Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:50, 13 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 C‑class Mid‑importance

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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.

Palestine Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)

I didn't intend it to describe a single edit, rather that reasons given for the edit and the constant assertions that inclusion of J&S is a POV issue, instead of it being a verifiable fact that bears mention, would lead to an edit war over it. A suggestion that's born out to be true in how the inclusion has now been reverted once more. I ask you again not to assume malice on my part. It was an explanation that was misconstrued. An assumption of good faith on your part would have helped prevent you from assuming I was being accusatory. I had no such intention of a "hot air accusation balloon". MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:19, 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)

I'm more than happy to take the discussion there. Thank you. MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:19, 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)

That isnt true, and your repeated tactic of "finding" a page you have never edited to make a an ill-advised revert has reached a new level of annoyance. nableezy - 14:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy: Your hostility is the one reaching a level of annoyance. If you continue assuming malice, you've poured enough of it in this discussion to warrant reporting. Please try to assume good faith in your responses. MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Report whatever you like wherever you like. Let's see what gets called "hostility", an allusion to Nazism, or a well-grounded accusation of tendentious hounding. nableezy - 17:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference was not only to this statement rather to the entire discussion - but I only said "warrants". Simmer down. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to continue with these directives on others supposed "hostility", kindly refrain from making such condescending remarks as telling others to simmer down. nableezy - 19:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize "simmer down" would offend you. Sorry. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hostility? Like having one's attempt to apply policy dismissed as a form of Nazism, as Brewcrewer just did. He should look at the meaning of Judenfrei here. Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The ban you're trying to enforce is not policy by a far shot. But even so, the hostility is all over this page, long before that comment. And even even so, one act of hostility does not warrant a hostile response. MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's please avoid going off on tangents and being super-sensitive. Can anyone point to policy prohibiting mention of Judea and Samaria in articles about geographic entities in Judea and Samaria?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Look up gettare la pietra e ritirare la mano. It's what you just did, by the tangential confusion of 'judenfrei'.

The burden of proof lies with whoever wants to change both policy and the 2 years restraint of experienced editors who have hewed to a shared understanding of its implications. There is no such entity as 'Judea and Samaria' in historical usage for the West Bank. Let me know when you hear anyone in Israel saying: 'Let's go for a daytrip to 'Judea and Samaria,' (as one entity, rather than two stopoffs on a West Bank tour). Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any such explicit prohibition in all the Arbcom discussions, nor in the resulting naming convention guideline, which are the last deliberations on it. This discussion, in its wider aspects, is continuing in the naming convention talk page. There is no such policy in place for someone to need to change or prove. And there is more than ample examples of its historical usage with top level reliable sources to warrant its mention. MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani: You're mixing issues. It's not about people saying "let's go to Judea and Samaria". It's about the fact that the West bank region is historically known and verified by top worldwide sources as Judea and Samaria. MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. I know how language functions. 'Top worldwide sources'? Have you read that link Nableezy supplied. So far, all I see is a deaf ear, and harping on what you think. I see no lingiuistic, logical or policy-based argument here. It's fine to keep all hours chatting about what you think. We worked for several months to work out what area specialists thought, and their judgements about the firebrand nature of that combined phrase, identified with one specific sector of Israeli opinion (hence not representative of Israeli usage) are ordered in the link so that any donkey can see at a glance this is POV, which you are trying to slip back into the unfortunate I/P are with arguments no one has thought of, or which all responsible editors have refrained from pushing as an edit-justification, since Arbcom made its deliberation, and the policy was consensually established. Several here were a part of that process, and are in no doubt what the meaning is of the protocols they gave their assent to. This is extremely, utterly boring, and a forum of 1 self convinced hermeneut has no weight.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani: You are creating an strawman argument. The fact that nobody in the entire universe contemporaneously uses the term Judea and Samaria is irrelevant. Everybody agrees and it is reliably sourced that the settlements are in a region that was -- at the very least -- once known as Judea and Samaria. This historic fact is not only notable, but this Jewish terminology is in essence the seminal dispute in the Israel-Arab conflict. I can't imagine there is any policy basis for removing such important information from Misplaced Pages. If you or anyone else can promulgate some sort of policy based argument for its removal, that would be great. Please respond on point only. Thank you.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Scholars in the future may well write Phd level excursuses on the use of 'strawman argument' clichés to circumvent logical thinking and source-based analysis in wikipedia. It's not 'Jewish terminology' it is, see Nableezy's link, infra-Jewish terminology, and a lot of Jews of my acquaintance avoid it.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, please provide policy based argument for the removal. It's that simple.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Read Nableezy's quite simple explanations above, to which Michael has responded verbosely and evasively. On the verbosity, I almost envy him.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am far from convinced by his argument. He is playing with words that were clearly intended to preclude his very argument. The guidelines were specifically put in place because editors were removing all mention of Judea and Samaria. The guidelines were meant to disallow editors from erasing the historical context of Judea and Samaria from every Misplaced Pages article, not to further perpetuate the problematic behavior that led to all the bans. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense. There is a reason you voted against rule 6, and it isnt because it was intended to preclude my very argument. Rule 6 is clear, crystal as Zero wrote below, and this is game-playing trying to distort clear English. nableezy - 11:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice try at making things up. Your recall is unfathomable to me, and I was there. Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I think. I also admire your stamina. But I can't see how I've been evasive at all. I've answered all your comments and expressed my disagreements. The assertion of a carefully arrived-at comprehensive ban for a non-existent policy seems like nothing more than the opinion and enforcement of a couple of editors who declare strong biases and appear to be using Misplaced Pages to advance a political agenda on their user pages. Not of the most neutral for a claim of fairness and objectivity. But please, Nishidani, the question is whether you can show where this policy is documented, not to simply point to a user's opinion on a talk page. MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, can we drop the 'people who disagree with me have strong biases' nonsense. The link is not to a user's opinion, so it is clear you haven't read it. A challenge was made over what RS said. Both sides produced 'evidence' from sources: almost none of any adequacy for 'Samaria and Judea' as a neutral or 'Israeli pov', while a huge list of quotes stating quite clearly Samaria and Judea was a settler POV was forthcoming. Couild I prevail on you to use the English language correctly, and not confuse 'a user's opinion' with a list of scholarly quotations culled from several dozen academic presses? Elementary mistakes like that do not make one feel confident one's interlocutor is paying much attention to what one says or the links one asks him to read.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The question was to provide documentation for policy and you replied: "Read Nableezy's quite simple explanations above". That's what I responded to. The list you refer to and the entire page is a discussion of sources, not policy, with ample references opposing your what you're claiming. You don't need to prevail on me to use the English language correctly because I seem to be doing so anyway. But I appreciate the concern. MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the history, there clearly has been some tendentious editing by people trying to insert a reference to "Judea and Samaria". If any of those who have already tried inserting it do so again, then they should be taken to WP:AE and I expect the admins there will take action against the culprits..

