Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (West Bank)/Archive 2

Consensus on 6 existing proposals thus far

• Given the preliminary consensus of the three editors above, I have detailed the following below for acceptance or otherwise:

• Here please vote support/oppose/comment on each of the six segments currently on the guideline page:

Antiquity

(1) References for antiquity follow sources and use Judea and Samaria for the period up to the first century CE.

Support

1. Al Ameer son (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Unomi (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Peter cohen (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
4. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
5. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Pharos (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Zvika (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Askari Mark 02:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
11. DGG (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
12. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
13. harlan (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Shii (tock) 00:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Also permit "Judaea" per sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

British Mandate (1920-1948)

(2) In the context of events during the British Mandate (1920-1948), terms used by the British administration (ie "Judea" and "Samaria") are probably most appropriate. When used, they should be prefixed with "the British Mandate district/s".

Support

1. Unomi (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing support while actual usage under mandate is clarified.Peter cohen (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
2. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Pharos (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
4. But this should not be so strignant as to become distracting, definitely the first instance should be clarified but subsequent ones should be weighed for readability and repetitiveness concerns. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Zvika (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
6. With the same qualification as Kyaa. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
7. per Kyaa and Askari.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Ok, except that "Judaea" and "Samaria" were not the names of districts during the Mandate period. "District" (which was officially "subdistrict") referred to 16 regions with precise borders: Safed, Acre, Tiberias, Nazareth, Haifa, Beisan, Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus, Jaffa, Ramle, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Hebron, Gaza and Beersheba. Names like "Samaria", "Judaea", "Galilee" and "Negev" were in common informal use without being precisely defined. We can do that too, but we should not use the phrase "the British Mandate district X" because it is factually incorrect. [How can I propose an emendment to this proposal to remove this error?] Zero^talk 14:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

   Have you got reliable sources that support this? You can start an alternative in the #Alternative proposals section. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

   See alternative proposal (2A) below. Zero^talk 13:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

9. I actually support 2A but it's superfluous to vote for that instead, because I think we all agree we should not provide wrong information. Shii (tock) 00:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
10. as standard name. Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Al Ameer son (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

   I would appreciate it if you would share your reasons for opposing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(3) Guidelines 4–6 refer to modern times (After 1948? After 1950? After 1967?).

post 1948

1. Unomi (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Peter cohen (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Pharos (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Shii (tock) 00:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
7. harlan (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Nableezy (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

post 1950

1. First choice. (This is when Jordan annexed the area.) – Quadell ^(talk) 21:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

post 1967

1. When "West Bank" began being used.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

West Bank is really just an Anglicized form of Cis-Jordan. That term was used by the Israeli negotiator Shiloah during the 1949 Armistice negotiations. see for example Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, page 1528 It has been in common usage since Napoleon's expedition into the area together with its counterpart - Trans-Jordan. harlan (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Al Ameer son (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

   Again, I would appreciate it if you would share your reasons for opposing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• I don't understand what (3) is asking. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Which year do you support, or do you oppose the whole clause? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole clause of what? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole of clause (3). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this asking "What time period should the sections 4-6 below refer to?" with options of "1948-present", "1950-present", and "1967-present"? If so, what would "oppose" mean? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I left it there for someone who objected to West Bank at any time I guess, or had any other reason to strongly disagree with any of the other options. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• As written, guidelines 4-6 are based on the “contemporary” usage period starting in 1948; if a later year is selected, what usage applies during the intervening period following the end of the Mandate? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• After 1997. In US legal parlance the term "Country" is used for any political entity known as a nation. 19 C.F.R. PART 134.1 Definitions The US granted a request from the Palestinian National Authority for recognition of the West Bank and Gaza as a Country in view of developments including the Israeli-PLO Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements. In a letter dated January 13, 1997, the Department of State advised the other agencies of the Executive branch that it considered the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes. see DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Customs Service, T.D. 97–16, Country of Origin Marking of Products From the West Bank and Gaza The Treasury Department subsequently stated that the country of origin markings of goods from the West Bank and Gaza shall not contain the words ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘‘Made in Israel,’’ ‘‘Occupied Territories-Israel,’’ or words of similar meaning. harlan (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• It would be helpful to ascertain when "West Bank" was introduced as the generally common English-language term for the territory that we now consider it to be, not some amorphous ill-defined area separated by the Jordan River from "Trans-Jordan". Without knowing that, picking a year is an exercise in re-writing history. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary usage

(4)" West Bank" or "the West Bank" (capitalized) is the most commonly used name for the land area known by that name, and is to be used. The terms "northern West Bank" and "southern West Bank" can be used to refer to parts of it.

Support

1. Al Ameer son (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Unomi (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Peter cohen (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
4. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Although I'd prefer a discussion of the terms somewhere in the article(s). hmwithτ 21:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
6. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support generally, except for the "southern West Bank"/"northern West Bank" thing, as these are not quite the same as "Judea" and "Samaria".Pharos (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Zvika (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Support DGG (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Nableezy (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Zero^talk 14:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
13. harlan (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Shii (tock) 00:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
15. note that northern and southern are not capitalized and are no more than directionals rather than defining of a particular area, as in northern New South Wales, not Northern Territory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Alansohn (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Even if "West Bank" is the more common term, "Judea" if more commonly used then "northern West Bank" and "Samaria" is more commonly used then "southern West Bank".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say that they are common, just that they can be used, which they are. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 09:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If they are so common how come you got them backwards? "Samaria" is the northern west bank, and "Judea" is the southern part. I think using north and south makes things more clear to most people. --79.182.105.142 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Wikipedia should always include what significant published sources have said. The United States no longer talks about the creation of a Palestinian State. President Bush talked about its emergence from occupation during the Annapolis conference, and President Obama said "Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's."

The US Library of Congress (LOC) lists the Occupied Territories, West Bank, and Gaza as a Nation. The information is organized under headings for Constitution, Executive, Judicial, Legislative, Legal Guides, and General Sources. The LOC's Multinational Legal Guides lists the jurisdiction as "Palestine". I mentioned in a thread above that the Department of State advised the other agencies of the Executive branch that it considered the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be one area for political, economic, legal and other purposes. The Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention (114 states) also consider the Palestinian Territories to be occupied territory. UN General Assembly resolution A/63/201 was adopted by 164 votes to 8, with 5 abstentions. It declared the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 140 UN member states acknowledged the declaration of the State of Palestine in resolution 43/177, and 103 states have subsequently recognized the occupied area as the "State of Palestine". The Palestinian Authority submitted documents it said proved Palestine was a legal state to the ICC Prosecutor. They provided proof that 67 countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe had signed bilateral agreements with the State of Palestine. Shouldn't State of Palestine be under consideration as a placename if we are going to discuss unofficial administrative districts from the Mandate era? harlan (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

administrative area of Judea and Samaria

(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.

Support

1. Al Ameer son (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Unomi (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Peter cohen (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Nb. there should be quote marks around "Judea and Samaria Area" (thus). Hopefully a non-controversial change. It was my typo in the first place.
4. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
5. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Pharos (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Zvika (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
8. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Nableezy (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
11. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
12. harlan (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Shii (tock) 00:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
14. without scare quotes as proposed, rather than as suggested by Mr. Cohen. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Alansohn (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Exception

Summary: No consensus for this version of clause 6. Changes have been suggested and a modified version is proposed in the next thread. (☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Extended content

(6) 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: 6A) The terms are used inside verbatim quotations from sources, where it should generally be glossed with "[Israeli term for the [northern/southern] West Bank]", or 6B) In phrases such as "the area called Samaria by many Israelis and Zionists", etc., or 6D) As an adjective in the term "the [Samarian/Judean] hills" or variations thereof, or 6E) The term is being mentioned rather than used, as in "Samaria is a term used for ...", or 6F) 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. Support Unomi (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Peter cohen (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC) (But should we be taking these separately given User:OrangeDog's comments above? PS support Coppertwig's suggested 'removal of gloss.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Support and amend. Delete "where it should generally be glossed with "[Israeli term for the [northern/southern] West Bank]" according to the consensus in section #Gloss for quotes above. The whole clause (6) is essentially a compromise between two sides of the dispute. I'm open to further modifications to it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose Agree with some but not others, as detailed above. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Would you accept 6A and 6B if the part about the gloss is deleted, and if "and Zionists" is deleted? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I'm cautious about applying labels to any groups. Would support modified 6A and abstain from modified 6B. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose as currently stands. Strongly oppose 6A and 6B per above, unless gloss and 'Zionists' are deleted. Also see my comment below. --Zvika (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Comment There should be some exceptions, but I think this should be broken up and each piece discussed individually. – Quadell (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Agree it should be broken up. In particular, I think 6A and 6B would be most problematic.--Pharos (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Agree with concerns above. 6B is a powderkeg. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Would you accept 6B if "and Zionists" is deleted? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC) This one's a problem. I agree that in a sentence like "Efrat is an Israeli settlement in Judea" there is an implication that Judea is part of the Jewish Land, a claim which is disputed and therefore not NPOV. But there is also a slightly weaker interpretation of this statement: that Efrat is located in the region which was once ruled by Jews. This is a fact and, to some Israelis, this fact constitutes a justification for the existence of a Jewish settlement there. (Please note that this is not my personal opinion.) Thus, perhaps a more neutral sentence would be "Efrat is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, in the region historically known as Judea." I think the clause should allow such a statement. --Zvika (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC) An earlier version of the draft guidelines contained "6C) In phrases such as "the biblical region of Judea", etc., or". (See summary of discussion at See brief discussion in the "6C" part of (archived thread 1), summarized in (archived thread 2).) Perhaps this subclause, or something similar, e.g "In phrases such as "in the region historically known as Judea", or", could be proposed as an additional proposal in the section below; I would tend to support such a proposal, as I see it as fitting in with the overall spirit of compromise of these guidelines. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Exception (modified version)

(6) 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:

• 6A) The terms are used inside verbatim quotations from sources, or

• 6D) When discussing physical geography using the terminology that appears in international expert journals, for example as part of a proper name ("the Judea Group aquifer"), or as an adjective qualifying a term ("The Samarian hills"), or

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

• 6F) 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.

Support

1. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 22:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2. --Peter cohen (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
3. DGG (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Nableezy (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Shii (tock) 00:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for your input. I would appreciate it if you would share your reasons for opposing, in order to help figure out what to do instead (e.g. Modify it? How?) I notice you've voted support for clause 6D below, which is intended as a subclause of this clause; I would appreciate it if you would clarify what that means. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the proposal did not provide an argument for its support that would warrant a default to support and not require a reason from the supporters but require a reason from the opposers. Having said that, I oppose because as stated on articles' talkpages there's no POV problem with using the historic name that is also the name given by the governing entity. This did not look like the forum to rehash these arguments, so I avoided providing a reason. I'm aware that some of my votes! are contradictory in nature and they are obviously "in the alternative". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but could you be more specific? I don't know what placename or what governing authority you're talking about. I didn't ask for clarification from the supporters because it's clear what wording they support, but could you please specify which phrase would need to be deleted, or suggest alternative wording? Thanks again. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• I've tried to incorporate the changes for which there seems to be consensus. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternative proposals

Please place a specific alternative proposal to one of the above and rationale here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

British Mandate (1920-1948)

"(Proposed as alternative to (2))

(2A) In the context of events during the British Mandate (1920-1948), terms used by the British administration (ie "Judea" and "Samaria") are probably most appropriate. ".

Rationale

This proposal is the same as (2) except that the sentence "When used, they should be prefixed with "the British Mandate district/s" is removed. The reason is that a phrase like "the British Mandate district Samaria" would be misleading since there was no official district of that name (similarly for Judea, Negev, Galilee and some other names). Region names like Samaria were frequently used, but in an informal fashion. I will summarise the officially defined regions. There is nothing contentious about this information. Lots more sources will be visible when http://domino.un.org comes back online.

1. At the time of the 1931 census, Palestine was divided into the Southern District (comprising sub-districts Gaza, Beersheva, Jaffa, Ramle), the Jerusalem District (comprising sub-districts Hebron, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Jericho, Ramallah), and the Northern District (comprising sub-districts Tulkarm, Nablus, Jenin, Nazareth, Beisan, Tiberias, Haifa, Acre, Safad). [source: Census Report of 1931]
2. Later (at least by 1945), the number of sub-districts was reduced by two: there were no Bethlehem and Jericho sub-districts and the borders had been adjusted. [source: Palestine Office of Statistics, Vital Statistical Tables 1922-1945]. This map shows the boundaries.

Zero^talk 13:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Zero^talk 13:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
2. With the minor quibble that 1920 is a somewhat dubious start date for Mandate era placenames. harlan (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The point is to ensure that "Judea" and "Samaria" are not used without qualification. Would "the British Mandate region/s" be better? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because there is nothing British Mandate about them. They were not terms defined by the mandate government, nor did the mandate government use them in a peculiar way. Zero^talk 19:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the statement "The point is to ensure that "Judea" and "Samaria" are not used without qualification"; I'm not sure why that would be the point. The point is to follow principles such as NPOV. If, during the time period of the British Mandate, the governing authority used those terms to refer to those regions, then why would we not use the same terms (without qualification) to refer to those regions when we're mentioning events of that time period? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why was there qualification in the first place, and why does the proposal say "The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice"? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I was making an unnecessary distinction between "a" point and "the" point. Clause (3) makes it clear that clause 6 doesn't apply to the British Mandate period. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

It would be nice to see examples of how the term was actually used at the time. Any one got examples of documents or quotes by the administration?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For geographical areas

(Proposed as subclause of (6).)

*6G) Samaria(n) or Judea(n) may be more technically accurate than northern/southern West Bank when referring to a geographical area. In particular, it may be more appropriate to follow the designations given in the referenced sources.

Sorry if this has already come up, but "Samaria(n)" is not precisely congruous to "in the northern West Bank", and likewise with Judea(n). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a good statement to comment on. I am putting a quote box around it and log below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've knocked up File:Judea-maps-overlay.png to show a few different designations. Couldn't find a good map with the boundaries of the Judean desert though. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The map you have produced and the date of some of the input suggests that Samaria might have been used to describe an administrative area prior to the Mandate. Unfortunately our coverage of the Ottoman Empire is not as good as that of the Roman one. Perhaps instead of this being a new 6G, it should be an ammendment to 2 above.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about administrative areas, but, on Western maps, pretty much the whole of the north of the old Roman province (delimited by Jerusalem) was referred to as Samaria, with the south as Judea. The important point is that these are vastly wider areas than what is currently covered by the West Bank. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Is there a way to get things in the wording to make it clear that we are referring to a much larger area? I can see it being interpreted differently and more problematically. Also, how much are we talking about historical geographic texts and how much about a modern term? Does anyone have access to modern books on the geography of Israel to see how they describe things?--Peter cohen (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In modern usage in Israel, the term "Judea and Samaria" (as a conjunction) refers exclusively to the West Bank, and the separate nouns "Judea" and "Samaria" usually refer to the southern and northern parts of the West Bank, respectively. However, "Judea" and "Samaria" might also be used in a geographical context, in which case they would be interpreted based on geographical features. For example, much of the Judean desert is outside the West Bank. This use should definitely be allowed, at least in geographical articles. --Zvika (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Which then suggests that 6D above is sufficient unless English-language geographers have a different practice. Do Israeli history books tend to cover the area under the Ottomans and therefore have evidence about whether Judea and Samaria were used by them? All I'm really aware of was that there was a Syrian area which took in the whole of the Levant and not just the modern Syria, but I don't know if it was subdivided.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't think the conclusion is that 6D is sufficient. We can (and should) have an article on the geology of Samaria, for example. If 6G makes it clear that the nouns should be used in a geographical (rather than political) context, then I would support this proposition.
Concerning your question, I am not aware of Ottoman regions called Samaria or Judea but I will try to look this up. --Zvika (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

With a little help from a friend, I found a map of administrative regions in Palestine in the 19th century: [1]. It is in Hebrew but the captions read, from north to south: Acre Sanjak, Nablus Sanjak, Gaza Sanjak, Jerusalem Sanjak. Thus it appears that the terms Judea and Samaria were not used as administrative divisions in the late Ottoman empire. --Zvika (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (and your friend) for your time and effort.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. This probably has merit, but we should do more research on it first.Pharos (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
2. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think this is now superseded by the version of 6D in #Exception (modified version) above. This 6G here begins with a statement that may not necessarily be verifiable or universally accepted. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree now superseded --Peter cohen (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

1. While I might personally support this proposal, I also see the argument against it, and I don't think it has a reasonable chance of gaining consensus. It seems to me to directly contradict the first sentence of clause (6). If the parentheses are deleted, so that it's talking only about the adjectives, it may have a better chance of gaining consensus. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
2. I'm leaning more towards this than I was earlier. However, I would like to see evidence of contemporary usage in English-language grologicla or geographical textbooks or academic journals. When the map which OrangeDog used was produced, you would be more likely to find material referring to the geography of Bohemia or of Moravia than to that of the Czech lands, but now we have Geography of the Czech Republic but not Geography of Bohemia. We now have a main article called Gdansk and not Danzig, which would have been the case then. Clearly Judea and Samaria were terms in use among British geographers at the time the mandate was established and these terms would have lasted out the mandate. But do modern English-language geographical or geological textbooks and journal article still refer to areas called "Judea" and "Samaria", or just to the "Judean hills"? A lot can change in 90 or 60 years.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

   I ran some searches on Google Scholar for articles mentioning Judea, and found quite a few (including some with the alternate spelling Judaea) which refer to the geographical region. For example:

   • "The fault pattern in the northern Negev and southern Coastal Plain of Israel and its hydrogeological implications for groundwater flow in the Judea Group aquifer", Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 1994 [2]
   • "Radiocarbon loss from DIG in vadose water flow above the Judea Aquifer, Israel", International Conference on Isotopes in Environmental Studies, Monaco, 2004 [3]

   To be fair, these seem to be written by Israeli scholars, but I attribute this to the natural tendency of researchers to study regions close to where they live. In any case, the above examples are published in international English-language journals and conferences. --Zvika (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   I need to have a look in detail at other results in your Google searches, but the two examples you give both seem to refer to an entity called variously "Judea Aquifer" and "the Judea Group aquifer" situated in the Judea Hills and this the usage is an adjectival part of a longer proper name. I think this type of usage would be better approached by amending 6D. There might be a better example of Judea being used on its own elsewhere. But I don't think these two convince me.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Shorter version of 6A

Summary: Deleting the part about the gloss appears to have consensus and this edit has been done. (The part deleted was "where it should generally be glossed with "[Israeli term for the [northern/southern] West Bank]"".) (☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

Extended content

Do you support 6A if the part about the gloss is deleted? 6A) The terms are used inside verbatim quotations from sources, or (Context: this is a proposed subclause of clause 6 above.) Support Proposed. Wording inside quotations represents the style and POV of the original writer, and doesn't imply that Wikipedia itself has that POV. There is a discussion above about deleting the part about the gloss. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC) – Quadell (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Pharos (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC) OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Support. I think there was a fear that supporters of the Judea and Samaria language might use this as a way to import their POV. I don't think that allowing quotes excludes editors and admins from being able to take measures against systematic biasing of quoted sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I agree. Clause 6 says "Any uses of the terms must be in one of the situations described below:". I don't interpret this as encouragement to use quotes more often than they would ordinarily be used; but it means that if the terms do happen to occur within quotes, they don't need to be deleted just to adjust the POV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Zvika (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose

6B without "and Zionists"

Summary: No consensus for this subclause. Withdrawn by proposer, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Do you support 6B if the "and Zionists" part is deleted? 6B) In phrases such as "the area called Samaria by many Israelis", etc., or (Context: this is a proposed subclause of clause 6 above.) Support Proposed. Relatively non-controversial because it's using the term indirectly and making a statement about a POV rather than directly asserting that POV. This is part of the proposed compromise, and also helps make Wikipedia neutral, avoiding extremes by neither using the terms directly, nor almost completely avoiding mentioning them. I'm suggesting deleting "and Zionists" in an attempt to address concerns raised by OrangeDog and Apoc2400. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Indenting to change to abstention in response to Quadell's comment. (Anyway I'm confused about whether the proposer is supposed to explicitly indicate support.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Pharos (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC) --Peter cohen (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose Oppose, I think it's a bad idea to link a nationality to a word choice without a source. This causes all kinds of problems. Obviously some Israelis don't call it that, and some non-Israelis do. But to link a nationality to an opinion is questionable, and should always require a source. Compare: "The Mujahadeen, called freedom fighters by many Americans," or "Joe Blow, considered to be homosexual by many Belgians"... You need to know who says this, with a source, and even then it may not be worthy of mention. – Quadell (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I see your point. How about if it's rephrased to this: "In phrases such as 'the area called Samaria by ...', etc., if a source is provided which states that that is the usage". In other words, the guideline would use an ellipsis in order to leave open what the article wording is, and would state that a source would be needed in the article; but no source would be given in the guideline. I suppose guidelines can refer to sources, but I prefer that they don't, since more updated sources will come along. Sources for statements like this are listed at Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources#Modern usage sources. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Then I think an article that mentions a place by its primary name should only say "also called ___ by ___" if the attribution is sourced and important in understanding the article. Perhaps 6B could be reworded to say that explicitly? – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC) OK, I'm thinking of posting a proposal "In phrases such as "also called ___ by ___", if this statement is sourced". I'm leaning towards leaving out "and is important in understanding the article", I think editors will normally tend to only allow things to be included if there's a good reason for them anyway, and adding that might make it more difficult rather than easier to arrive at consensus since people with different POVs won't tend to agree on what's "important". What do you think? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose. I find it hard to imagine a usage of this term which would not be derogatory. I greatly prefer "Ariel is an Israeli settlement and city in the West Bank, in the biblical region of Samaria" to "Ariel is an Israeli settlement and city in the West Bank, in the region known as Samaria by many Israelis." To me, the latter insinuates that that this region should not by rights be called Samaria. --Zvika (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-include 6C

(Proposed as subclause of (6).)

6C) In phrases such as "the biblical region of Judea", "the region historically known as Judea", etc. Such wording can be used only as a secondary location identifier, and should not generally replace the term "West Bank" when describing modern places.

(Copied from my comment above, following Coppertwig's suggestion) I agree that in a sentence like "Efrat is an Israeli settlement in Judea" there is an implication that Judea is part of the Jewish Land, a claim which is disputed and therefore not NPOV. But there is also a slightly weaker interpretation of this statement: that Efrat is located in a region which was once ruled by Jews. This is a fact and, to some Israelis, this fact constitutes a justification for the existence of a Jewish settlement there. (Please note that this is not my personal opinion.) Thus, perhaps a more neutral sentence would be "Efrat is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, in the region historically known as Judea." I think the clause should allow such a statement. --Zvika (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support by nominator. Zvika (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
2. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support (in the current form). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. What is the relevance of mentioning a term that was used 2000 years ago in situating a modern village? Answer: It is only of relevance as part of right-wing Zionist discourse which is a minority viewpoint and should not be given undue weight.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

   Definitely, this viewpoint should not be given undue weight, but it should also not be forbidden completely, which is what this policy amounts to unless 6C is included. Hence my proposed wording in which it is made clear that the contentious terms should only be used as secondary designations. Furthermore, while this might be a minority viewpoint on a worldwide level, it is most certainly a majority among the residents of Efrat, say, and the article on Efrat should therefore give reasonable coverage of that opinion. In my opinion, this is similar to articles on Creationism and other minority viewpoints, which prominently cover the minority viewpoint (while expressly describing it as such). One would not get very far with an article on Creationism if one were required to place every mention of a creationist belief as a quote from a RS. --Zvika (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'm still not happy with your example. The article on creationism uses indirect speech to say what creationists claim. I would rather have something like "Efrat is an Israeli settlement in the Southern part of the West Bank, an area which the settlers refer to as Judea after the biblical state." This way Wikipedia isn't endorsing the use of Biblical terms to describe modern places but is reporting usage.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

   The Biblical state is usually called "the Kingdom of Judah", while "Judea" is the ancient region in general (regardless of whether politically independent or not). AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

2. When discussing historical topics this would be appropriate but not for modern localities. Nableezy (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Modern places that were extant anciently or have names inherited rightly or wrongly from such places would appropriately have mention of where their names came from and not be so limited as outlined here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

2. Perhaps "biblical region of Judea" is better than "region historically known as Judea" which is better than "historical region of Judea". I did a few Google searches just now and find 307 hits for "biblical region of Judea", many of the first page of which are present tense, e.g. "Tanya Neppe is an artist from the town of Tekoa in the biblical region of Judea. She specializes in oil, mixed media, and acrylic" (on some web page out there). I didn't find any Google Web hits for phrases such as "historical region of Judea" (or Samaria).
   I prefer the phrasing "in the region historically known as Judea" to "historical region of Judea"; the latter could be interpreted as asserting that the region is Judea and that it's a region of unusual historical significance. I didn't find any Google hits for either phrase.
   The only example I managed to find of any such phrase with "historical" or "historically": "a larger northern bulge which corresponds to historical Samaria"[4] (Human Rights in the Israeli-occupied Territories, 1967-1982: 1967-1982 By Esther Rosalind Cohen Edition: illustrated Published by Manchester University Press ND, 1985 ISBN 0719017262, 9780719017261)
   Here's a source with "bibical": Google snippet "Israel's swift victory, which brought about the reunification of Jerusalem, the return to Israel of biblical Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), the conquest ..." [5] (Israeli national security policy: political actors and perspectives By Bernard Reich, Gershon R. Kieval Contributor Bernard Reich Published by Greenwood Press, 1988 Digitized Sep 5, 2008 ISBN 0313261962, 9780313261961)
   The Wikipedia article Hebron says "Located in the Palestinian territories and the Biblical region of Judea", which I think is where I originally got the wording for this subclause. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the extensive research. I agree with your assessment and I've changed the wording of the proposal accordingly. Also, having slept on this, I think we should make sure that this clause is not used to identify places solely by their biblical name in an attempt to circumvent the basic spirit of the proposal. So I've added a caveat to that effect. What do you say? --Zvika (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   Looks OK to me. I added my support above. By the way, the Hebron article also specifies "West Bank" about 3 sentences earlier, so it would satisfy this clause. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

   I suspect that the problem will be less with Hebron (in which the population is almost entirely Palestinian) and more with places like Ariel, where the lead reads "an Israeli settlement and city in the West Bank, in the Biblical region of Samaria near the ancient village of Timnat Serah," but the link from the disambiguation page reads "an Israeli city and settlement in the West Bank between Nablus and Ramallah." That is precisely the difference in point of view that, hopefully, this guideline will help resolve. --Zvika (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

6B with blanks

(Proposed as subclause of (6).)

6B) In phrases such as "also referred to as ___ by ___", if this statement is sourced. Such wording can be used only as a secondary location identifier, and should not generally replace the term "West Bank" when describing modern places.

Physical geography

Note: This subclause has already been incorporated into "Exception (modified version)" above, and edited into the draft guidelines on the project page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(Proposed as subclause of (6).)

6D) When discussing physical geography using the terminology that appears in international expert journals, for example as part of a proper name ("the Judean Group aquifer"), or as an adjective qualifying a term ("The Samarian hills"), or

Extended discussion

Support Zvika (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC) (kindof sortof as nominator) --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose Comment (When this discussion started, the above proposal read "As an adjective in the term "the [Samarian/Judean] hills" or "the Judean desert" or variations thereof") ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC) What is the purpose of this addition? Isn't it clear that Judean Desert is allowed just as Judean hills are allowed? --Zvika (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC) It's my understanding that MeteorMaker (who is, however, topic-banned) may have interpreted the earlier wording as applying specifically to "hills" rather than to all geographical features. "It should be sufficient to state that the hills themselves, and nothing else, may be described as "Samarian"/"of Samaria"/[...]." [6] I suppose adding "desert" may tend to support this interpretation by implying that only "hills" and "desert" are allowed, not other geographical features. It might be better instead to insert "geographic" as I did here: "As an adjective as part of a geographic phrase which appears in a source, for example "on the Samarian foothills", or" [7]. MeteorMaker struck out the part containing the word "geographic" here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I would suggest including an example without a final "n" on the place name, such as "Judea Group aquifer" as that would then cover the geographical cases people have come up with.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC) How about "As an adjective in a geographical term such as "the [Samarian/Judean] hills" or "the Judea group aquifer""? This is intended to implicitly allow other geographical terms, such as "Judean desert"; but not "Judean village", "Judean region", etc., which can be considered political as opposed to geographic designations. Is there a better word than "geographical"? Maybe "geological"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC) That seems to make sense, though I would say "physical geography" rather than the overly specific "geology." --Zvika (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Good idea. How about "As an adjective of physical geography such as "the [Samarian/Judean] hills" or "the Judea group aquifer""? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I think we ought to be able to use this clause to cover the whole geographical discussion. How about: When discussing physical geography using the terminology that appears in international expert journals, for example as part of a proper name ("the Judean Group aquifer"), or as an adjective qualifying a term "The Samarian hills". In this, the non-adjectival use of "Judea" or "Samaria" as physical geographical terms are not mentioned at all, either to allow or explicitly to disallow such usage. I think from our discussion elsewhere it is still a moot question whether this specific aspect would reflect current usage. If editors come up with modern international expert journals that use the terms it will be fine, if not, then it won't.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Sounds good to me. Since nobody had explicitly supported yet, I replaced my suggestion in the quote box with what you suggested. I also changed the section heading of this subthread. By the way: what about your proposed text in #Occupied etc Territories: shall we copy it into another subthread with "support" and "oppose" sections to encourage people to comment on it? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC) It looks like the best way to get feedback on that issue. I suggest a heading with subsection for each fo the subclauses.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC) That will be 5 new threads, if the last 2 sub-sub-clauses (of #Occupied etc Territories) are bundled together with the subclause they depend on. I think I'll wait a short while to see if there is any objection to doing it that way. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Note: I've included this subclause in the modified version of clause 6 which I posted in a thread above. (Please comment on it.) Perhaps this thread could be closed with collapse boxes as I did with a few others; when I posted this I thought it might be a little too soon to close this one. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Occupied territories

Opening clause of proposed new clause 7. See also subclauses in subsequent sections.

7) When referring collectively to those areas captured by Israel during the Six Day War, the terms the Israeli-Occupied Territories or the Occupied Territories may be used. The terms include the West Bank, captured from Jordan, the Gaza Strip, captured from Egypt and the Golan Heights, captured from Syria including the disputed Shebaa Farms area. Due to the ambiguity in the term, as discussed below, it is best to enumerate the occupied territories when one of these terms is first introduced.

Support

1. Nableezy (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
2. as drafter. --Peter cohen (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC) In reply to Zvika, below, I think that the Occupied/Disputed etc Territories are as liable as the East Bank/Judea and Samaria to a renewed outbreak of the type of POV-pushing and edit-warring behaviour that generated the last Arbcom case. It is better to head this off with a policy rather than just elt it happen.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

   That may be, but I think the policy should just make it clear that these are not necessarily uniquely defined areas and their use should be explained within the text. Perhaps we can give a list of possible interpretations and say that any of these interpretations are possible, so any reference to this term should indicate exactly what is being referred to. --Zvika (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Support. What else would we call them collectively? (time -limitation would mainly apply to the Sinai pre 1982). Don't see any serious interpretative difficulties.John Z (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I'm afraid this guideline could end up being counterproductive. Any terminology we adopt must ensure that the reader will understand the meaning without referring to this guideline, since most of our readers will not even be aware of its existence. The terms "West Bank", "Gaza" etc. are fine in this respect, but "Occupied Territories" is just too ambiguous. The mere length of this proposed guideline illustrates the various meanings people might think of when they encounter this phrase (does it include Gaza from which Israel withdrew? Does it include the Golan? Sinai? the Security Zone?). Instead, I would propose the following. When (as in the example given by Nableezy) one wishes to refer to the entire region captured by Israel in 1967, I would opt for the more direct "the territories captured by Israel in 1967", perhaps shortened with a demonstrative ("these territories") later in the article.
   "The Palestinian Territories" is also problematic: it could indicate various interpretations of the territories under control of the Palestinian Authority (e.g., is Gaza currently under PA control?), all of which are subsets of the area known as "Gaza and the West Bank". Also, the West Bank and Gaza borders are armistice lines between Israel, Egypt and Jordan, and I don't think they have ever been internationally recognized as borders of the future Palestinian state (please correct me if I'm wrong). So it seems to me that referring to this region simply as "The West Bank and Gaza Strip" is less ambiguous and less likely to cause friction. --Zvika (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose this needs to be time limited, it seems odd to say that rockets are being fired from the Israeli Occupied territories into Israel leading to the Gaza War and other such tongue twisting history anomolies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• This and the four threads below are from Peter Cohen's proposal in the thread #Occupied etc Territories above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2009
• I realize this is a touchy subject, but I'd like to point out that in Israeli parlance, the word "the Territories" refers almost always to the non-annexed areas occupied by Israel—in other words, the West Bank and (until 2005) Gaza. I think that unannotated use of this term to refer to the Golan, even if legally or factually accurate, would be misleading to a large segment of our readers (namely, Israelis), and should therefore be avoided. --Zvika (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for your input. Can you suggest alternative wording for the proposed guideline? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  Well... can someone give an example of the context in which this term would be used in the wide sense of including the Golan? The current situation and, undoubtedly, the future status of the Golan and the West Bank are very different. --Zvika (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  The so-called Arab peace initiative used the phrase "occupied Arab territories" explicitly including the Golan. There should be a slight differentiation between Israel-occupied territories and occupied Palestinian territories. When referencing specifically the West Bank and the Gaza Strip occupied Palestinian territories is appropriate, when including the Golan Israeli-occupied territories should be used. Nableezy (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  We can't allow one group to define the practice of a multi-national encyclopedia in a language that isn't even a national language for that group. Here we have the foreign ministry of Israel's main ally listing the Golan Heights among the territories occupied by Israel; here is a Brtitish encylopedia doing so; and here is an Australian modern history textbook. If this range of mainstream sources in English-speaking countries, not to mention the United Nations include the Golan Heights in the Occupied Territories, then the main use should remain so. A mention could be made that Israelis use the term differently, but higher up there has been a complaint about picking out terminology as Israeli.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'm unsure. Thanks for those sources, Peter Cohen. In current Wikipedia pages, (not as RS but to show current practice): e.g. Israeli-occupied territories (includes Golan, but has NPOV tag); Israel#Occupied territories (unclear) Golan heights ("UN Resolution 242 considers the area part of the Israeli-occupied territories"; "The occupied sector of the Golan Heights"). Human rights in Israel ("the territories that it currently occupies (Golan Heights, ..."). Status of territories captured by Israel ("and Golan Heights as "occupied territory" under international law"). I didn't find examples of the phrase "Occupied territories" just being used in Wikipedia articles (except the one with the NPOV tag) to refer to the areas (including Golan). Maybe it's better to say "West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights" if that's what's being referred to: it avoids making a statement about its status, and it's more clear what areas are being referred to. I prefer wording that doesn't go directly against the POV of one country, if possible. I'm now leaning towards thinking that possibly we just don't need to say anything in the guidelines about whether "Occupied territories" can or can't be used. Are there article talk pages where there have been a lot of dispute about this? Would it help to post notices on those talk pages so people from there can participate in this discussion (as well as us going and reading those talk pages)? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Talk:Israel has a months-long discussion in which there are just one or two holdouts to rename a section form "occupied teritories" to "disputed territories". It's the existence of that thread that could crop up again in several other places that makes me feel that we need this guideline here. I wanted basic phraseology etc picked over before the POV warriors arrive in strength so that the two different types of issue don't get mixed in.

  I am not sure I agree with this strategy. It seems to me that this discussion is taking place in a sort of backwater, given the large number of editors involved in the Israel-Palestine articles. For one thing, I am worried that people will question the validity of a consensus obtained by such a small group. On a more personal level, I feel uncomfortable being the only Israeli here because I am worried that, through oversight or ignorance on my part, an important point would be overlooked. In my opinion, this discussion should be better publicized, for example by adding messages on relevant talk pages. --Zvika (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  As for where the term is used, we actually have that OT may be used rather than should. So we aren't mandating its use. --Peter cohen (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  You misunderstand. I am not arguing about the status of the Golan. There is no question that international law and the international community consider it occupied territory. I am simply saying that the term Occupied Territories means different things to different people so I think it would be better if a different term were used. --Zvika (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, sorry for taking you the wrong way. Perhaps we should say in the policy that at the first use of the term in an article, someone should enumerate the places covered? BTW When you refer to the Golan beign excluded in common Israeli aprlance, does the same apply to East Jerusalem? I'm askign to try to clarify whether the distinction is between formally annexed territory and the rest, or whether the Paslestinian issue is at the for-front of Israeli thoughts.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Enumerating the places covered sounds like a good idea. Concerning your question, I am of course not citing any reliable statistics, only my own impression. My impression is that the distinction is more cultural than legal: it seems to me that many Israelis feel that the Golan is more a part of Israel than (most of) the West Bank. For example, recent Israeli maps sometimes plot the pre-1967 West Bank border (what we call the Green Line), even though Israeli maps invariably include the West Bank as part of Israel. However, I've never seen an Israeli map denoting the pre-1967 Syrian border. As for East Jerusalem, I'm not quite sure. I've seen Isareli maps where the Green Line is plotted but tactfully stops when it reaches Jerusalem. Ten or twenty years ago the consensus here was that Jerusalem was sacrosanct, but that consensus is shifting. --Zvika (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've now done some rewording, mentioning ennumeration and also a couple of Lebanon-related points. If you two could have a quick check for problems in wording and then we can try drumming up some interest in voting on the wording.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you, Peter Cohen, for drafting the wording and thank you, Zvika and Nableezy, for your input. To be honest, I'm not very knowledgeable on this topic, so I haven't verified that the details are correct, but I don't see any problems and generally support the wording.^{(00:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC))}

  Apparently this page is listed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, as well as at the arbitration noticeboard, which may have been why there was more activity here for a while, which may have tailed off since those posts were some days ago. It would be helpful, I think, to put a note on this page when listing this discussion somewhere. I suggest listing it on some article talk pages for a while first, and trying to simplify this page and settle on a reasonably small number of threads before listing it at RfC (policy section) and village pump, where as far as I know it hasn't been listed yet. The wording at centralized discussion is "Poll: About the preferred usage names as a result of WP:RFAR/West Bank - Judea and Samaria". Similar neutral wording can be used for article talk page notifications, I suppose. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  Withdrawing my support (sorry) and striking out some of my words. With a quick reading of Talk:Israel/Archive 29#Disputed Territories, I don't see consensus there for either "Occupied Territories" or "Disputed Territories"; arguments both ways seem about equally divided. I suggest replacing all five clauses about these terms with something like "Where feasible, for clarity and to avoid unnecessary policitical nuance, it is probably best to enumerate the territories being indicated, for example "in the West Bank and Gaza Strip", rather then using the terms "Occupied Territories" or "Disputed Territories" as placenames."; or else not having any guidelines about these terms. This suggested clause is meant to allow the Israel article to keep the current section heading "Occupied territories", or to change it to "Disputed territories" if there is consensus to do so, since it would probably be unwieldy to list all the territories in the section heading, although some other wording might be found, such as "Status of certain territories" or "West Bank and other territories", etc. This suggested wording is also intended to allow the terms "occupied" or "disputed" to be used, where appropriate, when commenting on the status of the places as opposed to just naming the places. (And within quotes, etc.) I also think that the current proposed clauses give too much geographical information; guidelines aren't for stating facts. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  That talk page is the reason this is needed. "Disputed territories" is a demonstrably POV term in that it is strongly associated with a certain POV. "Occupied territories" is what is used by the rest of the world. The EU, the US, Various UN bodies (including the UNSC Sec Gen), the ICRC, HRW, AI use "occupied territories." To put those two phrases on equal footing says that we can use a phrasing that can be demonstrated to be associated with one POV where another is used almost without exception among the rest of the world. We need to define "where appropriate" for both occupied and disputed. And I do agree that often it will just be easier to explicitly list the territories, but there cannot be an equivalence between "occupied territories" and "disputed territories". Nableezy (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  How about: "Where feasible, for clarity and to avoid unnecessary policitical nuance, when mentioning a collection of the territories it is probably usually best to just enumerate the territories being indicated, for example "the West Bank and Gaza Strip". I think this addresses your point, that putting the two terms in parallel in a sentence could seem to imply an equivalence; here I've simply avoided mentioning them. We can't impose a solution without consensus. As I understand the situation, on the one hand, "Occupied territories" is used by a broad majority including the UN, while "Disputed territories" is used only by a (significant) minority. On the other hand, saying "Occupied territories" makes a statement about the legal status; (it's the role of the UN to make such declarations; it's not Wikipedia's role); while "disputed territories" makes no specific claim, and the fact that there is a dispute seems pretty undeniable. Maybe the problem with "disputed territories" is that it could imply that the rest of Israel is not in dispute. Perhaps this could be avoided with a phrase like "certain disputed territories". A term that is accepted by people of all POVs (e.g. "West Bank and Gaza Strip") is better than one that goes directly against one significant minority POV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can we finalise and submit to the community the first 6 sections please, before moving on to this more complicated and secondary issue? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 03:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: NPOV

The Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, is competent to order State and local authorities and the officials and bodies thereof, and other persons carrying out public functions under law, to do or refrain from doing any act in the lawful exercise of their functions. See Basic Law: The Judiciary. The High Court has ruled that: "The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. The long arm of the state in the area is the military commander. He is not the sovereign in the territory held in belligerent occupation (see The Beit Sourik Case, at p. 832). His power is granted him by public international law regarding belligerent occupation." cited at "B. The Normative Outline in the Supreme Court's Caselaw, 1. Belligerent Occupation, 14." in 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel The Knesset could theoretically overrule the court, but it has not done that in the case of the West Bank, aka the administrative districts of Judea and Samaria.

The Law Library of Congress, Guide to Law Online, "Nations" lists the area as "Occupied Territories, West Bank, and Gaza". Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has established .ps as the top-level country-code for "Palestinian Territory, Occupied". The ISO Maintenance Agency lists the country name and country elements as "Palestinian Territory, Occupied", Alpha-2 code "PS", Alpha-3 code PSE, numeric code 275. The International Olympic Commission and FIFA formulate their own codes and names that differ from the ISO codes in many cases. The IOC has recognized the National Olympic Committee of "Palestine", Country Code "PSE", since 1996. The FIFA Integration Guidelines, Country and Confederation codes, lists "Palestine" and "PLE". Not allowing the majority or most significant published view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors is a classic violation of basic NPOV policy. harlan (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sinai and Israeli Security Zone

(Proposed as subclause of (7).)

7A) Israel has previously occupied other territories from which it has since withdrawn. Depending on whether historical or present-day circumstances are being considered, the following may be included in the Israeli-occupied territories

• 7A (i) the Sinai Peninsula

• 7A (ii) the Israeli Security Zone in southern Lebanon which was under Israeli control from 1985-2000.

Oppose

1. per my comment above. Zvika (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose per Nableezy. We just don't need to say this in the guidelines. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• I dont think this is all that necessary, not sure if this issue has come up before. Seems like something that does not need a centralized discussion/decision for and can be handled on any pages where it comes up. Nableezy (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem

(Proposed as subclause of (7).)

7B) The Status of Jerusalem is particularly complicated. East Jerusalem, excluding the former enclave of Mount Scopus, is generally regarded as part of the Occupied Territories. It is sometimes explicitly listed as such but is also sometimes implicitly included as part of the West Bank. Editors should be aware of the potential for differences in usage between sources and should make the sense being used by those sources clear in the article.

Support

1. Sure, Nableezy (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
2. as drafter --Peter cohen (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Support This is appropriately weaselly, because as it says, the Status of Jerusalem is particularly complicated, which is why international lawyers write learned papers about it. I do not understand how "occupied territories" can be considered weaseling - the usual claim is that it is the reverse, too strong / POV. This clause correctly suggests particular care concerning East Jerusalem.John Z (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. per my comment above. Zvika (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2. "Occupied Territories" is a weasel word, as depending on where the peace/war process is evolves from day to day sometimes. If we're talking about East Jerusalem, distinct from the rest of Jerusalem, use "East Jerusalem" adding that it is "Occupied Territory" or "Disputed Territory" or "Holy Ground" or "The navel of the universe" is just POV and adds nothing to the context, you can say that Someone considers it to be disputed, while someone else considers it to be occupied, and this religion belived it holy, but none of these sorts of terms is NPOV without attribution to a speaker other than WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Re Carlossuarez46, saying E. Jerusalem is occupied territory is not POV, it is a statement of fact backed up by countless reliable sources (a few more for your reading pleasure) nableezy - 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Scope of Palestinian territories

(Proposed as subclause of (7).)

7C) The terms the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Palestinian Territories refer to those of the territories that were part of pre-1948 territory of the Mandate of Palestine. It therefore includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and, usually, East Jerusalem and excludes the Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula. Whilst these terms are not deprecated, in many cases it will be simpler and less likely to cause dispute just to refer to territories explicitly, for example as "the West Bank and the Gaza Strip".

Support

1. With one modification, international consensus is that East Jerusalem is a part of the oPt, so I would remove the "usually" Nableezy (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Either as above or with Nableezy's mod --Peter cohen (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
3. A sensible idea to avoid unnecessary fights.John Z (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. per my comment above. Zvika (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2. ahistoric; the Gaza Strip and West Bank were not Israeli occuped prior to 1967; are we to refer to these as the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip and the Jordanian-occupied West Bank? Let's keep our history straight. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• This clause is historically incorrect. The current borders of the West Bank are based on the armistice agreements of 1949, not on the pre-1948 Mandate or UN decisions. See United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. --Zvika (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  I don't get what you are saying here. The Israeli-Occupied Territories are those areas acquired by Israel after the 1949 armistice. The Occupied Palestinian Territories are those that were part of mandate Palestine. Isn't that what makes them Palestinian? Do the borders of modern Jordan not coincide with those of the original Transjordan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs)

  OK, maybe I understood this clause incorrectly. It sounded to me that you were referring to the 1947 UN decision for creating an Arab state alongside a Jewish state. The borders of those proposed states do not correspond to the 1949 armistice lines. --Zvika (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are considered occupying powers in areas allocated to them by the UN plan of partition. However, the Arab territory that Israel holds in excess of the land allocated under the UN plan is still legally occupied territory. The 1949 armistice agreements only changed the state of belligerent occupation to an armistice occupation. After the armistices were signed, Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban explained that "Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states." see "Effect on Armistice Agreements", FRUS Volume VI 1949, 1149

President Truman told King Abdullah of Transjordan "I desire to recall to Your Majesty that the policy of the United States Government as regards a final territorial settlement in Palestine and as stated in the General Assembly on Nov 30, 1948 by Dr. Philip Jessup, the American representative, is that Israel is entitled to the territory allotted to her by the General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947, but that if Israel desires additions, i.e., territory allotted to, the Arabs by the November 29 Resolution, it should offer territorial compensation. see FRUS Volume VI 1949, 878-879. The principle of mutuality in territorial concessions and compensation was repeated in US and UN policy statements regarding "territorial integrity" after the Six Day War. for more info see Palestinian territories#Foreign Relations of the United States harlan (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Re Carlossuarez46; we do in fact refer to them as that, see Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip and Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. nableezy - 22:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed territories

(Proposed as subclause of (7).)

7D) The term the Disputed Territories is strongly associated with one side of the debate and for that reason is generally deprecated. However, it may be used:

• 7D (i) in verbatim quotes, where it is generally best not to paraphrase it,

• 7D (ii) or when discussing and explaining the use of the term itself.

Support

1. Nableezy (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
2. as drafter --Peter cohen (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
3. harlan (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Aside from the enumerated cases, it is generally used in situations where the great preponderance of RS's, sometimes even Israel, use "occupied territories."John Z (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. per my comment above. Zvika (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2. we shouldn't use "Disputed Territories" other than as an explantion of how arguments are framed as it has no precision, but this proposal sidesteps the point: it's a weasel-word because more specific words can be chosen in its stead (ditto "Occupied Territories", for that matter). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

The problem arises when a few editors insist that the term "occupied" cannot be used in cases where Wikipedia is simply following the statements that appear in reliable published sources. They say that the government of Israel "declares that they [the territories] are disputed and not occupied". Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors is a violation of NPOV policy. The State's Attorney and the High Court have both said that the Judea and Samaria areas are being held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. see 7957/04 Mara’abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel. In the case of the West Bank and Gaza, there is no peace treaty and there are armed belligerents living there who challenge the Israeli authorities. That means the territory on both sides of the old armistice lines is still disputed, but it does not mean the respective territories are no longer occupied.

"Israeli-occupied territory" includes areas allocated to the Arab State that were captured in 1949. After the armistices were signed, Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban said that "Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements". see "Effect on Armistice Agreements", FRUS Volume VI 1949, 1149 Those areas are still described as "disputed" in press accounts that discuss possible legal action against Intel Corporation. Its fabrication plants are located on Arab-owned land at Kiryat Gat in violation of the sanctions contained in one of the armistice occupation agreements. see Intel chip plant located on disputed Israeli land. Wikipedia should reflect what the significant published sources have to say on the subject and be flexible enough to allow the published sources to speak for themselves. harlan (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

General support

I read current draft guideline and it looks reasonable. I have followed the dispute somewhat. A few suggestions:

• 1: say "first century CE (AD)". CE is still not as well known.
• 6B: Even mentioning "Zionists" might be sensitive.

--Apoc2400 (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Whether it says "(AD)" or not seems to me to be a minor point that doesn't affect the meaning, somewhat similar to my adding of a wikilink. You could probably just edit it in wiki-style and see if it stays. Incidentally, WP:MOSDATE says "Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article." Perhaps this doesn't have to apply to guidelines. Perhaps you could change it to just "AD", but I hope people wouldn't editwar over that. Re "and Zionists", in response to your comment and similar comments by one or two others I added a proposal above to delete this phrase. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Comment: The Biblical Judea and Samaria were not confined to the modern West Bank, but included areas within pre-1967 Israel. So the modern usage is actually significantly different from the ancient usage. Also, the expression "The Judean Desert" is an established quasi-traditional geographical term without any particular intended modern political significance... AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We are already discussing this point above, at #For geographical areas. We would welcome your opinion on the discussion there. --Zvika (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm having great difficulty follwing the discussions above and trying to figure out exactly what is at issue. I guess I would need to follow the whole process from the beginning to have the proper full context... AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, the question is: do you support making the proposed guidelines on the project page attached to this talk page into policy? On this talk page, people are expressing support or opposition for individual clauses copied from there. For most of them, there seems to be a lot of support. Clause 6 has numerous subclauses, and there is some discussion and development of those subclauses in progress. The underlying issue is: can the terms "Samaria" or "Judea" be used in articles, and if so under what circumstances? If you want extensive background, see the archive of this talk page, and the evidence page of the arbitration case. (I hope I've helped; maybe I'm answering the wrong questions.)

The point you're making about the terms covering different regions at different times seems to me to be similar to the point OrangeDog makes by providing a link to a map in the "For geographical areas" section above. However, I'm not sure how to translate that into implications for proposed wording.

Based on your mention of "the Judean desert", I'm adding a proposal above to modify 6D. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: If there is no objection, I think I'm going to archive the active polling threads #Exception, #Shorter version of 6A, #6B without "and Zionists", and replace them with a new thread #Exception (modifed version), containing a modified version of the whole clause 6, taking into account some of the discussion that has occurred. (Also planning to archive some of the first few threads on this talk page.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not followed this last bit closely, but whatever you do, be careful to keep it as clear and easy to follow as possible. I am wondering whether some collapsible boxes of sections (followed by a summary) might be a better idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Also FWIW, as long as there is a clear structure to new proposals, with support/oppose/comment sections, I think this should go ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually closed any discussions here. As an involved editor, I don't have that authority. If I used the word "closed", that was a momentary error. My intention is to archive threads, not to declare an authoritative interpretation of them. I've posted summaries which are my interpretation, trying to represent the discussions as neutrally as possible but not claiming to be uninvolved. As far as I'm concerned any editor may edit, delete, move or remove my signature from the "Summary" lines I've posted at the tops of the archived threads, or remove the collapse boxes to re-open the discussions, or move threads from the archive page back to this page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on wikilaw, but if there is obvious consensus for a particular proposal, do we really need an uninvolved party to come by and close it? If so, how can we find someone to do that? It would make this page much simpler if we could archive and clear out accepted and rejected proposals. --Zvika (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if consensus is clear, we don't need an uninvolved person to close the discussions. I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't claiming to have a special role or authority or to be uninvolved. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I put a link to here at the talk page of the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. [8]. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As we have now passed July 13th, I guess a summary is in order..

OK, now we've passed the two month deadline, I guess itemising what consensus has been achieved thus far would be appropriate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the above polls show strong support for all of the text currently on the project page, and that none of the other proposals seem close to gaining consensus except perhaps for the proposal to delete "When used, they should be prefixed with "the British Mandate district/s"." (the first proposal under #Alternative proposals above, as an alternative version of (2)). In other words, I see support for the proposals in the first 6 threads (#Antiquity, #British Mandate (1920-1948) (first of two sections with same title), clause (3) (post 1948), #Contemporary usage, #administrative area of Judea and Samaria, #Exception (modified version)), and that further discussion may be particularly helpful on the 7th thread (though that need not necessarily delay moving on to the next step in finalizing this into policy). (opinion as involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I must thank you Coppertwig, and other editors who have commented on this page, in coming to a conclusion. I will now archive the discussion as it has passed time for resolution and pass onto arbcom. The main page that this is te discussion of can be now linked to conventions.

Rather than tag on naming issues with the Golan Heights onto this page, as per the recent successful arbitration committee motion, a separate page should be initiated. Coppertwig, do you want to chair that one or shall the committee find one or two other neutral admins? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I echo Coppertwig's thanks to the participants and just want to add that most of the issues can be removed by use of precision and historically appropriate and context-specific nomenclature. Use of terms such as "disputed territory" or "occupied territory" are useful only to frame the debate; they lack precision geographically or temporally and leads to some odd formulations that are convoluted and occur nowhere but on WP. Let's be precise. Let's be true to the historical context. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I must decline to chair such a process, though thank you for asking, Casliber. I don't claim to be either neutral, or an admin; and I've cut back on the amount of time I'm spending on Wikipedia. I might find time to participate. I think the problem is primarily with phases such as "disputed territory" and "occupied territory" as applied to a number of places (West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza); as far as I know there's no problem with the term "Golan Heights": the place is simply called "Golan Heights", so no naming convention as such is needed for that as far as I know. The naming problem comes in when more than one territory is being referred to collectively.

Thanks for watching over the development of this page, Casliber; thanks to all participants; and a special thanks to Abd for the inspiration to optimistically pursue consensus in what seemed at first a hopelessly polarized situation, and to Jayjg for a very encouraging comment near the beginning. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)