Talk:West Bank/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Verification

None of the sources address the issue and I am restoring the tag. It is quite impressive that one edit-wars in to an encyclopedia article misinformation and then edit-wars out the tagging of that problem. Impressive indeed. nableezy - 16:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources clearly state that יהודה ושומרון is the primary term in Hebrew, and that it is equivelant in Hebrew to הגדה המערבית.Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Where, translation please, does it show that it is the Hebrew term for what this article covers. Including EJ please. I dont know how many ways I can ask this. And again, Lustick explicitly says that they are not equivalent. nableezy - 17:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, Lustick acknowledges in his opening that they are, and that the common Israeli use is Yehuda VeShomron. Lustick's opinion in his essay is that this should not he used - he is advocating against the common Israeli use. Your repeated ORish assertions on EJ (part of OPT yes, but inclusion in the West Bank is disputed by most countries who adhere to Corpus Separtum on the holy see) are over the top. However, here is a source placing the old city of Jerusalem in Yehuda Veshomron. Translations for Hebrew sources have already provided above - no need to repeat.Icewhiz (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have quoted what Lustick says. You are distorting, and given how repeated you have done so I can only assume it is done purposely, what he writes. He says the term does not include East Jerusalem, and that they are not equivalent. No matter how you try to wave around that, the quote is clear. nableezy - 20:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I see your added source. It is directly contradicted by the Israeli government itself, eg here. nableezy - 17:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Once again: There is a difference between the common use of the phrase "Yehuda VeShomron" and the "Judea and Samaria Area" as defined by the Israeli government. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy - the Israeli government does not define geography. Nor does any other government. As an example, the Land of Israel is distinct from the borders of Israel (whatever they may be - annexed, occupied, quasi-annexed - actually, come to think of it - I don't think you'd accept the Israeli government as a source for what they claim). In the context of the West Bank/Judea&Samaria - the military administration area defined as Judea and Samaria Area (or "the Area" or "Ezor" (אזור)) is merely an administrative division that is defined by the area currently administered by the commander of the Central Command - nothing more and nothing less. Most uses, in Hebrew and in English, do not refer to "the area" (the military district) - but rather to the geographical area. Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Youre basing the inclusion on its being the name used in Israel, why wouldnt I accept the Israeli government for that bit. And again, Lustick explicitly says the two are not equivalent. Why are you insistent and placing it as though it were a translation, meaning equivalent phrase, instead of clarifying what it does not include? I dont understand why that is resisted at all. nableezy - 19:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Lustick is attacking the common usage, which he acknowledges, in his essay. The Israeli government did not define the term Yehuda VeShomron - it merely defined areas that fall under the military district. Most uses of Yehuda VeShomron do not refer to the district. As to whether Yehuda VeShomron includes or does not include East Jerusalem (or different parts of E. Jerusalem - e.g. the outlying villages vs. the Jordanian era municipality) - this is unresolved to the same degree that it is unresolved in relation to Hagada Hamaravit - and the English term West Bank. Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And again - even though refuting your WP:OR assertion regarding Jerusalem is not required, I did so with a book chapter in an Oxford University Press book explicitly stating Yehuda VeShomron = West Bank, and that Yehuda VeShomron includes the old city of Jerusalem (E. Jerusalem). The continuation of this argument in defiance of multiple sources is.... Astounding. The different between the military district ("the Area") and geography is also rather basic. Icewhiz (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, when I provide a reliable source that explicitly says what I am saying it is definitionally not OR. One more time for those of us having trouble keeping up:

Lustick, Ian S. (1990), "The West Bank Is Not 'Judea and Samaria.'", Newsletter (Association for Israel Studies), vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 21–23, Finally, it should be pointed out, that the eastern half of the city of Jerusalem, and the hinterland attached to it by Israeli administrative decree in 1967, while parts of historical "Judea," are not included in what Israelis who use the term "Judea and Samaria" mean when they use it. Indeed Israeli legal and administrative practice makes a sharp distinction between the section of the West Bank attached to the Jerusalem municipality (treated as Israeli territory) and the rest of the area between the Green Line and the Jordan River.

Is that basic enough for you? Does that clarify the point for you? Or would you again like to make the incredibly silly claim that saying exactly what a source says is OR? Yes, I see your source, are you having trouble seeing mine? And by the way, the only thing your source supports is that religious settlers call it that (that source by the way written by a psychology professor and anthropologist, not exactly experts in the field now are they). And again, the nonsense about the English term West Bank not including EJ is just that, nonsense, and has already been repeatedly refuted. nableezy - 20:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

anthropologists deal with terminlogy and culture of the people they study. As for Lustick, please cease with this blatant misrepresentation of Lustick who writes in the very beginning of his essay (which is an attempt to challenge the pevailing and acknowledged termino,ogy in Hebrew) - "One of these concerns the terminology used to describe those areas. The annexationist right has made much of its claim that "Judea and Samaria" is the only historically and technically valid way to refer to the Jordanian ruled territory added to Israel's jurisdiction in June 1967. The term "West Bank", annexationists argue, is a defeatist, political slogan, used by those who wish to promote their political preference for withdrawal at the expense of historical accuracy and geographical precision. As early as 1970, the Labor Party and many other Israelis who favored territorial compromise, nonetheless acquiesced in the right-wing's demand to use "Judea and Samaria" (Yehuda ve-Shomron, in Hebrew) instead of "West Bank" ( gaddaa hamaaravit ) in official documents, signs, and speeches ." - so per Lustick himself Yehuda ve-Shomron is used in lieu of West Bank / gaddaa hamaaravit by all mainstream political circles in Israel - going as far left as the Labour party. Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You cannot seriously be accusing me of blatant misrepresentation of Lustick when I have repeatedly quoted him. That is an outrageous attack. Yes, he says there was a conscious decision to use Judea and Samara instead of West Bank. He also says that the terms are not equivalent. Again, this is a direct quote from Lustick:

Finally, it should be pointed out, that the eastern half of the city of Jerusalem, and the hinterland attached to it by Israeli administrative decree in 1967, while parts of historical "Judea," are not included in what Israelis who use the term "Judea and Samaria" mean when they use it. Indeed Israeli legal and administrative practice makes a sharp distinction between the section of the West Bank attached to the Jerusalem municipality (treated as Israeli territory) and the rest of the area between the Green Line and the Jordan River.

Yes, per Lustick, the Israeli government uses Judea and Samaria instead of West Bank. But they do it while not including what the English term West Bank includes. That is also per Lustick. It is done with the same aim you have with the repeated unsubstantiated and in fact wholly fabricated and refuted assertions made that the English term does not include East Jerusalem. It is an attempt to separate EJ from the West Bank.≈ If you want to accuse me of blatant misrepresentation it would be wiser to do so when I havent quoted the paper. In lieu of does not mean equivalent. Is that not basic enough for you? Or anything else you would like to blatantly misrepresent? nableezy - 21:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

References

References

lead

I rewrote the lead, though apparently thats been reverted by Debresser for reasons that escape me. There were a number of problems in it, first off using a source about 90% of the Jordan Valley being in Area C to mean the "bulk of the West Bank is under Israeli control", then calling the rest "joint Israeli-Palestinian control". That is a rather simplistic way of describing the Oslo areas, which I attempted to do with more clarity. It also made for a very disjointed lead section. Debresser, what exactly did you object to? nableezy - 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew name

@Nableezy: The most commonly used Hebrew term for the West Bank in Israel is יהודה ושומרון (Yehuda VeShomron), used far more than "הגדה המערבית" (HaGadah HaMa'aravit). While the Israeli administrative region "Judea and Samaria Area" does not include East Jerusalem, the name is mainly used to refer to what corresponds to the West Bank territory in English. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria as a term does not, and has never, been used as an equivalent to West Bank, and nothing about your google search demonstrates otherwise. Beyond that WP:WESTBANK restricts the use of "Judea and Samaria", and when not discussing the Israeli administrative district, which is not equivalent to the West Bank, should only be used in the context of that administration. nableezy - 18:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect (on policy and substance). Much of the Hebrew reporting and documentation, the clear majority, refers to the West Bank as "Judea and Samaria" (יהודה ושומרון). While it seems this is not the COMMONNAME in English, it is in Hebrew. WESTBANK refers to the English name, not the naming conventions in other relevant languages. In Hebrew יהודה ושומרון has the same meaning as הגדה המערבית and refers to the same area precisely (as would English use of the term in a modern context). As might be seen in the corresponding hewiki article - the COMMONNAME in Hebrew was determined to be יהודה ושומרון, with הגדה המערבית mentioned as the Jordanian lingo in use in international, non Hebrew, media.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to what the West Bank is usually called in Hebrew, not in English. While the term "Judea and Samaria" might not be very common compared to the "West Bank" in English, יהודה ושומרון is quite clearly used in many circumstances rather than הגדה המערבית in Hebrew. I could provide numerous Israeli media and governmental sources if that would satisfy you. Moreover the WP:WESTBANK refers to the usage of the term in English, and I would argue that the simple clarification that I provided by including the most used Hebrew term for the West Bank do not break either point (5) or (6). The claim that the term has never been used as an equivalent to the West Bank is quite clearly simply not true, and would be quite hard to substantiate. Even the Hebrew Wikipedia page that is linked on this page is named יהודה ושומרון. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh, no I am not. WP:WESTBANK:

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, subject to clause 6 below, namely that it cannot be used without qualification as though it is the neutral point of view.

What exactly is unclear about this? As far as equivalence, the West Bank includes East Jerusalem and the surrounding settlements that Israel has included in "Jerusalem". Judea and Samaria does not. Judea, as a historical name of a region, and Samaria, as a historical name of a region, likewise do not correspond to the modern area of the West Bank. Both extended well beyond what is called the West Bank today. nableezy - 19:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

WESTBANK refers to Wikipedia naming conventions in English (relevant on a multitude of pages), not Hebrew (relevant mostly only here). The "historical correctness" of יהודה ושומרון or West Bank are quite irrelevant. In terms of COMMONNAME - a Hebrew newspaper, book, official documents, etc. - all use יהודה ושומרוון much more often. We are doing our readers a disservice by not providing readily available terms in a relevant foriegn language.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Idk if you are purposely avoiding the point here, but one more time. "Judea and Samaria", according to the Israeli government, is not coterminous with the West Bank. It does not include East Jerusalem or the surrounding settlements. We have an article on Judea and Samaria Area, it is not this one. The terms are not equivalent, and they have never been equivalent. nableezy - 21:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

In Hebrew, הגדה המערבית (which pretty much fully synonymous with יהודה ושומרון), would also typically exclude the annexed portions of Jerusalem as well (which is a small area regardless) - these would be referred to as Jerusalem, East Jersusalem, or the Jewish neighborhood name (e.g. Pisgat Ze'ev ). In any event - the COMMONNAME in Hebrew is יהודה ושומרון - this is what is used in news reporting and other writing. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources please. One that says Judea and Samaria is equivalent to West Bank. Because you seem to admit that it does not include East Jerusalem or the surrounding settlements. And West Bank does. nableezy - 15:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is really basic etymology. I'm not saying the West Bank doesn't include E. Jerusalem (or areas annexed to Jerusalem generally) - just that in common Hebrew usage it does not. As for sources - really not a problem. E.g. here's one. Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Answered about the source below where you repeat that source. If the terms are not equivalent, and you are admitting that in this comment, the term does not belong here. nableezy - 16:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know how much clearer Nableezy could have been, and I admire the patience in explaining the same facts so many times. I can only add my voice to support the same argument. Jeppiz (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Icewhiz. In Israel, the West Bank is not called West Bank in Hebrew and we should reflect that fact. Fetchie Mankala (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that Nableezy has avoided the main point; Icewhiz and I have repeatedly pointed out how יהודה ושומרון is the most common Hebrew term for the region, and synonymous with הגדה המערבית, and not just used for the administrative region (מחוז יהודה ושומרון) and that WP:WESTBANK does not discuss the inclusion of Hebrew or Arabic translation for the name of the region, only terms in English - that the English term "Judea and Samaria" is considered to be non-neutral and not commonly used. AntonSamuel (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You have made bald-faced assertions without any evidence. That is all you have done. And you have again neglected to address the fact that Judea and Samaria does not include the area that West Bank does. Sources please. nableezy - 15:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Really basic use of Hebrew terms here, but here's a source that spells this out - "The West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as it is called in Israel, ....Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

See that actually is not a source for this. Judea and Samaria in English is used by Israel to refer to the West Bank. Eg President Carter writing in an interpretive note to the Camp David Accords I have been informed that the expression ‘West Bank’ is understood by the Government of Israel to mean ‘Judea and Samaria’. In English. Your source says the same. I would like a source that the topic covered by this article, that is the territory east of the Jordan that Jordan occupied between 1948-1967, is known in Hebrew by the term added repeatedly to this article (added without consensus I might say). nableezy - 16:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Both sides are correct: the term Yehuda VeShomron is what is commonly used for the West Bank, but is not a precise equivalent, because it doesn't include East Jerusalem. The term HaGadah HaMa'aravit, which is the precise translation of "West Bank", does include Jerusalem, but is used less. On a sidenote, Israeli law uses Yehuda VeShomron, shortened to "HaEzor" (the area), because Israeli law sees Jerusalem as undivided Israeli. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I support Icewhiz and AntonSamuel explanations. Some people even asked the same question in Quara. Other sources: "Israeli government and the IDF, which typically refer to the West Bank by its biblical name (“Judea and Samaria”)", "Judea and Samaria, which the world calls the West Bank.", "is also known within Israel by its biblical names, Judaea and Samaria.", "Friedman has been seeking to adopt the Israeli name for the West Bank, Judea and Samaria, in his official remarks and statements", This is very similar to other cases where some calls the area of Temple Mount as "Temple Mount" or "Haram esh-Sharif", Jerusalem or Al Quds. Republic of Macedonia by some or FYROM by others. Nonetheless the correct Hebrew term is "Judea and Samaria", the West Bank is a Jordanian name adopted worldwide but not often used in Hebrew (Israel). Sokuya (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The use of Judea and Samaria in English as a substitute for West Bank has been extensively discussed. So much so that there was an arbitration case about it. Id very much like to avoid repeating the same arguments as from years past. What I am requesting is a reliable source that shows that the topic of this article, the area occupied by Jordan between 1948-1967 and occupied by Israel since, including East Jerusalem, is known in Hebrew as ‏יהודה ושומרון‎. Source please. nableezy - 16:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

But that exactly what I did! Nableezy, I cited Encyclopaedia Britannica and other sources as well saying exactly that. Sokuya (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No, your cites are all about the English term being used in place of West Bank in Israel. Not that the Hebrew term covers what this article does. nableezy - 18:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria is ‏יהודה ושומרון‎ in English. This is the Hebrew term. I showed how the term Judea and Samaria is being used to describe the West Bank (what this article covers). Both terms "Judea and Samaria" and "West Bank" are referring to the same thing the ouccpied territories capture bu Israel in 1967. That what I showed. Please explore the sources given in Judea_and_Samaria_Area#Terminology section showing that the term Judea and Samaria is the Hebrew term that describes the occupied territories known as West Bank. It covers what this article does. "Hawks used the historic Jewish designation - 'Judea and Samaria' - for the occupied territories." others. Sokuya (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you kindly show where any of those sources show that the term includes East Jerusalem? Israel very specifically does not include East Jerusalem in "Judea and Samaria", making the terms not equivalent. Nobody has yet responded to that point, clear as it is. nableezy - 19:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added two additional references to the page () that quite clearly demonstrates the usage of יהודה ושומרון for the West Bank and the interchangable nature of the two terms in Hebrew. Here are additional ones: () AntonSamuel (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, it doesnt include East Jerusalem, making that not equivalent. nableezy - 18:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I thought sources in English would be preferred, but here are sources in Hebrew spelling this out (synonmous and common usage) - "יהודה+ושומרון"+"הגדה+המערבית"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwy7DYqOjdAhWhp4sKHZa-CBQQ6AEIRzAH#v=onepage&q="יהודה%20ושומרון"%20"הגדה%20המערבית"&f=false,[1],[2]. Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Would you clarify what in those sources say that the term covers what this article does? Namely the entirety of the territory Jordan occupied between 1948-1967 and that Israel occupies now, including East Jerusalem? nableezy - 18:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that none of the citations actually support that what this article covers is known as that term in Hebrew the {{cn}} tag should be restored. I am getting a bit annoyed with people playing fast with the sources here. nableezy - 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I am again reverting this addition. The terms have not been shown to be equivalent, and there certainly is no consensus for the addition. Per WP:BURDEN, a verifiable source is required that explicitly supports the addition and per WP:ONUS the onus for consensus is on those seeking inclusion of disputed content. nableezy - 18:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The sources in Hebrew and English clearly show these to be equivelant. E.g, if we want a simple Hebrew one (from the leading Israeli television channel - mainstream with a left-center secular lean) - [3] for V by non-Hebrew speakers "יהודה ושומרון לפי המינוח הישראלי או הגדה המערבית לפי המינוח הירדני, הם כינויים לשטח של 5,790 קמ"ר המוחזק בידי ישראל במעמד של תפיסה לוחמתית מאז שנכבש מירדן במלחמת ששת הימים, ומאז 1993 הועברו חלק מסמכויות השלטון בו לרשות הפלסטינית." - shows complete equivalence as well as יהודה ושומרון being the main title.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you please translate what in that source shows that it includes East Jerusalem? You cannot continue saying that they are equivalent while acknowledging that one includes something that the other does not. nableezy - 19:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The source says יהודה ושומרון is the Israeli name, or הגדה המערבית the Jordanian name - are terms referring to a territory of 5790 sq kmr held by Israel in belligerant occupation since it was conqured from Jordan in the Six Day War, and since 1993 some of the ruling powers have been transferred to the Palestinian Authority.. Both are equivalent and interchangeable.Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So, to answer my question since you apparently refuse to, it does not say that the term includes East Jerusalem? Because in that case I think you know full well they are not equivalent. One more time, is there any source for ‏יהודה ושומרון‎ including East Jerusalem? Every time Ive asked for this it has been ignored in favor of attacking a straw man. nableezy - 20:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Your assertion regarding this is OR. The source above clearly shows both terms refer to the same precise area.Icewhiz (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In what possible universe for requesting that you provide, per WP:V, a single reliable source that says specifically that ‏יהודה ושומרון‎ is a commonly used term for the topic of this article so that it be included per WP:ALTNAME OR? In fact, your use of sources that do not explicitly back the challenged is OR. I again ask, is there any source showing that ‏יהודה ושומרון‎ is a Hebrew usage for what this article covers? That is the land occupied by Jordan between 1948-1967 and by Israel since 1967. That is what the term West Bank refers to, that is what this article covers. That includes East Jerusalem. Is there any source for ‏יהודה ושומרון‎ being an equivalent title? nableezy - 21:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And as far as the rather silly notion that it is OR to ask for a source that supports that the Hebrew term offered here is an equivalent to West Bank, I can actually provide a source that backs my position.

Lustick, Ian S. (1990), "The West Bank Is Not 'Judea and Samaria.'", Newsletter (Association for Israel Studies), vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 21–23, Finally, it should be pointed out, that the eastern half of the city of Jerusalem, and the hinterland attached to it by Israeli administrative decree in 1967, while parts of historical "Judea," are not included in what Israelis who use the term "Judea and Samaria" mean when they use it. Indeed Israeli legal and administrative practice makes a sharp distinction between the section of the West Bank attached to the Jerusalem municipality (treated as Israeli territory) and the rest of the area between the Green Line and the Jordan River.

nableezy - 21:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, the sources presented above all say West Bank = Judea and Samaria in Hebrew. As for whether these terms in Hebrew, in common uaage, include the small area of E. Jerusalem (which has a different status under Israeli rule being annexed, as well as a different international statua due to Corpua Separtum - the entire citry of Jerusalem being an intended international zone in 48) - that is a separate issue.Icewhiz (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No, they dont, and you seem to be ignoring the source that very specifically says they are not the same. The status of EJ differs in no way from the rest of the West Bank, as the UN and ICJ have made clear. Palestinian territory occupied by Israel with any actions taken to change that character null and void as a matter of international law. nableezy - 06:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Lest I be accuses of OR above - the UN position on Jerusalem (and East Jerusalem) is long standing - e.g. this 1981 study. East Jerusalem (in the UN sense) is considered occupied by Israel since 1967, but as a separate area from the West Bank. Both are often termed "Occupied Palestinian Territories" (OPT) - which includes both (as well as Gaza). This is reflected by NEWSORGs as well - BBC or Reuters who refer to the West Bank and East Jerusalem as separate areas - but this is a separate discussion from Hebrew etymology. Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The UN routinely uses the formulation "the West Bank, including East Jerusalem". Eg [4], [5], [6], [7]. Im pretty sure you already knew that. Again, a source has been given that very specifically refutes the idea that the term inserted here is equivalent. nableezy - 06:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The addition of "and East Jerusalem" or "including East Jerusalem" is a clear indication that East Jerusalem is not generally seen as part of the West Bank and that such a clarification is needed. While the Jordanians, Palestinians, and some others see East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank, most of the world views East Jerusalem as part of the Corpus separatum, with future status to be determined in negotiations. Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Saying "the West Bank, including East Jerusalem", means that East Jerusalem is not included in the West Bank? Thats a new one. nableezy - 13:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

As for the supposed refutation (an essay in a newsletter) by Ian Lustick - it actually is not a refutation but a direct acknowledgement this is the term used (Lustick is of the opinion this should not be used - but the whole essay is an attack of the common usage in israel ) - as clearly stated in Lustick's opening paragraph - "One of these concerns the terminology used to describe those areas. The annexationist right has made much of its claim that "Judea and Samaria" is the only historically and technically valid way to refer to the Jordanian ruled territory added to Israel's jurisdiction in June 1967. The term "West Bank", annexationists argue, is a defeatist, political slogan, used by those who wish to promote their political preference for withdrawal at the expense of historical accuracy and geographical precision. As early as 1970, the Labor Party and many other Israelis who favored territorial compromise, nonetheless acquiesced in the right-wing's demand to use "Judea and Samaria" (Yehuda ve-Shomron, in Hebrew) instead of "West Bank" ( gaddaa hamaaravit ) in official documents, signs, and speeches ." - so per Lustick Yehuda ve-Shomron is used in lieu of gaddaa hamaaravit by all mainstream political circles in Israel - going as far left as the Labour party. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he is saying that they demand to use it as a political tool but at the same time use it for a different territory than "West Bank" covers. That is my point here, one you have steadfastly refused to address. nableezy - 13:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No - he is saying it is in widespread use in Israel not only by the annexationist right and but also by the Labor party on the left (which - basically means mainstream politics in Israel + the right fringe). As for your WP:OR claim regarding E. Jerusalem - not only have I addressed this, I have indeed refuted this, even though such an OR claim need not even be refuted, as the prevailing view in the international community is that while E. Jerusalem is occupied territory, it has a separate status from the Arab/Jordanian/Palestinian West Bank. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

An OR claim? Are you serious? Ian Lustick is a reliable source, making the exact point that I have, making the claim that it is an OR argument totally and completely bogus. Your view on EJ having a separate status from the West Bank is directly contradicted by a huge number of sources. Eg Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. 84 (1). American Society of International Law: 85–86. Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza. You are making completely bogus assertions regarding East Jerusalem. The United Nations Department of Public Information even has this helpful book about Palestine with a chapter on Jerusalem. Guess what it says? East Jerusalem has been considered, by both the General Assembly and the Security Council, as part of the occupied Palestinian territory. That's quite a bit different from the misinformation that the prevailing view in the international community is that while E. Jerusalem is occupied territory, it has a separate status from the Arab/Jordanian/Palestinian West Bank now isnt it? Kindly stop making bogus arguments and actually address the issue that a reliable source flat out says that what you support including is not true and that saying in Wikipedia's voice that the terms are equivalent is a NPOV violation. nableezy - 15:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Lustick actually confirms the prevailing usage. The two sources you provided above merely state that East Jerusalem is considered occupied (as I indeed said), that laws of occupation there are the same as other occupied areas, and that they are presently considered one of the components of the wider OPT (which - again - I said above). In fact, the booklet chapter you provided above states Israel occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The status of Jerusalem in international law (outside of the applicability of laws of belligerent occupation to both), and specifically E. Jerusalem, is a separate matter from the West Bank. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

He very specifically says the terms are not equivalent. I dont understand how you are just waving around that. And regarding your completely bogus claim that EJ is not Arab/Jordanian/Palestinian, there are countless examples of EJ being included in the "occupied Palestinian territories". You are making things up, but I have actual sources that flat out show you are wrong. Again, quoting from the UN: East Jerusalem has been considered, by both the General Assembly and the Security Council, as part of the occupied Palestinian territory. Or here, the High Contracting Parties to GCIV: the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The claim that EJ is not Palestinian territory isnt especially relevant here, but it is bogus. nableezy - 17:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Lustick very specifically says that in Hebrew they are used as equivalent by most of the political spectrum - something that Lustick object to - bit which clearly acknowledges Hebrew usage. As for the "occupied Palestinian territories", which comprise (per most) of Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank - this is a much wider term that "West Bank", and the inclusion of E. Jerusalem in the OPT says nothing on it being in the West Bank (by the same argument above - you could claim Gaza is part of the West Bank.Icewhiz (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Where as an equivalent? Where does he say the two mean the same thing? Because I provided a quote where he very specifically says they do not mean the same thing. My response on "occupied Palestinian territory" is specifically regarding the laughable assertion that the international community considers EJ as having some separate status from the Arab/Jordanian/Palestinian West Bank. I have already given several examples of the UN including EJ in the West Bank. You are trying to play two poker hands at once here, but they are opposing arguments. And they are both bogus. nableezy - 18:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ive self-reverted for now, but the repeated insertions here are edit-warring in violation of both WP:v and WP:ONUS. I will remove this material later. nableezy - 19:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any previous discussion about an NPOV hebrew term. And, if an Israeli referred to the area in Hebrew, chances are they would use ‏יהודה ושומרון‎. Now, it excludes East Jerusalem, but your average Israeli is likely to consider East Jerusalem as Israel. I'd support ‏יהודה ושומרון‎. @Nableezy:, WP:OFFICIAL is a good refutation of observing technicalities. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not even a little bit of a technicality. We have an article on what Israel considers "Judea and Samaria", that article is Judea and Samaria Area. This article however very much includes something that is not included by the term "Judea and Samaria", it is not in any way an official term for what this article covers. And a source has been provided that explicitly says so. nableezy - 06:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

While "יהודה ושומרון" is not the direct translation of West Bank, it is the normal way that this area is described in Israel. (The direct translation for "West Bank" could be mentioned somewhere in the article too.) In Hebrew "יהודה ושומרון" use used by everybody without any particular political connotation. When this is translated in English as "Judea and Samaria" some may consider it to be political because it is mostly Israelis, who are likely to have a pro-Israel view, and older references who use this terminology. OtterAM (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including the term elsewhere in the article, for example where discussing the Israeli civil and military administration or even a names section, but having it in the opening sentence is saying the terms are equivalent. And they are not. nableezy - 06:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that the sources provided on the page and the talk page clearly do provide enough evidence of the interchangeability and equivalency of the terms, including verifiability, and that the matter of the inclusion/exclusion of East Jerusalem has also been met quite appropriately, that it is the norm in Israel in general to refer to the West Bank seperately from East Jerusalem - that none of the two translations include it more than the other. A majority of editors on talk page have clearly sided with the usage of the Hebrew term on this page. AntonSamuel (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A majority is not a consensus, and what you think is the norm in Israel is not relevant. What the reliable sources say, and the only one that addresses this issue directly says you are wrong. I still intent to revert the edit, and you are still edit-warring in violation of ONUS. nableezy - 13:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS states that the responsibility to achieve consensus is on those arguing for the inclusion of disputed content, which has been done here with the presention of clear arguments and sources for the inclusion of יהודה ושומרון - The addition is clearly verifiable with the sources provided and this is what has been supported by the majority on this talk page. A consensus does not need to be unanimous as I am sure you know. I have already explained to you why my removal of your "failed verification" tag after providing an additional source and expansion of an existing one does not constitute edit-warring as it is defined on Wikipedia - furthermore your usage of this tag was incorrect, this tag is only to be used when "the source does not support what is contained in the article" which it clearly is given the provided quotes. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The term does used as synonym by WP:RS [8].I think there is a consensus to include the term. --Shrike (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh, hello, but a reliable source has been provided that very specifically says the terms are not equivalent. That, by itself, makes it a NPOV violation to claim that they are. And Shrike, your source, just like most of them here, makes an equivalence in English, an equivalence that actual scholarly sources say is not true and that we have a specific convention against using (WP:WESTBANK). nableezy - 13:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you have provided one article in which the author argues that the two terms are not equivalent, pointing mainly to the administrative use of the term by Israel. However, the numerous sources we have provided both here and on the page demonstrate the wide common usage of two terms as equivalent terms in the Hebrew-speaking world. The opinion of one author, while noteworthy, does not erase the wide usage of the term יהודה ושומרון for the West Bank. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Does the term include East Jerusalem? Yes or no? Because the term West Bank does. Why exactly can you not answer that question? It is a straightforward one. nableezy - 17:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This question has already been answered several times; In the common Israeli usage of both הגדה המערבית and יהודה ושומרון East Jerusalem is sometimes left out and sometimes included - so one translation is not necessarily more aligned with the English term than the other, however יהודה ושומרון is the most commonly used. Several sources have been provided that equates the English usage of the term "West Bank" with יהודה ושומרון and that the term encompasses all previously Jordanian-held areas west of the Jordan River that were occupied by Israel after the war in 1967. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And a source has been presented that explicitly says they are not the same. "Sometimes left out" is dishonest, it very specifically does not include EJ. And as such it is not an equivalent term. This is not rocket science. nableezy - 15:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Folks, think of some wording for the lead which clarifies that West Bank (and also the Arabic name) generally include EJ but יהודה ושומרון does not. It can be in the first few sentences as far as I care; just don't write stuff that misleads readers. Zero^talk 12:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's generally the case (and it is very context dependent - most non-Jordanian/Palestinian sources when discussing final status / international status (as opposed to Israeli occupation) are very careful to separate EJ from the West Bank in their verbiage) - but I'm also not sure it is necessarily the case in Israeli Hebrew. The administrative area does not include EJ (since EJ is part of the Jerusalem municipality) - but the administrative area is completely separate from the geographical term (and when referring to "the area" - it is either referred with "area" (אזור) postfixed or quite commonly as "the area" (האזור) - which is mainly relevant for legal jargon), and as a practical (as well as political) matter most reporting and writing in Hebrew treats EJ separately from the non-annexed West Bank) - both on Hagada Hamaravit and on Yehuda VeShomrom ... Furthermore, I have seen instances in Hebrew (on both sides of the political spectrum) where EJ is treated as part of Yehuda VeShomron - e.g. כשלושה מיליון מהם מתגוררים בשטחי יו"ש (לא כולל מזרח ירושלים), ולצדם מתגוררים כחצי מיליון אזרחים ישראלים. [9] Davar saw fit to exclude EJ from Yehuda Veshomron (יו"ש) or here Akiva Bigman on Yesha Council's site (probably was published in some newspaper as well) says - {{tq|אמנם, ישראל לא סיפחה את יהודה ושומרון (למעט מזרח ירושלים ומובלעת לטרון) treats EJ as the annexed portion of Yehuda VeShomron. Peace now - בשנת 2009 עמדה ההשקעה הגולמית בבניה ציבורית ביו"ש (לא כולל מזרח ירושלים)[10] sees the need to state that EJ is not part of the figures for Yehuda VeShomron, as does Arutz7 - עד לכ‑450 אלף יהודים שגרים כיום ביישובי יו"ש, לא כולל מזרח ירושלים [11]. Sources treating Yehuda VeShomron and the West Bank as interchangeable and equivalent have been presented above.Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You are flat out making things up. The UN is not a Jordanian/Palestinian source. The ICJ is not a Jordanian/Palestinian source. The ICRC is not a Jordanian/Paletinian source. They all include EJ in the West Bank. Your continued attempt to make something false true by sheer repetition not withstanding, several sources have already been provided refuting your bogus claims. nableezy - 15:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

If there is no real neutral Hebrew name, then we can just leave out the Hebrew name. All content on the project must be neutral, since it's a core policy. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

We ought to provied all POVs per WP:DUE --Shrike (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but we do not need to disclose on this page, what something other than West Bank is in Bulgarian. I'm not sure, why we need to have foreign terms overall on English Wikipedia, links to the relevant Wikis are provided on the left anyhow. --Dailycare (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Because Israeli controlling the area also there are historical connection between Judea And Samaria and Jewish nation.--Shrike (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There was never any consensus for this addition, in this section we can see that. Per WP:ONUS and per Lustick explicitly saying the terms are not equivalent I am again removing it. nableezy - 13:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, it is absurd to have two Hebrew names here. Just boggles the mind really. nableezy - 13:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is rather clear to include the Hebrew COMMONNAME - consensus is not unanimity. Icewhiz (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Those who oppose the inclusion didn't present any policy based argument there are multiple sources that tells in Israeli this terms are synonyms so it clearly WP:DUE. When I say Hagada Hamaarvit it the same as Yehuda ve Shomron in Hebrew.So there is clear consensus that this should be included.If there is some problems with EJ status we may include it as note.--Shrike (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh there very clearly is a policy objection, namely that a reliable source flat out says the names are not equivalent. Icewhiz, its nice of you to claim consensus for your position, I do not see how anybody has ever once answered for the fact that reliable sources have been presented that say your favored content is incorrect. You all are here putting in material you know is factually incorrect. You know the two terms do not cover the same thing. And you know full well there is no consensus for it. The two of you have repeatedly cited ONUS to remove material that did not have consensus. Nice to see that consistency is still not a currency favored by a subset of editors in this topic area. nableezy - 15:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Then Hagada Hamaarvit Should be excluded too because it too doesn't include EJ. Also If sources don't agree on something per WP:NPOV we should present all POVs.--Shrike (talk)

Except that isnt possible when you are listing something as a translation. If you want to add a note somehow do that, however you two are simply ignoring the fact that a. the terms are not equivalent, and b. a reliable source explicitly says so. nableezy - 16:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Several sources have been presented showing the the two Hebrew terms are interchangeable, and that furthermore Yehuda VeShomron is interchangeable with the West Bank in English. Your assertion that they are not equivalent is based on.... Nothing - not a single source - even rather dated the essay by Lustick (not a RS, an opinion) - concedes at the very beginning that Yehuda VeShomron is the commonly used term (Lustick disagrees with the common nomenclature - arguing in his opinion piece that Hebrew speakers should use his preferred term - but he admits the common term right in the beginning). Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thats nonsense, Lustick is obviously a reliable source, and his piece has been quoted several times. He specifically says the terms are not equivalent. You can keep pretending otherwise, but Ill keep quoting his paper:

Finally, it should be pointed out, that the eastern half of the city of Jerusalem, and the hinterland attached to it by Israeli administrative decree in 1967, while parts of historical "Judea," are not included in what Israelis who use the term "Judea and Samaria" mean when they use it. Indeed Israeli legal and administrative practice makes a sharp distinction between the section of the West Bank attached to the Jerusalem municipality (treated as Israeli territory) and the rest of the area between the Green Line and the Jordan River.

One more time, that says Judea and Samaria does not include East Jerusalem. And West Bank does. You get it this time? Or you want to ignore it once more? nableezy - 16:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This is getting deeply circular. The deficiencies in using Lustick given his own introduction to his opinion piece has been clearly pointed out to you. Furthermore, above and beyond any reasonable requirement, your assertion regarding EJ has been clearly refuted. In addition - some 10 different sources showing interchangeability have been presented. Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RS? Ian Lustick is himself an established expert on the topic. It doesnt matter if he wrote that on a blog. It is a reliable source. nableezy - 16:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The Hebrew name is "יהודה ושומרון" and it is the most common name in Hebrew and most-used by Israelis. This is a fact. MathKnight 17:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

For what? For what the English term "West Bank" means? Meaning the entirety of the territory occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967 and by Israel since 1967, including all of East Jerusalem? Because if not, then the Hebrew term is not a translation. I really dont understand the reticence here to answer that simple question. Does "יהודה ושומרון" equate to "West Bank", and that means that they mean the same thing. This isnt even a Palestinian vs Israeli thing, I dont get why this is breaking down like that. If the two terms dont mean the same thing then they cant be listed as a translation. I dont even have a problem presenting that as the term Israelis use in reference to most of what "West Bank" means with an explanation as to why they are not equivalent. But yall are presenting this as though the two are equivalent, and you do it when you know they are not. Please explain that to me. nableezy - 17:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of EJ in the English West Bank is far from universal (due to the planned international status of Jerusalem in 1948) - this is a separate issue from the Israeli occupation (i.e. both are OPT) and arises from the status in 48 and the Jordanian occupation. Regardless, in Hebrew Yehuda VeShomron means the exact thing as Hagada Hamaravit - and issues of inclusion of East Jerusalem (or just parts - the villages in the extended city) vary in both Hebrew terms per context and speaker - just as in Englìsh inclusion varies. The assertion that the two are different has been refuted by a number of sources saying they are the same in Hebrew.Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The English does not vary, you continue to make assertions with no sources. I have however provided several sources showing that "West Bank" includes "East Jerusalem". Here, another one. I can keep giving more, as I am sure you are aware. Calling what I have sourced to a reliable source, that the two terms are not the same, an "assertion" is intellectually dishonest. As is claiming without any evidence that "as in English inclusion varies." nableezy - 22:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

But the Hebrew does please prove that "Hagada Hamaarvit" include EJ. --Shrike (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Shrike, I have no honest idea if that term includes it or not. If it does not then it should likewise be removed. These Hebrew names are listed as translations, having equivalent meanings, to West Bank. If that is not the case they should be removed. nableezy - 15:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

But as Israeli controlling the area partially we need to have Hebrew.There should be some creative solution for this --16:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Official language, primary language of some 20% of the residents (and a large percentage of the remaining 80% have Hebrew as a secondary language), a bit hard to argue for exclusion here.Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes we should include a Hebrew name, but not as a translation if that is not what it is. I would be perfectly fine including, in the lead even, that Israeli usage is blah but that it does not include East Jerusalem because of blah. My point here, dear Shrike, my only point here, is that the article is saying these terms all mean the same thing. And they dont. Thats a problem for anybody who gives even a half a crap about the accuracy of our articles. The very first sentence contains a blatant error of fact, namely that the Hebrew names listed are equivalent to either the Arabic or the English. And for at least yehuda veshomron that is not true. I have made and make no comment regarding the other title. I have no idea what it includes or does not, but if it is not an equivalent then it likewise should not be listed as an equivalent. Seriously, why is this even a little bit of a problem. nableezy - 19:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources have been presented (in Hebrew and English) that treat EJ as part of Yehuda Veshomron. Sources in English have been presented showing EJ as separate from the West Bank. Your assertion that this is not included in the Hebrew term and is included in the English is not well founded - it varies in both.Icewhiz (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I have given several sources that explicitly say WB includes EJ, where are yours showing otherwise? And indeed a reliable source explicitly saying Yehuda Veshomron is not equivalent to West Bank because it does not include EJ, a fact you continue to ignore. nableezy - 22:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the BBC uses "West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem". As WP:RS go, that's up there. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry but that may be true on one article, but the BBC also includes EJ in the West Bank: here, and here, and here and here and I got tired of copying links but Im sure you get the point. nableezy - 22:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, since you think so highly of the BBC, I invite you to read their abbreviated version of its journalists’ guide to facts and terminology. Note the following:

There are approximately 501,856 Jewish settlers living in the West Bank: 190,425 in neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem and 311,431 in the rest of the West Bank (source: Israel Central Bureau of Statistic, the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 2010). A further 20,000-odd are living in the Golan Heights.

Does that clarify at all whether or not this up there RS regards EJ as part of the West Bank? nableezy - 22:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

In both languages inclusion/exclusion of EJ in the West Bank is not consistent - even within the same outlet - you have sources going boty waya. What it is fairly consistent is that many sources explicitely state whether they include or exclude EJ - as it is quite simply not obvious (as despite both being occupied, the international status of both, in other respecta, is different).Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You keep making things up. I bring sources and you make assertions that are directly refuted. It is utterly pointless having a discussion in which you adamantly refuse to address the point. nableezy - 15:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't make the intro more confusing than it needs to be. "We" know what "Yehuda VeShomron" refers to and it is clear. But the average reader of this Wikipedia article doesn't understand either Hebrew nor Arabic and having two transliterations confuses them. Further in the article the etymology can be discussed and alternative names provided. ImTheIP (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes its not direct translation but alternative name similar to Gaza_War_(2008–09) alternative name known in the Muslim world as the Gaza Massacre--16:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to attention. I've fixed it but can't guarantee that the fix won't be reverted. I don't think two wrongs makes a right and to strongly reiterate my position: most people don't give a fuck about what Israelis call the West Bank. Or what Arabs call it for that matter. It is irrelevant details to most and shouldn't be crammed into the articles very first sentence. ImTheIP (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thats nonsense, "Gaza Massacre" refers to the exact same thing as Cast Lead refers to. It is not listed as a translation. Here it is. And here it is a factual error. nableezy - 15:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

As far as the It (sic) is irrelevant details to most, no, that is nonsense. We include relevant foreign names for topics, that "most people"^{citation needed} dont think that matters is what is irrelevant. The issue here is accuracy. nableezy - 16:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

References

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

I came across this page from the Citation Hunt engine. I found a source for the assertion, although it does come directly from the university's website, but it's not a controversial statement, either, so I'm not sure whether that disqualifies it as a reliable source.

Line in the article: Bethlehem University, a Roman Catholic institution of the Lasallian tradition partially funded by the Vatican,[citation needed]

Source: https://www.bethlehem.edu/BUinNews/2017-02-21-generalate-international-board-of-regents-of-bethlehem-university-meets-in-rome

Specific line in the source that backs up the assertion: "Bethlehem University was founded in 1973 as a joint venture of the Vatican and the Brothers of the Christian Schools." Jflopezfernandez (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 01:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge

Propose to merge the recently created article Israeli occupation of the West Bank -> West Bank (and parts of the new article back into Israeli-occupied territories), on the grounds of WP:FORK and overlap.

The West Bank article opening paragraph states that the territory was occupied by Israel in 1967 and expands on the topic, which is already more specifically covered in the Israeli-occupied territories article. Israeli occupation topic by period is also covered in the Israeli Military Governorate, Israeli Civil Administration, Area C (West Bank) and Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967. The new article fails to cover the complexity of the West Bank situation since 1994, which is now is divided between Palestinian self-administration (Palestinian Authority and later since 2013 State of Palestine) and Israeli COGAT.

Finally, the author himself currently claims that Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (both covered under Israeli-occupied territories) is a single topic, hence making the distinction of the West Bank issue a synthesis. Finally, the author himself currently claims that Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (both covered under Israeli-occupied territories) is a single topic, hence making the distinction of the West Bank issue a synthesis.GreyShark (dibra) 10:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You'd better work up a diff where I, the author, of this page, said what you insinuate I wrote, or strike out that remark because it is untrue, unless proven otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - the new article is a WP:POVFORK of this article, focusing on the same territory via the slant of occupation. Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - in case the community decides to retain the Israeli occupation of the West Bank article in its current form, i guess the natural outcome would be to conclude whether Israeli occupation of Gaza Strip has indeed ended, otherwise it should have been Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.GreyShark (dibra) 10:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it may mean creating an article on the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip when I have time for it though. nableezy - 18:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• oppose - and btw, the article has more than one author, AFAIK, Huldra (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - 175k of prose suggests splitting, not merging, and it makes inherent sense to me that the encyclopedia would have articles on West Bank (geographical location), Gaza Strip (geographical location), and separate articles about major events at those locations, such as Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, etc. POV issues can be fixed by copyediting rather than merging. Levivich (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The issue here is not POV, it is actually a few editors not liking the extensively researched material of an obviously notable standalone topic. Occupations, such as in Crimea, are commonly split into separate articles; arguments singling out this article as a POVFORK lack substance and sound policy-based reasoning.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich's arguments. This page should be made shorter and more compact, not even more verbose and unfocused. --Dailycare (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per above arguments. This is the first time that I can recall an article that is obviously too long being proposed for merging into another. --NSH001 (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The only objection is length, and that can be fixed. I have just provided a second example of how to do this, by showing how the content of a section can be précised down by shifting the full content to a main sister article, and leaving the paraphrase (with a minimum of references). In the first précis here, I trimmed 600 words down to 338, while shifting the burthen of the full text over to the appropriate specialized article International law and Israeli settlements with these edits (here and here). In today's edit, 997 words, 7031 bytes were reduced to 206 words, 1,321 bytes, again a significant retrenching (which needs tweakingg to get some sourcing back in). This kind of revision and downsizing can only be honestly done if the sister articles to where the respective sections are moved, are thoroughly re-edited out of their trashy state to host the new material from here, a time-consuming business, but one which I am prepared to undertake, as one can see with the work in progress at East Jerusalem. It cannot be proceeded with if, on moving main text out of this article, reverters pounce on the sister article to stop the material reappearing there (as was done the first time I tried to downsize this). Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - and obviously so. Beyond the nomination invoking WP:FORK (there is no fork of Wikipedia involved here), the idea that because pieces of a topic are covered in other articles makes it so an overview article should not exist is so fundamentally flawed that we even have a specific guideline about it, WP:Summary style. Israeli occupation of the West Bank is a child article of this article, and based on the size of both articles that clearly cannot be merged into this and still retain the material covered. Israeli Military Governorate, Israeli Civil Administration, and Area C (West Bank) are all child articles of that. Beyond that, we have notability guidelines for when we should have a dedicated article for a topic. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank so clearly flies over that bar. Also, Greyshark, please dont misrepresent my words. I do not "currently claim" that the occupation of both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are the same topic. They both have been occupied for the same period (give or take a day or two in June 67), but the occupation of the West Bank is very much its own topic. nableezy - 18:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty clear consensus against such a merge, and as such I plan on removing the tags in the not too distant future. nableezy - 18:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. nableezy - 17:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment While there's certainly enough material to make a new article, the current state of Israeli occupation of the West Bank is dire.

history graphs
Israeli occupation of the West Bank February 2018 Israel–Syria incident

I think it's factual to say that the main contributor to the article, Nishidani, is fairly Pro-Palestinian. The result is, desired or not, the article in its current state is almost a textbook POVFORK. For example, we have statements like:

Ariel Sharon viewed the primary function of settling the West Bank as one of precluding the possibility of the formation of a Palestinian state, and his aim in promoting the 1982 invasion of Lebanon was to secure perpetual control of the former.

• • Both sources for this are from the New Historians, so doesn't present all viewpoints on Ariel Sharon's motives with due weight. If you look at Israeli disengagement from Gaza, there's a lot more nuance about Ariel Sharon's motivations.

The practice of demolishing Palestinian houses began within two days of the conquest of the area in the Old City of Jerusalem known as the Moroccan Quarter, adjacent to the Western Wall. On the night of 10 June, 100 families, dismissed by Teddy Kollek as Arab squatters in slum hovels, were given 3 hours notice to get out of their homes, whereupon army bulldozers razed the whole area, covering roughly an acre.

• • Looking at Moroccan Quarter, this is clearly POV. This article talks about "had brought documents from the East Jerusalem municipality testifying to the poor sanitary conditions in the neighborhood and Jordanian plans to eventually evacuate it", and "A group of former residents wrote to Kollek to thank him for his assistance in resettling them in better housing conditions." Again, this section of the article lacks nuance, which is so important in our coverage of the conflict.

There are plenty of other issues, like unqualified use of terms like "catastrophe of 1948", and "Judaization". These are loaded, POV terms.

This article is already very large, and balancing some of these aspects will make it larger. There are plenty of issues with this article, these were the most easy to spot and demonstrate. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Baffled and more baffled. Do you really think/believe they razed the whole neighborhood a few days after capture because of bad sanitary conditions? Are there any history books out there that told you so?--TMCk (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to use sources to edit that article. The idea however that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is not a stand-alone topic or that the current article is either POV or a POV-fork of this article is laughable. nableezy - 00:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: Obviously, there were other reasons, like the massive numbers of Jewish worshippers expected after they were finally able to pray at the Western Wall for the first time in 19 years. However, it isn't like the Israelis demolished an affluent neighbourhood and failed to rehouse the residents, or rehoused them in a slum. They demolished a slum and rehoused the residents in better conditions. The whole point here is that the article lacks the nuance that arises from development by multiple editors on different sides of the conflict.

@Nableezy: I never argued that it is not a stand-alone topic. My argument is that the current state of the article is problematic with respect to NPOV. There's clearly been an attempt to be neutral, but I don't think the end result is. I don't claim to be neutral on this topic (but then again, neither are you, I think it's fair to say). POVEDITOR is a good essay on this. The best quality articles on this topic arise from multiple editors with different POVs. What we have here is 350 KBs by one editor, with some tweaking. Which also makes it a very intimidating article to edit, not least as it reads somewhat more like an academic paper than the typical Wikipedia article. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping anybody from making edits to that page. That it reads like an academic paper and not the typical Wikipedia article is something I am quite proud of, Nishidani created an article using the best possible sources available, and not, as is typical in Wikipedia, random news reports about that contain some codeword that an editor insists on including because it supports his or her personal viewpoint. By all means, edit that article, provided you have the sources for your edits obviously. But since you agree it is a stand-alone topic, and this is a merge request, I take it you are saying "no" to the merge proposal? nableezy - 17:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The best quality articles on this topic arise from multiple editors with different POVs.

It's news to me, after 13 years, that there are best quality articles in the I/P area. I can think of a couple, but they were all written by single editors like Onceinawhile. If you can direct me to those you're thinking off here, I'd appreciate it.Nishidani (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Recognition of Transjordan's annexation

Surely the sentence beginning "This annexation ...[14]" should be moved from #1 Etymology to #2.1 Jordanian West Bank. Since https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank #2.1 includes "Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan's annexation too, but this is dubious.[32][33]" (the references are to Silverburg, S. R. (1983) "Pakistan and the West Bank: A research note", Middle Eastern Studies 19 (2): 261–63 https://booksc.eu/book/27206765/d3a943 and P. R. Kumaraswamy (March 2000) "Beyond the Veil: Israel-Pakistan Relations" p.9 and p.67 note 3) https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/94527/2000-03_(FILE)1190278291.pdf shouldn't Pakistan be removed from "Britain, Iraq and Pakistan"? See also https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk%3AWest_Bank%2FArchive_1#Pakistan. Mcljlm (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

West Bank residents and ineligibility to vote in Israeli national elections

Israel is a democracy but the vast majority of residents of the West Bank are not eligible to vote in Israeli national elections. Where should this information be placed in this article? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The West Bank is a foreign country under occupation. It's not constitutionally part of Israel, thus, the West Bank has no voting rights. The only part of the West Bank that is constitutionally part of Israel is East Jerusalem. The soon to be annexed Jordan Valley will get voting rights when the annexation happens. If it happens. Therefore, that information is totally unnecessary in this article. SoWhAt249 (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Replacing or adding new imagery where needed?

I was wondering if this article could put a clear map of the Area A/B/C division, as per the Oslo Accords, to good use. There is a section under Geography which talks about this, but there is no appropriate imagery to help the readers understand. The image I'm suggesting be added at the part where the article talks about this, is of my original creation, and is pretty detailed, but without any stuff that might confuse the readers. The map in question is this: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Control_status_of_the_West_Bank_as_per_the_Oslo_Accords.svg# A written legend under it would describe the coloration. SoWhAt249 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

For controversial issue, it would better to use file sourced from official government or authority release, to avoid much debate among editors in the future. (Just suggestion) — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My changes

Nishidani, I understand that you object to my removal of Meron's opinion [12], but beyond that, do you object to my other changes too?

Most of them were related to the poor structure of the article and excessive verbiage. E.g in "individuals including Julius Stone,[109][110] and Eugene Rostow[111] have argued that they are legal under international law, on a number of different grounds." what value does "on a number of different grounds" hold? Same with "the European union as a whole considers ..." Of course, the European union implies the union as a whole and not a half. In my opinion, such formulations are pointless verbiage.

The paragraph that begins with "The international consensus ..." discusses the legality of the settlements. Then, all of a sudden, it references a poll showing that many Jewish Israelis support settlement relocation and then it continues the legality discussion. It's just confusing. The whole section "Israeli settlements" is not very well written in my opinion. ImTheIP (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Most of these I/P pages are not well written, being the mangled outcome of a oompetitive struggle by numerous editors to 'get their side's stuff in'. There is far too much sourcing and repetition, far too much importance given to various actors, the US as opposed to any other state, though of course there's some justification for that since the US is a sponsor of Israel and settlements. But the focus should still be on the two major parties, Israel and Palestinians. There's no sense of what is due and not due. Everyone mentions Stone and Rostow, but no one takes them seriously - it's an historical detail.

I have somewhere a complete rewrite of the establishment of Ma'ale Adumim. I started from scratch, found a dozen that illuminated all the internal politicking that led to it, and it seems to gather up all the key details not mentioned on that page, in two or three dense paragraphs. I haven't had time actually to put it up, but that is the kind of reworking which is required. just shuffling the deck isn't getting us really anywhere. Your two suggestions above were quite correct. Apologies. But, if one wants to really contribute here, I think the only serious option is to carefully take it paragraph by paragraph, retain the essential points, and source it all where possible from scratch, with every statement paginated and linked.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

What Nishidani said.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Map colours

The green, red, and pink colours on the first map is a nightmare for people who are colourblind. Any way someone could change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FvanBerkel12 (talk • contribs)

I'm not colorblind but it hurts my eyes too. Zero^talk 15:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@FvanBerkel12 I can change the colours, but what colours (and shades) would you suggest instead? Seloloving (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I can't see the colors. Can you make them something neutral? Most color blind people are either Red-Green (most common), or Blue-Yellow (less common) color blind. Perhaps you could make it grey, red (or green) and blue (or yellow)? Alternately, can use shading (diagonal left, right, vertical, horizontal). Here is a good example of a map that is very useable for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:35FF:E702:24D2:558F:8AA7:72C7 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 

Abdullah I intentions

"Faced with the determination of Emir Abdullah to unify Arab lands under the Hashemite banner, the British proclaimed Abdullah ruler of the three districts, known collectively as Transjordan. Confident that his plans for the unity of the Arab nation would eventually come to fruition.." Aside from having no citation in that paragraph, it reads like a state political propaganda. I don't think his intentions are an objective perspective for a Wikipedia article, and therefore it would be much better if this paragraph and similar ones would be removed or paraphrased.--Crazyketchupguy (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Well picked. It is a copyvio from http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_transjordan.html . Zero^talk 03:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Typo: illegal outputs, should be: illegal outposts

West Bank#Israeli settlements, last sentence of first paragraph ends with "illegal outputs" instead of "illegal outposts". -- Svito3 (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2021 (2)

Add the Palestinian flag at the top of the infobox as already shown in the Wikipedia articles "Gaza Strip" and "State of Palestine." 50.111.110.138 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This is a contested place and needs consensus before moving forward with flags. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 15:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2021

The romanization of the Arabic name of the territory should be changed from aḍ-Ḍiffah l-Ġarbiyyah to Aḍ-Ḍiffah al-Ġarbiyyah. 50.111.110.138 (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 15:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done This was a typo and has been fixed. Thanks for pointing out. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)