seems to be that it is very clear that according to all wiki rules, one can use judea and samaria with qualifications as per wp:westbank. it is also very clear that judea and samaria is a term used from biblical times to today. there are many reliable sources to say so (google it with 'news' and it is fine). therefore, why is all of this being disputed and discussed? just leave it, use it as one is supposed to, and that's that. Soosim (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? How so? What in WP:WESTBANK allows for the use that is being pushed here, and how does it do so? nableezy - 11:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I read WP:WESTBANK carefully yet again, and it is crystal clear that the use of "Judea and Samaria" as Soosim wants to is not allowed. Soosim should either accept the rules or try to reopen a discussion of the rules. Breaking the rules is not acceptable. Zero 11:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• This umbrella guideline for the qualifications states clearly that the problem arising in context of modern times, such as Alon Shvut, as seen by some editors, is in conveying a sufficiently neutral voice. It goes on to clearly say, for example that it cannot be asserted without qualification that Alon Shvut is "in Judea". Qualification 6C) allows in its example, as an example, for a mention that "Alon Shvut is in an area historically known as Judea", because it is a qualification that conveys a neutral point of view and does not assert that Alon Shvut is "in Judea", or that the area is known today as Judea. This is the compromise struck with some editors who desired more neutrality.
• The position taken here as if to suggest that such a qualification is not allowed, for a modern place or event, undermines the entire intent of the guidelines and its qualifications. The guideline does not take the position that such a use is not sufficiently neutral, as some editors feel. The guideline also does not support your position that it is not sufficiently neutral, even without qualification. They only state that some editors hold this position and that this is the reason for the qualifications. So clearly, when its mentioned with a qualification that conveys neutrality as to the relationship of the modern place relative to the historical name, then the guideline states no such prohibition as is being asserted here. This is the reason the guidelines seem to have been written. Not for a blanket ban on the term being used in modern events. The guideline seems to have rather been written in order to prevent a wide prohibition for using the terms as is being asserted here. This would suggest it was the reverts of the edit that added this mention that are in violation of the guidelines. Not the other way around. MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

All that care and yet you neglected to bold the operative phrase: Any uses of the terms must be in one of the situations described below. Must be in one of the situations, none of which is satisfied here. nableezy - 18:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a good idea for us to continue copy/pasting the same discussion into two places, Nableezy. So, I'll not repeat my response here but rather refer to it in the Naming convention talk page. It was initially your suggestion and seems like a better place for it, as this page is primarily for Alon Shvut and has become bogged down with issues better suited there. Thanks. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

• i would like to emphasize that Gideon Levy is a journalist without any serious academic or even research background, and hence not a very reliable source regarding historic issues such as history of Alon Shvut. Thus, a more realable source should be preferred for mentioning "Palestinian land annexation", than his weekly Ha'aretz column.
• "West Bank" / "Judea and Samaria" are both notable and widely used terms. For NPOV should be both mentioned, since discarding WB or J&S creates POV imbalance.

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

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

This discussion has moved. I've copied the two comments above to Naming convention talk page and responded to them there. We should try to keep the discussion where it now belongs. MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:36, 6 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)

General Exhortation - can we beef up the article to write a comprehensive lead??

I'll say it again, Further pushing and shoving here will be viewed dimly - the best way forward is to enlarge and source out the history (archaeology etc.) to determine its relevance to ancient entities, to ensure that mention of them is as uncontroversial as possible in the lead. So please folks can we do this?? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've started with Battle of Beth-Zecharia. I included 4 sources because I'm not sure what the convention is on references for this type of item. MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To start with, please study WP:RS about what a reliable source is. You can't just cite random web pages that have the information you like, there needs to be a reason for judging them reliable. You also have to be sure the source really supports the edit you want to make. For example, this one does not completely specify the location of Beth-Zechariah and besides that it comes from some company that wants to sell some study guide it made. It is a non-reliable source that fails to support the edit. Then you cited augsburgfortress.org which is a shop! Next you cited bible-history.com which is some sort of religious web site about bible geography. Sites like that are the worst, full of all sorts of mythology presented as facts. It doesn't support your edit anyway, since the map there marks Beth Zeccariah considerably to the west of Alon Shvut. Finally you cited a website that only has an IP address. It is the only one of your sources that has a chance of being judged reliable, since it was apparently written by someone with scholarly publications. However, the identification of Beth-Zachariah it gives on this page is with Tell Zakariya, which is close to Zekharia and very far from Alon Shvut. So if this is a reliable source, it disproves the claim that Alon Shvut has anything to do with Beth Zecharia, which is why I'm going to remove the reference from the article completely. Zero 00:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am taking a look thru google books and then google scholar. There is some about more recent history, see here. I have no experience of the area so someone else can review and add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Someone notable in its early history in the 1970s? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

He's the rabbi who conducted our wedding. A strong spokesman against extremism on the right and advocate for bridging between communities. MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been meaning to make a note on precisely this reputation for the settlement leaders, but am far too busy off line. You might like to edit in the details from this source in the meantime, Michael.Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. To also research this aspect in other such articles. Thanks for the fine direction and link Nishidani. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Typing "Alon Shvut" into google scholar gives some tantalising antiquities leads but I can't find an article name...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a loaded history for sure. Try Beth Zacharia with an "A". I've been looking for ancient maps on it but all the books are for purchase. Zero's right about the sources, though logic would say most of them rely on solid reference because there doesn't seem to be a reason to move Beth-Zecharia. There may be a dispute over its placement in academic references themselves. We'll see soon. MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Here it is: Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids, Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Cambridge University Press, 1989, page 311, "The site has been definetly identified with hamlet of Kh. Zakariya, about a kilometer north of Kefar 'Etsyon, nine kilometers north of Beth Zur." The map on page 310 places it adjacent NW to Alon Shvut. If there are no objections, I'll re-instate it into the page with the proper source. MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable (I think...?) - I wonder if there is more archaeological material in Hebrew language journals...or are they all in English..? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is a fine source. The spot marked is about 1km NNW of Alon Shvut. So there are two "Tel Zacharia"s in Palestine, interesting. The archaeology journals are mostly in English but there are some important ones in Hebrew and one or in other languages (German, French, Italian, ..). Zero 09:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If we need to go further into this, Zero, I'd be happy to handle any articles on the point in German, French and Italian.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Locations in detail, a problem

