has an answer to the point.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Analysing changes in Israeli school textbooks, Podeh identifies the military conquest of 1967 as marking a significant change in Israeli usage. I.e. the use of 'Samaria' is an Israeli designation introduced in the aftermath of a military takeover of the West Bank. This again confirms what Lustick has written.

'The narrative in the old textbooks was influenced by the exhilarating impact of Israel’s victory. The term “Six Day War,” with its boast of the magnitude of the victory and its accentuation of the extent of the Arab defeat, quickly became the Israeli appellation for the war. Similarly, the term West Bank was superceded by the terms Judea and Samaria, which emphasize the historical link of these areas to Jewish national history.’ Elie Podeh, Arab-Israeli Conflict in Israeli History Textbooks,1948-2000, Information Age Publishing 2000, p.113 Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The following sources all clarify that Samaria is an Israeli political term used to substitute terms like 'West Bank', 'Occupied territories' used all over the world. They fuirther clarify that it is associated especially with the rise of the right-wing settler-pushing Likud party, was addopted by that party to substitute the term 'West Bank' used earlier in Israel and throughout the rest of the world where it is still the standard term, and therefore is a political-partisan term whose use in Wikipedia would naturally violate NPOV.

(1)‘Likud’s position on the West Bank has never been in doubt. It is clear cut and unambiguous. Judea and Samaria (the biblical terms used by Likud for the West Bank) are integral parts of Israel and are not negotiable in a peace settlement.’ Willard A. Beling,Middle East Peace Plans, Routledge, 1986 p.17

(2) 'While the rhetoric of loyalty to Judea and Samaria was occasionally polished for true believers and coalition coalescence, the political reality forced Likud to settle for an uneasy hybrid on the question of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank.’ Colin Schindler, ‘Likud and the Search for Eretz Israel: From the Bibnle to the Twenty-First Century,’ in Efraim Karsh (ed.), Israel: The First Hundred Years Routledge, 2000 pp.91-117 p.110

(3)‘The most powerful extra-parliamentary movement to mobilize against the agreement was the Council for the Settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are the historic biblical terms for the areas known to the rest of the world as the West Bank and Gaza.’ Gadi Wolfsfeld, Media and Political Conflict: News from the Middle East, Cambridge University Press, 1997 p.82

(4)‘Unlike their rivals in the Labor Party, however, Likud leaders maintained an ideological commitment to holding on to Judea and Samaria (their preferred Biblical terms for the West Bank) conquered in the 1967 war,' Laura Zittrain Eisenberg, Neil Caplan, Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace; Patterns, Problems, Possibilities, Indiana University Press, 1998 p.31

(5) ‘Although there was no alteration of the legal status of the West Bank – of Judea and Samaria (a term taken fromn Mandatory times and officially adopted to replace West Bank or the territories) – despite vocal demands by extreme right-wing groups for the imposition of Israeli law in those areas or their outright annexation,’ Shmuel Noah Eisenstadt, Jewish Civilization: The Jewish Historical Experience in a Comparative Perspective, SUNY Press, 1992 p.207

(6)re 1981 election. ‘Its unpredictability contributed to tensions and anxiety. Begin was particularly anxious for an additional term so that he could implement his plans for the massive Jewish settlement of “Judea and Samaria”, the biblical terms that the Likud government succeeded in substituting for what had previously been called by many the West Bank, the occupuied territories, or simply the territories. The successful gaining of the popular acceptance of these terms was a prelude to gaining popular acceptance of the government’s settlement policies'. Myron J. Aronoff, Israeli Visions and Divisions: Cultural Change and Political Conflict, Transaction Publishers, 1991 p.10Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I didn't read past "Jayjg, the paladin of Israeli POVing on I/P pages". Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the difference between us. I read everything, even patent nonsense. For the record, I made what I think is a fairly objective description of your extreme partisan behaviour in I/P articles because, with no justification in the thread, you interpreted my evidence as evidence for nothing more than a 'political agenda'. Since that was a personal construction on me as an editor it violated the same principle you now adduce in your own defence, i.e. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Jayjg, I'm really impressed by the number of references you've listed.

Meteormaker said, "and has already been refuted there." Please provide links to the refutations.

Nishidani said, "What Meteormaker, myself and any one else interested in NPOV maintain is that Samaria is POV, and West Bank NPOV. Your list merely shows the Israeli/Jewish POV.". Any wording which doesn't acknowledge the Israeli/Jewish POV (and all other significant POVs) is not NPOV. What specific wording in the article is being contested here? When it's convenient to use a single term (for example, in the title of an article, but also in most places within an article, for brevity) perhaps the most commonly used term is to be used, but I think it's an overgeneralization to simply state that that term is "NPOV". Rather, NPOV might require, for example, mentioning other terms in a "terminology" paragraph as well as using the most commonly-used term in most places in the article.

If Jayjg is proposing to add to the article a sentence like "The term "Samaria" is often used by non-Israelis", then WP:SYNTH is relevant. But if Jayjg is arguing on the talk page that Samaria is often used by non-Israelis, as an argument for putting something else (e.g. just "Samaria") into the article, then I don't see the relevance of WP:SYNTH. See this comment at WT:NOR, for example. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentence over which the battle on Talk:Samaria rages is this:

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

As you can see, none of Jayjg's cites in any way disproves these statements. They are all exceptionally well supported [20][21]. Despite trying for several weeks, Jayjg has been unable to find even one reliable source (or indeed any source at all) for his position that "Samaria" is a widely accepted term for the modern (northern) West Bank, hence the synthesizing of anecdotal evidence and grasping for straws.

You asked for links to the refutations, here you go [22]. Note that I haven't had time to scrutinize more than the first seven of the items in the last iteration of his list (the ones he recycled from an earlier list), but even if they were all legit examples of non-Israelis using the term "Samaria", even a hundred such cites would not constitute proof of wide acceptance in the Wikipedia sense. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what has happened here is that User:MeteorMaker has been attempting to remove all references to the term "Samaria" from Wikipedia, based on his theory that that toponym is not widely understood outside Israel, Not widely understood outside Israel. He hasn't actually provided any evidence for that theory, other than an argument based on how some sources use the term, or based on some statements people have made about how various groups prefer the phrase "Judea and Samaria" to "West Bank". In response, I have provided many examples of Western, non-Israeli publications using the term, which show that his theory is false, but he keeps trying to turn this around, claiming I have some theory instead. I don't have any theories; I just object to his removing existing references to "Samaria" on Wikipedia, based on his theories, which are unsupported and have, in fact, been refuted. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, here's where he went on his Samaria-removing/unlinking spree - [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] - and contrary to his edits, "Samaria" and "West Bank" are not synonyms. This is really just a spill-over from his previous battle, when he attempted apply the same theory to the term "Judea". He has done little editing unrelated to this since April 2009, aside from trying to prove that the Biblical promises of the Land of Israel were actually made to Ishmael too; check the Talk:Land of Israel for more detail on that. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying you're being a bit dishonest now. Contrary to what you claim, I have in fact provided quite a lot of evidence from perfectly reliable sources [40][41] for my position that both "Judea" and "Samaria" are terms with at best very marginal modern usage outside Israel. You have provided none, except a list of anecdotal evidence that has been shown to contain solid explicit counterevidence of your position [42]

You claim you "don't have any theories", yet your position not only lacks support in any sources at all, it clashes spectacularly with every other online encyclopedia [43], news media [44], official government sites [45], academic works [46] and even Wikipedias own guidelines. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, none of those sources actually discuss the toponym "Samaria" - thus, you have still provided no sources for your claims. Which, of course, has been pointed out to you many times. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig. I will reply to you, since Jayjg has admitted he doesn't read my evidence. You write:-.

'Any wording which doesn't acknowledge the Israeli/Jewish POV (and all other significant POVs) is not NPOV.'

No wikipedia article in the other language wiki I am familiar with adopts the innovation you are, by your remark, suggesting be adopted. In German Westjordanland, in Italian Cisgiordania, in French Cisjordanie are not invariably glossed by 'Samaria and Judea'. Being an English encyclopedia, we use the standard English term. We use the term 'West Bank' precisely because it is neutral to the parties (Israeli/ Palestinians), and therefore NPOV.

If you say Samaria and Judea is the Jewish/Israeli POV and warrants inclusion, then since there is also a set of corresponding Arabic regional terms for the West Bank and its sectors, by NPOV rules as you construe them, every mention of Israeli terms must be accompanied by equyivalent toponyms from Arabic, i.e. al-Diffa al-gharbī, which is a recipé for disaster, since it would mean every use of standard English and internationally agreed to terminology must require mechanical glosses in transcribed Hebrew and Arabic.

I will, if you have not noticed it in the disorder, provide 5 sequential analyses by front-ranking area specialists that show that in Israeli usage, the terms 'Samaria' and 'Judea' were revived after the conquest of the West Bank in 1967, replacing the international terminology in Israeli textbooks in order to establish the historic claims and connections to these Arab areas, and, especially after Begin's Likud adopted a programm of massive settlement, became de rigueur in the Israeli press, like many other terms, in order to describe those settlement blocs as taking place not on the 'West Bank' but in Biblical areas, and that the term is associated with the politics of the Israeli far right religious groups who aspire to have all the land annexed. This is extremely well documented. The term, even in Israel, has these charged political connotations, and instrumental uses. It is therefore (a) not neutral (b) expressive of an annexationaist mentality. This is not therefore an 'Israeli' POV, 'tout court'. It is also a POV associated with one particular lobby within the Israeli right. Many Israeli scholars use the word 'West Bank', which happens to be also the term common in Israel before 1967.

But the single most important thing, to which no one has answered, (except for a small admission by Ynhockey, who studies these things and understood the point), 'Samaria' and 'Judea' are not terms that correspond to the drawn lines on the maps used by all discussants of the conflict in that area.

>blockquote>'For political purposes, and despite the geographical imprecision involved, the annexationalist camp in Israel prefers to refer to the area between the green line and the Jordan River not as the West Bank, but as Judea and Samaria.’ Ian S.Lustick, For the Land and the Lord, 1988 p.205 n.4

They are not precise topological designations, but refer to general areas which overlap with parts of contemporary Israel. Worse still, the Biblical 'Samaria' is not commensurate with the present territorial designation of 'Samaria'. In most of the texts Jayjg snippeted from, the POV is Jewish Israeli, and the West Bank is frequently used, for English readers, to gloss the use of those words, whose territorial designations are not familiar to most English readers.Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That source discusses the fact that settlers prefer the phrase "Judea and Samaria". It is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the term "Samaria". And, by the way, none of the sources I've brought are "settlers". Please bring relevant material for discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, as I will annotate over the next few days, the speciously impressive ('wow'!!) sources you muster are irrelevant. They are in good part, non-Israeli. They almost all come from Jewish sources, and they confuse historical periods, etc.etc. By the way, these are not 35 sources but far fewer. You use one author, Lustick, Pollack, Nevo, Weisburd, William Harris, etc.,several times each, as though they were independent sources.Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, they are 35 examples, not sources. The fact that they're non-Israeli and "from Jewish sources" is actually what is "irrelevant", as Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on country of birth or ethnicity of the author. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. But we are trying to establish English usage, not sectarian or ethnic usage. Evidently, the language current in Israeli sources or Jewish communities, which do naturally think of Shomron/Samaria, is one thing, and no one contests this usage. What is contested is the adoption in wiki of that political and emotive communal usage in the face of standard international usage. Many of those sources are referring to historic, not contemporary usage. More are reflecting, and remarking on its use in, settler and rightwing circles in Israel. Wiki does not disqualify sources based on ethnicity etc., but it does ask us to use NPOV terminology, and 'Samaria' is not NPOV, being the Jewish/Israeli and older Christianocentric/English wording down to the end of Mandatory times.'Northern West Bank' has no such problems. Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have flipped the issue on its head, though. What has been going on is that User:MeteorMaker has taken it upon himself to remove any already-existing references to "Samaria" or "Judea" from Wikipedia, based on his unproved theory that the term is not well understood today. However, the sources used are not "Israeli" or "Jewish"; rather, they are typically American or British publications, written for general English-speaking audiences. The argument that the sources are "referring to historic usage" or "reflecting, and remarking on its use in, settler and rightwing circles in Israel" has also been tried, and found wanting. The sources are modern, and use the term entirely naturally; they do not enclose it in quotes, or insert caveats. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

<Sigh> This is the old trick of throwing up huge numbers of sources, presumably with the intent of impressing the casual observer into accepting the argument through their sheer apparent weight. The problem with this approach, as ever, is that a) on inspection the sources are often not quite as impressive as they might superficially appear; and b) it ignores the fact that plenty of other sources use different terms - "Samaria" is simply not the standard, consensus or majority terminology in current use in English language sources, especially in mainstream non-Israeli sources. It may be used 50 times in various places including reputable scholarly sources, but it is not used 1000s of times in other places (and please don't make an absurd request for me to "bring sources" proving that). As for the 181 point, see my post below - will you now be renaming the Jordan article "Transjordan"? --Nickhh (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources are not a "trick". On other hand, unsourced theories aren't actionable for editing purposes. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you have in fact now asked me to bring sources, while waving WP policies at me like some kind of trump card. However the burden of course - as I and others have pointed out - is on those who wish to add or retain a disputed terminology to provide sources which suggest it is a mainstream and standard description of the area/district in question. And simply providing some individual examples of sources where "Samaria" has been used does not satisfy that requirement. Until you can find reliable sources that show it is the usual terminology, you are simply dragging everyone into rather pointless talk page debates and edit wars, and bizarrely challenging them to provide sources to disprove something that you haven't yet demonstrated to be the case. That, I believe, is in violation of WP:GETTINGTHINGSBACKTOFRONT and WP:ASSUMINGPRECISELYTHATWHICHYOUARETRYINGTOPROVE. And at the end of the day, what is being gained by this attempt to add or retain the additional (and contentious) word "Samaria" to what is currently a perfectly clear, accurate and well-sourced description "northern West Bank". We're not getting any extra clarity or improvement to the article, we're just creating needless disputes. --Nickhh (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jayjg. You may strongly dislike my work in I/P articles, but I do not edit by playing tricks(which is a reflection on me, by the way and violates your own code). To the contrary, I welcome evidence that might challenge my perceptions. I have never disputed that 'Samaria and Judea' is standard in Israeli newspapers. I have affirmed that it was the common designation for the area under the British Mandate. I have noted many of your references (sorry, have not yet completed my review, but will in a few days) refer to the Mandatory period, and therefore are not valid examples of modern usage. That most of your sources come from Jewish/Israeli scholars is not coincidental, even if a large number of them gloss the term Samaria and Judea with (West Bank). One can actually verify this quite simply. You have never explained why in many of the sources you cite, the word 'Samaria' is itself glossed by ((northern)West Bank). Glosses of this kind are intended to oriente the reader, by annotating a term that may be unfamiliar with one that (s)he readily recognizes. To all of you it may be the most natural thing in the world to identify that area by its Jewish/Biblical label. It is definitely not so for the inhabitants, who have mainly abandoned speaking of as-Samara since 1967, and for the rest of the English-speaking world. To non-Jewish native speakers, Samaria, if they recognize it at all, is a religious term for a 'region in Palestine'(OED), whose (of the 14 people I have interrogated or emailed over the past few days none could tell me, when they did associate it with Palestine or the West Bank, whether it was north or south) location is not clear. Anecdotal evidence of course, and not material. But it is very much material to the argument that there is a clear NPOV violation involved in insisting that areas that now have official Arabic governance, jurisdiction and phraseology reflected in international documentation, be referred to by the chosen, POV term of Jewish settlers resident there under the protection of the Occupying power that is Israel. As one of your own sources remarked, Gerson I believe, naming is also an appropriative act. The 4 villages referred to in the passage were in the Jenin governorate of the northern West Bank: while we can dispute the POV of Samaria, no one has provided from your side an argument to show that 'northern West Bank' suffers from the same ideological bias, since it is precise topologically, politically neutral and a recognized mode of reference endorsed by international usage.Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "tricks", Nickhh did. Your original research, which involved interrogating 14 people, is interesting, but not relevant to policy or article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made a modest suggestion here - is that any use? PR^talk 12:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, given the fact that this debate is taking place, something like that may be necessary and helpful. But it would of course make much more sense if we just used the simple, uncontroversial and geographically & politically accurate phrasing "northern West Bank" (which is of course used by the vast majority of sources) and avoided attempts to import additional and loaded terminology on top of it, even if some editors can find one or two places where it is used. It may only be the single word "Samaria", but those editors know exactly what they are trying to do here. --Nickhh (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "those editors" are reflecting the language used in sources, and rejecting systematic removal of English-language geographical descriptors used in multiple reliable sources based on unsourced opinion. Jayjg ^(talk)

Sorry, Jayjg. You may strongly dislike my work in I/P articles, but I do not edit by playing tricks(which is a reflection on me, by the way and violates your own code). To the contrary, I welcome evidence that might challenge my perceptions. I have never disputed that 'Samaria and Judea' is standard in Israeli newspapers. I have affirmed that it was the common designation for the area under the British Mandate. I have noted many of your references (sorry, have not yet completed my review, but will in a few days) refer to the Mandatory period, and therefore are not valid examples of modern usage. That most of your sources come from Jewish/Israeli scholars is not coincidental, even if a large number of them gloss the term Samaria and Judea with (West Bank). One can actually verify this quite simply. You have never explained why in many of the sources you cite, the word 'Samaria' is itself glossed by ((northern)West Bank). Glosses of this kind are intented to oriente the reader, by annotating a term that may be unfamiliar with one that (s)he readily recognizes. To all of you it may be the most natural thing in the world to identify that area by its Jewish/Biblical label. It is definitely not so for the inhabitants, who have mainly abandoned speaking of as-Samara since 1967, and for the rest of the English-speaking world. To non-Jewish native speakers, Samaria, if they recognize it at all, is a religious term for a 'region in Palestine'(OED), whose (of the 14 people I have interrogated or emailed over the past few days none could tell me, when they did associate it with Palestine or the West Bank, whether it was north or south) location is not clear. Anecdotal evidence of course, and not material. But it is very much material to the argument that there is a clear NPOV violation involved in insisting that areas that now have official Palestinian governance, jurisdiction and phraseology reflected in international documentation, be referred to by the chosen, POV term of Jewish settlers resident there under the protection of the Occupying power that is Israel. As one of your own sources remarked, Gerson I believe, naming is also an appropriate act. The 4 villages referred to in the passage were in what is now known as the Jenin governorate of the northern West Bank: while we can dispute the POV of Samaria, no one has provided from your side an argument to show that 'northern West Bank' suffers from the same ideological bias, since it is precise topologically, politically neutral and a recognized mode of reference endorsed by international usage.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You've duplicated your comment. I've responded to the first instance, above. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Nov 27: [47] Jayjg added more "sources", ostensibly to provide support for the hypothesis that "Samaria" is used outside Israel:

* (1)"In 2004 the Israeli Government and Parliament approved the evacuation of the Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip and four settlements from northern Samaria." Nurit Kliot, "Resettlement of Refugees in Finland and Cyprus: A Comparative Analysis and Possible Lessons for Israel", in Arie Marcelo Kacowicz, Pawel Lutomski. Population Resettlement in International Conflicts: A Comparative Study, Lexington Books, 2007, p. 57.

• (2)"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.

• (3)"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.

• (4)"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.

• (5)"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.

• (6)"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.

• (7)"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.

• (8)"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.</ref> They were abandoned as part of Israeli withdrawals from these areas in 1982 (Sinai) and 2005.

Let's take a look at them, one by one, and see if they fare any better than his earlier attempts to prove that "Samaria" is used as a toponym for the modern West Bank outside Israel (see above in this section and here).

• (1) Nurit Kliot is an Israeli [48].
• (2) Zvi Shtauber and Yiftah Shapir are Israelis [49][50].
• (3) Leonard Getz is the National Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America [51].
• (4) Robert Zelnick, unsurprisingly, states the opposite of what Jayjg sets out to prove:

"[...] Judea and Samaria, what most of the world refers to as the West Bank."[52]

• (5) "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" is clearly a reference to ancient history. The article uses "West Bank consistently, as does every article in the International Herald Tribune 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". [53].
• (6) Abraham D. Sofaer was a member of a Zionist org in his youth [54]. Yes, you are allowed one faux pas in your life, but interestingly, I have not been able to find more than one instance of him using the term "Samaria" either.
• (7) Motti Inbari is an Israeli [55].
• (8) Naftali Tamir is an Israeli [56].

Since none of the sources supports Jayjg's position (two of them (4, 5) in fact contradict it), and, being mere anecdotal evidence, even a hundred of them wouldn't be enough to support it without an unhealthy dose of WP:SYNTH, I have now removed them. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Going through the objections to these reliable sources one by one, to see if they fare any better than the previous objections:

1. Published by Lexington Books/Rowman & Littlefield, based in Lanham, Maryland, United States of America.
2. Published by Sussex Academic Press, based in the United Kingdom.
3. Published in The Jewish Exponent, a Philadelphia, United States newspaper.
4. The citation in question refers to Samaria, not the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria", and does not use it in quotes etc. Published by the Hoover Institution, based in Stanford University, United States of America.
5. The citation in question refers to Samaria, and says it is known as Samaria. Not that is was called that in ancient history. Published by the International Herald Tribune, based in Paris, France.
6. Published by the Hoover Institution, based in Stanford University, United States of America. Being a member of a Zionist organization is not a faux pas.
7. Published in the Journal of Church and State, a publication of Baylor University, Texas, United States of America.
8. Published in The Australian, the largest selling national newspaper in Australia.

And finally, Wikipedia does not discriminate based on ethnicity or national origin, and it's rather distasteful to see attempts to do so. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't discriminate based on ethnicity or national origin, how come most of your sources are Israeli? Where are all the other nationalities and ethnicities, for instance the Palestinians? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop categorizing sources by alleged ethnicity or national origin, it's inappropriate and distasteful. The sources are American, British, French, and Australian publications, as shown. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Except most of the people quoted are Israelis, and thus of very limited use as proof of non-Israeli use of the term "Samaria". Your attempts to paint me as a racist is a severe breach of WP:CIVIL and will be reported, should they continue. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, the sources are American, British, French, and Australian publications, as shown, and it is you who continually brings up the alleged ethnicity or national origins of the various authors, as means of approving or disapproving them. Feel free to report yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption that nationality is suspended by having one's words printed in a foreign publication is not exactly a mainstream one, and I think you will have a hard time trying to find support for it in WP guidelines or policies. If you want to present more anecdotal evidence of non-Israeli use of the toponym "Samaria", you will have to find non-Israeli sources, simple as that. Surely that shouldn't be such a big problem if the term is as common as you purport it to be? MeteorMaker (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "presenting evidence" of anything; I'm merely using the terminology used by the reliable sources. It is you who is trying to prove theories about language, based on the alleged ethnicity or national origins of the authors. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

By some odd coincidence, and to satisfy a sudden desire to provide cites for a long-standing sentence about withdrawal of settlements in Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank, you happen to find no less than eight that all talk about "Samaria", which you insist must be included no matter how POV they are, because they are reliable sources. As an admin, you should be aware of at least the most basic of WP's policies:

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. [57]

MeteorMaker (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course, the context of the citations was your sudden spree of trying to remove all references to Samaria from Wikipedia. But apparently you've now adopted a new theory - before you claimed that the "toponym Samaria" was not well understood, or not well understood outside Israel. Now you're claiming it violates WP:NPOV? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the nature of minority terminology. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I will now find NPOV sources that cannot be considered partisan and add them to the article. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To what end? The sentence already includes the terminology "West Bank"; in fact, in accord with NPOV, it includes both "Samaria" and "West Bank". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The West Bank is an NPOV term, "Samaria" is not, because it's used by only one side on the conflict, and hardly even that [58]. In order to provide a counterweight, we would have to add eight sources that use terms like "Zionist-occupied Palestine". I can do that if that's what you want. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Your new theory is interesting, but do you have any source for your claim that the term "Samaria" is not "NPOV"? Also, please avoid WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jayjg, with infinite patience I once again direct you to these two diffs [59][60], that make it clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that "Samaria" is an extreme minority term compared to "the West Bank", and used exclusively in Israel, one of the sides in the condlict. That is the very definition of WP:POV. If you disagree with any of the facts I've presented, something resembling a reliable source in support of your opinion would be much better than your trademark throwing of random WP policies and repeating of the same broken record response over and over. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And with infinite patience I once again direct you to the WP:SYN policy:

Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research.

Something resembling a reliable source in support of your opinions would be much better than your trademark throwing of various primary sources that nowhere make the same claims that you do, and repeating of the same broken record response over and over. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:PARROTING, stop cutting and pasting my posts with just a few words changed. Of all the random WP policies you have thrown my way, none has been more off the mark than WP:SYNTH. I have presented reliable, NPOV sources [61][62] and quoted them more or less verbatim. You have not presented any sources at all for your opposing position, except weak anecdotal evidence and misrepresented sources that on closer inspection turn out to contradict your own claims 100%. In this discussion, you have relied entirely on obstructionism, blatant wikilawyering and refusal to abide by WP policies, while willfully misrepresenting other editors arguments, constantly and falsely accusing them of breaches of WP policies, and, worst of all, attempting to paint them as racists [63]. Certainly not what one expects from an admin. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Balderdash and pure projection. Quote the sources that say Samaria is "not a modern toponym", or "not widely understood outside Israeli", or "not commonly used today", or is "an extreme minority term", or is "not NPOV" or any other of your myriad claims. Quote them saying it. Their words, not your synthesized arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For the millionth time, where do you see those claims in the suggested changes to the Samaria article? : 'Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. The combined term Judea and Samaria, despite some geographical imprecision, is used in Israel to refer to the West Bank as a whole.'

You can't say you haven't seen sources that state that "Judea" and "Samaria" are Israel-specific (and thus POV) terminology either — in fact, most of the ones we've used in this debate (eg Lustick and Zelnick) were inadvertently brought up by none other than yourself. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

These sources and others cited elsewhere on this page seem pretty explicit to me, in saying that it is a minority terminology with a political message behind it, used primarily in Israel by those wishing to lay claim to the land. Did you fail to read these ones too? Shouting "Synthesis!!" doesn't mean that there is synthesis going on. --Nickhh (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The first set of sources brought by MeteorMaker don't say anything about the term's modern usage. The second set state that certain groups prefer the phrase "Judea and Samaria", but say nothing about Samaria being a "historical term", or really anything about the term Samaria at all. Did you fail to read these ones too? Claiming there is no synthesis when a quite obviously synthesize argument is being advanced doesn't mean that there is no synthesis going on. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the discussion migrated here from Talk:Samaria, all editors may not be familiar with what's discussed. Here is the suggested sentences that Jayg keeps deleting:

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

Now compare to the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia cite I've given:

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. [64]

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

"For political purposes, and despite the geographical imprecision involved, the annexationist camp in Israel prefers to refer to the area between the Green Line and the Jordan River not as the West Bank but as Judea and Samaria." [65]

(Copied from Talk:Samaria) MeteorMaker (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How many times must this be repeated to you? Britannica's discussion of the ancient kingdom of Samaria tells us nothing about the modern use of the term "Samaria". Similarly, the fact that certain groups prefer to use the phrase "Judea and Samaria" instead of "West Bank" tells us nothing about the modern use of the term "Samaria". Quote sources that discuss the modern usage of the term Samaria. Quote them directly discussing its usage. Stop synthesizing arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You postulate that they exist, you find them and quote them. I have not been able to find a single source that claims "Samaria" is a modern toponym. All online encyclopedias say Samaria is an ancient district, located inside what is today the West Bank, and so should Wikipedia, unless you can find enough reliable sources to outweigh the ones I've presented [66][67]. So far, you've presented nothing but your unfounded opinion. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been able to find any sources that discuss "Samaria" as a "toponym" period, yet you insist that it is not a "modern toponym" nonetheless. You must find sources for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Every source I've given indicates directly (or indirectly) that "Samaria" is not a modern toponym outside Israel, by 1) using the past tense ("Samaria was..."), 2) placing it in ancient Palestine, or 3) explicitly stating that only Israelis (or Jews, or settlers) use the term (generally prefixed with "Biblical"). [68][69]. Reading them will make that rather obvious. Now, I asked for a (non-anecdotalsource for your claim, that "Samaria" satisfies Wikipedia's widely accepted term requirements. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Begging the question

Certain editors still keep restoring Jayjg's reference to "Samaria" long after the term has been shown to be an extreme minority term [70], used exclusively in Israel and thus a clear violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as well as WP:NCGN. The stated rationale is that Jayjg has provided eight sources where the word "Samaria" occurs. The mistaken assumption that reliable sources trump WP:NPOV aside, his very selective choice of sources is a perfect example of begging the question:

• Per WP:NCGN, WP uses only established English toponyms. "Samaria" has not been shown to enjoy such acceptance and is a definite minority term compared to "the West Bank" even in Israel [71].
• It is not contested that "Samaria" is used by (some) Israelis. Thus, Israeli cites are of no value as evidence that the term is used outside Israel.
• Of Jayjg's eight cites, four are by Israelis [72] and two are by people with a documented affiliation with Zionist organizations.
• Of the remaining two, one (International Herald Tribune) is a ref to ancient Samaria (another uncontested usage). Both IHT and the last source (Zelnick) contradict Jayjg's position by explicitly stating that "Samaria" is Israel-specific terminology.

To sum up, none of Jayjg's sources serves as evidence for his position, two even contradict it. Add the WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NCGN issues and we find that as justification for introducing the term "Samaria" on Wikipedia, Jayjg's eight cites are of zero value. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC) MeteorMaker (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Certain editors still keep removing reliable references to "Samaria" despite the fact that their claims that it is "not well understood outside Israel", "not a modern toponym", "an extreme minority usage" are unproven original research. The mistaken assumption that these personal opinions trump WP:NPOV aside:

• Per WP:NPOV, WP uses shows multiple views, rather than asserting only one view is correct. "Samaria" has not been shown to "not a modern toponym" or "not well understood outside Israel". The article in any event complies with MeteorMaker's WP:NCGN objection by providing the term he prefers.
• Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on their alleged ethnicity or national origin.
• Of the eight cites provided, five were published in the United States of America, one in the United Kingdom, one in France, and one in Australia. No sources indicate the usage is historical, nor do any state that "Samaria" is " Israel-specific terminology".

To sum up, MeteorMaker has brought no sources that serve as evidence for his position, and dozens have been brought that contradict it. Add the WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR issues and we find that as justification for removing the term "Samaria" on Wikipedia, MeteorMaker's arguments are of zero value. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, the parrot argument is for four-year-olds, so please try to come up with a real argument instead. I will ignore (most of) the obvious nonsense and focus on your statement "Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on their alleged ethnicity or national origin", another ill-advised attempt to paint your opponents as racists. I'm confident you are aware of the potential consequences of further grave breaches of WP:CIVIL.

Now, when trying to prove that "Samaria" is used by others than Israelis, Israeli sources aren't the best evidence, I'm sure you agree. It doesn't change anything that they are quoted/published by media in other countries. It's as if you were trying to prove that kangaroos exist outside Australia: "Look! They're on TV! British, American and French TV!" MeteorMaker (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

that's a flawed analogy. The proper analogy is: MM: Kangaroos are only called that in Australia. J: No, they're called that in the US, Britain and France, too, look - here's an American/British/French TV show that calls them "kangaroos". MM: Oh, but the producer of the American TV served with ANZAC when he was 18, so it doesn't count. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about flawed analogy... "Kangaroo" is the mainstream term in English (and the French call them "kangourou" in any case). Pretty easy to check if you doubt it. Now, somebody manages to sneak in a ref in the kangaroo article as "kngvru", citing 8 sources that all spell it that way. On closer examination, it turns out that six are transliterations from the Israeli word "קנגורו" (and two are simply misspelled versions of the English word). Undaunted, a coterie of editors goes to edit war, insisting it must be there alongside the more accepted "kangaroo" because of (insert random WP policy here). MeteorMaker (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

When you show that the uses of "Samaria" in English sources are misspellings or transliterations of some Hebrew word, we'll pick up this analogy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I (and others) have shown [73][74] it to be the clear minority term vs "West Bank", used exclusively by one side in the I/P conflict, and for WP purposes, that is more than enough. Please review WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NCGN.MeteorMaker (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

When you show that the uses of "Samaria" in English sources are misspellings or transliterations of some Hebrew word, we'll pick up this analogy. if you wnat to try another analogy, which has a little more bearing on this situation, go ahead. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Double post? Anyway, if you want to try to prove that X exists outside country Y, an example consisting of an X in country Y isn't the best or most clever evidence one can imagine. Which was my point. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And again, user:Canadian Monkey has reverted to Jayjg's version, apparently unaware that WP:RS does not override WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. [75] MeteorMaker (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the relevant policies. I disagree with you that the version I've reverted to violates WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That cannot be interpreted in any other way than that you mean:

1. "Samaria" is not a minority term (ie, it's used at least as frequently in English as "West Bank").
2. Use of "Samaria" as a modern toponym is not restricted to Israel.

Do you have a reliable source for these two claims?

MeteorMaker (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Numerous non-Israeli reliable sources have been shown to you that use "Samaria" as a modern toponym. Feel free to reread the discussion. (Hopefully without any reference to the ethnicity of authors or political affiliations from their youth years, which are not only immaterial, but distasteful) Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from making distasteful borderline accusations of racism, and link to one source that claims that 1) "Samaria" is not a minority term (ie, it's used at least as frequently in English as "West Bank") and 2) Use of "Samaria" as a modern toponym is not restricted to Israel.

MeteorMaker (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Terminology section

Just a suggestion, but for those involved in the Judea and Samaria discussion above, you might want to consider adding information about this from some of the sources cited above to the Terminology section. I think it's relevant, in that it forms part of the favoured terminology used by many settlers and their supporters. Anyway, jus a thought. Tiamut^talk 00:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: It's also used by people who don't support settlers as it is official Israeli terminology. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have to use Israeli terminology in wikipedia to describe the evacuation of four Israeli settlements from the Jenin Governorate, which strictly speaking, is where they were withdrawn from?Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because some people see the "Jenin Governorate" and the removal of Jews (or "settlers") from the area, as a concession of part of ancient Israel in exchange for peaceful co-existence. Oddly, these concessions do not seem to work, as the more concessions are offered, the more are demanded until in fact all of Palestine is liberated. Talk about vague boundaries...what exactly does the liberation of Palestine mean? I mean, what part of Israel would be left after Palestine has been liberated? I've always wondered that. If you can clarify it for me, Nishidani, I'd be really grateful. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, just a note Tundra, on your state of mind. Ancient Israel is not a contemporary actor in Middle East negotiations, one capable of making concessions. The US state department has never to my knowledge sent a fax to Shechem to ask David, Abraham and the other lads to derapture themselves and come back and participate in talks at the UN, Geneva, or elsewhere in the real world. Still I appreciate the boutade. I'll paste and copy it into my book of weird statements, thanks.Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

@Tundrabuggy - if I wrote anything like that, I'd be heavily chastised, and very likely blocked for SOAP-BOXING. I have much less rhetorical questions to ask, I dare not do so. I can't even get an answer to perfectly proper questions about the CoI implications of people who've carried a gun in the region. I know for sure we'd never accept a Palestinian editor in that position. PR^talk 12:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, please make comments that are relevant and actionable with regards to article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

181/Samaria

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (dated to 1947 of course) seems to be being cited as a key piece of evidence as to why we should refer to "Samaria". Here is the whole text for those who want to have a look - Res 181. It does indeed make references to "Samaria". It also makes reference to "Transjordan". Sixty years later, neither term is in common usage in the English language to describe the northern West Bank or Jordan respectively. The names which are used for geographical and administrative areas change and develop all the time. Language more generally changes over the years - there are plenty of words that were in use in the 1940s which would simply not be used in standard conversation now, due to political concerns, changes in meaning, context and interpretation etc. --Nickhh (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing and conflating the naming of administrative districts,and the naming of geographical areas. The former do indeed change rather frequently - what was called Transjordan in 1947 became The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1950, and was known as part of the eyalet of Syria under the Ottoman empire. However, the geographical region called "The Jordan valley" contained within the above administrative districts (no matter what their name) was called the same thing throughout. A similar situation exists with regards to Samaria: This geographical region has been contained with the administrative districts of the Kingdom of Israel (The Northern Kingdom), Iudaea-Palestina (under Roman rule), the eyalet of Syria under the Ottoman empire, the British Mandate of Palestine, and now, as either "The West Bank" or "Judea and Samaria", depending on your political orientation. However, the geographical region always was and still is known as "Samaria", as numerous examples provided both here and under Talk:Samaria, show. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything, since I wasn't being that specific about what capacity the name "Samaria" is being used in - I was merely making the very general point that this is quite simply not what this area is called (whether as a geographical, political or administrative unit) in most current, mainstream, standard sources. Any more than Mumbai is called Bombay, Chennai is called Madras, Dorset is part of Wessex etc --Nickhh (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And you are ignoring that 'Judea and Samaria' is the Israeli term for what is an occupied territory, which in all preliminary negotiations has been accepted as constituting what both sides agree will be a Palestinian area (Sharon even withdrew 4 settlements from it on this basis, and it is precisely a text referring to his unilateral withdrawal from four settlements which is under consideration), and therefore is a strongly partisan POV, as many of the books in Jayjg's list admit. If an Israeli POV term is to be introduced, then its corresponding Palestinian term has to be introduced, and nonsense begins. Administrative districts are also geographical districts by the way. Nishidani (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion: As far as Israel is in concern, settlements belonged to the Samaria municipal district. Perhaps it would be agreed as a two way compromise to make this change but write "district" instead of region? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sensible thinking, Jaak. I'm still trying to find time to finish my review, and then an analysis of sources, and will then look at it. The problem in this proposal only appears to be that in using 'districts' for areas, the Gaza Strip then, grammatically, becomes itself a 'district'. Still I appreciate the suggestion.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sharon and removal of settlements

The references about this are relevant to the article and from RS. I've restored them (with thanks to those that did the original research). Remvoing sets of references in a whole sale manner is usually not a good idea, it leads to a poor encycopedia Oboler (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"with thanks to those that did the original research": WP:OR? MeteorMaker has made an excellent case refuting just those sources above.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.11.2008 08:31

MM used ridiculous original research, including the disqualification of sources on the grounds that they are "Israeli", or "Zionists" - which is not allowed on wikipedia. Removing well sourced, relevant material is borderline vandalism. Don't do it. NoCal100 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No. You need sources that say that Samaria is somehow the preferred term for the West Bank. Those sources don't cut it. Jayjg, trying to give examples of people using that term, has been using them to make the WP:SYNTHetic argument that the term "Samaria" is widely used outside of Israel, yet using Israeli authors somewhat defeats that purpose.

Again, you would need a source showing that "Samaria" is the preferred term, not just a bunch of (Israeli) sources using the term itself.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.11.2008 16:30

no, since no one is making the claim that Samaria is the preferred term, no sources supporting it need to be provided. The claim is that the settlements were removed from Samaria, and sources saying that, in those exact words, were provided. The sources are not 'Israeli", and Wikipedia does not discriminate against sources based on ethnic origin. NoCal100 (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it is not the preferred name/term for the region, then it should not be used, as it adds nothing to the article but confusion. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 28.11.2008 16:55

what it adds is precision. The west bank is a large place, "northern west bank" includes regions that are not in Samaria. There's no reason not to use a precise term, when 8 separate reliable sources do so in this context. NoCal100 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You aren't seriously arguing that Samaria is more precisely defined geographically than the West Bank, are you? pedrito - talk - 28.11.2008 17:03

of course I am. Would you like an explanation of the difference? NoCal100 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would (genuinely). As far as I am aware - although I may not be 100% right here - the combined (and politically loaded) term "Judea and Samaria", in so far as it is used, does refer to a specific, defined area, more or less the same as that covered by the term "West Bank", subject to issues around Jerusalem. However when Samaria is used on its own, it is merely a vague indicator that we are talking about the northern part of that area - I am not aware that there is any defined or official (Israeli) boundary as to where Samaria "starts". In addition of course there is the point that Samaria is more commonly used in its historic sense to refer to a larger area, whose boundaries are even less clear. That adds up to plenty of imprecision, in more than one respect. You are also misrepresenting MM's point about the majority of cited sources being Israeli, apparently in a bid to suggest they were applying racist criteria to sources. And of course, when it comes to matters of interpretation or when there is dispute about terminology, of course we should be looking for the "preferred" version or term, not cherry-picking sources. Yes many sources use the word "Samaria", often as a political statement. But many more do not, and avoid using the word quite deliberately. WP:RS does not work in isolation - WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE etc apply as well. "Northern West Bank" is by far the most common description in standard modern use for this area, as well as being the most simple, neutral and accurate. That description would be agreed on by 99% of WP:RS. Again, what is added by having the minority-use word "Samaria" bunged in on top of it, especially in the lead? --Nickhh (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Samaria is the hill country of the central, northern part of the region (to avoid using any loaded terms). It is obviously a more geographically precise term than "west bank", which includes areas as far south as Yata, in the southern Hebron hills, a distance of more than 100km away, in a totally different geographic and geological area. The northern West bank also includes the northern Jordan valley, which is not in Samaria. You are correct that there is no official boundary for that area, just like there is no " official boundary" for the Mojave desert - yet I'm sure you'll agree that the statement "Twentynine Palms is a town in the Mojave Desert" more precisely defines the location of he town than " "Twentynine Palms is a town in the California", or "Twentynine Palms is a town in the United States". NoCal100 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

To a non-Californian who has only a very vague idea where the Mojave desert is, "Southeast California" is in fact a much more precise description. Particularly so if the term "the Mojave Desert" were exclusively used in California. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the Mohave desert is a precise location. Southern California includes areas like San Diego or LA, which are far from the desert, and share none of the relevant geographical features. You are confused between "precise" - which the Mojave desert is - and "imprecise but gives a rough indication for the ignorant, using terms they might understand" - which may be ok for casual chit-chat, but not for an encyclopedia. NoCal100 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

San Diego and LA are hardly located in southeast California, so I don't think anybody except the terminally ignorant would be misled by such a description (and the Mojave Desert coincides more or less exactly with "southeast California" anyway, like "Samaria" and "northern West Bank"). However, the discussion isn't about precision — what "precision" would we gain by (falsely) stating in the Samaria article that the toponym is extant, when all the evidence shows it's exclusively used as a term for the ancient region? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

so first you claim that '"Southeast California" is in fact a much more precise description.' - and when that's shown to be completely false, you back-pedal to 'the discussion isn't about precision'. Indeed. It is about POV pushing, and it's time you stopped it. NoCal100 (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That was not shown to be completely false, and the "precision" discussion was a red herring to begin with. I can agree that POV pushing is at the heart of this matter, that's why I'm strongly against cherry-picking a number of partisan sources and the drawing of dubious synthetic conclusions from highly skewed material. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The precision was not a red herring at all. I was asked what the term Samaria adds to the article, and I explained it was more precise than "West Bank". NoCal100 (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt residents of Twentynine Palms use "Mojave Desert" as a mail address, despite the precision you say it adds. Note that despite your recommendation, the WP article is named "Twentynine Palms, California", not "Twentynine Palms, Mojave Desert". Arbitrary, country-specific, or made-up geographical labels add nothing but confusion. For instance, is Ma'ale Adumim in Samaria or not? Does it add precision to claim so, even though not even all its inhabitants might agree if they are "Samaritans" or "Judeans"?

You also avoided the question why English WP should begin to use Israel-specific terminology. Should we begin to refer to Germany as Germania too, because that happens to be the term the Israelis use? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also pretty sure that residents of Twentynine Palms don't use "Southern California" as a mail address, either, so I am not sure what this clumsy analogy is supposed to prove. "Samaria" is not arbitrary, nor made up, nor country specific.. NoCal100 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

They use neither "Southern California, "Southeast California" nor "Mojave Desert", they use simply "California", which sort of shoots down your, you said it, clumsy analogy. If "Samaria" is the well-defined region you claim it to be, could you tell me if eg. Ma'ale Adumim is in it or not? If it's not Israel-specific, how come all non-Israeli reference works, news media, and government documents consistently use "West Bank"? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

They use neither my designation nor yours, so that's the end of that particular argument. Are you now suggesting the "California", which is what they use (alongside the actual town name and ZIP code) is more precise than "Southern California"? There are many sources which are non-Israeli which use the term - they have been presented here and on at leats 3 other articles, where you are engaged is this POV-pushing effort to remove mention of "Samaria" form wikipedia. NoCal100 (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(<--Outdent)

(Outdent) You suggested that the city Twentynine Palms would gain precision by stopping referring to itself as a Californian town and starting calling itself a town in the Mojave Desert. Glad we agree now that not everything has to be sacrificed on the altar of precision. Myself, I'm perfectly happy with the current designation, just California.

Like I said on Talk:Samaria, half a dozen isolated examples does not constitute evidence of widespread use, something Wikipedia's guidelines require for a toponym to be presented as extant. You need either a direct quote from a reliable source that says "Samaria" is an accepted (non-Israeli) term for the modern region, or enough anecdotal evidence to satisfy Wikipedia's procedure for determining if a term enjoys widespread acceptance in English. Drawing your own conclusions from such a small sample is a violation of both WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I suggested that the Mojave desert is a more precise definition of where Twentynine Palms is located, than "California" or "Southern California". That claim is true no matter how much you dance around it and bring up irrelevancies such as what the residents use for a mailing address. The claim I am making is that Israel removed some settlements in Samaria - and 8 reliable sources that make that exact claim have been provided. Time to move on. NoCal100 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, Wikipedia remains unimpressed. When the article Twentynine Palms, California is renamed to Twentynine Palms, Mojave Desert, let me know.

Eight cherry-picked and partisan sources claim that the area is called "Samaria", so what. I can show you a hundred that say it happened in Zionist-occupied Palestine. Under WP:UNDUE, sources that express extreme minority views are to be avoided. Maybe we should add eight of the ZOP sources in the name of WP:NPOV? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Indymedia and blogs? Please read WP:RS, as I don't think you have understood the concept of a reliable source. NoCal100 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Try these then. As if finding fringe quotes were a problem in the Google age. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you under the illusion that anything found under books.google.com is automatically a reliable source? I thought I gave you some good advice - please read WP:RS, becuase you celary do not understand wiki policy with regards to sources. And which of these sources describe the removal of Isreali settlements from Samaria, which is the topic of discussion? NoCal100 (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have few illusions. Feel free to specify what exact infraction of WP_RS each of these 43 books containg the phrase "Zionist-occupied Palestine" has incurred. If you insist we open the floodgate for controversial, fringe and POV terms, there is no shortage of sources with an anti-Israel bias that wil also have to be allowed in the name of neutrality. Which was my point. MeteorMaker (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources used in this article are reliable sources that specifically refer to the 4 settlements removed from northern Samaria. Please review WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And you review WP:UNDUE. Are you aware that "Samaria" is a small minority term even on English-language Israeli sites? MeteorMaker (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? A "small minority term" for what? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, the northern part of the West Bank, Jayjg. If even you have to ask what the term means, NoCal's theory that using "Samaria" would add precision just got a huge hole shot in it. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Who says Samaria is a "small minority term for the northern part of the West Bank"? I'm pretty sure NoCal has been pointing out that the terms aren't co-terminous, hasn't he? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

He has asserted it, yes. Please read this section for some actual sources which suggest both that it does refer to the same thing, and on top of that, that it is also a minority or secondary terminology. --Nickhh (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Those sources don't "suggest" anything at all; instead, they show how those sources have referred to the biblical kingdom of Samaria. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Reset) My question in fact was about what is being added to the article by the use of the term "Samaria" as opposed to (or as well as) "northern West Bank", not the West Bank as a whole. I know you've explained what you see as the differences above, but to be honest it still seems to me that the two terms refer to pretty much the same area at the end of the day. This Ynet page also appears to put it that way. So the issue is, which is the more usual way of referring to this area in the English speaking word? However many times you and anyone else can point to a source that talks about "Samaria", I could dig up 100s more that simply say "northern West Bank" or "the northern part of the West Bank". So that's what the lead should say. Similarly in the UK the most accurate and common term used to describe the province of Northern Ireland is "Northern Ireland", not the "Six Counties" or "Ulster", both of which are nonetheless used frequently (especially the latter), and usually in order to make a political point. The term both locates it geographically, and is the correct administrative name. --Nickhh (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there are no 'correct administrative name' for geographical regions. And to the extent you want to name the political district, the 'correct administrative name' is the District of Judea and Samaria. The two terms "norther West Bank" and "Samaria" have a lot of overlap, but they are not the same - as I noted above, the northern west bank also includes the northern Jordan valley, which is not in Samaria. Why use a wordy, imprecise term, when a single, more precise term will do the trick? NoCal100 (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a politically contentious and minority use term. Btw I am aware that we are not discussing an exact administrative area here - the Northern Ireland analogy was intended to raise the point about political vs standard terminology, not to make a direct comparison (despite the fact they both involve the word "northern" - that's why I capped one but not the other). I am also aware that the Israeli name for the wider administrative district is the combined phrase "Judea and Samaria". The issue here is - what is the standard description, in the majority of English language sources, for that area; and specifically how do most sources describe the broad part of that overall district which we are talking about here, where these settlements were sited. And the answer to the first point is "the West Bank", not "Judea and Samaria"; and to the second is "the northern West Bank", not "Samaria". The precision argument is indeed a red herring, although while we are here, I would add that it is somewhat dubious in any event. Covering both possible aspects of that argument, I cannot see that either term is more specific or definitive as to its precise "borders" than the other, or equally that the phrase "Samaria" would necessarily pin this down to a smaller area. I noted your observations about the differences, but equally I have pointed out a source that suggests they are used to describe exactly the same area. Also as it happens "Samaria region of the West Bank" is of course more wordy than "northern West Bank". --Nickhh (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia is not censored . We do not avoid using precise terms just because some politically motivated POV_pushers are offended by them, or find them contentious. 8 different reliable sources used Samaria in this context - that is more than enough. NoCal100 (talk)

What on earth has this got to do with "censorship" or "POV pushing" (at least on this side of the argument) or being "offended"? I have never said that the word Samaria should never be used anywhere - the fact that it is sometimes used is interesting, relevant and notable, and needs mention and analysis in the appropriate place. I and others are simply asking that in the lead, when trying to briefly and accurately identify the area in question, WP uses the standard, neutral terminology used throughout the English-speaking world. Which also happens to be less wordy and no more or less precise than the secondary, minority terminology. This is about simple editorial standards, and the only people bringing politics or POV into this are those demanding the unnecessary insertion of politically loaded and non-standard terminology. We keep hearing and seeing that we have "x number of sources" that use Samaria. We all know these are out there, but no-one has ever explained why these sources should trump the 100s that say "northern West Bank". Presumably, if I cite 9 that do, I can restore the proper wording? Would that be "more than enough"? It's only one word, but there's a basic and important principle at stake here. --Nickhh (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

what this has to do with censorship is [[User:MeteorMaker|MeteorMaker]'s attempt to have the term removed from wikipedia - this article is but one of at least a dozen articles which he has systematically edited to remove the term. No one is asking that Samria "trump" the other terminology -if you'd bother to actually read the article, you'd see "The west bank" is right there, in the lead. But Samaria is a more precise geographical name, and was used in this context by 8 reliable sources, and that should not be censored just because some political POV-pushers find the name contentious. NoCal100 (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Samaria", being an extreme minority term [76] (apparently even in Israel [[77]]) adds nothing except POVness. Everybody agrees the majority term is the West Bank and that it doesn't suffer from that fault. Since we now have two selections of sources to choose from, one with partisan extreme minority terminology and one with mainstream, insisting on keeping the minority one is a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as well as of WP:NCGN. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Samaria adds geographic precision to the term"west Bank:, which is already in the article. This has been explained before. NoCal100 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to various points above -

i) I don't see MM asking for censorship of the term "Samaria" any more than I do. They are simply asking for accurate and appropriate use of standard terminology, as am I.

ii) I did of course "actually bother to read the article" a while ago (thanks for the rather bizarre suggestion that I have not) and am well aware that it uses the phrase "West Bank", right there in the lead. My point is very clearly that we do not need "Samaria" there as well, and that using it as well as "West Bank" is giving equivalence to a minority viewpoint.

iii) Please re(?)-read my comments above as to the purported "precision" of the phrase "Samaria". Yes you have tried to explain it, but counter-arguments have been provided which you have seen fit to ignore.

Anyway, this is all very silly, and would be amusing were it not so insidious. I'm off to the Truro article to discuss with Cornish nationalists whether that article's lead should describe it as a "city in Kernow". --Nickhh (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's something incredibly odd; you've removed 8 reliable sources describing the withdrawal from Samaria, and instead inserted MeteorMakers 3 sources describing the withdrawal from Gaza.[78] So, we were actually left with no sources describing the withdrawal from Samaria at all! Did you bother reading what MeteorMaker's citations actually said? Anyway, I've fixed all that, by restoring the reliable sources referring to the withdrawal from Samaria, along with MeteorMaker's sources describing the withdrawal from Gaza. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess I did not actually read into the specific sources cited by MM. I did not do this because I know 100s of them exist that simply refer to "(the northern) West Bank" as opposed to "Samaria" (I read them all the time, in every newspaper I pick up and in every book on my shelves), and assumed MM had picked up ones which reflected this reality. Prompted by your concern, I have now read the three specific ones cited here as at this version of the page. Note no4 refers to the "the pull out plan from Gaza and a few settlements on the West Bank". Note no5 talks about "the eviction of Jewish settlers from Gaza and the West Bank .. the West Bank settlements". Note no6 refers to "the four settlements in the northern West Bank". Naturally none of them describe the "withdrawal from Samaria". Now, are you taking the piss here, or just trying to get me to waste my time triple-checking the blindingly obvious? --Nickhh (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the quotes he used from those articles, though? None of them actually mention the West Bank, unless my eyes are deceiving me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hang on .. you accused me of not having read the sources at issue, but it was actually you who hadn't read them?! You're a funny guy. --Nickhh (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, no. I pointed out that the quotes used from them didn't support the claims made for them, nor even the claims made in the citations you and MeteorMaker were deleting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So yes, you hadn't read the sources themselves. Thank you for confirming. I on the other hand have read both the quotes/titles and the sources. And as I said, I'm now off to discuss the use of the phrases Kernow and Mercia with Cornish and Midlands nationalists in my own country. Cheers. --Nickhh (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, no, I didn't "confirm" any such thing. Please desist from deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So you did read them then, but missed the content that was staring an observant reader in the face? Now I'm confused. Or are you merely playing the "I neither confirm nor deny" game? You're even funnier than I thought. Please, those Cornish nationalists are waiting. --Nickhh (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

MM brought quotations from sources that didn't address the claims he was trying to prove, nor address the statements made in the multiple sources he (and you) removed. The "observant reader" would note that fact. If you're confused, or tired of playing games, please feel free to edit Cornish or any other articles. I'm still getting lots done while you fill Talk: pages with this stuff. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's indeed a great time saver to just ignore the evidence. It's been shown very clearly, using established WP methodology and a multitude of reliable sources [79][80], that "West Bank" is the majority term by far, and that use of "Samaria/Judea" is restricted exclusively to Israel (with insignificant exceptions). Yet you keep insisting on introducing loaded minority terminology on Wikipedia. One can only wonder why. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please show me where this "established WP methodology" is described. As for your theory, it is irrelevant and disproved. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure Jayjg, here is a link to Wikipedia's methodology for determining if a toponym is widely accepted. Incidentallt, I've put that link on a function key since you keep requesting it over and over and each time promptly forget about ever having seen it. It would also be interesting to hear you elaborate on how applying this procedure is "WP:SYNTH", particularly if the conclusion agrees entirely with numerous reliable sources [81][82]. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please compare that guideline, which in any event has not been violated, with WP:NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." Feel free to put that link on a function key. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's strange that you believe WP:NPOV says minority terminology should be given equal prominence — in fact, it is pretty clear about avoiding bias. Your interpretation of WP:NPOV would also render WP:NCGN completely meaningless — then, any toponym, no matter how esoteric or nation-specific, could replace the accepted name in English. Using what has been shown to be an extreme minority term [83] is a clear violation of WP:NCGN, and that is even before its POV baggage is considered. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in the least bit confused about anything, but am VERY tired of playing these games. I too might be getting other things done if I were not being dragged into absurd discussions here and being accused of not reading things by someone who, er, hasn't read them themselves. I and others have stated what should be obvious and also provided basic statistical evidence and links to substantive sources to back that up, and are now simply going round in circles. --Nickhh (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ps: Cornwall is the name of the county (or Kernow if you want to make the political point), "Cornish" is the related adjective or the name of the little-used language.

Yeah, I'm tired of you playing games too, and I'm also tired of your failing to actually read the sources you keep reverting, and deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Your basic statistical evidence and links to substantive sources are interesting, but not particularly relevant to article content. Look, I'm not trying to add the term "Samaria" to articles; however, when an editor goes on a POV-rampage to remove the word, as an extension of his politics, well, I'm not really going to accept that as conforming with any Wikipedia policies. "Samaria", in this case, happens, among other things, to be the term the Israeli government used when it announced it was destroying the settlements. It's the official term, and it's used by lots of sources. Feel free to leave in "West Bank", which is already there. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A new argument from Jayjg: The Israeli government uses "Judea and Samaria", ergo WP should too. The NPOV issues aside, this argument fails too for the simple reason that in online English-language Israeli gov't documents, "Judea and Samaria" is apparently a minority term compared to ""West Bank" [84].

I don't know if you are personally trying to add "Samaria" to articles, but when other editors do [85], you're always there as a part of the tag team.

Your well-documented contempt for WP policies, most recently expressed in your explicitly stated refusal above to accept substitution of universally accepted and neutral terms for terms that violate WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NCGN compounds the issue. This is becoming a concern. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A new argument from Jayjg: The Israeli government uses "Judea and Samaria", ergo WP should too. No, I've never made that argument. I don't even refer to "Judea and Samaria", since that phrase is irrelevant to the discussion here. Please desist from deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Thanks. As for the rest, I have a great respect for Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:NPOV, which says

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.

And finally, regarding your false and pejorative comments about me, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your words: ""Samaria", in this case, happens, among other things, to be the term the Israeli government used [...]. It's the official term, and it's used by lots of sources." If that was not intended as a justification for introducing "Samaria" on WP, what on earth was it?

It's strange that you believe WP:NPOV says minority terminology should be given equal prominence — in fact, it is pretty clear about avoiding bias. Your interpretation of WP:NPOV would also render WP:NCGN completely meaningless — then, any toponym, no matter how esoteric or nation-specific, could replace the accepted name in English.

And you accuse me of deliberately asserting false information in order to mislead, only a few lines below your attempt to cast my arguments in an anti-Semitic light. Your respect for WP policies manifests itself in confusing ways sometimes. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not playing any games here. I have also - despite what you seem to be accusing me of - read each and every one of the sources being cited in full, whether they were provided by you, MM, me or anyone else. I have not been attempting to mislead anyone by placing false information on a discussion page, and don't quite see what you are trying to prove by repeating that vague accusation. The statistics are highly relevant because they demonstrate what the standard, well understood terminology is - and that is the term we should be using here, especially in the lead, WITHOUT adding additional, obscure terminology on top of it. I agree totally with MM that what we are seeing here is contempt for the very policies that you tirelessly throw around at others. If this carries on, someone will eventually have to take this issue - and your behaviour - to the appropriate noticeboard or DR process. --Nickhh (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You have asserted several times that I did not read MM's references; you even claimed I had "confirmed" that. That is deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Please desist. You, on the other hand, admitted not reading the sources; these are the words you posted: I have to confess I did not actually read into the specific sources cited by MM. Those are your words. Regarding what you consider to be "the standard, well understood terminology" is indeed in the lead, along with terminology used by a number of reliable sources, and which was used by Israel itself when announcing the withdrawal. Including both terminologies is the very essence of WP:NPOV; please don't try to intimidate me into abandoning WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you claimed that MM's sources only referred to the withdrawal from Gaza. I pointed out in response that they also explicitly referred to the withdrawal from the northern West Bank, and provided you with the quotes from within the sources confirming this. You then quite clearly tried to backtrack by slightly apologetically mumbling about how, well, the individual sentences pulled from the sources as a title for the footnote didn't, er, mention the West Bank. And then attempted to not-so-subtly shift the debate by continuing to refer to just the "quotes" rather than to the fuller content of the sources themselves. So you either didn't read the actual sources themselves (and were merely relying on the title quotes), or did look at them in more depth but didn't read them properly. Take your pick, I'm not bothered. It's nothing to do with me leaping to conclusions, it's all fairly transparent and logical. And you still haven't said outright "yes, I did read the sources". Sure you're not obliged to, but it would clear up the confusion (such as it is).

Yes you are correct that, four days ago, I did say - as the last diff confirms - that "I did not [initially]" read those particular sources (I didn't see the need at that point as I was not of course contesting them). However I immediately went on to explain, in the very same diff, that I had now after you raised concerns about them. If you wish me to explain to you how English tenses work, and how one can move from a state of not having done something to having done something ... well I really can't be bothered with that either. So who's actually asserting false (or at the very least misleading) information about who here? And there is no intimidation either - you are simply quite wrong. NPOV does not mean we must use fringe, political terminology as well as mainstream, neutral terminology, especially in the lead. To do that would be to give weight to that kind of terminology under the guise of NPOV, which is a very different thing and a very old trick. --Nickhh (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Source(s) that explain the usage of the term Samaria

We need sources that discuss the use of the term, rather than having people provide examples of the term in used which they interpret as they like. Here's one that makes clear that the terms Judea and Samaria are Biblical designations and it goes on to describe their usage by settlers, attesting to the (dual) POV nature of the terms.

• ...settlement activity after the June War was also undertaken by Israelis committed to permanent retention of the West Bank and Gaza. These Israelis referred to the former territory by its Biblical designations of Judea and Samaria, terms employed for the deliberate purpose of asserting that the territorial claims of Jews predate those of Arabs, and also to create a subtle but important symbolic distinction between East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank. (In A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict By Mark A. Tessler, page 466)

Any others people would like to share again here? 18:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple of quick ones that appear to demonstrate that it is a minor, secondary terminology. I'm sure there are more, from somewhat more scholarly sources, that would reinforce the above point about why exactly it is used by the minority that do employ it -

Palestine facts - not an RS, but noteworthy that a seemingly quite hardcore pro-occupation advocacy site acknowledges (unhappily) that the term West Bank is used "to the near total exclusion of any other"

The Israeli media - here Haaretz has to explain to its readers that Samaria is "the biblical name for the northern West Bank" when it quotes an extremist settler using the term.

The Israeli media again - noting that Judea & Samaria are "the biblical names", with Samaria simply meaning "the northern area [of the West Bank]". This page also implicitly acknowledges that "West Bank" is the primary designation.

The Israeli embassy in the UK - this letter (published yesterday) does not directly address the issue, but it does show that when attempting to address a non-Israeli audience directly, Israeli officials will refer to the "northern part of the West Bank" rather than "the Samaria region of the West Bank" (as of course do most independent sources)

--Nickhh (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Inspired by Nickhh's survey of Israeli sites, I tried the experiment to restrict the sites to .gov.il. The outcome was surprising to say the least:

• "Judea and Samaria" on .gov.il sites: 5,560 hits.
• "West Bank" on .gov.il sites: 6,940 hits.

Intrigued, I repeated the experiment with plain .il sites. The difference was even more marked:

• "Judea and Samaria" on .il sites: 29,600 hits.
• "West Bank" on .il sites: 260,000 hits.

Even on Israeli English-language sites, "Judea and Samaria" is the clear minority term, with only one ninth of the occurrences of the term "West Bank". I don't really know what to make of that. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As noted on MeteorMaker's talk page, and referred to elsewhere as well ... I did a trawl of various books relating to the I-P conflict or the Middle East more generally that I happen to own, to do a rough count of the times each of the competing phrases are used and noted in the index as a direction for readers. I went through 15/16 books, limited to one per author. Those authors included journalists and academics, Israelis and non-Israelis, Arab writers etc. To be fair there weren't many representatives from what might loosely be called the "right-wing Israeli side". But they did include - Avi Shlaim, Albert Hourani, Ahron Bregman, Said Aburish, Jeremy Bowen, Jason Burke, Noam Chomsky (boo, hiss), Robert Fisk (again), Norman Finkelstein (sorry, another one), Thomas Friedman, David Hirst, Ilan Pappe (not another one), Tom Segev, Phil Rees, John Esposito, Edward Said (what am I thinking? Will I get away with this one?). Between them, the index entries for "West Bank" number roughly 382. There is a grand total of 1 entry for "Judea and Samaria" and 1 for "Samaria". Amusingly perhaps, both these latter are in Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, and are simple redirects, telling readers to "see West Bank". Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall is the biggest single hitter, with 77-0 in favour of "West Bank". Now, when writers and publishers appear to have this level of consensus that the primary terminology is "West Bank", with "Samaria" being a minority fringe description that can be ignored and/or subsumed within it - on top of the above examples from the Israeli media and government, and the online stats - who are we WP editors to recast all that?--Nickhh (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ps: David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch also asserts that the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" were revived/pushed by Menachem Begin as a replacement for the description "West Bank", with the explicit political purpose of laying claim to the land. The footnotes refer to media reports in Time and Haaretz in 1977. It obviously didn't catch on in the mainstream rest of the world --Nickhh (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think that settles it (after a very long word battle). Nickhh is simply right. You can conduct similar tests and they'll give the same result. Haaretz, for instance, is considered the 'reference journal' for Israel's news. Its site has a search machine. Type in 'Samaria'. You'll get 3 results (and 2 of them obvious quotes). Type in Judea. 1 Result. Try West Bank: 43. That's 10 times more than the combined result of 'Samaria' and 'Judea'. Try it in New York Times and search the "NYT Archives since 1981". You get 442 for Samaria and 39.558 for West Bank. That's nearly a 100 times more. You try just 'Past year' and the result is 6 against 1096 (182 times more). And, oh yes, nearly every time when the NYT uses the word 'Judea and Samaria' they add 'biblical' or they explain that it refers to the West Bank or it is put in quotation marks for being a quote (or it refers to a landscape in Crete). Still any doubt? --Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha'aretz is a the most popular Israeli newspaper among left-leaning English speakers, because that is its own political position (and, for that matter, the political position of The New York Times). That doesn't make it Israel's "reference journal"; several quite respectable Israeli newspapers have significantly larger readerships, and The Jerusalem Post occupies essentially the same position as Ha'aretz among centrist and right-leaning English speakers. Type the term "Samaria" into The Jerusalem Post's search engine, and you'll get 12,410 results. Moreover, had you read the discussions above, you would have noted that we were not discussing the phrase "Judea and Samaria", but rather the term "Samaria", and we weren't discussing using only one term, but rather having both, in line with WP:NPOV. I don't think there is "any doubt" that NPOV requires multiple views. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Samaria on its own is used even less frequently than "Judea and Samaria", which at least has quasi-official status as the occupier's administrative terminology. You really haven't brought any evidence here that carries the same weight as that presented above. I have also noted that you and everyone else reverting Samaria back into the lead have studiously avoided bringing any information or comment to this section at all, until now. As for using both Samaria and northern West Bank, this is (for reasons noted above) a kind of NPOV con. Just because we have the mainstream terminology (West Bank) doesn't mean we can then bung any fringe/non-standard terminology on top as well. NPOV (especially when considered alongside WP:UNDUE) means - use the standard, consensus and neutral wording or interpretation, and explain in the appropriate place about any alternatives. --Nickhh (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ps: put "West Bank" into the Post's search engine and you get 20,464. Which is more, although admittedly not quite as resoundingly more as all the other publications noted above. For info, "Judea and Samaria" combined gets 6,251. I would also add that online searches like this of course bring up every instance where the word or phrase is used, without clarifying in what context (eg they could all be saying "this is a silly word"). Book index searches in a way are more interesting, because they are revealing a kind of editorial ranking - ie they are identifying what the publisher sees as the main, defining term, and what they expect the average reader to search under. --Nickhh (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I see this article has been the subject of a major dispute lately, and would like to make a suggestion. The Israeli administrative district under whose jurisprudence the settlements in question fall is called Judea and Samaria. Therefore, I am surprised to see that this wikilink does not appear in this article. I suggest explaining this in the lead. After that, we can go on to use the term West Bank per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCGN. -- Nudve (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nudve, the reason Judea and Samaria don't appear in the article is that they are WP:POV denominations and don't add any information. The article states that there are settlements in a region known to most of the word as the West Bank. What some other editors want to include is that this part of the West Bank is also known by a minority by its biblical name of Samaria. While the former has quite a bit to do with the article topic (Israeli settlement), the later does not.

For those who are really interested in terminology, the designation Judea and Samaria is in the intro of the article on the West Bank, where it makes more sense (in that article it even described as "policitised"). It has, however, no place in an article on settlements.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.12.2008 08:51

As Pedrito says, the West Bank article itself does pretty quickly say "also known as J&S" (correctly, since context is given), so I think that point is covered there. Speaking more generally I'm more than happy that at some point in this article, we talk about how the Israeli government has (sometimes, not always as it happens) described the withdrawal as being from "Samaria" (some of the maps do say this I think). --Nickhh (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria is the official Israeli name of the district. This is a fact, not a POV. It is Judea and Samaria that is officially governed by Israeli martial law, and it is the Chief of the Israeli Central Command who is authorized by law to govern it and the settlements. I can't see how this is irrelevant. -- Nudve (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but anything I've ever read suggests that the term was deliberately re-introduced, possibly in part by Begin, as part of a deliberate effort to make a claim on the land for Israel. In addition of course international law does not consider the land to be part of Israel proper, and nor is the terminology widely used outside Israel. So yes it's a fact that this is the name of an administrative district (according to the occupying power of course) which covers more or less the same area as "the West Bank", but it's also a POV term in its own way at the same time. Anyway as for whether we have it here or not, I'm not sure it's needed - the broader West Bank vs J&S issue is in my view better covered in those respective articles (which wiki-link to each other I believe), and elsewhere WP should generally use the majority terminology "West Bank" when talking about the wider area. The issue here is a more specific one, about how to refer the northern parts of the region in the lead. To me this seems rather simple (especially since "Samaria" alone, as opposed to the combined term, doesn't even have official status in Israeli terminology as far as I'm aware), but of course others don't agree. Thanks for trying to come up with something, but tbh I can only see it leading to more dispute not less. --Nickhh (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Israel did make a very conscious attempt to rename the region, and it is true that the attempt mostly failed. However, the Israeli POV is relevant here, since those settlements are Israeli. What I'm suggesting is a sentence along the lines of "The settlements in the West Bank fall under the jurisdiction of the Judea and Samaria district (Judea refers to the part south of Jerusalem and Samaria refers to the part north of Jerusalem)". With that addition anything later in the article can then "safely" say "northern West Bank" or such. -- Nudve (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Nickhh's compromise

I like it. Can we leave it at this? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 04.12.2008 14:01

I like it too (obviously .. although I never like to suggest that countries speak with one voice, especially the voice of their government). Now, that aside, can the obsessive reverters actually address both the balance of sources point above, and either Nudve's or my compromise suggestion rather than just continuing to edit war over this one word? I am really not sure how "Samaria in the [northern] West Bank" is a genuine compromise (nor has it ever been presented as such until now), or NPOV, simply on the basis that it includes both words. As with saying "Birmingham is a city in Mercia, in the Midlands", it's just doubling up as well as giving equivalence to a minority terminology. --Nickhh (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why does anyone bother? Another member of the tag team has resurfaced to join in the revert war, claiming that 20,000+ sources are suddenly "not relevant", without bothering to come and explain on what basis they believe that. So, the minority of sources that use the phrase Samaria are magically relevant, while the vast majority that very explicitly do not - and do not for a reason - are not. On this basis we can rename the London article Londinium. The fact that 20m sources will use "London" and not "Londinium" is not relevant of course. Now I get it. --Nickhh (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nick on your comment (related to changed I've just reverted) saying you have a zillion references that DON'T say something is... well... rather meaningless. It's like the scientific proof, I have seen a million sheep, all of them were white, therefore all sheep are white. When someone comes to you with some black sheep, saying "yes, but I see millions of white sheep, so black sheep don't exist!" it's just logically flawed. Now this situation is a little different (as some editors including myslef have had long discussion about elsewhere) because we're not quite talking about the same thing. One group of editors is saying look at those these white goats! And another group is saying "black sheep are a real type of sheep". Mean time one group removed all references to black sheep (while making arguments about goats) and other edits naturally revert the passages so statements saying "some sheep are black" are not deleted from Wikipedia. This is perhaps not the right place for a full on discussion on Samaria (yet again) but... there are plent of discussions on this and so far references have always been produced when asked and it has only been one editor (neither of you two) who has refused to listen to reason on this and kept moving the goal posts. Please lets not waste time on debates that have already been had? All the best (appologiesyou updated here before I could post my comment) Oboler (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidently I do think 13 minutes to comment on talk is a reasonable response time. It shows a lack of good faith for you to complain 10 minute after a revert that there is no discussion on talk. That's to say nothing of your insinuations. At least you didn't revert... please respond here first (now that the comment is posted). Also please note that the evidence does clearly show the term being used internationally. This is a key part of what the references and related discussion resolved. Oboler (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I well understand the fallacy of simply asserting that because there are 1000s of instances where something is not observed, that it does not exist (subject to what David Hume might have to say). But as you seem to half-acknowledge this is really irrelevant here - we know that sources exist which use the term "Samaria" instead of "northern West Bank" to describe more or less the same region. I have never denied this, and I haven't see anyone else do it either. The point is that they are a clear minority of the sources by quite some way - the majority by far use the second phrase. Hence it is the standard, mainstream neutral term. Hence it should be the simple term used in the lead. The minority language can be referred to elsewhere (as per my compromise proposal)

I am also aware of the related fallacy which assumes that because a source avoids a certain phrase or description on one or more occasions, we can infer that the source would never use that term. So when someone describes London as "a big city", we could not infer that they do not also think London is an "crowded city", purely on the basis that they happened not to mention it on this occasion. But this is not relevant either, because with the debate here, we are talking about direct and contradictory alternatives, one of which is politically loaded and used by a minority, but actively avoided by the majority. We can for example be sure that any source for information on the UK's capital which describes it as a "big city" does not think that it is a "small city".

You also write and edit as if this debate has been settled. The length of this talk page surely makes clear that this assertion falls under the headings "optimism" and/or "misplaced claim of triumph"? As for your point about giving you time to write on talk - from where I am sitting I of course had no idea whether you were going to do that or not, or that you were in the middle of writing a comment, such that if I waited 13 minutes it would suddenly appear. Responding to two new, separate compromise proposals on talk before making the same old revert would seem to have been the easier way forward. --Nickhh (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to get embroiled in this lame edit war, but if I may - an observation: At least part of the problem, it seems, is the cuastic editing style and attitidue displayed by some of the participants. As far as I can tell, there are two groups of editors here, one of them (Meteor Maker, Nickhh, Pedrito) advocating for removal of Samaria, and another group (Jayjg, Oboler, Nocal100, Canadian Monkey) advocating for keeping it. Both sides have engaged in an on-going edit war - so it is not helpful, Nickhh, to refer to one side as 'obsessive reverters' or 'members of the tag team ', when the other side, yourself included, has done excatly the same. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I used those phrases out of frustration that three or four separate editors had come in and simply reverted and disappeared again without even responding to additional statistics placed on the talk page, or more recently to the two different compromise proposals that I and another editor put up today. I'm aware there is reverting taking place on both "sides". However since daylight over here (and until Oboler finally spoke up after I expressed that frustration), none of those on the other "side" have even opened their mouths on the talk page. It is a lame edit war, but as usual the smaller the issue, the less each side feels inclined to let the other "get away with it". And having said that, although it is only one word, it is nonetheless a loaded word in the context.--Nickhh (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it the position of Nocal100, Jayjg, Oboler CM et al that Samaria is not a loaded term? Or is that even if it is loaded, Wikipedia should use it as long as some RSs use it?--G-Dett (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)