Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MichaelNetzer (talk | contribs) at 17:13, 1 November 2011 (→Dispute on exceptions 6C and D: Essence of the dispute.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2

Infoboxes

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

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

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

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

I've edited the guideline to make clear that clause 5 is subject to clause 6. SlimVirgin 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dispute on exceptions 6C and D

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

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