Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (West Bank)

Infoboxes

An issue has arisen with infoboxes, and clause 5 of this guideline is being used to support it, namely: "5) When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area, the term "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used."

The Israeli municipality infobox is being used on articles about Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which Israelis call the "Judea and Samaria" district. See here for an example. The infobox makes no mention that the settlements are regarded as illegal all over the world, including by the United Nations. When I tried to remove the "Judea and Samaria" parameter, I was reverted and referred to this guideline.

Should we not require infoboxes that mention "Judea and Samaria" to contain a parameter about the disputed nature of the district, and which make clear to readers that everyone outside Israel calls it the West Bank? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the question whether clause 6 applies to clause 5 i.e. "The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice; for example, it cannot be asserted without qualification that a place is "in Samaria"." I would say it does, because NPOV is a fundamental Wikipedia principle that can't be overridden, but it would be good to have the guideline explicitly express that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the guideline to make clear that clause 5 is subject to clause 6. [1] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Slim, I dont think this is an issue and I also think you should revert your edit as those guidelines were the result of some very long discussions and should have consensus before changing. But to the point: so long as we do not say that the Judea and Samaria Area is in Israel it should be fine. By saying a given locality is in the J+S Area we are only saying that it is administered by Israel, not that it is in Israel. I dont see the problem here. nableezy - 20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The infobox doesn't say it's administered by Israel. We have to look at this from the perspective of a regular reader, rather than as Wikipedians who know about the background discussions. They simply see that Town X is in "Judea and Samaria," with no mention that other people regard that as "Palestine," or "the West Bank," or "the Palestinian territories." That means the infobox is expressing a POV as though it's NPOV, and a tiny-minority POV at that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind, Nableezy, that the infobox did say until you objected that it was in Israel, and now says nothing about which country it's in, because Ynhockey decided that parameter was "redundant," i.e. it's assumed it's in Israel because it's part of the Israeli municipality infobox. So the strong implication of using "Judea and Samaria" in that infobox without qualification is (a) this place is in Israel, and (b) J and S is the undisputed name of an undisputed district. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

But it is not a POV that it is in the administrative district of J+S Area. That is just a fact. Like it is a fact that it is in occupied territory. Now one of those facts does not show in the page, and that is a problem, but I dont like the idea of hiding some facts because others are hidden. But I am not exactly a J+Ser so I dont plan on arguing the point, but it does seem like an issue is being created where none exists. nableezy - 20:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact. It is also a fact that it's in the West Bank. The former fact, supported by a tiny-minority of people, should not be included in an infobox without the latter fact, supported by the rest of the world, being included too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. It needs to be West Bank somewhere prominently at the top of where it is listed. Many regions have administrative government levels under that, where various authorities are listed at the various government levels. I am not familiar with administrative levels of israeli and palestinian government to comment yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you say whether you would oppose this edit to the guideline? That would make sure that, when we say something is in the district of Judea and Samaria, we also make clear that this is a widely disputed district.

Otherwise, imagine this: that during the 1990 invasion and takeover of Kuwait by Iraq, Iraqi supporters created a Wikipedia infox box about Iraqi towns, naming parts of Kuwait as an Iraqi administrative district, but without mentioning that no one else in the world regarded Kuwait as part of Iraq. We would never allow that.

Yet it's what we're currently doing with the Israeli muncipality boxes. We are allowing areas under illegal occupation, according to the United Nations, to be renamed without qualification as Israeli administrative districts. In other words, we are taking sides. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that was a good clause to place in the guideline. I just need to get my head around infoboxes etc. I have not edited much on geopolitics on WP. Using a name does not equate support - e.g. Burma/Myanmar. These situations get very murky very quickly. For instance, Hebron is almost universally referred to by its hebrew rather than arabic name al khalil. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Coppertwig graciously providing some coding help the template will now auto-populate a field "Region" with "West Bank" if the district is defined as Judea and Samaria Area. That should remove any ambiguity. nableezy - 00:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for solving that. East Jerusalem and the other West Bank areas annexed into Jerusalem District and the Golan will be more complicated as there isn't a mechanical way of recognising them.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

How does one get this naming convention revisited? This convention creates a project wide problem in which it would seem to a reader that the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" were used only in antiquity and then again for a limited time by the British Mandate. This is obviously false. For example, here's a map published in 1687 [2], one from 1826 [3], and another from 1895 [4], not to mention that I think many people who participated in the discussion leading to this convention being adopted were aware of the fact that the Survey of Western Palestine, which was published in the 1880s, has a volume dedicated each of these areas. Furthermore, when talking about geography rather than politics, the terms are still in use today, see for example this map [5].
So how do we go about fixing these problems? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The guideline does allow direct quotes from sources like those, bible dictionaries, and international expert journals. harlan (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Guideline 1 is up to the 1st century CE. Guideline 2 starts at 1920. Guideline 3 specifically says that 3-4 refer to 1948 onwards. We have a ~1800 year gap that is not addressed. Not only that, the article on Judea for example says that the term was used until the the 2nd century CE, which is incorrect per the maps I provided above, and can't be fixed because of this naming convention.

Guideline 6 says "some editors were not convinced that there was a proportion of nonpartisan usage in reliable sources of the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" to refer to places in the context of events in modern times sufficient that the terms could be used without qualification while conveying a sufficiently neutral voice". How do we go about revisiting this? If I was to argue that "Judea" and "Samaria" were more widely used than the "southern West Bank" and "northern West Bank" this convention requires us to use, where could I make that argument? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Guideline 6 is also specific to after 1948. Guideline 3 says 4-6 refer to 1948 onwards, not 3-4. nableezy - 14:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, you are right. The guidelines were successfully pushed through and completely assume that anyone using the terms Judea and Samaria today are POV pushers and fringe elements such as Israelis and Christians. This is not law, and I suggest it be revised by inviting editors to participate in adding to the consensus. --Shuki (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Shuki this guideline was one of the results of WP:ARBPIA2. The workshop discussion was conducted under ARBCOM supervision. So, I can assure you that nothing was "pushed through" improperly. It was the quality of the discussion, not the number of editors that determined the outcome. harlan (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that updating Judea to be more accurate, while citing proper reliable sources, will not violate these guidelines. If they do, then I shall probably ignore them. Being able to sensibly talk about "Judea" in the Judea article was one of my primary concerns during the development of these guidelines. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

harlan, I'm not questioning the quality of the previous discussion. I think that's irrelevant at this point. It has been over a year and as you know consensus can change. I'd like to know how one goes about having a new formal discussion about this topic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here! Quit being so meta. However, the exceptions of point 6 allow for usage in a geographical context, as well as on the Judea page. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? We're not just going to have a long discussion that leads nowhere no matter what sources are provided?

Anyway, let's start with the ~1800 year gap. Do you think that should be addressed? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Will we just have a long discussion that disregards the sources? Interesting question. Did that happen here? Did a "side" band together to disregard the sources, providing none to support their own position? I would be very interested in seeing if the same happens here. Pins and needles I am on. nableezy - 21:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a weird one to bring up now since it really had nothing to do with 'the sources, the sources' and more to do with common sense or lack of. Here is the same thing. Many people call it the West Bank, some call it Samaria, and even fewer call it 'Northern West Bank'. Your misrepresentation of 'a side banding together' still fails to admit the failure of RfC. Frankly, the scope was not defined properly, don't blame the 'sides'. --Shuki (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no. nableezy - 00:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have something to say about this issue? I understand you're frustrated that the RfC didn't go the way you wanted it to, but this is not the place to discuss that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have said something about this issue, see my first comment in the section. My last remark was a reply to your question about whether or not a discussion about modifying the guidelines would be a "long discussion that disregards the sources". I personally hope that it only the one "side" that filibustered in that RFC that will disregard the sources when it doesnt conform with their predetermined view and that my "side" would be capable of intelligently and dispassionately examining whatever sources are brought, but I dont know. Again, pins and needles I am on. But to the point, I dont see the problem here. The 1800 years you seem to be concerned about arent mentioned in the guidelines, so there is no issue with using whatever phrasing you can source. The guidelines apply to the periods it says it applies to, antiquity uses J/S, modern (with modern defined as 48 onwards) uses West Bank. Everything in the middle isnt affected. nableezy - 00:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right. Why specify antiquity and the British Mandate when it's unlikely any sources would use "West Bank" or if they did it would be anachronistic? Not sure why "the British Mandate district" needs to be prefixed in guideline 2, either. The term "West Bank" was not used at all at the time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Qualifiers are required to prevent the huge POV war that the arbitration committee had to stop from happening again. Have you got any actual examples of sensible edits you wish to make that these guidelines are preventing you from making? If not, then there is no need to change them. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 10:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The name for the area that is internationally used is: West bank, so that is what we use. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better to address problems before they turn into a huge issue. Do we need an edit war to break out in order to correct something? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The anachronistic use of modern-day geographical terms is a common practice. For example, the terms "Palestine" or "Levant" are used anachronistically in Wikipedia and Britannica articles to discuss historical subjects dating back to the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods.

You started this thread by claiming the guideline creates a project wide problem. But so far you haven't cited any. The guideline does not preclude the use of the maps that you cited as sources. References for antiquity also follow sources. There are many examples of maps from the same period you mention which use terms, like "Cisjordan" and "Transjordan". Those are perfectly okay too. Modern-day English news sources, including CNN, ABC, CBS, BBC, & etc. uniformly described the evacuation of settlements in the "northern West Bank". If you check the archives you'll see that all of this was discussed and implemented with little or no dire consequences. harlan (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a more important issue is cleaning up articles by implementing the existing guideline. Here's one, Ayoob Kara. There are probably many more. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing implemented here has "dire consequences". It's not as if we're talking life or death here. Still, for the sake of accuracy, I think these things need to be hashed out and implemented correctly. For example, if "Judea" and "Samaria" have been in continual use since ancient times up until 1948, what is the reason to qualify them during British Mandate times? One user said that without prefixing it would "open a can of worms". Another user noted there were no districts by that name at the time. That's the total extent of discussion about it I could find in the archives. Apparently there are no sources supporting this prefix. I am on pins and needles to see what Nableezy will do about this lack of sources. On pins and needles I am.

@harlan, you supported a suggestion to remove the requirement for "the British Mandate district" prefix. Why not fix that now? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please respond to the repeated requests that you provide an example of an edit you think should be made that the guidelines prevent you from making? Or is this just a game to you? nableezy - 15:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Were you required to give examples of edits you'd like to make when you commented on this previously? These guidelines are flawed. I'd like to have them fixed. I do not have to jump through hoops you make up in order to do that. By the way, I notice you are not at all bothered by the fact there were no districts called "Judea" or "Samaria" under the British mandate. I wonder what sources were used in the adoption of that guideline. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There are no hoops, just a request that you demonstrate that you are not wasting our time for shits and giggles. You say the guidelines are flawed but are unable to articulate how they prevent you from making a single edit that should be made. If you want to discuss removing the clause on prefixing J/S with "the British Mandate district" thats fine, I might even support that. But that isnt what it looks like you are doing. Flawed how? That they say prefix the use of the terms with "the British Mandate district". All right, open a section here saying that clause should be removed. Whats next, there is an 1800 year gap? Who cares, the gap isnt covered by the guidelines. Nothing in them restricts you from making any edit concerning that period of time, so raising that gap here is either an example of you making a controversy out of thin air or you intentionally wasting our time. What else? You have been asked repeatedly to name a single edit that you are prevented from making. As you have steadfastly refused to do so the only conclusion to be made is that there are no such edits and that this really is just you wasting our time. nableezy - 15:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you feel this is wasting your time feel free to go do something else. I'd thank you not to speculate about my intentions as it is pretty obvious you are unable to reach the correct conclusions about them. I'm not going to invent an edit just to prove a point to you. That's your style, not mine.

Wikipedia currently has a guideline that tells people to put incorrect information into articles under certain circumstances. I would think this needs to be fixed. I think someone should have a look into the process that put this guideline in place as it was obviously flawed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That is both untrue and disregards the repeated request that you demonstrate what is "flawed" about these guidelines. You have been asked multiple times to provide an explanation as to how these guidelines are flawed and you have refused each time. Would you like to discuss removing the clause that says to prefix the usage of J/S during the period of the Mandate with "the British Mandate district"? Then open a section saying that should be done and why. Is there anything else that is incorrect in this guideline? Or are you not tired of the game you seem intent on playing? nableezy - 16:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I am aware of your tactic of repeating yourself over and over until the discussion is so long that no other editor wants to join it, I will not be responding to you further. The answers to your questions are in my posts above. Feel free to get the last word in. If any other editor would like to join in, I'd be happy to discuss with them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The "tactic" employed here is actually one used by the editor playing the game, which is you. The "tactic" is refusing to answer simple questions, instead making unsourced assertions about this or that being wrong. Besides the removal of the clause requiring prefixing "the British Mandate district", what else would you like to change and why? nableezy - 17:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, unless you provide a specific issue as requested, this discussion should be considered closed. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact there was no district of Judea in the British Mandate but the guideline says that what's you're supposed to write is not a specific issue? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, great. I don't remember the specifics, but it seems from the archives that there was insufficient evidence that they weren't in use, and not enough interest for alternative wordings. If you can provide such evidence, we can draft an alternate and open a new RfC on it. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I explicitly said this is an issue in two of my posts above. It's unfortunate that Nableezy's tactic of repeating "give me an example" seems to be working.

Anyway, I don't know what the exact procedure in creating these naming conventions is, but it's obvious that whoever created it put more emphasis on !votes than on policy (such as WP:V), at least in this case. Which returns me to my original question, how do we get this naming convention revisited?

As for sources, some are available at Districts of the British Mandate of Palestine. As you can see, I didn't have to look very far. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I explicitly referenced this issue multiple times and asked that you provide examples of edits you would like to make. That isnt a "tactic", the "tactic" is refusing to answer simple questions. There was a district named Samaria in the census data from the Mandate, so it makes sense to say the "British Mandate district Samaria" and so I dont have a problem keeping that. When would you use "Judea" in topics dealing with that time period? As there was no district by that name we obviously should not prefix it with "the British Mandate district". But it is simply not true that this is the reason you opened this section. You wrote, in your initial post here, that there is a supposed "project wide problem" with these guidelines. You have repeatedly failed to say what that problem is, starting with saying that there is an "~1800 year gap" which the gui9delines do not address. When you receive a reply that if the guidelines do not address that time period then the guideline does not apply to that time period, making it so there is no problem at all, you move on to a different issue. So tell us, please, what about the guidelines causes a "project wide problem"? Is is it the prefix of "British Mandate district" for Judea? Fine, open a section below seeking comments on how to correct that. I have written that response no fewer than 3 times now. What else? Anything, anything at all? Or is this just a game? nableezy - 22:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

NMMNG, it's fairly simple. You have already started the ball rolling and when a solid proposal / amendment is ready, you can invite many others to comment (who are not watchlisting this already) on the various project pages, especially those that were originally involved. Whoever is around makes the consensus. --Shuki (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Shall we go for this version or does it need altering further? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's necessary at all. Or the first guideline for that matter. If the 1800 year gap between them doesn't need specific guidelines, why are these two necessary? The assumption of this naming convention is that the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" are somehow inherently POV and that it is necessary to explicitly say when they may be used (with a WP:V violating prefix!), which to me seems pretty ridiculous for names of regions that have been in use for the better part of 3000 years, at least for the periods that are not under any kind of dispute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's just the most common name for the area in modern English. Although I'm sure POV (and preventing editwars) comes into play. Sol (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

^{*NOTE: Sol has been banned from Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)}

For the record, I am in general agreement with NMMNG. The wording is also peculiar in places where is uses such terms like "cannot", which is inherently inopposite with a "guideline." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree that providing an actual example of one or more sensible edits that these guidelines prevent someone from making would be helpful ? I think it would help and show a willingness to collaborate. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree that acknowledging that saying "Judea" should be prefixed with "the British Mandate district" in the context of the British mandate, when no "district of Judea" existed at the time is problematic and should be corrected? I think it would help and show a willingness to collaborate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would be helpful in a practical sense unless it relates to a situation that exists in an article. I don't think guidelines and policies need to or can be written to anticipate and handle all possibilities. It's better to test rules against real data and make the appropriate changes. I think an example would help you make your case. Not providing an example does the opposite. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This guideline was written specifically to anticipate the use of "Judea" in the context of the British Mandate, and the instructions it gives in that case are a violation of WP:V. You don't see a problem with that? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

What I can't see doesn't really matter. I can't see UV either without removing my corneas but know it's there. If you say there is a problem fine, I believe you. If you show me an example I'll see it for myself. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't require you to remove your corneas, only to open your eyes.

Anyway, here's a UNSCOP report which talks about the "Arab population in Judea and Samaria". This information can go in any number of articles. Do I now need to invent an edit or can we agree that this needs to be dealt with? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Guideline 2 established a preference for the place names that were used by the British Civil administration during the mandate era, i.e. terms used by the British administration (ie "Judea" and "Samaria") are probably most appropriate."

I'm not aware of anyone who has claimed that "Judea" was an official district, or of any case in which anyone said that "Judea" has to be prefixed with "the British Mandate district/s" without regard to sourcing. "When used," for example in the suggestion to declare martial law in the administrative "District of Samaria" on pp. 8 of CAB/24/263 (formerly C P . 225 (36)), they should be prefixed with "the British Mandate district/s". These guidelines do not override WP:V policy or WP:ARBPIA. There is still a requirement for editors to follow and cite reliable published sources to support any contested or disputed claims. The documents available in the UK National Archives indicate that the civil administration did qualify the use of the terms. See for example the references to "the central hill-country of old Samaria and Judaea" in CAB/24/270 (formerly CP. 163 (37)) pp 383. harlan (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why dont we just have it decided per article? If an article uses one term, keep it that way on the page. I dont see why Israel-focused articles cant have J&S while Palestinian focused articles have WB. It could be like the British/American setup. -- OR -- I dont see how both terms arent NPOV. Personally, I think WB is POV because it refers to Jordan as the "rightful" owner. Jordan also arbitrarily named it that in 1950. Others see J&S as POV. So in all honesty, we can reasonably so both are NPOV and adopt something like what I suggested above. I really just dont see why we need to have this fight when each article can have its own system. Thats the only fair compromise. The only problem really arises on pages that involve both. We could either go with whatever it started with, or put WB in Palestinian sections and JS in Israeli sections. Most of these articles are so disputed to hell that they have two articles merged on one page. So each part can use its term.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping this would blow over as there's nothing to be gained beyond endless edit-war. West Bank is the common term in the modern English speaking world for the territory between the Green Line and the Jordan River. "Judea and Samaria" is a term used mainly by the Israeli government/Israeli sources, it's not the popular term. Is J+S POV? Kind of. Think of it this way, what if this conversation were about using "Palestine" to describe Israel in modern times? That's going out of your way to use an anachronistic term hinting that Israel has no legitimate claim to the land. There's a case for it; some countries don't have Israel on their maps. It's also grossly misleading and offensive. Would changing the current guidelines to increase the use of Judea and Samaria really enhance neutrality or would it give legitimacy to a politically loaded term not common in the mainstream media? Sol (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

^{*NOTE: Sol has been banned from Wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)}

The idea that geographic names that have been in continual use for 3000 years are inherently POV is ridiculous. To limit their usage for times when there wasn't even a dispute over their usage is what smacks of POV here.

"Palestine" is used to describe Israel in modern times, by the way. See Palestine.

You will note that it's use is heavily qualified in that article, in order to remain neutral. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The two main competing POVs should be obvious: one that the land belongs to the Jews and is called Judea/Sameria, the other that it belongs to the Arabs and is called Palestine. The UN et al. take the more neutral POV that both groups have claims to some of the land, and currently there exists a territory called the West Bank. Thus, unqualified use of any of the terms Judea or Sameria constitutes a biased POV. This guideline provides guidance on what the qualifications should be, depending on whether one is talking about ancient kingdoms, geographical regions or other historical constructs. NMMNG has an issue over the guidance when qualifying "Judea" in terms of the British Mandate period. We should remain on-topic or nothing will get done. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're saying that terms that have been used for millennia are inherently POV. Logically, there simply can't be an issue for times before the term "West Bank" was even coined. So guidelines 1 & 2 are completely unnecessary and just strengthen the POV that there is something inherently wrong with normal historical use of these terms. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

However, unless their usage is qualified at least once to make it clear that they are referring to times before "West Bank" was even coined, how are people supposed to know? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

By context. I don't think it's common practice to qualify historical terms when used in a historical context. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, unless it's explicitly specified that it's in a historical context, there is room for abuse - of which there was much. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. When I asked about the 1800 years not covered by this naming convention, I was told it's not a problem and any sourcing can be used. Why is it a problem prior to the 1st century CE and between 1920-1948? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There is not the point of view that the lands named Judea/Samaria belonged to the Jews and that the land named Palestine belonged to the Arabs Palestinians. This region was given the name Palestine by the Romans and it had subregions named Judea and Samaria until and included the British Mandate. Judea and Samaria were official districts of the country/sankjak or province Palestine. The term Judea and Samaria were not used after 1948 and the name Cisjordan has prevailed since then after the birth of Israel and the annexion of the West Bank by (Trans)Jordan Noisetier (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Dispute on exceptions 6C and D

A dispute has arisen at Talk:Alon Shvut‎‎ over what the exceptions for usage allow for. 6C has been given as applying for saying, in the lead of that article, the following: the West Bank, a geographical area historically known by its biblical names Judea and Samaria. The argument for this is that the sentence is "mentioning" the term, not using it, as stipulated by the guideline. Besides the factual inaccuracy of equating the West Bank with a "historical" title of Judea and Samaria, I do not think this qualifies under 6C. In my view 6C allows for explaining the term where it is already mentioned, for example discussing the name of the settlement Karnei Shomron that Shomron is the Hebrew for Samaria and that Samaria means ... . In fact, if this is allowed by 6C we might as well scrap the naming convention altogether, as soon every instance of the term "West Bank" will be followed by "known by its biblical name of Judea and Samaria" Here, the terms are being used and then defined. The other exception claimed, for the same edit, is 6D. The user arguing for this says that the exception means the following: "The term (Judea, Samaria and/or Judea & Samaria) is being used within the article (the article you are editing) about itself (the term refers to itself and not to anything else other than itself). I cannot see how that complies with the rules of the English language, and think that the article about itself means the article about the term itself, not just any article one happens to be editing. Outside opinions are welcome. nableezy - 13:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• The disagreement goes deeper than the two exceptions. It is about whether the naming convention assumes that the reference to Judea and Samaria is explicitly or exclusively a "settler-POV" and thus cannot be mentioned as the historical name for the geographic area commonly known as the West bank. My point is that it is referenced in very reliable sources such as UN Resolution 181, used by Israel, and cannot be limited to an extremist one-sided context as is claimed in the discussion.
• I also don't see the naming convention as making such an assumption. The only mention of it is "some editors were not convinced that there was a proportion of nonpartisan usage in reliable sources of the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" to refer to places in the context of events in modern times sufficient that the terms could be used without qualification while conveying a sufficiently neutral voice." What's stated as the opinion of "some users" has now become an irrefutable policy by the user banning such use in the name of the convention which explicitly avoids doing so.
• On the two exceptions, I've tried to show how the wording can also be construed as supporting the allowance of use in certain cases. Otherwise why didn't 6D explicitly say "The term is being used within the articles about Judea, Samaria and Judea and Samaria" as is asserted that it means? Or likewise, the ambiguity of what constitutes "mentioning" as opposed to "using" when my mention is in the same context and style as the one allowed in the exception.
• The discussion has become drawn out and winded, also because the user assumes a POV bias on my part and levels unfounded hostile accusations with nearly every response. I find his attitude not helpful for discussing it in good faith because he seems to make no such assumption. It also seems that in reverting the edit for a second time, he's instigating a needless conflict and commandeering the naming convention in a way it wasn't intended.
• I would like to arrive at an amicable good-natured agreement with him but his hostility seems immovable at this stage. In such a situation, perhaps the intent of the naming convention, and consensus, should be clarified further. MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Specify in what cases you think the term can be used beyond the contexts Nableezy and I (and the original drafters who worked out a consensual compromise) take policy as having restricted it to. As far as I can see, your arbitrary use of it at Alon Shvut (what is so specific about that?) can only be read as a precedent-creating edit to rerun the pre-Arbcom warring on this, since it logically suggests that the term, which is not 'historical', to every settlement in the West Bank, which was precisely what the original policy strove to avoid. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The term is considered "historical" in the most reliable sources around and there's no policy that I can see that restricts its use, given proper qualifications, in articles relating to Jewish communities on the West Bank, or its mention in articles referencing the West bank in a Jewish context that editors deem is proper. Nableezy and yourself are enforcing your opinion that it's not "historical" by applying an all-out policy that doesn't explicitly exist. At best the policy only states that it's the opinion of "some editors" and avoids prohibiting its use. If your enforcement of the ban is an improper commandeering of the policy as if to suggest there's a consensus on it when there doesn't seem to be, then yes, the edit on Alon Shvut can be seen as precedent-creating in order to allow this information in places relating to it. There are enough non-Jewish pages and references to the West bank where they would not be used, in order to balance out your opinions. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont think any of my responses to you on the talk page can fairly be called hostile. In fact, I think I have been overly patient with you. But no matter, we are here to discuss the issue at hand, not the editors. I do not think your reading of 6D is accurate, either in its intent or its actual content. I await uninvolved opinions. nableezy - 17:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're right but the discussion tells the story better than you or I. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you make a link to the page where 80 odd RS were listed by Meteormaker and myself to document the facts about how the term 'Judea and Samaria' for the West Bank were politically loaded, Nab? I can't find it, but perhaps Netzer needs to read it. Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources#Modern usage sources nableezy - 18:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That there are cases you feel are politically loaded, doesn't warrant an across-the-board ban because that effectively enforces the opposite POV. The term West Bank itself can be considered POV when forbidding a mention of the geographically historic origins. Instead, every case can be considered for its own merit and can be edited if it oversteps POV violations. It is entirely proper to mention the term in its historical context. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

there's no policy that I can see that restricts its use, given proper qualifications, in articles relating to Jewish communities on the West Bank,

Ah, finally. You are saying that 'Judea and Samaria' can be reintroduced, then, on all articles dealing with settlements, people from them, incidents related to them, in the West Bank. In short, back to the pre-Arbcom world.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly. We've learned something since Arbcom. We can now adapt the application of the policy to prevent the abuse of the term while allowing it in qualified contexts devoid of political POV. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That is how I see this as well. An attempt to effectively nullify this guideline to allow for "in Judea" and "in Samaria" or "known as Judea and Samaria" wherever something regarding the West Bank is discussed. An attempt to return to the status as it was prior to ARBPIA2 and these guidelines. nableezy - 19:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to nullify the guideline because it doesn't prohibit my suggestion. It's only a matter of adapting how it's applied. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So, Tel Aviv is the second most populous city in Israel, a geographical area historically known as Palestine...hmmm. It will end in tears. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To make a proper comparison, look at the lead to Israel where the name "Palestine" is mentioned 5 times within various contexts. Or Palestine where the name "Israel" is mentioned 3 times in the lead. There don't seem to be any tears there. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That isnt a proper comparison, because, as you have noted elsewhere, the article West Bank contains that it is called Judea and Samaria. The comparison is should the article Tel Aviv say that "Israel, also known as occupied Palestine"? nableezy - 19:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

At that level it might need considering if a term like "Occupied Palestine", which is a more forward political statement, can be compared to terms like Judea and Samaria, in their historical context with qualifications that make them devoid of political flavor. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the magic word, Nableezy. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• This proposal, that the guidelines disallow for the mention of the historic term, is word-playing. The guidelines, and specifically 6C, was specifically put in place because editors were removing all mention of Judea and Samaria. The guidelines were meant to disallow editors from erasing the historical context of Judea and Samaria from every Wikipedia article, not to further perpetuate the problematic behavior that led to all the bans.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• What Michael says - that the West Bank was historically known as "Judea and Samaria" - is quite simply untrue. The West Bank is a modern entity whose boundaries are defined by the which parts of the then territory of Palestine were held by the Transjordian army and its allies at the end of the 1948 war. There was not a historic name for this entity because no one would have had a use for a name that had those exact boundaries including the border around the enclave of Mount Scopus. There were historical entities called "Judea" and "Samaria" which overlapped the West Bank. It might be appropriate to say that a settlement with "Shomron" in its name explicitly references the historical Samaria and there may be RSs which reference the political implications of this name. But any insertion of a reference to a historical concept of J&S would be pure revisionism.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wholly irrelevant. Even if true that Judea and Samaria do not share the same borders as what is now called the "West Bank", it is for sure true that most of the West Bank is in parts of Judea and Samaria. Also irrelevant, because like anything else in this encyclopedia, content has to be verified by reliable sources. If a reliable source places a geographic entity in the historical West Bank, this very notable and historical information cannot be forced out of Wikipedia. If the only way we can mention the historic nature of the geographic area is by using the hated words "Judea and Samaria," then we are required to use those words. We are not here to please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how relevant or tangential it is to the page/article/subject in question. Discussing the region as a whole, or some entity which had historical existence and relevance to the time when it was Judea and Samaria, then yes a mention of the older terms is relevant. However this particular community, Alon Shvut‎‎, has only been in existence since 1970. Hence, it strikes me as tangential to mention the older name of the West Bank in the lead. I'll look for an example where it would be relevant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See Alon Shvut#History where the historic Jewish connection is expanded upon. I agree in general, that per the current guidelines wording, expansion on the historic Judea and/or Samaria aspect should be limited to the geographic entities that have an historic connection to land when it was known as Judea and Samaria and of course when discussed in that specific context by RS's.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw that - the archaeological material certainly is a start although i think it'd be good to get material which demonstrates a role within an earlier entity - is there more interpretation or discussion of that material out there...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That specific section is not worth much as it is unsourced, but I point it out for the general idea. A substantial number of the contemporary geographic entities in the "west bank" are situated in or close to an area that was settled at one point in history by Jews at a time when the area was known only as Judea and Samaria. This historic information is clearly pertinent and I can't imagine any basis for censoring this information. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, mixed on this one. If it turns out that there was no entity for several hundred to over a thousand years between the archaeology and 1970 settlement, then my concern is that the link is somewhat artificial and tenuous. OTOH, if there is a major centre which has been of regional importance in government of the area since biblical times that is clearly and unambiguously linked. Of course there are many areas whose histories lie somwhat in the middle of these two extremes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont see how your hypothetical location isnt already well-covered by the guidelines. If an article on a settlement discussed its connection with some past settlement in biblical times, then the guidelines would support providing the location of the past settlement as "in Judea" or "in Samaria". That is point 1 in the guideline. What is being argued here is that one can use "Judea and Samaria" as the name of a current location, equating it with the West Bank, which besides being a distinctly settler-oriented POV, is inaccurate. Do you have an opinion on either of the arguments about the specific exceptions? Those being that when 6D says The term is being used within the article about itself that the article about itself is not a reference to the article about the term and that 6C allows for "mentioning" Judea and Samaria as synonymous with the West Bank. nableezy - 05:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some sources for Maccabean era Beth-Zecharia, that place it adjacent to Alon Shvut: Page 10, [6], [7], [8].

But to clarify again: It is not being argued here that "one can use "Judea and Samaria" as the name of a current location". It's rather being said that a current geographical entity or area can be mentioned as being known as, or pertaining to, historical Judea, Samaria or J+S. Also, if the location of the ancient and modern entities is similar or in close enough proximity, it might be sufficient to establish a clear and unambiguous link to warrant the mention, without necessarily needing to establish a continuous Jewish presence between them. MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Your argument falls on its own weight. You say that you aren't giving J+S as "the name of a current location" but are saying that a current location is known by the name J+S. So how exactly can you argue that you are not giving J+S as the name of a current location? And no, if the location of the ancient and modern entities is similar or in close enough proximity that is not sufficient to establish a clear and unambiguous link to warrant the mention. I still would like outside views as to whether your reading of 6D has any merit at all, as I think it clearly doesn't. I would rather not get bogged down on whether or not a specific article qualifies here, I just want views as to what the guidelines actually say and mean. nableezy - 11:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the argument made by MichaelNetzer here is wrong and dangerous. The fact about the situation is that someone wants to write that Alon Shvut is in Judea and Samaria, but being unable to write that she/he invented the concoction "geographical area historically known by its biblical names Judea and Samaria" in an attempt to get around the rule. This will completely subvert the purpose of the rule if allowed to propagate. Zero^talk 12:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Zero: I've answered your similar argument in Talk:Alon_Shvut#WP:WESTBANK, so I'm pasting it here because it also succinctly answers this argument. I think this is a better place for the discussion anyway.

• Maybe we can try reading the guidelines a little more carefully. Here is guideline 6) under which the qualifications are stated. I've boldened some words to clarify my statements that follow:

"As of the time these guidelines were proposed (in March 2009), given the references which had been examined, some editors were not convinced that there was a proportion of nonpartisan usage in reliable sources of the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" to refer to places in the context of events in modern times sufficient that the terms could be used without qualification while conveying a sufficiently neutral voice. The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice; for example, it cannot be asserted without qualification that a place is "in Samaria". Any uses of the terms must be in one of the situations described below:"

• This umbrella guideline for the qualifications states clearly that the problem arising in context of modern times, such as Alon Shvut, as seen by some editors, is in conveying a sufficiently neutral voice. It goes on to clearly say, for example that it cannot be asserted without qualification that Alon Shvut is "in Judea". Qualification 6C) allows in its example, as an example, for a mention that "Alon Shvut is in an area historically known as Judea", because it is a qualification that conveys a neutral point of view and does not assert that Alon Shvut is "in Judea", or that the area is known today as Judea. This is the compromise struck with some editors who desired more neutrality.
• The position taken here as if to suggest that such a qualification is not allowed, for a modern place or event, undermines the entire intent of the guidelines and its qualifications. The guideline does not take the position that such a use is not sufficiently neutral, as some editors feel. The guideline also does not support your position that it is not sufficiently neutral, even without qualification. They only state that some editors hold this position and that this is the reason for the qualifications. So clearly, when its mentioned with a qualification that conveys neutrality as to the relationship of the modern place relative to the historical name, then the guideline states no such prohibition as is being asserted here. This is the reason the guidelines seem to have been written. Not for a blanket ban on the term being used in modern events. The guideline seems to have rather been written in order to prevent a wide prohibition for using the terms as is being asserted here. This would suggest it was the reverts of the edit that added this mention that are in violation of the guidelines. Not the other way around. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As you have repeated yourself here, Ill do the same. All that care and yet you neglected to bold the operative phrase: Any uses of the terms must be in one of the situations described below. Must be in one of the situations, none of which is satisfied here. nableezy - 18:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be definitely satisfied, not only in qualification 6C) but also in the reason the qualifications are given. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa horning in on an already overcrowded discussion: These arguments are long and tedious, so forgive me for not having read this one in its entirety. But from my perusal, it seems that no one has pointed out this: that, regardless of whether the use of "Judea and Samaria" in this context is allowed or not, it is a non sequitur. What does the fact that the region has a biblical name have to do with anything? You could just as well write "The West Bank, once ruled by Jordan," or, "The West Bank, sometimes called CysJordan" or "the West Bank, where tigers used to roam." It has nothing to do with the subject, and should thus rightly get the axe. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, Rav, sir, as one layish kaffir to a kephir, I think it was lions that roamed about, but in Samaria not Judah (2 Kings, 17.25)Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to digress too much but that's what I also remembered, Nishidani, until about 6 years ago when I spent some time near Ein Gedi. We were visited one night, in the Kibutz fields, by a tiger that wandered in from the Judea desert. It attacked a dog but we were far enough away to not attract its attention. Scroll down to Nachal Arugot. MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure that wasn't an Arabian leopard נמר?Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

He got away before we could ask him about his nationality :-) MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As usual, Nishidani is right. Most distressing. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to envy Nishidani's knowledge - נמר מדבר. MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ravpapa: If the article is about a Jordanian community in the West Bank, as an example, then it's perfectly proper to mention it was once ruled by Jordan and sometimes called CysJordan. If the article references, as another example, a tiger encroaching on populated areas in the West Bank, then it's perfectly proper to mention that tigers once roamed there. If the article is about a Jewish community in the West Bank, then it's likewise perfectly proper to mention the Hebrew name of the ancient region. Forbidding such information is in effect a censoring of pertinent facts about the subject. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think putting it in the lead is undue weight. This is an article about a specific small modern settlement. The lead should summarize the rest of the article, covering the most important facts about this settlement. The fact that the whole area it is in was once called something else, far before this specific settlement was founded, is not one of the most important things about it. If there were a section about the history of this settlement at the time when the area was most commonly known as J&S, saying as much in that section would be fine; and then we could discuss whether mentioning J&S in the lead would be a proper summary of the rest of the article. But there isn't (and since the settlement didn't exist at the time, I'm not sure how there could be; but who knows, maybe the area was of some interest...). As is, this seems like an excuse to stick this sentence in whether it fits or not. --GRuban (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've moved the following two comments here from the Talk:Alon_Shvut#WP:WESTBANK in order to answer them, because this is the agreed on place for this discussion: MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know how to begin relating to the issues, rased here. However, regarding the two initial problems mentioned by Nableezy:

• i would like to emphasize that Gideon Levy is a journalist without any serious academic or even research background, and hence not a very reliable source regarding historic issues such as history of Alon Shvut. Thus, a more realable source should be preferred for mentioning "Palestinian land annexation", than his weekly Ha'aretz column.

• "West Bank" / "Judea and Samaria" are both notable and widely used terms. For NPOV should be both mentioned, since discarding WB or J&S creates POV imbalance.

Cheers.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you have your NPOV and POV muddled up. Giving them equal validity and weight would be a very clear violation of NPOV per WP:VALID. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:VALID does not apply in this case. Here are the criteria and examples given for it:

There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.

The terms J+S are not a "minority view or extraordinary claim". They are uncontested historical names with ample acceptance as such. No one is arguing they are a hoax or conspiracy or speculative history or some such. And if someone does make that argument, then the argument itself would be the hoax or conspiracy. MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed "West Bank" term might fail on WP:VALID (its historic use is practivally non-existent until several decades ago), but i still think it should be used, since it has become a widely used term through mid and late 20th century in addition to "Judea" and "Samaria".Greyshark09 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• I endorse the viewpoint set forth by the majority of editors on this thread. I disagree with nableezy's rather peculiar and somewhat myopic interpretation of the guidelines. The Jewish history in Judea and Samaria is notable, relevant, documented and well-sourced. Thus, how they named their region should not be removed from wikipedia articles. It appears that the determined push to erase this term stems from a desire to stifle a legitimate viewpoint rather than a sincere effort to improve the project.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. You guys know what year it is and what the West Bank is called. "For NPOV should be both mentioned, since discarding WB or J&S creates POV imbalance" is plain wrong. This should be obvious to everyone. It as obviously wrong as erasing "Israel" and replacing it with "Palestine" in articles about the modern state or saying East Jerusalem is "in Israel" and all the other silliness that goes on here. The guidelines already allow for the use of the terms Judea and Samaria when discussing antiquity related issues. What next, actor X is openly gay, historically referred to as an abomination ? What is the objective here, to connect the modern people of today from all over the world who live in modern settlements in the West Bank to the land of the Bible ? Why ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

From the lead to gay, second sentence: "it had also come to acquire some connotations of "immorality" as early as 1637". which sounds like an abomination. Should we now object to that too, and remove it? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, because it is not at all similar to Sean's example. Zero^talk 12:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me similar enough to make the point, but I'm not always the best judge of myself. Still, if the reference to Gay doesn't avoid mentioning it as an "immorality" then it answers Sean, though his example is admittedly a little more extreme. But this is about a principle, not the degree of satire we make our arguments in. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make your point, it refutes it. Mentioning negative connotations in gay is like mentioning Judea and Samaria in West Bank, which it already does. What you are proposing is like adding "historically known as an abomination" in every article on a modern openly gay person. Zero^talk 22:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good summary. Once JJG, NMMNG etc agree to add "in a region historically known as Palestine" to all articles about Israeli locations then we can discuss a deal. Zero^talk 06:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay within a historical context, not political. Here's a sampling of Arab towns in Israel.

• Umm al-Fahm: "Several archaeological sites around the city date to the Iron Age, as well as Muslim, Roman and Hellenistic periods.
• Jaljulia: "In Roman times the village was known as Galgulis, while during the Crusader period it was referred to as Jorgilia."
• Tayibe: "Al-Tayba may be the Tayyibat al-Ism which was on the list of lands allocated by sultan Baibars to his amirs in 663 H. (1265-1266 C.E.), about thirty years after the Arab Conquest of Palestine."

The present population in them might not have any direct relationship to the people who lived there in Iron age, Roman, Hellenistic or Crusader periods, yet we mention this history anyway. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your examples don't fit. The object under discussion, Alon Shvut, did not exist in earlier times. The examples you give are for things referred to at times they existed. Zero^talk 12:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm al-Fahm was established in 1625 and also didn't exist in Roman or Hellenistic times. Yet the article mentions that history because "Several archaeological sites around the city" date to those periods. In Alon Shvut, we've already established an ancient Jewish community, Beth Zacharia, adjacent to Alon Shvut. Same as a site being "around the city". Many modern cities reference ancient communities in their vicinity. They don't have to have existed then to make such mentions. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now you are mixing up names of time periods with geographical names. Please try to be more consistent. Beth Zacharia was an ancient location and there is nothing at all wrong with saying that it was a Judean village (I didn't check that, let's assume it for the sake of the argument), nor in fact is there anything wrong with saying it was a village in Judea (again, assuming it was). However it certainly was never in "Judea and Samaria", which is modern settler-speak. You can't make an argument by giving examples different from what you propose. Zero^talk 22:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Zero: I try not to make assumptions about whether you're inconsistent or general remarks that paint you in a negative light. I make my arguments by stating my case on the issues, not on a personal assessment of your ability to make an argument. I think it's fair to expect the same in return. If you remember, I wasn't the one who inserted "Judea and Samaria" in Alon Shvut. I only joined the discussion on why it was removed. In the discussion that started there and is continuing here, there's an effort to place a political connotation on the use of the terms in any modern context. I never made the argument you say I did above. I don't think it helps to politicize the discussion with every response here. I've said several times, and I continue to only discuss, the historical relevance of such mentions. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

MichaelNetzer's has worded his argument here and at AE pretty well. The alternative title that some editors may not like still has historical importance that should be mentioned. Explain why it is relevant, add the source, the end. The title of articles isn't changing. Any debate about the lead should be muted since there is precedent to allow anything in the lead regardless of prominence in the topic area. Editors could just figure out ways to focus on the body while leaving the leads all but bare but that isn't going to happen.Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But it's not about people not liking someone else's history and terminology. It's about transforming landscapes using favoured projection systems. There are a multitude of map projection systems that can be used to represent a landscape. They all distort it in some way, it's unavoidable. This is a projection system based on history. It also distorts things. Why are people so keen to use this one ? There are many. What is actually going on here ? Let's stop dancing around the issues. People can spell out their objectives openly and honestly and let's have a look at them to see whether they are consistent with Wikipedia's objectives. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fair to be honest about our objectives and would hope for the same from everyone. On a personal level, I've wandered much of America and Israel, some of Europe with a good part of Lebanon and Syria on the side. I've spent a considerable part of my life with a diversity of peoples and heard remarkable stories of conflicts and strife. I can spend hours by the Dead Sea talking to people from Jehrico or Beduin from Arad, explaining to me why the Jews have no history here. Arafat was known for saying there was never a Jewish presence on the Temple Mount. I can live with all that on a personal level. It's not offensive to me because I understand the conflict that drives it. But on a professional level, if a colleague of mine is writing a comic book story for me to draw, and in it he wants to push such a personal narrative that would make our work look unprofessional, I'd be compelled to advise him against it, even though it didn't bother me personally to hear the stories from the source. I could sacrifice a lot for an acquaintance or a friendship, but extending that same measure of concern on a professional level demands a professional response. I'd like to think we can rise above ourselves and at least be able to mention everyone's documented history. No one is being deprived of anything by doing so. The integrity of Wikipedia, however, does become compromised by appearing to omit or avoid some of it. That's much harder to swallow on a professional level than on a personal one, especially in light of the regard I have for the project and the insight I've gained since my association with it. I understand the issues driving the conflict here, which started long before I joined it. It's one of the more personally charged issues on much of the world stage. Still, we have only to gain by keeping the professional interest of WP above our personal views. MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to entirely miss the point that placing a historical thing in its correct historical setting is completely different from choosing a particular historical setting for something that never existed in it. Now you openly present an ideological justification and you think it is somehow objective. Show us otherwise by going to Ein Hatzeva (an Israeli moshav founded in 1960) and writing "in a region historically known as Palestine" after its location. (In fact Palestine was the most common name for the region in English for many centuries.) Be prepared to fight Cptnono, Jiujitsuguy, Greyshark09, and lots of other editors, who won't allow it in a million years because they will correctly see it as an attempt to sneak in a denial of the legitimacy of the Jewish presence, just like you want to do in reverse to a place in the West Bank. There is only one way to approach such games and that is to uniformly disallow them. Zero^talk 12:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But they are not uniformly disallowed. Arab towns in Israel mention their history, Palestine, and even references to ancient sites and conquests long before the towns themselves were established, merely because of artifacts found in their vicinity. Ein Hatzeva is not a good example because a mention of Palestine in it is not pertinent to Ein Hatzvi. But the mention of Judea is pertinent Alon Shvut considering there are enough artifacts of antiquity for a Jewish presence in its vicinity.

I think at this point, the discussion is becoming superfluous because given our positions, we can continue a back and forth indefinitely. We both likely have better things to do here. I'd agree with User:Cptnono and others that it's now a matter of content in the body of articles and that there's no specific prohibition on use of these terms in relevant context, when the mention is sufficiently qualified. I also don't see a need to construe a political angle as is being done here with nearly every example. It confuses the issue of historical integrity that's being discussed. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody ever said the history of the site of Alon Shvut can't be mentioned (although it is a bit of a problem in this example since it doesn't seem to have any. Beth Zecharia was not in the same place but on a different hilltop). I agree to end this discussion. No consensus was obtained for changing the naming convention, which was always quite clear. Zero^talk 23:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No such consensus for changing the naming convention was sought. Just a well needed clarification. Which was achieved. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So bottom line, the way I understand it, is that usage of the term Judea and Samaria is permitted in the manner used by Brewcrewer here so long as the edit makes clear that its for historical reference, as his edit did. I'm okay with that and I think we can reinsert the edit based on these fruitful discussions, which are always helpful.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not, it was a clear violation of the naming convention and remains a clear violation of the naming convention. Zero^talk 08:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, it's proper and permissible to mention the historical context of the West Bank, if the term is used in an article about a Jewish settlement as it is here. But because it's not a mention specific to Alon Shvut, some editors apply a political motive and get into a huff about it... and it's preferable to try to avoid a blowout. The way to satisfy everyone is to improve the body of the article with more information on the history and archaeology in the vicinity of Alon Shvut. There is some of that now, but it needs to be expanded and supported by more sources. When the body improves, it'll be easier to assess whether enough of a relationship has been established to warrant a mention in the lead that's more specific to the settlement. Editors interested in the article can try to research and expand on the history and archaeology in the vicinity. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are the one who very clearly stated that your motivations are political. Maybe you don't even understand that when you invoke the Jewish historical narrative and dismiss the Palestinian historical narrative you are making a political statement. But that's what it is. This naming convention produced a sort of closure to years of difficult dispute, and your attempt to disrupt that closure threatens to create havoc and simply has to be resisted. There is no choice. Zero^talk 08:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you're doing it intentionally but what you're saying is a grave distortion of what I said, verging on a blatant lie. Upon being asked, I was honest about discussions I've had on some history being denied. I also made it clear that I could personally care less, and that my interest and motive here, and in my work, are to strive for professional integrity. Everything I said is on record and speaks for itself. It is not helping that you to keep dragging us into politically motivated arguments that we should be avoiding. All the articles on settlements are saturated with a pro-Palestinian narrative; their illegality, confiscation of land, and settler violence. I never criticized any of it nor contested anything, and certainly do not dismiss the Palestinian side of the story. It simply seems to me that the Naming Convention has been hijacked by some editors who are trying to bully Wikipedia into removing relevant historical references. It's a professional encyclopedic concern and nothing more. I think we should be approaching the collaboration with a lot more goodwill and professional trust. I beg you again to consider everything equally and try to keep personal issues outside of the discussion. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you added personal issues here from the outset (your marriage at Alon Shvut, your travels at Ein Gedi, your talks with Bedu

at Arad or Jericho)

It simply seems to me that the Naming Convention has been hijacked by some editors who are trying to bully Wikipedia into removing relevant historical references.

Nothing personal, but what you are hammering at precisely to hijack a key agreement that stabilised West Bank articles, and insulated them from endless bickering. Your argument is neither logical nor historical, hence the suspicion it is political.

I've followed this patiently without further argument, since every attempt to explain policy, and how policy has been consensually understood these last years, has been overwhelmed by repetitive longueurs. You are trying to bulldoze a convention all editors here have consistently understood to mean the opposite of what you say it means. Even the predictable assortment of editors who've rolled in to back you lately understood it as the rest of us have, because over the past two years they have not tried to plaster 'Judea and Samaria' over the settlement articles. Indirect evidence if it were needed that all of us here knew exactly that the agreement under Arbcom was to avoid it, except in the highly restrictive environments consensually agreed to. You are the only person, at this late date, to challenge what is a de facto record of bipartisan consensus.

Your knowledge of history is hugely generic (there has never been a collective entity 'Judea & Samaria' coterminous with the area we know of as 'The West Bank'; Samaria has never been crucial to Jewish memory, it has been off the radar since 7th cent BCE, as opposed to the northern kingdom of Israel, it was empty of synagogues, and warned against by rabbinical scholars); your reading of policy is tendentious, the innovation you propose destructive of agreements arduously negotiated. For the last week all you have done is repeat a personal conviction, your distinctive twist on the protocol. Those who were there at the time insist you have not understood it. There's nothing to negotiate, since for you, several of us who have been around since, and participated in the Arbcom ruling, do not understand it, and for several of us, you, who weren't in on those negotiations, have totally misconstrued them and the policy that emerged from it. All argument has been exhausted. What's the point? Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent things like this. I wasn't married at Alon Shvut, only that a rabbi from there conducted the wedding. It was an aside response to an aside comment not related to the discussion, so I'd hardly call that bringing a personal issue to this debate. On the other comment, my motives were called into question and I responded honestly with a personal note to dispel the claim. The comment was about myself and free of prejudice. I've not yet directed any personal disparagement towards anyone else here, unlike the countless times they've been leveled at me.

I have no idea what your point is in responding if you see no point to it. The only point left for me would be to point out the insidious distortions of nearly everything I've said here so as not to give the impression that it's representative of the Naming Convention itself or my position. Some here apparently feel the best way to make an argument is to disparage the editor they don't agree with. The type of bully tactics we'd thought Wikipedia would leave behind. I find the attitude championed by your side to be uncivil, hostile, highly deceptive and not helpful for a debate trying to clarify the issues. If this was the prevailing atmosphere in drafting the Naming convention, then it's no wonder so many editors don't agree with the interpretations and strong-arming you and others are pushing. If you consider an all out ban on relevant historic information, based on your apparent personal disdain for it, as having achieved some peace on the issue, then this is not the type of peace I know peace to be. Considering that some of you are unwilling to conduct a civil, good natured discussion, and as much as I've tried to avoid the hostilities, then I no longer see a point to allowing everything I say to be misunderstood, misrepresented and violently trampled. The level of intellectual honesty displayed here aspires to lows I've not seen recently. I've stated my case sufficiently and the record speaks for itself. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same arguments, and asserting that, since several competent editors cannot understand them, they are bullying you. It's not my side. No one on any side thought differently until you started challenging an understanding that has lasted 2 years.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

<- Michael, this statement caught my eye "All the articles on settlements are saturated with a pro-Palestinian narrative; their illegality, confiscation of land, and settler violence." I wanted to follow it up. I don't think it's an accurate or fair assessment or at least it's inconsistent with what I've seen. What evidence led you to believe that ? When it comes to these kind of issues the articles tend to reflect reliable sources. It's when they deal other kinds of information that they tend to fail to comply with policy and lack sources (just like many other articles...adding sources is tedious). Obviously it isn't Wikipedia's fault that what you see as a pro-Palestinian narrative on issues like legality is pretty consistent with the narrative presented by the vast majority of reliable sources. That's just how it is. I've made a special effort to ensure that the centrally agreed legality statement is present in a large number of the articles about settlements by systematically going through as many as I can. So, I've sampled a lot of the settlement articles. It took time that I would much rather have spent doing something more interesting but it's necessary. The articles have to include notable information, they must comply with policy and centrally agreed guidelines. There are still many without information about legality. For me it has nothing to do with the politics and I don't consider edits about legality that reflect reliable sources part of a pro-Palestinian narrative. The standard centrally agreed statement doesn't even mention Palestinians. It's about everyone else. A large number of the settlements articles about places in the Palestinian territories don't mention the word Palestinian at all (with occasional exceptions made for Palestinian militants/terrorists) and they don't mention that the settlements are in the Palestinian territories. Think about that. Bizarre, no ? That's the thing that I found most noticable about the articles when I sampled a large number of them, the absence of the term Palestinian, the absence of the people and place except where Palestinian=militant/terrorist. For some articles there's information about settler violence. For others there's information about attacks on settlements by militants/terroristss (and conflict between settlers and the IDF I seem to recall). You can raise concerns about specific articles at WP:IPCOLL, there are many systemic problems in the topic area but there aren't many editors in this topic area available to cut through all the partisan noise and just keep building an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say step by step no matter what. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sean, I think you misunderstood the context I said that statement in, so I'll try to clarify. It was a response to repeated claims that the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" are extremist "settler-speak", have no historical relevance to current times, dismiss the Palestinian narrative, and have no place in reference to modern entities. In addition to having explained repeatedly why such assertions are baseless, with mention of sources indicating the contrary, I made that remark to explain that the Palestinian narrative has ample representation in articles about the settlements and is not compromised by the mention of these terms. I also stressed that I never criticized nor suggested anything wrong with the presence of the Palestinian narrative in these articles because I know they're well sourced and have merit. My point was and remains that the claims against the use of the disputed terms are based on a false premise. Yet the editors arguing them do so with aggression, insult, misrepresentation and a visible unwillingness to try to understand what's being said. It's as if they're driven by a demonic hate for mention of the Jewish bond to their ancient homeland, an issue that's perhaps one of the more documented ones in the history of the region and a cornerstone of the conflict. So, I'm not at all raising any concerns about the Palestinian narrative or suggesting that it's biased or shouldn't be in the articles. I'm simply saying that it exists abundantly and that the aspect of the Israeli narrative in dispute here, that's also widely sourced throughout much the world, likewise has merit and bears mention. That's the crux of it and I hope it clarifies things. Your thoughtful good natured explanation above is refreshing and well appreciated. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks for the clarification. I'll stay out of the lively history discussion and meta-discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To all editors please bear in mind that we should comment on edits or policy and not on editor especially if the area is under arbitration ruling.Please refresh yourself with WP:CIVIL.--Shrike (talk) 06:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

'repeated claims that the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" are extremist "settler-speak",

If you can document that extroardinary claim, which is a magnificent distortion of everything I and several other people have argued, I'd appreciate it. 'Judea & Samaria' are settler-speak, as dozens of sources document. No one I know of claims that the words Judea, or Samaria, are settlerspeak. They're historic terms, unlike the settler euphemism and neologism developed in order to avoid mentioning occupied Palestine (the West Bank) as anything other than a mythical entity , 'Judea & Samaria', resonant with the historic rights of the Jewish diaspora, from the Incas of Peru to the Lemba of Africa, to that land.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It is neither a distortion nor magnificent I'm sorry to say. At best, the entire sentence was a paraphrase of your argument trying to isolate "Judea and Samaria" as a term to be eschewed because settlers use it. I paraphrased it as such because "Judea and Samaria" is essentially "Judea" and "Samaria", and documented as such by the British who introduced the combination into one term. Your argument ignores the extensively sourced fact that settlers did not fabricate it nor introduce it into use. The region became known by the combination of the two terms long before settlements. The United Nations, British, and Israel, continue to use the term today to specifically identify the area widely known as the West Bank. It has been referenced as such world wide, because the separate entities are the uncontested historic names of the areas north and south of Jerusalem that became the West Bank. Many sources argue that the introduction of the term "West Bank" by Jordan to replace "Judea and Samaria" was intended to erase memory of this history, but no one makes a case for "West Bank" being "Jordan speak", "Hamas speak" or "Hizballa speak" due to their use of it also. The attempt to isolate the term as a hated "settler" euphemism is the essentially grave, somewhat disingenuous but hardly magnificent distortion in this discussion. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Samaria

This recent edit [9] to Samaria article, was based on this policy. I think it is un called for. All it does is confuse the reader by switching terminology in mid article, now referring to a very similar but different geographic region that wasn't defined in the article. I think that this article should be governed by the same rule as "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" article.--Mor2 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What a queer guideline

• I was just made aware of this convention by an editor on another page. How extremely strange! In general, we use the geographic names used by the people living in a place, and by the government of a place. We all say Mumbai, instead of Bombay (although the airport code is still BOM), Istanbul instead of Constantinople (although if there had been an Ottoman airport, the code would probably still be CON). Why should those who choose not be allowed to use Samaria and Judea? Or, as I did, West Bank/Samaria. Only to be threatened by a very angry-sounding editor named Nableezy. By the way, what do Arabic-speaking Palestinians actually call the place?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I didnt threaten you, and I wasnt angry sounding. Please, again, stop being so hysterical. As for why not, you can start by reading Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank)/Archive_2 nableezy - 16:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Amendment

I wish to propose an amendment to Wikipedia's "Naming Conventions (West Bank)". Since there has been much politicizing of the Arab-Israeli conflict by editors' choice of words (whether "Palestine" or "Israel"), and since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed in the current set of guidelines, perhaps administrators can consider the following proposal:

My proposal would be to leave the wording "West Bank" just as it is (since it only describes a geographical region that once divided positions held by Israel and Jordan), but to add a disclaimer there, stating to the effect that Wikipedia's use of the words "Palestine" and/or "Israel" are meant to be understood apolitically, and as purely geographical-historical terms used in antiquity. In this manner, we steer clear from politicizing the situation, or infringing upon WP:NPOV. Whenever editors mention "Israel" and their intent is to describe a political case involving the State of Israel, or the Government of Israel, the words "State of Israel" or "Government of Israel" should preface their editorial entry.

Let us bear in mind that the common name of "Palestine" often applies to its pure geographical and historical sense and connotation, just as we often come across the name when reading historical works. Anyone who has ever read English translations of Al-Muqaddasi can see that he describes Palestine in the 10th-century. Likewise, the name "Palestine" is often mentioned in the descriptions of flora found in the country, in the works written by Al-Tamimi, the physician. The same would apply to the use of the common name, the "Land of Israel," often used in rabbinic literature --- such as the Mishnah (Kelim 1:6), compiled in 189 CE. It's one thing to politicize names; it's another thing to recognize their broader usages and connotations.Davidbena (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

New Proposal

As someone once wrote: "What was once imagined as a single land has become an assortment of territories. These territories bear multiple names and different legal statuses, and their boundaries are often blurred" (END QUOTE). The "Historical Palestine" is now construed with the politically-charged word, "Palestine", the country so-called by all its inhabitants prior to 1949, and home of the Arab-Palestinians who long for a state of their own. Likewise, the "Historical Land of Israel", at least in the minds of Arab-Palestinians, is now construed with the modern, political State of Israel. To many, both words (Palestine vs. Israel) seem to be mutually exclusive, when they ought not to be. The proper way of addressing this issue in those articles which treat on this geographical country and which same articles are plainly apolitical in nature, is, in my view, to permit the usage of both names, "Israel/Palestine," for the country's geographical location, in a bid to be neutral. I have seen this done in peer-reviewed articles where the writer does not wish to offend anyone.

References

Davidbena (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

short descriptions and infoboxes

The {{Infobox settlement}}, which {{Infobox Israel village}} customizes, uses the "settlement type" in "subdivision_name1" for the default short description of an article, which for all the Israeli settlements in the West Bank default to "Place in Judea and Samaria Area". This violates clauses 4,5 and 6 here. Is anybody aware of any technical way of either setting the {{Infobox Israel village}} to set the short description to Israeli settlement in the West Bank if the subdivision is set to js, or quickly setting the short description explicitly in each settlement article? nableezy - 15:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This would seem to be in accordance with clause 5, as the context is the Israeli administrative division - which in this case is the Area. Icewhiz (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you may not say something is in the Judea and Samaria Area, the location is not about the Israeli administrative division, that is about the land area. The short description is not an end around to our guidelines. nableezy - 16:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

My template editing skills aint good enough for this, so just setting them manually with AWB. nableezy - 17:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done nableezy - 17:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)