Talk:Judea and Samaria Area

Judea and Samaria" = "West Bank" ? WP:SYNTH!!

This is what happened when I added a ref to UNSC 242 in support of a longstanding assertion that the occupation of J+S isn't recognized by the UN:

• CanadianMonkey: Cited source makes no mention of Judea and Samaria
• MeteorMaker: Nothing strange, very few use the term "J+S". The UN refers to it as "territories occupied in the recent conflict".
• CanadianMonkey: If the UN does not use the term, it is original research, Find a source that explictly makes your claim
• MeteorMaker: Added cites that identify "occupied territories" with West Bank .
• CanadianMonkey: That is WP:SYNTH, or rather would be, if in fact the new source mentioned J+S, which it does not

In a nutshell: In order for User:CanadianMonkey to accept the fact that the UN has not recognized the occupation of the West Bank, he demands proof that Judea and Samaria = the West Bank, which strikes me an odd request from somebody with a moderate insight in world events in the last 50 years or so. Note that he doesn't express doubts of the reliability of the sources, only says it's WP:SYNTH as long as the ICJ doesn't use the exact phrase "Judea and Samaria" instead of "West Bank" — or maybe even if it did. Wikilawyering at its finest. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The argument you are making in the article is that "the UN does not recognize Judea and Samaria as a district of Israel". I had no idea that the UN was in the business of "recognizing" a member state's internal administrative districts, so I ask for a source for this. Instead, you have provided the following synthesized argument, incorporating many elements of original research not even found in the sources you have attempted to synthesize together, along the line of :

• "The UN says a resolution to the conflict involves Israeli withdrawal for territories it captured in 1967 " (source A, which does not mention J+S at all)
• "The West Bank is a territory captured in 1967 (source B)
• Synthesis of A+B, plus original research, to form :Israel must withdraw from the West Bank (original research conclusion C)
• Complete original research 'The West Bank and "Judea and Samaria" are the same thing (no source) (original research statement D)
• Synthesis of C+D, to argue that Israel must withdraw from Judea and Samaria, and finally
• If Israel must withdraw from Judea and Samaria, then the UN does not recognize it as an administrative district of Israel. (Pure original research)

Please stop this doing this. If there is a source that says "the UN does not recognize Judea and Samaria as an administrative district of Israel" - simply quote it. If there isn't, don't use original research in order to place this into the article, and stop your edit war against consensus. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The UN does not recognize Israel's claim to the West Bank, which Israel calls "Judea and Samaria". That Israel has declared it an "administrative district" is completely immaterial to the argument.

The misunderstanding that there has been any undue synthesising on my part may be my own fault, since I didn't include the full quote from the Lau&Cotran book (too lazy to type from Google Books):

First, it is now legally decided that the area between the Green Line and the Mandatory eastern border of Palestine is "occupied" and Israel remains a belligerent occupant. [...][The Court] defined where the territories occupied by Israel are. Second, the widely-circulated argument that [UNSC 242] does not call for withdrawal of all Israeli forces from all the occupied territories should now be put to rest.

So, as you see, the only claim that remains to be sourced is that "Judea + Samaria" = the West Bank. I believe most editors would consider such a demand blatant wikilawyering MeteorMaker (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What is this supposed 'claim to the West Bank' that Israel has, and which the UN does not recognize? Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The kind that makes them set up administrative districts? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So Israel's claim is that it can administer the West bank? And this is something that the UN does not support? The UN says Israel does not administer this territory? That's a pretty novel claim. Where can I read about it in a reliable source? Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Setting up a military administration appears to be a bit out of line with the 242's demands of "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force". Yes, you are going to respond with demands that I dig up a source that explicitly says so, but I've already shown what needs to be shown — that the UN wants the IDF and with it, their occupation administration out of the West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:SYNTH: "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... Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

When a map (Image:We-map.png) with one narrative is virtually the same geographic area as another map (Image:WestBankGovernatesNonLabeled.png), with a different narrative, it seems quite obvious that stating so is both factual, NPOV, and something like what Wikipedia is to strive toward. That naturally assumes one can read a map, is sufficiently aware of history and of course, neutral enough to accept it. Take a look at Wikipedia:Gaming the system, Jay, hopefully in an effort to follow policy, rather than perfect it as a wiki-art. I shall await your WP:OR rebuttal. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Which one of these maps makes the claim that "the UN says Israel does not adminsiter this territory"? I looked and couldn't find any mention of the UN on them. Please help me find it, perhaps it is in very small print. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your strawmen are getting stranger and stranger, as does your demand for proof of the whole basis of this article. Your original request, a source for the statement "the UN has not recognized Israel's claim to the West Bank", was fulfilled with the link to UNSC 242 I posted several days ago. Your request then morphed into "prove that the UN was talking about J+S", which was done with the Lau&Cotran quote I gave you above. Then you asked for proof that the West Bank = J+S, which was demonstrated to you in the post before yours. Now you're asking for a map that makes the claim that "the UN says Israel does not adminsiter this territory". Amusing as it may be to you, I ask you to stop this pointless game now. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You've explained that by 'Israel's claim to the West Bank' you mean its ability to administer the territory. Please point out where, exactly, does UNSCR 242 refer to recognizing Israel's administration of the West Bank, and the UN's lack of recognition of this. Please refer to specif clauses and/or line numbers in UNSCR 242, not to personal research as to what certain terms in 242 "really mean", or how they should be interpreted. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Either I expressed myself unclearly, or you have indulged in some personal research what I "really mean". Your original requests have already been fulfilled as per above. I see no point in defending a weird argument I never made in the first place. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The argument you have made, through the editsyou are attempting to edit war into the article is that "the official Israeli name of the seventh District of Israel, [is] unrecognised by the UN". Please provide a source for that argument. Not original research, not any synthesis of other arguments, not personal commentary. Just provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from not spelling out "J+S = West Bank", what fault do you see with the ones already provided? Also, the claim was there already [2], all I did was to provide a source. Then you deleted the longstanding "for historical regions, see Judea and Samaria" and inserted your own unsupported WP:OR that the regions are "geographical" rather than historical. Unless you can provide a source for that claim, it must be deleted per WP:V, and your persistent edit warring is clearly disruptive. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

the claim you are being asked to support is that "the official Israeli name of the seventh District of Israel, [is] unrecognised by the UN". Please provide a source for that argument. Not original research, not any synthesis of other arguments, not personal commentary, not semantic games or other forms of sophistry. Just provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You may have missed the post above. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) No, I did not. I don't care who originally put that statement in - unsourced claims may be challenged and removed at any time,which is what I did, and then you re-inserted that claim. Now, Please provide a source for that argument. Not original research, not any synthesis of other arguments, not personal commentary, not semantic games or other forms of sophistry. Just provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you just ignored it then. I repeat the question: Apart from not spelling out "J+S = West Bank", what fault do you see with the ones already provided? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not ignore it. I am not askingfor a source that says "J+S = West Bank", I am asking for a source for that states "the official Israeli name of the seventh District of Israel, [is] unrecognised by the UN". None of the argumentative sources you've stitched together in a violation of our policy against original research make that claim. Just provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

UNSC 242 clearly demands a termination of all claims or states of belligerency and withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. That is enough. For the willfully obtuse who still have "difficulties" comprehending which territories that might be, the Lau&Cotran quote above makes it clear that the ICJ has defined "territories occupied in the recent conflict" as the West Bank. I honestly don't understand how anybody can still claim it's unclear what the UN's position on Israel's occupation is. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, UNSC 242 clearly requires a termination of all claims or states of belligerency and withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. It does not however, state anything like "the official Israeli name of the seventh District of Israel, [is] unrecognised by the UN", which is the claim you've made and sourced to UNSCR 242. Please provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what the misunderstanding is now. "Unrecognised by the UN" refers to "the 7th district of Israel", not the name "Judea & Samaria". The UN has not said anything specifically about the name (apart from not using it), only that Israel has no claim to the West Bank, which is what the sentence is intended to express. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Which reliable source supports the statement '"the 7th district of Israel is unrecognised by the UN"? Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

UNSC 242, that's why I put it in. Assuming we now have solved the problem of identifying J+S with the WB, it's pretty clear: Israel has no claim to the WB, and its army, including the military administration, has no business there. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, UNSCR 242 nowhere mentions 'the 7th district of Israel', nor any recognition of it by the UN, or lack thereof. Again, which reliable source supports the statement '"the 7th district of Israel is unrecognised by the UN"? Please provide a source for that statement. Not original research, not any synthesis of other arguments, not personal commentary, not semantic games or other forms of sophistry. Just provide a reliable source that makes that exact claim, thanks. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"The 7th district of Israel" = the West Bank. UNSCR 242: "Terminate all claims, withdraw army from West Bank". I'm sorry, I can't express it any simpler. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

if you want to include a statement that says '"the 7th district of Israel is unrecognised by the UN', you will need to find source that says just that. I'm sorry, I can't express it any simpler. Have a read of WP:SYNTH. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

UNSC 242 says just that, and you have been shown a reliable source that confirms it. In case you have just invented a new WP rule that says no sentence can go in an article unless that exact sequence of words has been said by a reliable source, you'd have to scrap 99.997% of the text on Wikipedia. Kindly stop your wikilawyering now and move on to something more productive. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

UNSC 242 says the resolution of the conflict should involve Israeli withdrawal from territories it captured, and the end of all claims of belligerency. Those items of fact are already in the article. UNSC 242 says nothing whatsoever about "The 7th district of Israel" , or about "Judea and Samria", or even about the West Bank. It most certainly does not say anything about recognizing Israel's administrative districts, or not recognizing them. Please stop this attempt at pushing a POV into the article based on your ideas about how we should interpret UNSC 242 - and please, please read WP:SYNTH, which you continue to violate. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have been shown a cite from a reliable source that explains that the territories in the 242 have been conclusively identified with the West Bank, by the ICJ. Have you seen it or have you missed it? Has Israel been admonished to leave that territory or not? MeteorMaker (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And again, I am not looking for references that the ICJ has identified the West Bank with the "territories" named in 242 (notwithstanding the fact that the source you quoted does not do that at all - it just states the West bank is occupied). I am looking for a single source, not a synthesized argument, that "'the 7th district of Israel',is not recognized by the UN". Do you have such a source or not? Please do not repeat the nonsense about UNSC 242, as it is plainly obvious that UNSCR 242 does not mention "The 7th district of Israel" , or "Judea and Samria", or even the West Bank. It most certainly does not say anything about recognizing Israel's administrative districts, or not recognizing them. Please, please, please read WP:SYNTH - as your constant violations of it will eventually lead to your editing privileges being restricted. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand how you can demand that the 242 should use terms like "The 7th district of Israel" or "Judea and Samaria" long before those terms were invented. In case you still haven't read the cite from the Lau&Cotran book I provided that makes clear just what territories the "territories occupied in the recent conflict" are, here's a new opportunity (but mind you, I'll only repost it one more time):

First, it is now legally decided that the area between the Green Line and the Mandatory eastern border of Palestine is "occupied" and Israel remains a belligerent occupant. [...][The ICJ] defined where the territories occupied by Israel are. Second, the widely-circulated argument that [UNSC 242] does not call for withdrawal of all Israeli forces from all the occupied territories should now be put to rest.

Like, hopefully, your wikithreats and persistent WP:SYNTH-waving. MeteorMaker (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:SYNTH: "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... Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research." The sources you have used don't mention Judea and Samaria, nor come to the conclusions you invent for them. Please take the WP:NOR policy seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Again: UNSC 242 is a sufficient source in itself. Additionally, for those who have difficulties understanding what territories "the territories captured by Israel in the recent conflict" might be, the Lau&Cotran quote is a sufficient source in itself. Either is a sufficient source in itself. Hope that cleared it up for you. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that they don't discuss "Judea and Samaria". Don't invent claims for the UN that it hasn't made, much less POV-push them into the lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it "POV-pushing" to say that "Judea and Samaria" = "the area between the Green Line and the Mandatory eastern border of Palestine" = "West Bank" now? What exact WP policy do you refer to this time? MeteorMaker (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit you are inserting is not '"Judea and Samaria" = "the area between the Green Line and the Mandatory eastern border of Palestine" = "West Bank"' (which 242 is not a good source for, in any case, but is a moot point), but rather "the UN does not recognize Israel's administration of Judea and Samaria". Please provide a source for that claim, not for any other one. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For the 20th (or so) time, the source is the 242. For the small subset of people who don't understand what territories "the territories captured by Israel in the recent conflict" might be, the Lau&Cotran quote is an additional source that states the same thing, only more explicitly. For the exceedingly small subset that still don't understand, I'm afraid I can't do much. Is your problem with the fact that the UN doesn't use Israel-specific terminology, or don't you honestly understand what the sources say? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For the 20th (or so) time, 242 says nothing about "Israel's 7th district", or about "Judea and Samaria" , or about "west bank", and does not say anything at all about recognizing the Israeli administration of those territories, by whatever name. Please read WP:SYNTH. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(<---Outdent)

Arbitrary section break 1

Yes, I've heard that probably 20 times. Maybe I can help you better if you answer this question: Would you still have a problem with making sense of the 242 if it said "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from Judea and Samaria"? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If what you wanted to say instead of 'The UN does not recognize Israel's administration of Judea and Samaria" was "The United Nations has declared that Israel must withdraw from territories captured in the conflict", and base that on a reference to 242, I would certainly not have a problem with that. I'd point out that this text already appears in the article, though, so I'm not sure why we'd want to repeat that. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The extraordinarily shaky legal status of this administrative district is probably the most important fact in this article, so it definitely belongs in the lead. I will rewrite it according to your suggestions. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

there is nothing "shaky" about the legal status of this district - it is governed by a military authority, as occupied territory. You seem to be under the impression that every military occupation is, by definition, illegal - but that is simply not so. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's an unwarranted conclusion. Israel's occupation of the WB is illegal per UN and ICJ and has not been recognized by any country. That is a fact. Your legal gyrations to make it seem like it isn't so (by demanding that the documents say "Judea and Samaria" and similar exercises in sophistry) are not particularly convincing. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the relevant UN resolutions or ICJ rulings which claim the occupation is illegal. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not "illegal" in the strict juridical sense (except East Jerusalem), but "in breach of UN resolutions" — as illegal as Saddam's WMD, and for more than 40 years now. The UN has stated pretty clearly that Israel's armed forces have no business there, and having the IDF even set up a 7th Israel district there is against both the letter and the intent of the 242.

Your new 242 wording is fine with me, although maybe a little longish. Now, please restore the "historical" in the header that you replaced with "geographical" for unstated reasons. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Which reliable source claims that the IDF administration of the West Bank is against both the letter and the intent of the 242? Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The IDF is, by definition, the Israeli army. UNSCR 242 demands the withdrawal of Israel armed forces from what you have now conceded [3] to be the West Bank. Ergo, the presence of the IDF in any form is in breach of UNSCR 242. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand this is what you think, but I am not interested in more of your personal theories and original research. I am asking which reliable source claims that the IDF administration of the West Bank is against both the letter and the intent of the 242? Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's all in UNSCR 242. Since we're now on common ground regarding the extent of the territories that it says Israel must withdraw its forces from (the West Bank), I don't see why you need an additional reliable source besides UNSCR 242 that says "UNSCR 242 says that the IDF must withdraw from the West Bank". Maybe this time it's because the 242 doesn't mention the IDF explicitly, only the Israeli army? MeteorMaker (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

UNSCR 242 obvioulsy does not say that the IDF is violating it. If you make that claim, you need to support it with reliable sources. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this the point where I'm supposed to break down and laugh maniacally? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's all you're capable of, yes. Alternatively, you could try to actually find a reliable source that supports your claims. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that you regard reliable sources as mandatory even for the most obvious statement: would you happen to have one on hand for this? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking for a reference that Judea and or/Samaria is a geographic region, a reference would be the geographical map, by the CIA, which I've presented to you several times. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Every time you bring up that CIA map, it has been pointed out that it's simply a map with the place names the locals use, and that the word "Samaria" is nowhere to be found in the entire body of online CIA document (except once, in a cross-reference list of little-used foreign toponyms). If you want to introduce country-specific terminology on Wikipedia, you have to have better evidence of widespread acceptance than that. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a geographical map, and it labels the area "Samaria". End of story. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It also labels eg. Nablus with the local names, Nabulus and Shekhem. It's clearly a map of local place names. Neither the CIA nor any other (non-Israeli) government uses the term "Samaria", a fact that has been pointed out to you numerous times and which renders your interpretation of the map a violation of WP:FRINGE. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

it does not label "Samaria" with a local name - which would be "Shomron" or "as-Samarah". It uses the non-local, English toponym "Samaria", which is all the references we need for the claim that Samaria is a geographic region. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

<----Outdent>

The names the locals are likely to use when speaking English, obviously. One (deliberately misinterpreted) map is also far from being "all the references we need" for widespread usage of a toponym. Please review Wikipedia guidelines for place names. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The locals speak Hebrew and Arabic. When speaking in foreign languages they use the terminology of those foreign languages. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. Israelis use the term "Samaria" rather than "Shomron" when speaking English, for instance with CIA operatives. From that doesn't follow that those same operatives, or anybody within the CIA, or for that matter anybody within any US gov't org uses the term. If that were, the case, we should be able to find examples of it. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

We have an example of it - the very map we are discussing. Your amusing contortions ("Oh, it says "Samaria" because that what the locals would call it if they were speaking to CIA operatives") are original research which is nowhere to be found on the map itself. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary — under WP:NCGN you are required to show that a geographical term enjoys widespread acceptance in English before you present it as a valid toponym. One single map wouldn't suffice even if you had one whose function and purpose you didn't have to creatively misconstrue to suit your agenda. Also, drawing unfounded conclusions from single examples is against both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who came up with the imaginative "it says "Samaria" because that what the locals would call it if they were speaking to CIA operatives" and I'm the one "creatively misconstrue[ing]" things? Please, be serious. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've informed you that the CIA map is what is known as a bilingual map, with the local Arabic and Israeli names on it. You believe it's proof of some kind of conspiracy to suppress the real name of the area and that the CIA secretly endorses the term "Samaria", while outwards maintaining a clever façade of sticking unfailingly to "West Bank", which conveniently explains why there isn't one proper occurrence of "Samaria" in the entire online CIA archive. I think it's pretty obvious who's the one with the vivid imagination here.

And again, even if your interpretation of the purpose of the map were perfectly accurate and not a total fabrication, you'd only have one isolated anecdotal example. WP:NCGN requires you to show that a term enjoys widespread acceptance in English. Do you have a reliable source that "Samaria" does? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You've certainly asserted, several times, that this a bilingual map, with the local Arabic and Israeli names on it, only to have me and Jayjg point out to you that "Samaria" is neither a local Arabic name nor an Israeli name, and that "Samaria" appears on the map alone, not accompanied by any local name. Instead of imagining what I believe is the purpose of the map, please refocus on the matter at hand - you asked for a reference that "Samaria" is a geographical region, and I gave you one - a geographical map with the area labeled "Samaria". Let's move on. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The place names aren't in Arabic or Hebrew letters either, so it's clearly intended for English speakers who need to familiarize themselves with what the places are called locally. What's your point, that the CIA released a secret map by mistake? What do you make of the fact that only one CIA online document (a cross-ref list of little-used place names) contains the name "Samaria", while the West Bank occurs 720 times [[4]]? Could your interpretation perhaps be a little inconsistent with reality?

And again, even if your interpretation of the map were correct, one instance of a term hardly constitutes evidence of widespread acceptance, something you need in order to present a toponym as valid on Wikipedia. It's as if a hypothetical map with "Zionist Entity" on it would legitimize that as a proper NPOV alternative to Israel. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

again, if the intent was to familiarize English speakers with what the places are called locally, it would have been transliterated, as "Shomron" or "As-Samarah". My point is that if you are looking for a reference that Samaria is a geographical region, I've given you one. Move on. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you will have to comply with WP:NCGN for geographical terms. One (creatively misinterpreted) map won't do. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who came up with the imaginative "it says "Samaria" because that what the locals would call it if they were speaking to CIA operatives" as well as the alternative "it's clearly intended for English speakers who need to familiarize themselves with what the places are called locally and I'm the one "creatively misinterpret[ing]" things? Please, be serious. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

SInce you keep ignoring the important part, let's pretend I've never refuted your interpretation of the purpose of the map. Now, how many isolated examples would you say it takes to satisfy WP's requirements for presenting a toponym as valid? MeteorMaker (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The important part, as far as I can tell, was your request (which started this exchange) for a reliable source for the claim the "Samaria" is a geographical region. One reference is enough for that claim - and I've given it to you. Time to move on. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If one single map were enough, we'd have to accept "Occupied Palestine" as a synonym for Israel as well [5]. One instance of a toponym on a map (even if your interpretation of it had been correct) is clearly not evidence of widespread acceptance. Please review WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:NCGN. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that I have to actaully explain this to you, but The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a proven antisemitic hoax, is not a reliable source on wikipedia. Seriously, this game playing has gone on long enough. Further attempts to disrupt the project along [this line will be taken to the appropriate administrators' forum. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2008

(UTC)

(<---Outdent)

(Outdent) Just showing you where your "one map is enough, to hell with the context" technique would lead if it were allowed on Wikipedia. You are in fact required to evaluate the context, not just blindly embrace anything with a superficial similarity to proof. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You have attempted to equate a CIA map, from a reliable source, with a known antisemitic hoax. Please read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Point, specifically, this section. Further disruption will be dealt with appropriately. Canadian Monkey (talk)

Wrong, I have demonstrated the potential consequences of further spreading of your lax source checking: "If something exists as a label on one map, any map, it's WP material, regardless of the purpose of the map itself". The CIA map is not what you purport it to be, or else the CIA would use the term "Samaria" on their web site [6] at least as many times as "West Bank" (turns out the actual numbers are 1 to 720). And I repeat, you need to show proof of widespread acceptance if you want to present a toponym as extant on Wikipedia. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Quoting to you from the section I referred you to: 'Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper'. Other editors have previously warned you about this. Don't do it again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I have mischaracterized your actions (and I will accept your apology as well for claiming that I "have attempted to equate a CIA map [...] with a known antisemitic hoax.") Still, you haven't yet commented on my repeated request to abide by WP:NCGN. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am following WP:NCGN, which states 'The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article'. the title of this article is 'Judea and Samaria' - and that's the name I'm using consistently throughout the article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the dispute is about, it's about your promotion of Samaria and Judea to "geographical" rather than "historical" terms [7]. WP:NCGN requires you to show that a toponym enjoys widespread acceptance in order to use on WP, and I haven't seen a shred of evidence for that position. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:NCGN is relevant to this dispute Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Naming conventions (geographic names) apply to geographic names. You changed the text to "For the geographic regions of Judea and Samaria see Judea or Samaria"[8], where it before said "historical". MeteorMaker (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the lead of WP:NCGN, as it appears you have skipped over it: "our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called." This article is named Judea and Samaria, because that is what the district is called. Other articles are also appropriately named, ad the text there makes clear the names are not only historical. I don't see how WP:NCGN is relevant to this dispute Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

One week later: No new evidence has surfaced that would support the position that "Samaria" is a current term anywhere else than in Israel. Since attempts to insert it in WP articles thus violate WP:NCGN, [[WP:UNDUE], and [[WP:NPOV], [9], Canadian Monkey's edit that changed the reference to the articles on Judea and Samaria to "geographical" areas rather than historical will have to be reverted. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

One week later, asserting what you have failed to establish and declaring victory is not the way Wikipedia works. Dozens of sources establish use of the term outside of Israel. Please edit according to policy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if they were a dozen (scroll down for the refutals that decimate the list quite a lot), that wouldn't really constitute wide usage in the WP sense. Note that several of the sources do comment on usage, and all that do unanimously agree that the term is confined to Israel. Even your best evidence turns out to be better support for the opposite view, which I find telling. Please give up now and revert back. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

what you call "refutals" is referred to on wikipedia as self-serving original research. More than 3 dozen sources establish use of the term outside of Israel. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you take off the proverbial blinders and actually read the "self-serving original research", you will find proof that most of those sources are, in order of prevalence, 1) Israelis/members of Zionist orgs, 2) references to the old British Mandate region name, or even older incarnations of the area, 3) misrepresentations of neutral sources like Newsweek and Ian Lustick. Only a couple remains, and anecdotal evidence is not enough for Wikipedia. Now, if you could find a source that actually says the term is in wide use outside of Israel... MeteorMaker (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not disqualify sources because they are Zionist. You have been presented with 40+ sources outside of Israel that use the term, so it is wrong to claim that it is used exclusively in Israel. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does disqualify partisan views and partisan terminology. And as you've already been informed numerous times, the list of "sources outside of Israel that use the term" you keep referring to has been conclusively shown to contsist mostly of quotes by Israelis. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this is starting to get into WP:LAME territory. Instead of going back and forth like this, how about filing an RfC, and trying to get some comments from other editors? --Elonka 02:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It would also require a re-statement of the basic issue to avoid the copious indentations. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

One small question - how come nobody here points out the issue with UNSC 242 about "from territories" rather than "from the territories"? When confronted about this, the British ambassador to the UN who had originated this declaration stated that Britain did not expect Israel to withdraw to the armistice line, but rather to reach an agreement concerning its final borders. Especially considering the fact that most of the territory occupied by Israel following the six day war was the Sinai (recognized internationally as part of Egypt) and the Golan Heights (recognized internationally as part of Syria), the standing of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would be less than clear and subject to negotiation. Obviously, many of you do not like this, but these are the facts on the ground. This embodies the meaning of controversy - one side says one thing and the other side says another. Denying the claims of one side in favor of another when there is no incontrovertible evidence is to utilize Wikipedia as a political tool. International parties discussing the conflict speak of borders BASED on the 1949 armistice line rather than IDENTICAL to the 1949 armistice line for a reason. 132.229.189.116 (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Why does this exist?

Shouldn't this page redirect to West Bank because the latter name is more common internationally? Or do we give separate articles for disputed names to satisfy different groups? It seems that Burma has been chosen over Myanmar, and Sea of Japan chosen over other alternatives. Of course the dispute would receive note on the West Bank article (as it already does receive to some extent) but having two articles seems odd. Chedorlaomer (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the Israeli Administrative District, which is different from the "West Bank" - a political term. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am just used to seeing it in a more heated context (the naming dispute) than as a mere district. Sorry, Chedorlaomer (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The naming dispute is described in detail both here, and the West Bank article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a classic POV fork, but somebody let it slip by. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they are different things, as explained to you time and again, by multiple editors. Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How are they different, Mr Multiple Editors? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For one, the Israeli district does not include the areas of Jerusalem which Israel has annexed, whereas "West Bank" does. This has been explained to you by Ynhockey. Rather than being rude, you should simply refresh your memory about these discussions. Canadian Monkey (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ynhockey has not taken part in this discussion, only you, I, Jayjg, and Chedorlaomer.

So, we have now determined that "Judea and Samaria" is a geographical subset of the West Bank, is that true? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Here is User:Ynhockey's comment to you, on this exact issue, making this point: [10].

And no, what he have determined is that one of the differences between the two terms is that one refers to a different geographical area - J&S cover a subset of what is known as the West bank. That is far from the only difference. The more fundamental difference is that 'Judea & Samaria' is a clearly defined administrative entity - it is subject to a certain set of laws, administered by a known governing authority etc... By contrast, the "west bank' is a political term that lacks all of these. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume we agree now that when we speak of "Judea and Samaria", we speak of a territory that is entirely contained within the West Bank. At least that's what Ynhockey's map (posted in another, unrelated discussion) shows. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this is a "POV fork" the pro-"Judea and Samaria" slant should be obvious from the material, in that this article would be an alternative of the West Bank article that exclusively favors the minority term. This article, however, appears to be very much about its status as a district (in fact, it is quite boring). Yet even in this small article there is generous note taken of the controversy both over its name and its international legality. Unless we are expected to deny that Israel has an administrative district under this name, I don't see how this article particularly advocates the term, so I'm inclined to agree that it is not a POV fork. Chedorlaomer (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article appears to validate Israel's claim to the West Bank by presenting the district as just another administrative district, while in fact it is on occupied territory. Also, take a look at what links here instead of to the more appropriate West Bank: [11]MeteorMaker (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article states this district is governed by a military commander, and describes that its final status is subject to on-going negotiations between Israel and the PNA, so it most certainly does not present the district as "just another administrative district". Again, what is this "claim to the West Bank" that Israel has? Where can we read about it? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Israel has no claim whatsoever to the West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

so when you were saying teh UN does not recognize Israel's claim, what claim were you talking about? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The one that makes them set up administrative regions on occupied territory and populate them with half a million religious fanatics and people imported from Russia? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in your political rants. Just answer the question. If Israel has made no claims on the West Bank, as you wrote above, then what is the Israeli claim that the UN does not recognize, that you were referring to earlier? Canadian Monkey (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Change "Israeli claim" to "Israeli exploitation and military presence", if that can end this pointless discussion. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So you are not proposing that we add to the article a sentence that says the UN is opposed to Israeli exploitation and military presence in Judea and Samaria"? which reliable source are we going to reference for that bit of POV-pushing? Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, as I said above, your edit is OK if a little wordy. The important thing is stated, that Israel's presence in the West Bank is in violation of UNSCR 242. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not stated there, because it is false. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. We have reached consensus without being able to agree; no small feat. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

List of sub-districts and natural regions of the Israeli-controlled Judea and Samaria

What are the sub-districts and natural regions of the Israeli-controlled Judea and Samaria? jlog3000 (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's in the article. See Judea_and_Samaria#Administrative sub-regions Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-district context

I've been observing the drawn-out dispute at this article (over what I believe is just a case of reading too much into things), but I am confused about this "does not mention a district of Judea, uses Samaria in non-district context." Why would we mention a non-district context? With this article it seems that we are having trouble deciding whether or not to write about the district alone or about the name itself. Chedorlaomer (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I took a stab at rewording this section. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"biblical geographical regions"

Neither the Samaria article nor the Judea article describe these regions as "biblical geographical regions", and the discussion on Talk:Israeli settlement led to a formulation that these are geographical regions whose names are of biblical origin - a formulation which has since then been removed from that article. Please don't renew your months old edit war over this. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only "terms with biblical origin", biblical terms period. At least that's what all the sources we have amassed in the lengthy discussion @ TALK:Israeli_settlement say. The Judea and Samaria articles used to conform with all the other online encyclopedias in describing the areas as "historic" until somebody edited the articles to hide that fact - same story as with this article, where somebody changed "historical" into "geographic" without consensus or discussion.. [12] MeteorMaker (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, some sources which you have cherry-picked say this. Other sources say something different, and use the term in a non-biblical context. The Judea and Samaria articles do not describe the regions as "biblical", so we should not push this POV in the disambiguation link of this article, either. Canadian Monkey (talk)

No cherrypicking, the list is in fact every single comment on the usage of "Samaria" (and "Judea") that exists in the sources that have been brought up in this three-month discussion [13][14] by all editors involved, including yourself I believe. All say it's ancient/historical/biblical. Contrary to your claim above, no sources at all say it's current outside Israel. You might not have been aware of that fact when you changed the disambiguation link in November [15], but in the light of the evidence now available, there's no excuse to keep insisting it should state a falsehood. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Biblical names" (MeteorMaker & G-Dett) vs. "Just Biblical names" (Canadian Monkey)

Canadian Monkey, can you explain more fully why you think biblical names implies biblical names only? The many, many, many sources who say explicitly that these are "biblical names" do not think it implies this. On the contrary, almost all of them say this precisely in the context of the terms' current use. For example:

1. "Weiss has been one of Israel's most recognizable settler activists since 1975, when she moved from her home near Tel Aviv to a tent in the hills of Samaria, the biblical name for the northern West Bank." (The Washington Post)
2. "Israelis often refer to the northern West Bank region by its biblical name of Samaria." (CNN)
3. "Referring to the Gaza Strip cease-fire deal that Israel struck with Hamas, Yigal Amitai, a Yitzhar spokesman, said that 'only those who make a deal with terrorists in the south and abandon Gilad Shalit and the residents of Sderot have the strength and the gall to fight residents of Samaria.' Samaria is the biblical name for the northern West Bank." (Haaretz)
4. "The operation began just before midnight, as the leaders of the regional council of Samaria, which takes the biblical name for the northern West Bank, gathered at a nearby army base. Boarding a bulletproof minibus, they headed for Nablus." (The New York Times)
5. "Physically, the mountainous settlements are harder for the army to close off. But ideologically, for settlers who only refer to this region by its biblical name, Samaria, this land is on an even higher ground." (USA Today)

Of course, contemporary use of the terms is rare enough that some excellent sources do say things like the northern West Bank was "historically referred to by its biblical name, Samaria" (Los Angeles Times). But most sources do not mean by "biblical names" what you (and Jay) think they do: "used in biblical times." On the contrary, nine times out of ten they're talking about contemporary use of these biblical names.

Now, we've provided you scores – and there exist perhaps hundreds – of superb reliable sources saying explicitly that these are "biblical names," regardless of whether the context is ancient or contemporary usage. What are your sources saying this is a contemporary "geographic term"? I'll give you one freebie: The Middle East, by William Bayne Fisher. That was written in 1978. Everything else I can find describing these as "geographic terms" is from the 19th century up through the Mandate period at the latest. Needless to say, canonical reference works such as Encyclopedia Britannica do not define them as current geographic terms.

So my questions for you are:

1. Why do you ardently want the disambig page to not tell readers what so many mainstream reliable sources believe important to tell their readers, to wit, that these are "biblical terms"?
2. Why do you want the disambig page to tell readers that these are contemporary "geographic terms," when few if any mainstream reference works define them as such?--G-Dett (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that 'few if any mainstream reference works define them' as contemporary "geographic terms". Over 40 such exampels have been produced. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Where?! I hope you're talking about contemporary secondary sources defining them as geographic terms (as opposed to contemporary primary sources using them in ways you deem geographic, or contemporary sources writing about the Mandate period, etc.). If you can point me to those sources, I'll consider the second question answered. What about the first question?--G-Dett (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon is a biblical name. It's also a modern name. Same with Jericho, Jerusalem, etc. See also this:

"Although William Safire is simply repeating what for years now has been the conventional wisdom of the American media, “Judea” and “Samaria,” the Hebrew “Yehuda” and “Shomron,” are not biblical words for the hill districts south and north of Jerusalem that were revived by Israeli nationalists after the 1967 war. That is, they are indeed biblical words, but they have been used by Jews through the ages and have been the standard Hebrew terms for these parts of Palestine since the beginnings of Zionist settlement in the late 19th century."[16]

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

"The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road and then follows the western side of that road in a north-westerly direction to the junction of the boundaries of the sub-districts of Beisan, Nablus, and Jenin... From here the boundary runs south-westwards, including the built-up area and some of the land of the village of Kh.Lid in the Arab State to cross the Haifa-Jenin road at a point on the district boundary between Haifa and Samaria west of El Mansi... From here it follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the village of Ar'ara, rejoining the Haifa-Samaria district boundary at Wadi'Ara, and thence proceeding south-south-westwards in an approximately straight line joining up with the western boundary of Qaqun to a point east of the railway line on the eastern boundary of Qaqun village."[17]

As has been shown, the term is used in modern language too, to refer to modern regions. Your definition is misleading, as was your wording. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To recapitulate: It has never been contested that "Judea" and "Samaria" are A) historical terms and B) terms that Israelis use (occasionally, one sees the scope broadened to "Jews"). Let's examine your new sources and see if they say that the terms are used outside these two domains, which is what you need to prove in order to claim it in a WP article:

• 1) Hillel Halkin (aka "Philologos") says the terms "have been used by Jews through the ages and have been the standard Hebrew terms for these parts of Palestine since the beginnings of Zionist settlement in the late 19th century." In the same piece, he explicitly contradicts your conclusion that the terms enjoy wide acceptance in the rest of the world: "Eventually, “West Bank” became a term used by the “West Bankers” themselves, as well as by the rest of the world."
• 2) and 3) In the last decade of the British Mandate of Palestine, there was indeed an official district named "Samaria", which is not contested either. Since the Mandate has now been defunct for more than 60 years, it's safe to say that Mandatory-specific terminology falls in the category "historic".

"Biblical terms" indeed seems to be the standard way to describe "Judea" and "Samaria", judging from the collection of refs [18] we have accumulated during the more the three months this discussion has been going on. We still don't have even one source that describes these toponyms as "geographic", still you insist on using that term. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

U.N. documents are not "biblical", nor are British districts. The theory that this term is solely "Israeli" or "biblical" has been conclusively disproved. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has presented a "theory" that the term is biblical, or used primarily by Israelis and others trying to buttress Israeli claims to the territory; rather, these are simply things said by countless mainstream reliable sources, and contested by none. (The word "solely," meanwhile, is simply Jay's strawman addition, as has been noted numerous times with no reply from Jay.)

The supposed "refutation" of this is Jay's original research; what he's trying and failing to refute is excellent sourced content.

Jay has been steadfast in his refusal to address any of this seriously, and his editing at this point is aggressively disruptive, so I think we'll need formal dispute resolution. Elonka, your policing of the situation is appreciated, but the problem with your approach is that it's toothless in the face of Jay's misrepresentation of source material, his endless repasting of defeated arguments, and his refusal to engage other editors.--G-Dett (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom restrictions

Per the discretionary sanctions authorized at WP:ARBPIA, MeteorMaker (talk · contribs) has been banned from making Samaria-related reverts, or removing reliable citations, for 90 days.[19] He is still welcome to make other non-revert changes to the article, and to bring up concerns at the talkpage, to build consensus for desired changes. --Elonka 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be based on a misconception: I did not remove Jayjg's (cherry-picked) cites, I just moved them to the proper place in the article, the part that actually discusses the usage of the name "Samaria". [20] I humbly request that you lift that ban. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you removed the statement that the term "Samaria" is sometimes used, which is exactly what those sources supported. The fact that you didn't actually remove the sources, but merely hid them in an irrelevant citation, is not a defense of your edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"...what those sources supported" = original research. What the sources (scores of them) say is that these are biblical terms used primarily by Israelis for political purposes. Jay is trying to refute the secondary sources using primary sources, which is a classic violation of original research.--G-Dett (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, where did MeteorMaker remove reliable citations? In the diff he provides above, he's simply moved them to what he felt was a more appropriate location in the same article.--G-Dett (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Compromise edit

From what I can gather, the opposition to following the sources in describing these as "Biblical terms" or "Biblical names" is that some Wikipedians understand this to mean "used only in Biblical times." This is certainly not what the sources mean when they explicitly say that Judea and Samaria are biblical names for the southern and northern West Bank, respectively. On the contrary, the scores of mainstream, contemporary, top-notch reliable sources that designate them as Biblical names do so explicitly in the context of the terms' contemporary use:

1. CNN:"Israelis often refer to the northern West Bank region by its biblical name of Samaria."
2. New York Times: "The operation began just before midnight, as the leaders of the regional council of Samaria, which takes the biblical name for the northern West Bank, gathered at a nearby army base."
3. New York Times again: "In Samaria, the biblical name for the northern West Bank, and in Binyamin, the central district around the Palestinian city of Ramallah, settlers recently ousted their more mainstream representatives in local council elections, voting in what they called “activist” mayors instead."
4. Washington Post: "Weiss has been one of Israel's most recognizable settler activists since 1975, when she moved from her home near Tel Aviv to a tent in the hills of Samaria, the biblical name for the northern West Bank."
5. USA Today:"Physically, the mountainous settlements are harder for the army to close off. But ideologically, for settlers who only refer to this region by its biblical name, Samaria, this land is on an even higher ground."

In short, it is precisely in the context of the term's current use that the sources underscore that these are biblical names. Other, more in-depth and/or academic sources go further, and point out that the contemporary use of these terms is politicized and controversial, that they are used primarily by annexationists, and so on. But there is no need to add that sort of background information here.

By the same token, there is no argument for obscuring the key fact about these terms as they are used today: they are biblical names.

I am implementing a compromise edit, one that makes very clear that "biblical names" ≠ "used only in biblical times," that these biblical names are still used today:

For the geographical regions known by the biblical names Judea and Samaria, see Judea or Samaria.

This should clear up the confusion Jay, NoCal, and others have about what scores of top-notch sources mean when they say "biblical names," and ensure that readers do not suffer from similar confusion. If editors find the compromise edit unsatisfactory, please discuss your concerns in detail here, and please address my concerns in detail as well. If you want to go ahead and modify it, knock yourself out – just make sure that your version includes the fact that these are biblical names. That fact is relevant, undisputed, and sourced to the nines; and as long as it's phrased in such a way that the reader won't misunderstand it to be saying "used only in biblical times," there's no argument for removing it.--G-Dett (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That actually sounds very reasonable to me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This works for me, as well. NoCal100 (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm touched, guys. Seriously. I could kiss y'all.--G-Dett (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Me first!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither NoCal nor I were "confused" by what the sources said; rather, we objected to your use of the sources to make inaccurate assertions. In the future, when proposing new wording, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Your current proposal more accurately reflects both reality and the sources, and seems reasonable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My edits were always exactly and only and word-for-word what the sources said, so no kiss for you mister; but here's a tepid, half-assed high-five for not obstructing this marvelous-delicate thing we've got going.--G-Dett (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

> Judea and Samaria are found in the Hebrew Bible (and 'Jesus' was a Judean etc) but these names are in current daily use in Israel. So they are not 'biblical' in the sense that they are archaic. The implication is that they are no longer in common useage which is untrue. The 'West Bank' is a ridiculous alternative name for Judea and Samaria as the east bank of the Jordan river is only a few meters wide and so the west bank cannot extend for 20 or so miles! In any case all the land west of the Jordan river has been legally Jewish land since the signing of the San Remo Treaty and the British Mandate. The UNs resolutions pertaining to Judea and Samaria are in contravention of UN charter article 80. There are null and void. > —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.34.166 (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Article name.

Why is this article not called Judea and Samaria Area which is what Districts of Israel gives as the official term?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved -- Aervanath (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The main use of this page is to describe the administrative area to which most of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. As set out in Districts of Israel, the official name of the administrative area is Judea and Samaria Area. The article names for each of the districts end in "District" and this move will mean that this article has a matching name.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Improving consistency can never be a bad idea. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't fault the logic in this suggestion, however there is a slight problem in that the more informal - and equally politicised - phrase "Judea and Samaria" is also of course used, mostly by settler or pro-settler groups, to refer to the West Bank as a whole, eg "Judea and Samaria is the biblical heartland of Israel" etc etc. They both of course refer ultimately to the same land area, but the usage is distinct, and in the latter case does not include "District" or "Area" at the end of it. --Nickhh (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment: There is an argument for having two articles: one on the area where it is appropriate to have the map of the districts of Israel and listing of the settlements etc.; the other on the phrases which can be dealt with in the same manner as other politicised phrases such as Zionist Entity, Land for peace, A land without a people, Right to Exist etc. In any case material about the administrative area should be in an article where the area is named in line with the districts of Israel using its full name.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A note on the terms "Judea" and "Samaria"

Usage of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" in article space appears to contravene 3 key Wikipedia policies: Naming Conventions, Undue weight and Neutral Point of View. [21][22] A large body of evidence has been collected during extensive discussions [23][24] (see list below) that unequivocally shows that these terms, alone and in combination, are almost entirely peculiar to Israel. As of today, no sources, reliable or otherwise, have been put forward that contradict this finding.

Discussion links (most closed, included for reference only):

• Judea (archive)

• Samaria (archive)

• Samaria

• Judea and Samaria (archive)

• Judea and Samaria

• West Bank

• Judea

• Israeli settlement (archive 6)

• Israeli settlement (archive 7)

• Israeli settlement (archive 8)

• Israeli settlement (archive 9)

• Israeli settlement

• [25][26][27][28][29][30]

MeteorMaker (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here you've proven that you simply are not paying attention. The article is about Judea and Samaria, you want to rename is West and Bank? --Shuki (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I'm not suggesting renaming, I just post the facts here for posterity and future reference, and this article is appropriate since much of the discussion referred to above took place here. The reason I posted it now is that I'm among a large group of editors who will become topic-blocked collectively within a couple of days due to an unfortunate ArbCom decision, and I don't want the painstakingly collected sources and our findings to sink into oblivion as a consequence. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT move without discussion and consensus

This article was moved to Judea and Samaria Area following the above closed discussion. Do not move it away from here withotu achieving a consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't much of a "discussion". It might not have been that prudent to initiate a page move in the midst of a raging arbcom case. Is the "Judea and Samaria Area" a popular term or is it some name that some Wikipedians thought was cool?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not exactly make it a secret that I was making this suggestion, mentioning it at IPCOLL and on a page related to the Arbcom case. The wisdom of the timing of the move was questioned elsewhere, but people were free to raise that issue under the heading of the proposed move. As it was, nobody who either opposed the move or the timing bothered to record their view in this talk page during the three weeks between my initially questioning the name and the uninvolved admin closing the formal proposal I made after no one had replied to my initially question. The admin made a judgment of consensus and those who remained mute in the debate cannot blame that admin or myself for their not bothering to make their views known.

If you think that there is the potential for a consensus for the original name, then raise a proposal here for a move back. Or go to the IPCOLL discussion on the use of the terminology and raise it there.

I chose the name itself because that is what the Districts of Israel lists as the official name for the administration that covers the settlements in the area. All the articles on districts and this area are now named per the names given in that article. I am perfectly open for there to be another article that discusses ther term Judea and Samaria which discusses who uses it, who objects to it and the various scopes of its meaning - the settlements, the West Bank excluding those parts in Jerusalem District or a larger area. Given the controversy, I would expect that article to be extensively referenced.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

West Bank, Judea, Samaria, and Judea and Samaria Area

Hi. I have some questions regarding these terms: 1) West Bank     2) Judea     3) Samaria     4) Judea and Samaria Area .

Regarding their geographical areas,

a) What's the difference between 2&3 combined, and 4?

b) What's the difference between 2&3 combined, and 1?

c) What's the difference between 1 and 4?

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(a) 2&3 can refer to pre-1948 historical areas which bear little relationship to the 1948 Green line. They can also be used by supporters of a Greater Israel to refer to the Northern and Southern West Bank.

(b) similar answer to a.

(c) 1 is larger. Part of the West Bank has been annexed into Jerusalem and is administered as part of Jerusalem District not the Judea and Samaria Area. Also beware that 4 is not a purely geographical term but an administrative one. 4 can be used to refer solely to those parts of the remaining West Bank that have Israeli settlements and are administered with them, as opposed to those that are run by the Palestinian Authority. --Peter cohen (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thew change anon just made to the population reflects the population of settlements only. Is that what we want here Should we qualify it in the article? I think it is clear that "J&S area" excludes Greater Jerusalem. Zero^talk 12:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If I understand things correct then I agree. The number should be the Israeli population in what they call the J&SA which I take to be the settlements outside GJ.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Area in infobox

In light of the clarifications above about population in the settlements only, and J & S A being not a purely geographical term: Isn't it inappropriate to state in the infobox that the area is 5878 sq km? As the infobox is now, it states that there is an area which is 5878 sq km large, which has a population of 304 569. Surely, neither Israelis, Palestinians or any others would claim that this is the case--Barend (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)?

I'm not sure I understand you. Please expand on your thoughts, you had a good eye to notice that. I think that Judea and Samaria 'Area' includes the entire area claimed, not only the Israeli populated places. Israel has legal and military jurisdiction over the entire area. The infobox should be updated to specify the 300k number refers to Israeli citizens, and the number of Arabs should also be included in the same field, hopefully from an RS. --Shuki (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User Peter Cohen stated, in the above, that "[Judea and Samaria area] can be used to refer solely to those parts of the remaining West Bank that have Israeli settlements and are administered with them, as opposed to those that are run by the Palestinian Authority". This area is not 5878 sq km, as that is, apparently, the area of the whole West Bank. It has also been stated on this discussion page, that the existence of this article is not a "POV fork" from West Bank, because it covers a different topic than the geographical area covered by the article "West Bank". So if that is the case, either the infobox should state the area of the Israeli settlements and their population, or not state an area at all - or so it seems to me. I hope this was clearer. The whole topic is, of course, somewhat complicated.--Barend (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I respect Peter Cohen, but don't know why you are quoting him as if to quote policy. J&S Area certainly does not mean only settlements land, and not even all of Area C land, but to encompass the entire area. This is not my opinion, it is fact. Currently Israel has sovreignty over the whole area. The article is definitely somewhat of a POV fork. The 'West Bank' article in current state is POV enough and mainly a place holder for Palestinian State, the main map includes Palestinian areas, not Israeli ones. A WP ceasefire made current status that J&S Area means the Israeli government administrative region and not a geographical area which pro-Arabs claim Judea and Samaria is an Israeli term only. J&S is 'allowed' to be refered to in the biblical sense, and also in off-hand mentions like Samarian/Judean Hills. --Shuki (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I got the impression that Cohen represented consensus. If this is infact a POV fork, than obviously it shouldn't exist, but I won't try to stir up that debate again. But if the article refers to the same geographical area as the West Bank, and not just the Israeli administrative structure and settlements in the occupied territories, than the population number here is wrong, as you say above. Because clearly, the area does not have 300 000 inhabitants, the number is a lot higher.--Barend (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Barend has a solid point, the article doesn't really keep in line with only covering the militarily administered/Israeli controlled areas of the West Bank and starts to look a lot like a POV fork. If the justification is that the article is on the administrative area (per the archives) then it doesn't make sense to include the areas not administered by the IDF in the land area info. I know it's a venerable hornets nest of controversy but it's a little confusing as it is. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is obviously a POV fork. It's the term the Israeli government and Israeli right use for the West Bank (not including East Jerusalem). That's all. I see no reason to have a separate article about it. john k (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring JohnK's emotional comment...Sol, this article should be expanded instead and/or the WB article made less POV. Jurisdiction and administration are not the same and not mutually exclusive. Just because Israel has allowed self-administration with the PNA in certain areas does not mean it has relinquished anything yet/permanently. FWIW, many still claim that Israel occupies these areas including Gaza as well. and again, FWIW, this is an official term of the Israeli goverment, that in itself is notable enough for record. --Shuki (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What was emotional about my comment? john k (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Cuz you merely stated your dead-end vote/opinion without adding anything and we are having a decent discussion trying to get somewhere. Anyway, I did sort of answer you anyway that I agree with you and the government uses this term. --Shuki (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm not questioning if it's notable, it certainly is, but the land area seems off. If it's really just a reference to the administrative area then it seems weird to include the land not under Israeli control but omit the people living there. I'll at least try to find some government source that defines the J&S area as there doesn't seem to be one at the moment. Sol Goldstone (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Occupied, Not Controlled

I screwed up my edit summary but the Israeli Supreme Court agrees that it's occupied territory.Sol (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC) And Hertz renders it a moot point. Nice work! Sol (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

from what country is it occupied from and when  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.110.40 (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

why you dont talk about origin of name?

and say it is a biblical name , and have a link to the israel and juedea kingdom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.110.40 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Area/District

Something here about the term "Judea and Samaria" might be misunderstood. - The definition "Judea and Samaria Area" is a valid one, BUT depending on the context: I think the English wiki just have failed to make clear the distinction between the various uses of the coin "Judea and Samaria" across the field of Israeli rule in the West Bank, which may count four principal agents: The Army, The Government, The Police, and the Settlers' leadership. When it comes to the Israel Police's jurisdiction the area's name is "Samaria-Judea District" (מחוז ש"י, "Mehoz SY"), when it's about the Israeli Army (who has the major everyday presence on that ground) it is "Judea and Samaria Area" (acronymed איו"ש, "AYoS"). When for statistical needs and administration of the Jewish population, the area is officially referred to as Judea and Samaria District - "Mehoz Yehuda veShomron", alike with "Mehoz Tel-Aviv" and "Mehoz Heyfa" etc (See reference). Add to that the fact that in casual tongue among a wide circle in Israel Judea and Samaria is preferred as to describe the actual geographic region rather than the hostile-resonating "West Bank". 31.210.179.35 (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

First: what exactly is the difference between the two Hebrew nouns מחוז (mehoz) and אזור (ezor) according to you? and second: why does the Israeli government not call Judea and Samaria a district but an area in its statistics for instance here? and third: do you have any references for the distinctions you make? and forth: what's “hostile-resonating [about] ‘West Bank’”? Ajnem (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As said, and as backed in the data both given by me above and linguistically accurate to most measures of observation, "Judea and Samaria" is regarded in the Israeli jurisdictive system as one of seven Districts of Israel, where "Mehoz Yehuda veShomron" encompasses the illegally planted Israeli settlements in the West Bank and is referred to as an "extra" district that is, we have 6 districts plus one which is irregularly administered. The Army calls it an "area". Therefore when you want to behold the area of the West Bank from a geographical angle you title it West Bank, and when you want to write about the Israeli civil definition you title it Judea and Samaria District. 94.230.87.146 (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple links to the same article

If an article is linked multiple times in an article, there is no justification for adding it to the "see also" list. My removal of a link was reverted by an editor. Apart from reading comprehension problems, I cannot see any reason for this action.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There is zero cost to the article of having the link in the see also section so it should remain as it is useful and pertinent to the reader. Dlv999 (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ALSO: "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Hertz1888 (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"reading comprehension problems"...charming...but you may have a point. My concern (other than the tiresome knee-jerk revert and vandalism label) was the removal of the Main| link to the subsection section of the West Bank article. Removing that makes no sense. That is the main article with the master copy of the information about the status. However, getting back to reading comprehension problems, the link should be to West_Bank#Legal_status rather than the non-existent West Bank#Status section. I don't have a preference for whether the link to Israeli-occupied territories stays in the see also section. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

East Jerusalem is considered part of the West Bank by the UNSC, the UNGA, the International Court of Justice, the EU, and numerous other international organisations. If we are going to mention that the "Judea and Samaria Area" corresponds to the West Bank, it important to clarify that it does not include EJ which according to majority world opinion is part of the West Bank. Dlv999 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agree, because otherwise, it's like we are saying that E.J. administratively belongs to Judea and Samaria Administrative District, which is wrong. 3Princip (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed that it is wrong, but the size of the area as indicated in the infobox (5,878 km²) includes the part of the West Bank annexed to Jerusalem, if I'm understanding correctly what the CIA means, which states:

“Area: total: 5,860 sq km

land: 5,640 sq km

water: 220 sq km

note: includes West Bank, Latrun Salient, and the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea, but excludes Mt. Scopus; East Jerusalem and Jerusalem No Man's Land are also included only as a means of depicting the entire area occupied by Israel in 1967” [31]. Or am I mistaken? Ajnem (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a redirect to West Bank

This section is now located at Talk:West Bank#Merge with Judea and Samaria Area

In the lead the article claims that it is about "the official Israeli term corresponding to the territory usually referred to as the West Bank, but excluding East Jerusalem.[1]". But Wikipedia is not a dictionary so why have we created an article for the official Israeli terminology for part of the West Bank. Relevant material should be covered in West Bank article, e.g. administration of the West Bank. Dlv999 (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

because it is not just a "term" - it is a geo-political entity - an Israeli administrative division, with its own organs etc... They think it's all over (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess sort of like the difference between the Palestinian territories and the State of Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Vast majority of sources do not hold "Judea and Samaria" to be a "geopolitical entity" they view it as occupied Palestinian Territory under Israeli military occupation. TTIAO comment shows the problem with the article: it is a POV fork of an extreme3 minority position on part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Dlv999 (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

My revert

About my revert, Samaria is not the same thing as Samaria (ancient city), or as Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) whose capitol was Samaria (ancient city). The Kingdom of Israel may be Samaria roughly in the sense that the USA is Washington or that Britain is London, but it is not Samaria. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And about the main article, I added a source for J&S being the West Bank minus East Jerusalem, so West Bank is the main article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Samaria is named for the Ancient Israel kingdom (nicknamed Samaria). It is similar to Granada being the capital of the Emirate of Granada (now roughly corresponding to the Province of Granada).

Regarding the second issue, it is a clear WP:SYNTH. It may have territorial overlapping with West Bank, but this one is an existing administrative area, while WB is a geographic area. The integrative topic of this article is Districts of Israel.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Samaria article says "The name derives from the ancient city Samaria, the capital of the Kingdom of Israel." Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) is still not Samaria. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The source is clear that J&S comprises the West Bank minus East Jerusalem, how the heck is that WP:SYNTH. The current and long standing lead also say that J&S is the whole West Bank (minus EJ) not just Area C as you asserted, can you present RS that contradicts that. I'd need to be some pretty good RS because the source I found is the Israeli government. From the lead of this article: "Judea and Samaria Area is the official Israeli term corresponding to the territory usually referred to as the West Bank, but excluding East Jerusalem", clearly the main article for the West Bank is West Bank. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• If only you want to change the long-standing content and you have opposition, you cannot push your edit until agreement reached.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As for West Bank, I already presented RS that J&S consists of the west bank, and is not just some overlapping territory, do you have contradictory RS? The West Bank/Judea and Samaria Area is a geographic, or more specifiably a geopolitical area, partly under Israeli administration, partly under PNA administration. The lead itself says "Judea and Samaria Area is the official Israeli term corresponding to the territory usually referred to as the West Bank" and cites RS, the main article is clearly West Bank.

As for "Samaria" vs "Kingdom of Israel" I partly stand corrected. It seems that "Kingdom of Samaria" can refer the the Kingdom, and that this article says that "Samaria [...] roughly corresponds to the territory of the ancient Kingdoms of Israel". I didn't notice that when I removed the "(Samaria)" from the caption of the map that Mor recently added. Still that sentence the northern kingdom consists roughly of Samaria really doesn't seem right, the map at Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) (aslo in this article) clearly shows the kingdom as consisting of northern Palestine, and the maps in the lead section and in the Samaria article (I recently added the map in the Samara article) clearly show Samaria as being a far narrower area then northern Palestine. Is there any RS that the kingdom roughly consists of Samaria, the lead of the Samaria says it's "roughly corresponding to the northern West Bank", and the northern West Bank, even with a "roughly", is clearly not northern Palestine.

Also why did you change the hatnote to point to Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) rather then Samaria? The "Samaria" and "Judea" described in this article are geographic regions, not long defunct kingdoms. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The two kingdoms also had areas outside the West Bank, so it is not correct to say that the area "corresponds" to the two kingdoms. --84.210.64.93 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Dates?

"This article refers the Israeli administrative area", but I find hard time finding any references to this administration, in status it says its under military control, but see also links to Israeli Civil Administration that operates in this area since 1981? also there are several Administrative regions as of?, thanks.--Mor2 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to be an encyclopedia, omitting "West Bank" is a fault.

Trying to be an encyclopedia, omitting "West Bank" is a fault. -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally or almost universally

In the sentence "Judea and Samaria Area ... is the official Israeli term for the territory generally and almost universally known as the West Bank", I think we should pick the term "generally" or "almost universally" (or some other term), but not both. Including both is too wordy. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the wording is fine as it is now, which is also what the source say. Either way, I don't think it would be right to say "generally" because West Bank is the overwelmingly used term. "Judea and Samaria" is used by Israel and a few people. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

How about looking at some sources ? Here's one.

• "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." Media and Political Conflict, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0521580458, p. 82

There are probably many. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and how does that dispute what I am saying? When talking about the West Bank and not a specific historial region, it's referred to as that, except for Israel and some others who use the biblical terms. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't. It's evidence. One sample. Discussing content without citing sources is pointless. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The claim is from the source used. We can't change that, as Dlv999 explains. The source you are referring to says the same. If someone doesn't agree, they should explain why and cite sources instead of just say that we should chose between one of the two wordings, because I see no basis for the change. I have talked about the wording here and pointed out that removal changes the meaning and doesn't represent the source. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We are free to change anything we want, text, sources, anything, as long as the changes comply with policy, we have "a text that is consistent with the sources" exactly as Dlv999 describes and it's an actual improvement. Bear in mind that, strictly speaking, no one has demonstrated that the current source or the one I cited is representative of a large sample of sources that discuss this issue, so the amount of confidence that should be had in the current statement complying with policy is technically not much more than zero, pretty much the opposite of "We can't change that". In this case it probably doesn't matter because there is nothing at all contentious about what the article says, but often in this topic area, being wedded to one or two sources is not a good idea. Having said all that, making a change that makes the article less consistent with the source(s) strikes me as not even worth discussing. That should never happen. There is, as you say, "no basis for the change". Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you are correct in this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I also want to know why Shalom11111 removed "but from "but excluding East Jerusalem". He explained his edit by saying that this was "suggested at the talk page" but this part wasn't. It is important to include "but" because this distinction is needed as Israel's view of the West Bank is not the same as the rest of the world (Israel makes a dinstiction between that and East Jerusalem, the world doesn't). --IRISZOOM (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, why are you so paranoid about my edits? I agreed with what "Emmette Hernandez Coleman" suggested, to leave either the "generally" or the "almost universally", so I did it. The "but" was removed because I think it sounds grammatically better this way. It has the same meaning, in case you didn't know. Anyway, you shouldn't be telling editors anything about grammatical edits they make, as your understanding of it appears to be substandard [32] IRISZOOM: "it just that you doesn't want too se what happened to Arabs". -Shalom11111 (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You keep continuing with your personal attacks. I am not "paranoid" and I haven't talked about "grammatical edits". I specifially talked about the distinction. The "but" should stay because it better reflects this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• If sources state that the territory is "generally and almost universally" known as the West Bank or that "the rest of the world" know it as the West Bank, we should have a text that is consistent with the sources. I don't think a style issue like saying something is "too wordy" is a good reason not to accurately represent what the sources say. Dlv999 (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We can't pick and choose. I have reverted this now. If we are going to change the lead, this must be cited and accurately reflected, as discussed here.

On another note, I just noticed that the quote above got "is it" cut off, which made it look worse than it was, and that Shalom11111 himself had made a mistake. This show that everyone makes mistakes and we should focus on the articles, not editors. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's the meaning of the source we need to keep intact, not its wording (it's usually best to avoid a avoid a sources wording). We can word this however we want so long as the meaning is the same. If it's almost universally known as the West Bank, it by definition must be generally known as the West Bank, just as a billionaire must by definition be a millionaire.

It is rather odd that the source uses both terms like that as "generally" is a much weaker term then "almost universally", but if the "generally" is not meant to take away from the "almost universally", it's totally redundant. If the "generally" is meant to somehow dampen or partly negate the meaning of "almost universally", the source is being very very unclear as to weather or not it's almost universally known as the West Bank, and we probably shouldn't rely on it for that claim (with or without the "generally and"). Either way tough, the source supports that J&S is generally known as WB, heck that claim barely even needs a source.

There are plenty of sources out there anyway; it J&S is almost universally known as WB (it sure seams to be: "Judea and Samaria" -wikipedia "West Bank" -wikipedia) it shouldn't be too difficult to find a source that clearly says that. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"historical names"

That isnt accurate. Judea is a historical name, Samaria is a historical name, the term Judea and Samaria however is not. The origin of the name is covered in the terminology section, but claiming that the combination is some sort of historic synonym for the area now known as the West Bank isnt true. I restored the lead as it was prior to that change. nableezy - 00:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. However, the terminology section was unclear too since Eliyyahu introduced these changes in January, which I have now reverted. It gave the view that this area's name was changed by the Jordanians (who occupied it but not Israelis according to that edit too) and the sources were removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight given to the Levy Report

The Levy Report should not be mentioned here. It is a politicized report which no one except some Israelis and right-wingers took seriously. A vast majority, including the Israeli Supreme Court and others in Israel, view the area as occupied territory. There is such a big consensus in the world on this issue that mentioning it here (that no response to it is mentioned here makes it even worse) makes it WP:UNDUE. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have added a tag now. That the for example the Fourth Geneva Convention apply in the Palestinian territories have been reaffirmed many times but instead the Levy Report gets more representation here and in some other Wikipedia articles. One example is the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention Declaration in December last year. AP:

The international community delivered a stinging rebuke to Israel's settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, saying Wednesday the practice violates its responsibilities as an occupying power.

A declaration adopted by consensus among 126 of the 196 parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention insists that international humanitarian law must be followed in areas affected by the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

So it is unbalanced here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Flyte35, regarding your edit here, I wonder what you mean with that I should "then add a source line to indicate that". Indicate that the Levy Report wasn't accepted by the international community? --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, either that or simply delete the line. It's not useful to have a sentence suggesting one thing, but then indicate that the reader shouldn't pay attention to that suggestion without putting the information in context.Flyte35 (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will then at least add info on how the report was received. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Judea and Samaria Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120523211210/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org:80/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100323135314/http://thereport.amnesty.org:80/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-occupied-territories to http://thereport.amnesty.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-occupied-territories

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Palestinian bias

We should not allow this kind of bias to happen in this article. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:1380:1000:6E00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

"Palestinian" is an artificial term that refers to Muslim immigrants in Israel. Hadrian resurrected the term "Palestina" when he kicked out the Jews out of their ancestral land after the bar Kokhba revolt. Muslims didn't even exist yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.121.228.133 (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A "Palestinian" refers to an Arab in the region of Palestine. Take into account that not all Arabs, including Palestinians, are Muslims. Before prior contact of Islam, most "Palestinians" are were Christian at that time. Also, Palestinians are not immigrants because they had been living in the Palestine region before the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. -- Chxeese (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judea and Samaria Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215195555/http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton63/map/01_01e.pdf to http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton63/map/01_01e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judea and Samaria Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140825085245/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Occupied and international community

Re this revert -

1. Israel actually does not consider the West Bank occupied - it has chosen to treat the West Bank as if it were occupied in terms of application of military law, however the quasi-official (and I'm using this term, as Israel, as in many areas, has decided not decide or make a declaration either way) position Israeli position is that the area is not occupied as there was never a state formed in the West Bank (the Palestinians not forming one, and the Jordanian occupation seen as illegal by Israel) - terra nullius. In terms of legal jargon - Israel has internally used "the held territories" as jargon (as opposed to occupied), and this argument has been used in various forums.
2. The US has recently stopped using the word occupied. Some have seen this as a change of policy, e.g. [33][34][35].
3. While very clearly this position is held by most , it is not clear it is held by all - there might be an island nation or two with a diverging position.Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe the word many should be in there. Do we have a RS stating everyone in the international community considers it? Its too vague of a qualification to have it appear as everyone. - Galatz^Talk 14:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry I just saw this, but how recent of a source would you like? But when a phrase the international community considers is used it does not necessarily mean every country without exception. We dont redefine what the sources say, and for the West Bank they say it is considered occupied by the international community. nableezy - 05:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

scope

This article is very specifically about the Israeli administrative district, and per WP:WESTBANK, specifically clause 5, requires that the use of Judea and Samaria Area specifically refer to the administrative district and not to the land itself. Finally, the citation added for the sentence Judea corresponds to part of the ancient Kingdom of Judah, also known as the Southern Kingdom does not actually address the need for that citation, namely whether does what Israel considers "Judea" as part of the West Bank actually correspond to the Kingdom of Judea (which went quite a bit further than boundaries of the Israel district). nableezy - 05:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

That is a misapplication of policy. You would be correct if you were talking about some random location in the West Bank or some event. However, it is entirely reasonable ti discuss the etymology ans history of the ise of Judea and Samaria in the Judea and Samaria Area article. Furthermore, discussion of antiquity, which is what you removed, uses Judea and Samaria per WESTBANK(1).Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely not, and this tag team edit-warring is tendentious and disruptive. This article is not about antiquity. That guideline is the result of a binding arbitration decision, and edits that violate it may be brought to AE. nableezy - 15:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You also restored a source for material that it does not in any way support. Why exactly are you misrepresenting sources? Thats a pretty big deal in an encyclopedia. nableezy - 15:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Further, beyond the violation of WP:WESTBANK, the entirety of the material reinserted is SYNTH. Additionally, Icewhiz, you have repeatedly removed primary sources where it suited your politics, but here you are inserting the Bible as a source? nableezy - 20:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

And finally, as you have repeatedly written where it suited your editorial goals the onus is on those seeking to include disputed content to demonstrate a consensus for it. What part does edit-warring play in that? nableezy - 21:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Enclave law

"Enclave law" (always in scare quotes in sources) is term coined by Rubenstein, and used in English, per my search, by a handful of authors - raising WP:DICTDEF / WP:NEO issues. This term is used to describe the legislation that applies in Judea and Samaria Area. As such, I suggest merging Enclave law to this article under a legislation sub-section. Icewhiz (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. Icewhiz (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, and anyway this would not be the right article:

The Enclave law article should stand alone; it is highly notable as a concept as shown by the numerous scholarly sources of the highest quality currently in the article. The term has stood the test of time, having been coined over thirty years ago, now being widely used by legal scholars.

WikiProject Law has over 40,000 articles, many of which cover individual legislation or groups or laws, and Category:Israeli law has dozens of equivalent articles. Are you proposing to merge all of these into general interest articles too?

Either way, this article (Judea and Samaria Area) is clearly not an appropriate parent for the topic, since it covers the whole area, not just the settlements where this legal system applies, and the primary scope of this article is terminology not an overall description of the area and its complexities.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

There no numerous sources here. There are approx. 3-5 authors who have used this term - all in scare quotes - it far from the WP:COMMONNAME in regards to the very complex and patchwork legal regime that applies in the West Bank (or Area C of the west bank). Category:Israeli law has individual well defined pieces of legislation (or areas of legislation) - some of which apply outside of Israel - e.g. Taxation in Israel which apply to Israeli citizens/residents in the area (tax order clause, VAT legislation clause). Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The article cites 12 authors already, and it was only created three hours ago. And that is counting the numerous authors of the widely cited ACRI report as one. How many is enough to satisfy you? 20? 100? 1000? Bear in mind that the “legal system of the Israeli occupied territories” is not exactly a mass-market subject.

As to having an article focused on a group of legislation, there are endless examples across Wikipedia; United States contract law is a particularly notable one.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Any use of this outside of scare quotes? I indeed discounted mere quotes of Rubenstein - e.g. Halper, Cook, Gross (in this case using "mongrel" in scare quotes), Ben-Naftali (again - "mongrel"), ACRI (I will note ACRI's title is precise - "Israel's Regime of Laws in the West Bank" - mentioning Rubenstein's "enclaves" merely as background). Other than that, you have Sfarad - [36], [37], Peled - [38], Sher - [39] - none of these treat the subject of "enclave law" at depth - they touch on it as they discuss other topics. On United States contract law or Taxation in Israel there are multitudes of full length books and tomes. On the subject of "enclave law" - there is little use of the term, what use there is varies in terminology, and none of of these are in depth. Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You haven’t answered my question. What policy-based threshold are you applying here?

As to the comparison with US law article, this is an article about Hebrew-language Israeli law. So most in depth sources are in Hebrew.

Would you like Hebrew-language sources added?

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew sources are definitely relevant, yes. I am quite conversant in this topic area of Israeli law - and I am unaware of this discussed as "enclave law". The legislative framework in the West Bank, and applicability of Israeli law (or copy-pastes to military ordinances of such laws - and I jest not on the copy-paste, as at times the ordinance can lag behind the Israeli law which was subsequently updated) in the Area is indeed a topic of discussion. Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

See article 11 of Eliezer Rivlin's judgement at [40] - the Hebrew equivalent of the term is used in judgements of the Supreme Court. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I specifically suggested this article - Judea and Samaria Area - as opposed to West Bank for instance - as the Area is the legal term used in Israeli verbiage - this article is already about the Israeli legal entity/administration. Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:SIZE this article is small enough so it can include information about the law system in the area Shrike (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  I have no problem to support Israeli settlement as per Zero reasoning --Shrike (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  You aren't supposed to respond twice. You should merge your two support responses into one. Zero^talk 14:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This was Shrike’s comment. Very strange that he copied Icewhiz’s timestamp from his comment above. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As I intended to support I have copied the ICEWIZ statement as template and gave my own original reason --Shrike (talk)

• Oppose If anything Israeli settlement would be a better place, but I don't see what is wrong with it like it is. Zero^talk 14:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with Zero that this wouldnt be the target article anyway, as this article is very specifically about an administrative district and not an area of land, but regardless of that this treated as a stand-alone topic by the sources that cover it. No real reason to merge. Dont think Israeli settlement would work either, as in the context of Israeli settlers in the West Bank they are covered by Israeli law and not the military law regardless of where in the West Bank they are, inside or outside of the Israeli colonies there. nableezy - 15:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  In regards to Israeli law applying to Israel settlers - that's correct for the Israeli criminal code (with some minor technical wrinkles) and other laws that were extended on a personal basis (the tax code) - but is incorrect in regards to various applications of civil law and also in regards to some military ordinances (e.g. the military commander, on the basis of military law, may issue administrative deportation orders (e.g. example (Hebrew)) to Israeli citizens in the area). 15:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose ImTheIP (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Legal blackhole.

Has there ever been any discussion of the ramifications coming out of the Haaretz article mentioned in a box at the head of the talkpage?:

• Haaretz - Omer Benjakob - Judea and Samaria District? Wikipedia in Hebrew can't find the West Bank, 16 February 2018: In theory, Jewish settlements in the West Bank constitute one of Israel’s seven administrative districts. However, the so-called “Judea and Samaria District” may not actually be a district, or at least does not have the official status of one, according to a recent discovery by Hebrew Wikipedia editors."

    ←   ZScarpia   21:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy with US opinion

although the international community considers the West Bank to be a territory held by Israel under military occupation.[5]

Change to

Although part of the international community considers the West Bank to be occupied territory. Noting the Jewish communities which existed their pre-1948 also seems logical (https://embassies.gov.il/dublin/AboutIsrael/history/Pages/Judea-Samaria-.aspx#p)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:7491:A582:A5F1:A9D0 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC) 

The Trump modification in the US view is covered elsewhere, but the statement on international community remains accurate. nableezy - 03:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Source for the UN SC resolution 242

The source for UN Security Council Resolution 242 is invalid and has odd tags. A corrected source is https://undocs.org/S/RES/242(1967). I would change it but apparently that is not allowed because it's protected. Hammy (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The source is OK as is, yours is as well and I actually prefer that style myself. I think the tags are a complaint about using the source material directly rather than filtering it through a secondary. It's a bit pointless because you can just click the wikilink and go read all the gory detail there.Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

The phrase "Israeli-occupied territories" should be replaced with "Israeli-liberated territories" to reduce the article's anti-Semitic bias. 2001:5B0:46E4:BE58:D8F:BC2E:A7C7:A633 (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Terms Common Usage

When talking about the terms used in Israel for the area, from my experience "the Territories" is more common than "the West Bank" among left wing circles but from my experience where you born and raised matter more when it comes to this terms Multiverse Union (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023

Unfortuantely, this page discusses a very narrow Palestinian narrative, much of which is skewed. I would expect Wikipedia to at least try to include balanced information. This entire page needs to be rewritten. 109.226.59.2 (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 September 2024

Change "The term Judea and Samaria serves as another name for the West Bank in Israel." to "The term "the West Bank" serves as another name for Judea and Samaria in Israel."

Judea and Samaria are names that have been around for thousands of years; the term "the West Bank" was encouraged upon Jordan by the Soviets in the 1960s in an attempt to dilute Jewish identity with the area. Stones365 (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done, see WP:WESTBANKSelfstudier (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)