A problem exist with local geography. The most detailed map I know is at amudanan, which agrees with the map in Bar-Kochva's book (p310) but shows the modern layout. On Bar-Kochva's map, the location of Alon Shvut is marked as Khirbet Beit Sawir (Beit Sawir was an Arab village here in the 17-18th centuries but I don't yet have a proper source for that). The exact location of the former village is called Givat Chish in the modern map. The archaeological site Beth Zakaria is shown to the north (on Bar-Kochva's map it is at the right end of the name). The same location exactly (within 50 meters) is given in an archaeological gazetteer I have, so I suppose it is correct. The problem is that Bar-Kochva says it is 1 km north of modern Kfar Etzion, but it isn't. It is about 700 meters north of the Yeshiva, which is on the north edge of Alon Shvut, and neither north nor 1km from Kfar Etzion (more like 2km NE). Bar-Kochva also cites Guerin (1860s) for the identification with "the hamlet of Kh. Zakaria" but Guerin (Judée III, p316) actually identified the village of Beit-Zakaria ("a confused mass of small houses...occupied by a dozen fellahin") which is even further north (near the row of 6 diagonal buildings on the amudanan map). Zero 12:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Khurbat Beth Zacharia" on Amudanan is a little more than a kilometer NNE of the NE edge of Kfar Etzion (about 1.2 km). Bar-Kochva qualified the distance he gave as an approximation "about 1 km north", so there doesn't seem to be a problem with that, especially since there's nothing else on either map in that vicinity that Bar-Kochva might have been referring to. I don't have the Judée source so I'm not sure of how Guerin worded it (maybe you can paste it in here), but it looks like the ridge connecting Khurbat Beth Zacharia with the 6 diagonal buildings (Revadim?) makes the area somewhat continuous. Let's see Guerin's text and try to figure out if there's a real discrepancy. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Something else has been bothering me about saying that the location of the battle is the actual town Beth Zecharia. The Seleucid force was about 50,000 infantry and thirty war elephants, along with cavalry and chariots. The Maccabees gathered about 20,000 troops on the high ground overlooking the road the army would pass on its way to Jerusalem. This is in Battle of Beth Zechariah but it hasn't been sourced. Though it looks like all the info is taken from Maccabees 1, it bears checking and adding references there. It still seems to have been a big enough battle considering the elephants and chariots. Bar-Kochva mentions many formations of 500 and 1000 battlers on the Greek side alone. He doens't necessarily disagree with Maccabees 1 numbers but he cautions about Josephus not necessarily being able to assess exactly how many troops would be in such large battle formations just by looking at them. His description of the battle covers an expanse of the hills to the south of Beth Zacharia, from where the Seleucids came. Seems that placing the battle in the actual town, 1 km north of present day Alon Shvut, is misleading. The exact location should be clarified as the town itself, not the battle. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to write something like that myself. Nobody really knows exactly where the battle was anyway, just that it was somewhere in the vicinity of the village. About the locations, Guerin does not give coordinates but the Survey of Western Palestine does on its map about a decade later that you can see at amudanan. But be careful, the 1:50000 map and the PEF map are not lined up exactly. (They used to be, but about a year ago they slipped and haven't been fixed). I copied them into photoshop together with Bar-Kochva's map and lined them up manually. It is not very unusual for a village to move a little over time, for example a water source might dry up. Zero 09:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, it looks odd to say Beth Zakaria is north of both Alon Shvut and Kfar Etzion, since that is a sort of geometric impossibility. Since this is an article about Alon Shvut, why don't we say in the lead that it is 1km NE of Kfar Etzion, and later that Beth Zakaria is north of Alon Shvut? The direction from Kfar Etzion to Beth Zakaria is somehow irrelevant. Zero 12:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That makes more sense and simplifies something that doesn't have to be complicated. Amudanan is an excellent resource that'll come in handy, much appreciated. The megalith stone tower is a curiosity. I'll look around for hebrew sources on it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

megalithic stone tower of great antiquity

Can anyone find a modern reference to the megalithic stone tower? There is quite a lot of stuff on it until the 1920s, this for example, but after that I found nothing. I tried to locate it by superimposing the PEF map (1970s) on a modern map, and it fell in the middle of a road intersection. I hope the map isn't so accurate as that. Zero 15:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

ICJ

Pages 41 through 45 of the ICJ opinion on the wall case back up the without basis. Summarizing the Israeli position, the Court wrote:

Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, differing views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings. Israel, contrary to the great majority of the other participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In particuilar, in paragraph 3 of Annex 1 to the report of the Secretary-General, entitled "Summary Legal Position of the Government of Israel", it is stated that Israel does not agree that the Fourth Geneva Convention "is applicable to the occupied Palestinian Territory", citing "the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexation by Jordan and Egypt" and inferring that it is "not a territory of a High Contracting Party as required by the Convention".

In response the Court writes:

The object of the second paragraph of Article 2 is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties. It is directed simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable.

The Court goes on to say that the ICRC affirms the applicability of GCIV to the oPt and then says:

In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in any occupied territory in the event of an armed conflict arising between two or more High Contracting Parties. Israel and Jordan were parties to that Convention when the 1967 armed conflict broke out. The Court accordingly finds that that Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories. (emphasis added)

The Court found that under international law it does not matter if the Palestinian territories were sovereign or not for GCIV to apply. Michael, how exactly would you like to summarize just how little merit to the Israeli argument that because the oPt were not sovereign territories prior to Israel occupying them that GCIV (and a host of other treaties) does not apply? Because they rejected it as being without any merit, but you removed that. nableezy - 13:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a legal dispute between Israel and the ICJ/ICRC/UN, that the ICJ ruled on. But the ICJ didn't characterize Israel's legal argument as "without basis in international law". There is a basis for Israel's claim but the court rejects it because it interprets the second paragraph of Article 2 differently than Israel. There are several non-partisan legal sources, as well as Ronald Reagan, who agreed with Israel's legal position. So, saying it's "without basis" adds a POV slant that doesn't exist in the decision. It seems enough to leave it as is, that the Court rejects Israel's claim. Making a judgement on how much merit there is in a legal position, is injecting a POV that isn't there in the decision. If you think it needs more detail on why the court rejected the decision, then fine, but it would need to be true to the source without a POV slant. Legal issues are of the most sensitive when it comes to exact wording.

On a side note, Nableezy, in most such cases the point is driven home much stronger when the wording is succinct and concise. When a reader feels someone's making an extra effort to convince them of something, they have an automatic recoil that something might be suspicious. In this case, saying something like, "The court rejects Israel's position" drives the point home much harder. It's pinpoint accuracy in wording and gives no reason for doubt. Trying to "rub it in", so to speak, begins to cast a doubt in readers' minds about the reliability of the statement. So paradoxically, I think it helps your position more to just say what it is, without the extra. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

'There are several non-partisan legal sources, as well as Ronald Reagan, who agreed with Israel's legal position'Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I dont understand how you can argue that saying that the ICJ found the Israeli argument as having no basis adds a POV slant. The last line I quoted from above rejected the argument entirely, saying that it does not matter what the status of the territory was prior to Israel occupying it. As far as President Reagan, the Department of State, under President Carter, issued a paper detailing the official US position on the legality of the settlements. That position was that the settlements violated GCIV, and that position has not been rescinded or modified, despite what Reagan said, and remains the official position of the United States. See here. But I dont see how that is at all relevant to what the ICJ said. Please read the pages I listed above from the Wall case, it goes step by step through the Israeli position and rejects it as having no basis in either the letter of the conventions or the spirit of them. nableezy - 15:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

One more note. I have to find where I read this, but another commentator wrote something along the lines that to accept the Israeli argument on the applicability of GCIV to the occupied territories one has to look at GCIV as being written to protect the rights of the occupying power, not the rights of the civilians living under occupation. They contrasted that view with the opening line of the convention which reads a Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. nableezy - 15:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I read the entire ICJ decision and found no such statement or anything even hinting that Israel's interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 2 has "no basis in international law". If you can find where it says that, then I'm fine with it. Otherwise it's adding a slant. The court interprets things differently. It has the authority to make a decision in a dispute, but that doesn't automatically mean that the claim of the party it rules against "has no basis in law." I didn't say anything about official US policy, only about Reagan's opinion. We're not getting into another drawn out discussion on side issues again. There is a legal dispute, which makes it imperative we stick to the sources without added flavor. There are a variety of legal opinions that show it's not as one sided as you suggest. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont think I ever suggested that the issue is one sided. What I have said, and what I have quoted above, is one of those sides (arguably the most qualified to comment) says that the Israeli argument has no backing in international law. I'll pull more quotes for you this evening. nableezy - 15:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Where in the document does it say "no backing in international law"? You're suggesting the addition of an opinion about a legal decision which doesn't appear in the document and is not referenced to a reliable source. The decision is about a dispute regarding specific resolutions and articles. It makes no reference to "having NO basis" in the broad entity of "international law". Please try to understand that the argument you make is a POV slant and has no place in WP. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what your argument is. Israel argued that international law supports their position and the court decided that it doesn't. Do you dispute that, or do you have some other problem with the phrase "no basis"? Zero 00:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Both. The legal dispute the ICJ handled was about the interpretation of specific resolutions and articles, to the exclusion of other legal issues and precedents in international law that impact the argument. The court decided on the specific resolutions and articles that were argued but did not render a decision on other issues relating to broader historic aspects of international law. The court's decision does not explicitly state that "Israel's position has no basis in international law", rather only refers to the specific resolutions and articles that were argued. So it cannot be said that the court made such a broad statement on international law that it did not make. "No basis" does not appear anywhere in the court's decision, nor is such a thing inferred. Looking at the opinions of a variety of legal scholars over the decades shows there does exist a "legal basis" for Israel's position, based on these scholars' legal expertise and more broad issues of international law. The court rejects such opinions and adopts its own interpretation of select resolutions and articles in its decision, but it does not explicitly say that Israel's position has "NO basis". Unless a legal decision makes such a statement explicitly, it should not be inferred because it injects a POV slant that doesn't exist in the decision. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? The basis for the Israeli argument for GCIV not applying to the oPt is that because the Palestinian territories due to "the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexation by Jordan and Egypt". The court flatly rejected that, saying that the prior status of the territory is irrelevant to the question of the applicability of the convention. That is, they rejected the basis for the Israeli argument against the de jure applicability of GCIV to the oPt. I do not see how you can say here that what the court discussed was the interpretation of specific resolutions and articles. They, to the surprise of some, went much further than that, and flatly said several things, among them a. GCIV does apply de jure and that Israel's argument on the applicability of GCIV is irrelevant to the question, and b. the settlements violate international law. But this really is niggling over things that dont matter enough to merit this many words being written. If I think of another way to say this incorporating an exact quote I might take a run at it, but if not I can live with the sentence without the without basis part. nableezy - 02:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. But to clarify. The court didn't use the words "flatly rejects" which is an extreme term in legal language. The court qualifies its decision with words like "the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable..." and "The Court accordingly finds that...". Its use of the words considers and accordingly finds is not the same as flatly rejects. Also, in its decision the court needed to introduce a new interpretation of the objective behind the second paragraph of Article 2, because the wording in the original paragraph itself is ambiguous with regards to the specific circumstances of a Contracting Party not existing in the WB. Israel made its argument based on its legal understanding of the original paragraph, which does have a legal basis, though the court chooses another reasoning to base its decision on. I agree it's fine without the "no basis" qualification and seems to more accurately reflect the spirit of the decision. Thanks. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It is also important to note that the IJCs opinion is advisory only. Moreover, the United States, Australia and Canada have expressed reservations on the IJCs advisory ruling and all these exceptions should be noted in this article as well as other articles the IJC edit appears.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This is only one settlement of many. I think there is already too much on this subject in the article. It just needs to say that some named list of international bodies believes the settlements are illegal and Israel disagrees. About two sentences and 2-4 sources. The details can be virtually present by way of wikilinks. That's what wikilinks are for. Zero 05:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Zero on this and propose the following change in the legal statement. The first wikilink to the page on International_law_and_Israeli_settlements ("majority of legal scholars"), carries the complete dispute and most pertinent sources. Two references, one to the ICJ decision and another to a legal scholar used as a source in the legality article seems to cover both sides fairly.

• The international community and the majority of legal scholars consider Israeli settlements a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and are as such illegal under customary international law, a view ratified by the International Court of Justice. Israel, and some legal scholars, dispute the illegality of the settlements and that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Palestinian territories.

(ref)Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory International Court of Justice, 9 July 2004. pp. 44-45(/ref)

(ref)"Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies". Tzemachdovid.org. Retrieved 2010-08-31.(/ref)

I would propose removing all references to the subject as it violates WP:UNDUE. An very small article about a settlement is all but obscured by the legality issue. A wiki link to International_law_and_Israeli_settlements should be sufficient to cover this issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There does seem to be an over-emphasis of the legality issue that dominates the article. The sentence in the lead is in a separate paragraph that gives it extra weight. The Legal Status section intrudes in between the history and other sections about the settlement itself, disrupting the continuity of content. If it's kept, the end of the article is a more proper place for the legal statement, though I tend to agree that a "See Also" wikilink to the page on legality would be sufficient for these articles. Let's wait to see if there are objections, or other thoughts, before changing. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It can't be smoked away so simply. In all these articles on settlements, the issue of legality represents the POV of the party generally excluded from mention (except as terrorists in the incidents sections) in settlement articles., i.e., the Palestinians, be they those whose title or claims are ignored or suspended by the usual 'military closed zone' expropriatory device, or the Palestinians as a stateless people under belligerent occupation, on whose land these settlements are built on. All I see here is an attempt to sweep the issue out of view, downpaging it, a move which confuses NPOV, with the disappearance of the POV of the Palestinians whose land it is according to the ICJ. Both Michael and Jiujitsuguy's proposals make one of the two parties disappear, and leave us a clean article shorn of uncomfortable feelings for settler-friendly readership. Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

In short, the Alon Shvut page and the queries pressed over it recently all seem to look towards a challenge on the content and leads of most I/P pages. Since both the naming and legality issue are being hammered at, in the hope that at least on this page, one can reintroduce terms we once suspended, and render invisible the legality issue which has now be long accepted, what you are really doing is using this one page to establish a precedent that automatically, if agreed to, can be then used on every other I/P page. Since that is the implication, it is improper to conduct such an innovation on an obscure page. Changes with deep widespread ramiications for all related articles should be debated by the wider community, not engeineered between a few hands on an unbookmarked minor page. Two procedural flaws, gentlement.Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing "undue" about including the fact about WB settlements that is the most commonly mentioned thing about them in the English literature, namely that almost everyone except Israel considers them illegal. On the contrary, it would be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to relegate it to a "see also". On the other hand, I don't see why all the detailed argumentation about it has to be exposed in every single settlement article. A few sentences plus wikilinks should be enough. That's called a "compromise". Zero 11:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, detailed exposition is unnecessary. Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This page, and others like it, are not about the broad I/P conflict. There are enough pages on wider issues of the dispute where Nishidani's narrative above is covered. Pages on the settlements should not bear the burden of the entire conflict which started long before they came into being. These pages, for proper encyclopedic form, should be primarily about the settlements. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The legal statement has been misused, injected with a POV slant, and placed wholesale, disruptively and with over-emphasis, turning the article on a settlement into a battleground for the wider dispute, with little regard for the good encyclopedic form the articles deserve. This includes an emphasized sentence in the lead and a distortion of the naming convention, enforced to omit the historical name of the region the settlements are in. And we're asked to accept this as a status-quo.

If trying to improve these articles by correcting this disruption means setting a precedent, then so be it. The precedent will only apply to pages on the settlements and not to all the pages about the countless other aspects of the I/P conflict, as Nishidani fears. I suggest this page be edited to reflect this position. If some editors feel it needs to be brought to a wider consensus, then I'm quite agreeable to it and would be willing to propose it myself.

Once we have a prototype, it'll be easier to discuss it with a wider forum by comparing the other pages on settlements to this one. If a wider consensus disagrees with the modifications, then they can always be reverted. If not, it should also be applied as a standard to other pages about settlements, and only to them. That said, I agree with the last statements by Zero and Nishidani about unnecessary exposition on the legalities. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the open admission that you are using this article to challenge what has been a general consensus for the past two years not to seed in Judea and Samaria everywhere, and to challenge an agreed on formula regarding the legal status of these settlements. I take your activism in pushing through a precedent for this, as meaning you do not want to be held by the letter and spirit of the Arbcom decisions. I suggest therefore, that you are wasting everyone's time manouevering to break that agreement on this article. The proper thing to do would be to go directly to Arbcom and request for clarification. I have reverted you, and I fully expect that one of the usual suspects will restore your preferred text, which has several people above objecting to it, and therefore defies respect for consensus on questionable points. I.e. it is ideological editing, not editing per policy-Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've made the edit in the main article, which includes:

• rearranging sections and photos for better order.
• Streamlining the legal statement.
• Adding (Judea and Samaria Area) next to WB in the lead. I know this will be disliked but it is significant lead information about this and most other settlements, which does not violate the naming convention. If the legal statement warrants a mention in the lead, then so does this. Otherwise the legal statement should also be removed from the lead for neutrality.

As suggested above, this is meant to serve as a prototype for wider discussion. It seems to be a good compromise and maintains a fair and balanced representation on the issues. Most importantly it enhances the quality of the article by focusing on the settlement itself, as the article should. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A consensus was established at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements that calls for the inclusion of the line in the lead and a section in the body of developed articles. You cant simply disregard that here because you dislike the well established fact that Israel's colonies have been judged illegal by nearly the entire world. There is a consensus for both the line in the lead and the section in the body, so I will be restoring that. nableezy - 15:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

They're still in the article, Nableezy. I suggest we keep this, at least temporarily, as an example for a wider discussion on the consensus. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea is to have consensus before making major changes. I dont see that here. Additionally, I object to several of the changes. You dont say what part of international law the settlements violate, and without specifying which convention and which article you make the sentence almost meaningless. Also, "some legal scholars" vs "most legal scholars" doesnt mean much, and unless we give actual arguments made by those scholars here I dont see the point of including either. And including those arguments would overwhelm this article. nableezy - 15:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a consensus here from two editors who traditionally support your position, that the section on Legal Status inside the article does not need all the detail it has. Zero, Nishidani and I agreed that wikilinks for the details are enough. I streamlined it on that basis. Did you not read that in the discussion? Why did you not bother to give your opinion so they'd also understand why you feel otherwise before reverting it? Couldn't you have discussed it first like I did before making the edit? The other changes I made had to do with article structure and did not involve the consensus on the legal statement. There's nothing in that long discussion about the statement being placed disruptively in the middle of the article. I moved it because it's better form and flow, while your concern seems to be prominence by disruption. I appreciate your re-wording an explanation for J+SA in the lead and it was fine with me, though I now see Nishidani has reverted even your edit there. I'll still take your edit as consent for it JSA appearing in the lead. I've tried very hard to explain myself and have asked for agreement before doing anything drastic, yet responses and reverts here continue to ignore the case being made and employ a strong-arming tactic that would otherwise lead to unnecessary edit conflicts. The edit was done so we could discuss its merits or failings, but I see even that isn't acceptable here. I'd rather work it out between us but considering all the effort made so far, I think we now need some outside intervention. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

michaelnetzer - nice work on this article. i agree with the prototype idea. Soosim (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No option there Michael but to delete your innovation. At least several longterm editors have said that edit is not the way to go. A bevy of supporters exist sure, but none of them has been introducing 'Judea and Samaria' into the leads for the last two years, since Arbcom made its decisions, and an agreement was drawn up. There is abundant evidence that the term you wish to introduce (a) has not be used by either side for two years, implicit evidence that our understanding of the agreement's implications was shared (b)that in pushing for it, you wish to open up the possibility of a pre-Arbcom anarchy in this area, since the precedent breaks down the guidelines as they have been understood. There is no consensus, on this controversy you have revived, and therefore you are preemptively editing in a way conducive to editwarring. If you are convinced that, uniquely, you understand what the rest of us failed to perceive, then call for an Arbcom rediscussion on this to gain support for your idiosyncratic take. Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That was Nableezy's edit you reverted, which implies his consent to it being in the lead. I'm sorry to see such a lack of willingness to understand and collaborate, and certainly sorry to see what could be an otherwise good article become subject to such opinionated strong-arming driven by personal opinions instead of improving the article. I think it's time we seek some other opinions or intervention. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I eliminated Nableezy's residue of your edit. Several people have objected to what you are attempting to do, to break a convention accepted for two years by editors. The use of the term 'Judea & Samaria' is appropriativee in Israeli settler usage, which redefines the West Bank thus in order to assert it belongs to Jews (William D. Perdue, Terrorism and the state, 1989 p.150, to cite one of hundreds of books), as you keep asserting, by historic right. This is obviously POV-charged and is unacceptable. Period.Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy's edit was not residue. He expanded on my edit, instead of deleting it, implying his consent. Your highly charged opinion on the terms and selective use of sources to assert it as policy are on record. Please don't assume you know anything about me or my motives, I haven't done that with you. A little more consideration for the issues and less personal judgement such as you make would help here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bound by Nableezy's opinion any more than by your's. Your edit was unacceptable, since it is of the kind that we all know requires some consensus on the talk page, which you haven't got. Failing to get a consensus, you simply went ahead and plonked in your edit. You complain that it cannot be missing from the lead as 'important information'- presumably the consistent removal from the lead of the fact that the town in in good part built on stolen property owes much to the objective fact that this is not as anywhere as important as noting how settlers like to imagine their area.

I have not commented on your motives. I commented on what your opinion on this matter effectively involves, the destruction of convention. I have reread today the whole thread. I see no sign of any accommodation on your part to the objections raised consistently to your challenge to what many here regard as a clear reading of policy. YOu haven't budged an inch, so any talk about 'consideration' strikes me as peculiar.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

In the future, please dont mistake exasperation with consent. I see the attempt to include "Judea and Samaria", by hook or by crook, to be a blatantly politically motivated attempt to impose a settler-centric narrative in the very first sentences on an article on, using plain words with well understood meanings that would be used for any state besides Israel, an illegal colony in occupied territory. My edit was not one showing consent. But if you want to provide space for all the different words used by each group of partisans, perhaps you would be amenable to also changing the first sentence so that when it says Israeli settlement it would also include in parentheses illegal colony, and when it says in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria Area) it would follow that with in occupied Palestine. nableezy - 19:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Unassessed Palestine-related articles
• Unknown-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles