Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:13, 1 November 2011

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Israel Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Don't merge Gvaot into Alon Shvut

Gva'ot and Alon Shvut are de-facto seperate places (seperated by about 3 km). The only connection is that formally, and only for historical-political reasons, Gvaot is "annexed" to Alon Shvut in Israeli Governmental records. DGtal (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:WESTBANK

Gilabrand, you cannot simply side step past the requirement that standard terminology be used by quoting somebody using your favored phrasing. Explain why that specific quote should be in the lead in the article, why it is not attributed to the author, and why you feel you may violate the 1RR to reinsert it. Your first revert here is the removal of Gideon Levy, a straight revert of an edit made by Nishidani, your second is the last revert of my edit. I'll give you an opportunity to self-revert before raising the issue elsewhere. nableezy - 21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Apropos, I'd like an explanation of the revert summary that 'it is Gideon Levy's opinion'. I wrote:

According to Gideon Levy, about one third of it is built on private Palestinian land.refGideon Levy,[http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/settlers-succeeding-in-hostile-takeover-of-israel-1.392687 'Settlers succeeding in hostile takeover of Israel

I.e. the statement is attributed. Are you saying that no attributed statements are permitted on this page?Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont think it was appropriate for the lead. But there was no reason to remove it entirely. nableezy - 23:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess this gloss:-

a geographical area known in Israel also by the biblical term Judea and Samaria.

was put into the lead to balance what is perceived as a POV statement in the designation 'West Bank'. This has been endlessly discussed, as all know. The area is the West Bank. In Israeli usage, it is referred to either as 'the West Bank' (as often in Haaretz) or 'Judea and Samaria', which, as we all know, reflects a settler/right wing preference. The way this is phrased, it looks as though West Bank is not an Israeli idiomatic option, and that is misleading. If the point is to create a precedent for editing in 'in Israel known as Judea and Samaria', then we are in for interesting times, for the several hundred pages that await the POV gloss. Though I haven't removed it (as superfluous and POV), I don't think it should be there.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It should not be there, WP:WESTBANK is relatively clear. Unless Gilabrand explains herself here I will be removing it. nableezy - 13:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've explained it in my edit description. Equating West Bank with Judea and Samaria as POV applications of the name is incorrect because Judea & Samaria is the long standing historical name of the region while West Bank is a modern application that has no historical roots. MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Michael. The use of the terms "Judea and Samaria" has been extensively discussed and has even been the subject of an arbitration case. One of the results of that case was the creation of this guideline that stipulates when and how the terms should be used. Despite your contention that the names are not "POV", there has been extensive evidence provided that to use those names in English to denote the current territory is very much "POV". nableezy - 13:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nableezy and thanks for the info. I believe I'm adhering to the guidelines by qualifying it as the historical name of the region:

"6D) The term is being used within the article about itself, where its meaning and usage has already been explained to the reader; although additional qualifications may be needed for some uses even there."

And because the context is explicitly related to alternative terminology being the historical name:

"I personally would avoid any use of Judea and/or Samaria unless the context is explicitly related to alternative terminology."

I don't see anywhere in the arbitrations and guidelines a specific stipulation about the term being POV, rather more of a guideline to settle disputes. Thanks - MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, uh . .'Judea & Samaria is the long standing historical name of the region.'

Judea is a long standing historic name, Samaria is a long standing historic name. The idea that conjoining them into "Judea and Samaria" as the mot juste to designate the specific geographical boundaries of the West Bank under its armistice lines was legislated over the conquest of 1967. The term was for 2-3 decades the default phrase used by the far-right, and then seeped into common usage. It is one of two terms in modern Hebrew, and has not lost its original colouring as a pro-settler designation, hence not 'Israeli' but 'infra-Israeli POV'. That was thoroughly analysed and vetted in the extenuating source analysis, which you should read before getting back to us, that underwrote the Arbcom decision. An agreement stipulating the terms of usage was then drawn up consensually. It is still a 'setler-POV' and therefore must be removed. Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Before it became also a "settler-POV" it was the historical name of the region, which is how I've applied it. We are not asked to re-write history or erase it because of POV disputes. My application of the name seems to adhere to the guidelines and rise above the POV issues.MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, please read up some history. "Judea and Samaria" was absolutely not the 'historical name ' of the region and is never thus designated in any of the hundred or so books written by travellers over the centuries in Palestine which many of us have examined (see for examples Huldra's page on this). This is an elementary error. And whatever one's private, or national, or political perspective, we stick to standard accepted international terminology in the English wikipedia, noting details like this only in the relevant articles, not all over the place, which would be a POV-driven attempt to place a strong nationalist minority term on a par with the normal default reportage terminology of all RS. You are rewriting history by retrojecting a phrase current in post-1967 Israeli politics and cultural debates back into the near and distant past. 'Historic' in English by the way does not mean 'the ancient Biblical period of the united kingdoms' when Israel consisted of Galilee, Samaria and Judea. Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The West bank page itself acknowledges the historical names in recent, not biblical context:

'"Until that point , the area was generally known by the historic names of its two regions – Judea and Samaria, the term used by Israel today."

The terms are thus primarily historical and Israel POV, far more than settler POV.MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"The term is being used within the article about itself" is an exception for use in the articles Judea and Samaria. It does not allow for use outside of those articles. But, to try to help crystallize the complaint, imagine this being the opening sentence of the article Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv is a city in west-central Israel, also known as occupied Palestine. Would you object to using that "alternative terminology" there? nableezy - 13:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I read this stipulation differently, "The term is being used within the article about itself" meaning the term is being used to describe itself, not necessarily only in the Judea and Samaria articles. Otherwise, the carefully worded stipulation would have specified that it can only be used in those articles, which would be a very limiting application of the guideline and apparently not its intent. Personally, I wouldn't object to that terminology for Tel-Aviv, if its context was clarified as I did with Judea and Samaria being "hitorical" names.MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure. You personally mightn't object, but I, and I think Nableezy and many others on the other side of the line would sharply challenge any attempt to 'Palestinese' articles on Israel, and 'vote' with Israeli colleagues who, from any position, would justifiably consider this an open move to destabilize what is already a difficult area to edit intelligently. Commonsense is required here, and commonsense dictates that one avoid where possible needless prevarication or provocation. Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, if you read the associated talk page archives for the guideline you can see a small part of the discussion that went into to putting that together, the phrasing The term is being used within the article about itself was meant to provide an exception for using the term in the articles on the term. You write the carefully worded stipulation would have specified that it can only be used in those articles. It does, the first words in the sentence qualify where the exception applies, ie to within the article about itself. You arent saying that this is the article about the term are you? If not how is this the article about the term? nableezy - 14:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, if the phrasing intended what you suggest, why didn't it specify that it can only be used on the Judea and Samaria articles? The partial isolation you suggest the article about the term is subjective and forces a POV for use of the term. My reading is "about itself" meaning about the term, not about the specific articles. Otherwise it would have been more clear to specify: "The term is being used within the articles about Judea and Samaria". It does not seem reasonable that the guideline intends to limit the use of the terms only to those two articles.MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The list of articles would be Judea, Samaria and Judea and Samaria Area. To reduce the length that was shortened to "within the article about itself". I don't see how that is not crystal clear. The exception opens with The term is being used within the article about itself, I do not see how somebody can argue that it applies to articles not about the term itself. Your reading of that exception would void the entire guideline, as you are opening up a narrowly defined exception to allow for use in any article. That was discussed and rejected. You may not think it reasonable to limit the use of the terms so drastically, but a consensus found that it was. The terms Judea and Samaria are demonstrably POV when used as descriptions for current locations. Because of this Misplaced Pages restricts the use of those terms. And it does so in what I think is a fairly easy to understand guideline. I dont see how you can argue that The term is being used within the article about itself does not restrict the exception to articles about the term itself. nableezy - 15:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that these historical names can only be used in the three articles you cite and nowhere else. I believe this is a graven misreading of the entire debate and the consensus that was arrived at. These names were not fabricated by Israel or settlers, they are rather the historic names of the region according to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, and acknowledged in the West bank page itself as historical names in recent, not biblical context: "Until that point , the area was generally known by the historic names of its two regions – Judea and Samaria, the term used by Israel today.". What you are effectively saying is that your interpretation of the consensus erases this historical context of the names within any other article relating to Israel's bond to Judea and Samaria, because you do not acknowledge its recent historical significance and claim that it is only a "settler-POV". I understand there's a dispute, but you are effectively interpreting the consensus to suggest the dispute has been settled in a completely one sided way that prohibits the use of the terms anywhere else. I'm sorry but that's not what I read from the debate and consensus. If you don't understand how I come to the conclusion, after I've explained it twice, that the sentence, The term is being used within the article about itself supports its allowance in other articles under certain conditions, then I'll try to explain again: "The term (Judea, Samaria and/or Judea & Samaria) is being used within the article (the article you are editing) about itself (the term refers to itself and not to anything else other than itself). When I qualified it within the lead of this article, I followed this guideline because the qualification refers to the name itself being of historical significance to the term West Bank, which I believe is significant to an article on Alon Shvut. Yes, I may be opening up an allowance that seems to have been shut closed by a one-sided POV interpretation of the debate. I don't believe your extreme limitation is what the consensus intended. Otherwise, why would the guidelines go into so much other details such as these? Are you saying that all these allowances are intended only for the three pages you cite? If so, I'm sorry but I don't agree at all and I intend on pursuing this because it seems to be misappropriating a consensus on the use of these terms in order to serve an extremely one-sided POV. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not what I am suggesting, as the guidelines provide for use of the terms elsewhere, such as articles dealing with topics related to the British Mandate or, going back further, with antiquity. What I am saying, and what the guidelines do say, and say explicitly, is that when discussing modern locations, for example the location of the Israeli settlement of Alon Shvut, the guidelines stipulates that, in Misplaced Pages's voice, we may not use those terms to denote a current location, subject to the four exceptions listed. Your interpretation to "within the article about itself" to include any article that you are editing flies in the face of that guideline, and does so in a way that I simply cannot understand. Are you seriously claiming that exception 6D , which states The term is being used within the article about itself, where its meaning and usage has already been explained to the reader; although additional qualifications may be needed for some uses even there. applies to every single article and not the articles on the terms themselves? And, as a note, I am not misreading the debate or the consensus, I am recalling both as I was involved with it at the time. I have a firm handle on what was discussed and both why and how the guidelines came to say what they currently say. nableezy - 19:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Michael.

• Misplaced Pages which you cite to back your views, is not a reliable source (as we all should know, and as the rules state)
• The phrase you cite from the West Bank comes from an anonymous writer, Philologus, in a borderline, but for this topic, certainly not, RS, since the issue is covered amply by area specialists and historians writing under their own name in books with a quality academic imprint.
• But even Philologus writes:

And yet, long before the British Mandate, Judea was the standard English word for the hills around Bethlehem and Hebron, just as Samaria was for the hills farther north.

The West Bank, if you've ever driven round it, does not consist of hilllands.

Of course, but no one is arguing against the cliché presented here as some hidden truth. We are discussing not that Judea (the hills around Bethlehem and Hebron) or Samaria (the hills farther north) designated areas, but whether the term Judea & Samaria is, as you assert, the historic designation for the area now known as the West Bank. Judea & Samaria is used distinctly in settler usage, empowered by Begin's insistance at Camp David against American opposition, in order to denote the totality of the area defined by the pre-65 borders, which were drawn up in 48-9, not its hill land.

This is obvious to anyone for whom English is their mothertongue, as is the construal Nableezy made of the phrase whose meaning you contest.

You are trying to break a consensus that took two years of negotiation and got several wikipedians banished in the process. Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

While I'm at it, Rashi did not include 'Samaria' in Eretz Israel, and neither did the Jews who founded the heretical sect of Christianity. Rabbinically, the land of the Kuthim was impure, and to be avoided. Things all of the passionate students of the literature ignore these days, becauwe as Renan wrote, nation-building requires a huge amount of memory loss if it is to function. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• ---------
• Nableezy and Nishidani: Here is my objection to your blanket edit wars on the use of the terms Judea and Samaria. The consensus guideline states:
• "The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice;"

Which means that they can be used with qualification. I used them with qualification. Here's the reminder of how I used the terms which one of you deleted:

• "Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem in the West Bank, a geographical area historically known by its biblical names Judea and Samaria."

The boldened text in the deleted sentence is the qualification that the guidelines allow. The terms Judea and Samaria are not used to name the place of Alon Shvut, but are qualified as the historical context of the term West Bank. What you are effectively doing is ignoring the stipulations of the guidelines and applying a blanket ban on the use of the terms in contexts that the guidelines clearly state are allowed. I believe you are doing this in good faith and not engaging in edit wars to assert your points of view that you brandish on your user pages. But in that every attempt I make to explain myself is met with superfluous POV assertions that Judea and Samaria are not historical names of the region, I am left with no choice than to beseech you to take heart to the qualification I added to the term and consider the guidelines with a little more depth than the blanket ban you're claiming exists, which clearly doesn't. Your other claims about Judea and Samaria are amusing but extremely one sided in their attempt to diminish of their notable historical value as asserted by the UN resolution that I cited and not only by the user "Philologus". Your one sided assertion in this case is not attentive of what I'm saying and ignores a primary notable source such as the UN resolution so that you can dismiss a legitimate claim for the use of the terms. Let's try to work this out because it doesn't behoove Misplaced Pages to immerse ourselves into a conflict here. MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no such thing as a historical geographical area "Judea and Samaria". There was one called "Judea" and another called "Samaria". To say that a modern place is in "Judea and Samaria" is just settler-speak. We don't do that here. Zero 22:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Zero: I did not say "a modern place is in Judea and Samaria". I said that the West bank is a geographical area historically known as Judea and Samarai and I cited a UN resolution as a very reliable reference for it. I'm not interested in, nor did I suggest settler speak or liberal speak nor any other speak. Simply a well sourced historical reference that's being taken out of context by your innocent misrepresentation of what I've said. I believe you did not mean to do this intentionally but please pay a little more attention before doing it again. MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael, it's not edit-warring. It's applying a hardwon compromise you seem signularly indifferent to understanding. Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Apart from Nableezy's correct construal of the agreement, Zero has succinctly caught the essence of the fallacy about 'historical usage' you are trying to put over. I cover a lot of articles here. Disputes are not infrequent, but nearly all practiced I/P hands on all sides have, since the Arbcom decision, refrained from temptations to undermine the consensus, or trying to kick some life back into a dead horse, as you appear to be doing, quite innovatively here. We are here to write articles, not get bogged down in ideological scoring.Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, but The term is being used within the article about itself is a simple English phrase that does not allow itself to be twisted to the extent that we are seeing here. That exception very clearly means that in articles about the terms themselves they may be used. Additionally, the guideline stipulates the "qualifications", it is not open to the construction that you are making, and a faithful reading of it bears that out. The very next sentence after the snippet that you quote is Any uses of the terms must be in one of the situations described below: Part of the cause for these naming conventions was the type of attempts to include the terms that we see here, with one first attempting "in Judea", then "in the area known by its Biblical name of Judea", then "what is also known as Judea". Besides that, why would we include the Biblical name for the territory in the lead (or anywhere else) of an article on a settlement established some 41 years ago? nableezy - 23:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for sticking to the issue and addressing what I said, Nableezy. I finally completely agree what you say. The guidelines stipulates the "qualifications". My use of the term was in compliance with guideline 6c) as you can see:

• 6C) The term is being mentioned rather than used, as in "Samaria is a term used for ...", or

Which is exactly the context I used it in. I'm beginning to believe we're coming closer to an agreement on this point.

As to why we would do it then the answer is very simple. When referencing a Jewish settlement it is perfectly within proper encyclopedic form to cite the reliably referenced historical Jewish name of the region that the settlement resides on. And because it is a fundamental fact about the connection of the settlement to the region, it is also proper to do so in the lead because it is a very basic and brief reference. There is no need for an issue of POV to be raised here. MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani: When you repeatedly revert edits based on what you've said here then it seems like edit-warring. If anyone is indifferent to understanding the other, it seems to be the other way around. I have made repeated references to the guidelines and to reliable sources and all I hear in return is either extremely one-sided fanciful opinionated misrepresentations of geography, history, guidelines and sources I cite. Instead of doing that, why not try to answer the specific points that I've made? I cite guidelines and reputable sources but repeatedly hear responses about settler speak, which is frankly entertaining coming from editors with such declared points of view on your user pages. I've been on Misplaced Pages long enough to understand that its consensus is dynamic and evolving. The interpretations of the consensus presented here do not seem to match the Arbcom debates nor the guidelines about use of the terms. There is no indication there for an all out ban on the use of the Judea and Samaria as is being said here. I've cited and I've shown why the opposite is true and that I complied with the guidelines. You seem to be suggesting that the consensus goes far beyond the guidelines in restricting the use of the terms. I don't believe this can be true and I'm beginning to feel that Nableezy, Zero and yourself do not understand the consensus or are mistakenly misrepresenting it. If what you say about the consensus usurping the guidelines is true, then it might need be reconsidered so that it better refelects the Arbcom guidelines. MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

When you use 'repeatedly revert' to describe a single edit, made after due recourse to the talk page and reference to policy, then you are abusing the normal meaning of words in the English language in order to have a non-existent accusation ballooon up on hot air.Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you aren't simply mentioning the term, you are using and then explaining. You have gone from 6D to 6C, does that mean you have abandoned that argument and no longer argue that The term is being used within the article about itself does not apply to articles not about the term itself? If so, I'll address the argument that 6C is a valid exception. That would apply is you were some other use, such as, for example, saying when discussing Karnei Shomron that Shomron is the Hebrew for Samaria and that Samaria means such and such. The exception does not allow to simply "mention" the terms wherever you feel. Finally, your reason betrays why this is POV. You are attempting to establish a specific POV, that being the "connection of the settlement to the region", that connection being the argument by settlers for their establishing settlements in the West Bank. Now, if you believe such a POV is to be prominently displayed in the lead, one would hope that you also feel that the POV, held by an opposing group of partisans, that the settlement is an illegal colony established by foreign invaders on occupied Palestinian land, should also be included. Do you? Because there is another option, the one currently employed. That is, we refrain from using what is supposedly an encyclopedia article to push opposing narratives by using the favored terminology of either "side" and instead use what the rest of the world uses. It is my opinion that this option is the wisest. Either way, the guideline simply does not support the use that you attempted to include in the article. nableezy - 01:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• No I have not abandoned the argument for 6D). I've stated the argument and it stands. I agree that its wording is open for both our interpretations but it cannot explicitly nor exclusively be construed to ban use of the term in pages other than the three pages you mentioned about the names Judea and Samaria.
• About 6C). The qualification is that the term is mentioned, not used. The example given is "Samaria is a term used for ...". This is an example such as "Judea and Samaria is a term used for the the geographical area known as the West bank". So as an example, to say "The West bank is the term used for the geographical area historically known as Judea and Samaria" would be the same type of mention. Again, I am not saying Alon Shvut is in Judea and Samaria, rather only mentioning that the West bank is also known as... which is the same type of mention that the qualification allows.
• I hope to expect the same courtesy and assumption of goodwill from you that I extend to you. I have said several times that though I think you're mistaken, I do not believe you are applying a bias POV with your arguments. Yet in reviewing this entire long discussion, every answer you give is laced with accusations of POV at me. I ask you to stick to the issues and assume good faith as I do with you.
• I have pointed several times to the reliable references for mentioning Judea and Samaria in regard to the West bank. The reference is mentioned in the first line of the West bank, not as a settler POV but as a historical name for the geographical area of the West Bank and the name which is used for the region in Israel. It is also referenced from UN resolution 181, which is clearly not a settler POV. Your repeated ignoring of these references and accusations of POV are not in compliance with assumption of good faith and are creating an unnecessary conflict.
• If you insist on asserting that it is a POV issue and wish to add an opposing POV, then please find a reference which opposes the statement, such as "The West bank is not historically known as Judea and Samaria because...." and there would be no problem with it, if it is based on a reliable source. However, the example you suggest: "the settlement is an illegal colony established by foreign invaders on occupied Palestinian land" is not an opposing viewpoint to the first statement. It is entirely unrelated to the original statement and should not be presented as an opposing view in this case.
• While I agree that we should avoid a conflict in use of the terms, and are best served by an agreement, the entire thrust of your arguments compromises a significant historical fact about the region the settlement resides on and is in clear violation of the guidelines as I've shown. However, by mentioning the historical basis for the name that the "whole world uses", which is cited in the first line of the page on the West Bank, we are not compromising the opposing side, especially given that you can add an opposing reference for the name should you have one. So, in this case, it seems that if you insist on opposing the edit, then you are creating the conflict by compromising or banning significant encyclopedic information from the term in question, fueling an edit war, and doing so in clear violation of the guidelines already arrived at by Arbcom on this issue. It is especially disheartening that you do so while insisting that I have a settler POV motive when no such thing is true, as I've shown, and while I continue to assume good faith in your arguments regarding POV. I will refrain from making the edit until we come closer to an agreement but I hope we advance in the direction of assumption of good faith and stick to the issue by stopping the unfounded POV accusations. MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several inaccuracies in what you have written. The guideline gives an exception to explain the term Samaria where it is already "mentioned", your use here does not do that. That is, it invents a cause to "mention" so that you can attempt to apply the exception. Simply put, that wont fly. The guidelines exist for a reason, and that reason is not to enable people to find the most creative way around them. Im not going to apologize for calling the use of this phrase "POV", as any number of source identify they use of this terminology as part of a settler-driven campaign to disassociate the Palestinians from land that has been illegally expropriated from them. Names have purposes, and the purpose of using "Judea and Samaria" is to assert title to the land. You say that an illegal colony established by foreign invaders on occupied Palestinian land is not an opposing POV, I disagree. It very much is, but the sad part is that this POV is never even considered. We are left with arguing about whether a settler-centric POV should balance the worldwide designations for names, but never even discuss the POV of the natives. Your claim that my position is in clear violation of the guidelines is simply dumbfounding. If you feel this way I invite you to ask for clarification at WT:WESTBANK, see if the article about itself is open to the type of construction you are attempting (that "the article" is completely disassociated from "about itself" so that "the article" means any article you happen to be editing", then see if "the term is being mentioned" allows for you to "mention" the term, then define it, anywhere you please. Im getting a bit tired of having to jump through these hoops. I shouldnt have to because the language used in the guidelines is crystal clear. nableezy - 12:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Matter of fact, Ill do it for you. See here. nableezy - 13:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the guidelines suggests that articles have to be Judenfrei of any mention of J+S. If the area is in J+S it is notable feature and should be included in the lede.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Allon

I've read that Yigal Allon played a key role in setting up the settlement, and used to say that the name was a pun on his own. If this is true, it should be sourced in.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles