Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:07, 21 November 2011

Archives

1: 2008 former "Community Lounge" page 2: January-August 2008 3: Sept-December 2008 4: January-June 2009 5: July-December 2009 6: January-June 2010 7:July-December 2010 8:January-June 2011 By topic: Outside organizing of editing Legality of Israeli settlements

Guidelines: Current Article Issue Discussion
This page is a subpage of Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Please read that page before posting here. You may bring specific dispute issues on articles, categories or templates here. Note other help on reliable sources, point of views, biographies etc. might be found at an appropriate notice board. (See Noticeboard list.) Please be civil since and incivil and other problematic postings may be deleted by members. Members also may move postings about problems with, or suggestions for, the project in general to the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration talk page. Members may archive resolved or dated issues.

Israellycool

Israellycool....um....something needs to happen to this article, not sure what it should be although speedy delete springs to mind. Someone may want to try to rescue it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause

There is an AfD now. While the title and article aren't perfect, obviously there are a variety of Palestinian resistance organizations using different tactics and if Palestinian political violence is worthy of a topic, then the larger topic of Palestinian rights activism does seem worthy of one article, not just mentions here and there spread over a variety of articles like: ], Palestinian people, Boycotts of Israel, 2011 Israeli border demonstrations, List of Palestinian solidarity organizations, etc. Thoughts in general and not just on this particular AfD? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Geez, say the word and List of Palestinian solidarity organizations is up for deletion. As I detail in my note there, there's an article called List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel which just links to 6 articles by years called "List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel." This is getting absurd.

I wonder if an article on Palestinian nonviolent action would get deleted, even as Palestinian political violence was kept. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I put on my long do list creating an article on Nonviolent action groups in Palestine and/or Worldwide Palestinian solidarity groups with actual references, since evidently no one wants to quickly ref the articles above and I don't have time right now myself. (Though it seems to me there was such a pretty good article in past that got deleted. Anyone remember?) But if someone else wants to go for creating such article to balance articles like the Rocket attack articles, go for it! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist exists and is not up for AfD. Reported at Wikiproject Palestine, but seems that project not too active. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales on NPOV on IP issues

Misplaced Pages founder: Israel-Palestine is heavily debated, but we're vigilant on neutrality, Haaretz, Aug. 5, 2011. For your amusement. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a bit of relevant text so we can properly file this: In 2010, the right-wing group Israel Sheli (My Israel) embarked on a Misplaced Pages battle to insert "Zionist" editing onto the Web-based encyclopedia to combat the anti-Israel entries. Yet while the campaign featured heavily in the press, with the group issuing open calls for seminars on how to proceed, Wales says the battle seemed to have been in vain. “I would say we saw absolutely no impact from that effort whatsoever. I don't think it ever – it was in the press but we never saw any impact,” he recalls. “I don't think they ever showed up. I don't know what happened, but we didn't see any impact.”

CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Historic designation of the Palestine region

Please comment at Historic designation of the Palestine region. Chesdovi (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Taxation, Template:Capitals of Arab countries

At least two templates, Template:Taxation and Template:Capitals of Arab countries, give a misleading impression that there are countries called "Palestinian territories" or "Palestine." Reliable sources indicate that those aren't countries. Is this to be attributed to WP:IAR or is there consensus to correct this?—Biosketch (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In what sense is it misleading or in need of correction ? The template uses the word "country" without elaborating on which definition is being used. Obviously the word has several meanings as the Misplaced Pages article country points out. The source you cite doesn't mention the term "country" does it ? The Palestinian territories have been assigned an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code so in that context (and many others) it is treated as some form of "country". Perhaps the template is vague rather than misleading. Are you suggesting a different wording should be used ? Perhaps Template:Countries of Africa might help. The header says "Countries and territories of Africa" and it includes Somaliland for example (who routinely refer to themselves as a country by the way). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If we agree to follow the list at ISO 3166, we'll want to change the designation "Palestine" at Template:Capitals of Arab countries to something else in order to be consistent. "Palestinian territories" is the established convention, and it's what I changed "Palestine" to at Template:Taxation last month. A clarification in the header along the lines of "Countries and territories" at Template:Capitals of Arab countries, where it wouldn't profoundly affect the template's appearance, would be a welcome addition as well. As to the meaning of "country," yes the article Country clearly isn't about sovereign states. Presumably in American English "country" is overwhelmingly equivalent to "sovereign state," whereas in British English the word is frequently used to mean other things.—Biosketch (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Palestine has been recognized as a state by more than 130 other countries, so there is a very significant view that Palestine is a sovereign state. While I for my part recognize that Palestine isn't as "sovereign" as Sweden or Australia in the sense that the territories are occupied, I don't agree that we should adopt a view that's presented as fact that it isn't a state, as 130 countries (the majority of the world's countries) disagree with it. --Dailycare (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic recognition is an attribute of a state. Palestinian, let's say for now, autonomy, definitely has many state attributes (postal stamps, for example), but also is missing many others (like sovereignty). In writings (the two I did read), it's mostly defined as state coming into existence, state to be, not as an accomplished fact. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A fun game (Mein Kampf in the Arabic language)

In the hopes of actually being collaborative, I have a fun little project for anyone who is interested. There is currently a dispute regarding the publication of Mein Kampf in Arabic. It is already clear that an Arab version became a bestseller. And no one should be shocked that some Arabs do not like Jewish people. But was the '95 (or a later) edition only distributed by the PNA or did the PNA actually publish copies. We have an RS saying it was "published". But the opinions of some editors is that they don't think they actually did. I would love to spit in the face of WP:V if we have enough evidence to say otherwise. I would love to find RS that details "distribution" instead of "publishing". But does it exist? No need to comment here since I have already started the contest for searching supremacy at Talk:Mein Kampf in the Arabic language. If anyone wants to bring in a ringer from the reference desk it wouldn't hurt my feelings.Cptnono (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mein Kampf in the Arabic language

Please could editors kindly have a look at this discussion (Talk:Mein Kampf in the Arabic language) and consider whether it may be worth reopening the deletion debate? I believe the existance of this article is degrading to wikipedia, as it is blatant propaganda. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

An AFD would be a waste of time. No consensus for deleting it is possible, so the result would be Keep. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It could result in a consensus to merge the material into the main Mein Kampf article. I think that would only be a realistic possibility if enough genuinely independant policy-minded editors participated. The AfD would probably attract sockpuppets too which never helps. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Alon Shvut

Request

• Alon Shvut (Talk:legal) {Talk:Naming), (Naming convention talk page).

Looking for clarifications on issues after considerable efforts to resolve what ArbCom and other consensus debates achieved. Also applies to some other settlements.

After some involvement and reviewing of related material, it seems to me that there is an effort to over-extend what the consensus arrived at regarding the legal statements on settlements and the naming convention on the West Bank.

As an example, I removed the terms "having no basis in international law" which was added to many settlements in the legal statement. This is one example of overstepping what the consensus arrived at in order to push a POV, and doing so in the name of the consensus itself which did not condone it. To Nableezy's credit, he finally agreed to the change after a considerable effort was made to explain it.

I haven't found anywhere in the consensus arrived at on the legal statement where it's deemed that it must be placed disruptively in its own section, interrupting sections about the settlement itself in order to give it prominence. I've suggested moving it to follow these sections because it seems out of place in its present position. It interrupts content specific to the settlement. As a legal statement on the broad issue of settlements, it seems perfectly fine coming after the content specific to the settlement itself instead of interrupting it. Nableezy reverted the edit and insists on its present placement though he gives no reasoning for it. Again there seems to be a POV push on this and I believe it turns the article into a referendum on the legal issue instead of being an article on the settlement.

I've explained at length why the naming convention does not assume a ban on the use of Judea and Samaria in article leads where it's appropriate. Here are examples made in arguments for the assumed non-existent ban:

• Now, if you believe such a POV is to be prominently displayed in the lead, one would hope that you also feel that the POV, held by an opposing group of partisans, that the settlement is an illegal colony established by foreign invaders on occupied Palestinian land, should also be included. Do you? Because there is another option, the one currently employed."
• "You complain that it cannot be missing from the lead as 'important information'- presumably the consistent removal from the lead of the fact that the town in in good part built on stolen property owes much to the objective fact that this is not as anywhere as important as noting how settlers like to imagine their area."
• " I see the attempt to include "Judea and Samaria", by hook or by crook, to be a blatantly politically motivated attempt to impose a settler-centric narrative in the very first sentences on an article on, using plain words with well understood meanings that would be used for any state besides Israel, an illegal colony in occupied territory."

I don't believe that such charged POV arguments should be the basis for content and I try not to make my case in such terms. I also do not see where ArbCom arrived at a consensus that the use of J&S is stripped of its historical relevance and equated to extremist positions, in order to enforce a ban-policy that was never stipulated. Just the opposite seems true, Arbcom did not adopt the position of some editors who felt it cannot be used without bias, but took these views into consideration by asking that it be done with qualifications to dispel such a possibility. I'm suggesting, for encyclopedic integrity, that its use, with relation to some settlements that have an established relevance to the term in the body of the article, to be historically pertinent and cannot be broadly considered an extremist term or "settler-speak". Its use does not in any way compromise the legitimate claims of anyone else. But omitting it, however, seems to compromise significant information about the articles.

After exhaustive discussion in several sections of talk pages, I suggested to make an edit that demonstrates how I believe the article can be improved. I also suggested we keep this edit as an example of the proposition for wider discussion, such as here for example. The edit can be seen in this version of the article. There was no consideration of my request and the edit was reverted immediately on the basis that I somehow violated a consensus which I have not seen expressed anywhere in the way it's being enforced here. Again to his credit, Nableezy, for a brief moment, seemed to accept the use of Judea and Samaria Area in the lead, though he added a qualification which I frankly feel gave it more prominence than it needed (not my intention, I thought the parenthesis was enough of a qualification and downplayed its presence). Unfortunately after Nishidani reverted Nab's edit, he seems to have backed down from having given his consent for it.

In short, I do not see how any changes I made violated any of the agreements arrived at previously. It's also become somewhat futile to argue with editors trying to push a demonic villainy POV of Israel in articles about the settlements. I don't believe these articles should be a battleground for such charged positions nor carry the burden of the entire conflict as is constantly being hammered here. These articles should primarily be about the settlements themselves. There are enough other articles on relevant issues where these editors' opinions and excessive disparagement of Israel, are brought to light.

In coming to this impasse, I'm asking for more opinions from editors familiar with the issues here. I am not one to go around and file complaints but rather believe every effort should be made to resolve issues through common understanding. But there is a limit to how much such an effort can be made, if it is trampled consistently with charged passionate disdain for one side, instead of due regard for a more neutral encyclopedic tone.

I've left a message for Nableezy, Nishidani and Zero (who's also involved in the discussions), to let them know about this request. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

I would see no problem with the legality being mentioned in the lead if the lead was an actual summary of the article. It would fit in fine in an overview of the place but instead it is given too much prominence. I would be nice if editors would improve the lead but it is less interesting (and time is already consumed over) the political stuff.

There are alternatives to its own section. The legality info can fit in a paragraph in the history section. The prominence reasoning provided is a sufficient concern.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it inappropriate for the usual line-up to pitch in. For the record, in my understanding, Michael, following Gilabrand's edit, is attempting to overthrow a convention, at once explicit and implicit, that the I/P area editors have followed for over 2 years. A huge amount of tact and sensitivity designed to avoid the explosive potential of POV language is now being challenged, indeed openly defied, by a precedent which will abrogate these understandings which have lowered the temperature in the I/P area. From a Palestinian perspective, the settlement program and its systematic confiscating of lands, denial of natural rights to built on land with native title, renaming of territory to judaise it and deny a Palestinian presence, is a colonial project. 'Judea & Samaria' is emblematic of this ideology. Since in the highest legal opinion, unanimously underwritten by 15 judges in the ICJ, the area of settlements is under 'belligerent occupation', neutrality requires editors to refrain from constant terminological innovations that would 'naturalize' a state of warfare that involves the enactment of a policy of expropriative Lebensraum, as nothing more than the exercise of a biblical right by primogeniture established b an ethnocentric mythistory, which is wholly normative natural, unconflictual, and a due recognition of a 'right'. The facts on the ground are those of a military situation of preponderant power, in which armed colonizers dwell, rename and expropriate as an imperial cultural right territory whose native occupants are denied the exercise of developmental rights and the nomenclature customarily in use for their property. A remarkable degree of restraint in depolemicizing this potentially explositive conflict in narrative versions has been achieved. Michael0's proposal would demolish this, and create a precedent for chaos once more. This is not a request for 'collaboration' except in the most dubious connotation of that word, which historically also means getting elements of an occupied people to assist the occupiers in their annexation of the native land belligerently conquered by the imperial power. It's as simple as that. We have all exercised restraint, and Michael is both unhappy with that restraint, and quite willing to admit that we are welcome to mirror his own chaotic innovation by using the same nomenclature-iconoclasm regarding Israel which he advocates here for Palestinian territories. A recipe for disaster. Think closely about what the precedent he is endeavouring to smuggle past the sober safeguards against an editwarring environment will entail for several hundred articles. The articles will seize up, as everyone dashes to POVize just a few key sentences. Insanity.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing fundamental has changed since the conventions were established and I don't see any need for changing them. On the contrary, the need is to enforce them. Zero 10:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree and support enforcing the naming convention which does not take the position of vilifying the term as Nishidani so eloquently does above. The only thing that's changed since the convention was drafted is that a couple of editors have strong-armed the articles on settlements to remove all mention of the term even when no bias can be construed. The naming convention specifically allows such NPOV instances. Yet some editors here are arguing the contrary and that the term is pejorative and to be eschewed under any circumstance. And they have intimidated other editors by reverting edits and claiming the naming convention supports their position, which is a clear misrepresentation. The convention never agreed to this vilification of the term. What's going on here is equivalent to ideological bullying by some editors who are threatening chaos and mayhem if their strongly opinionated positions are challenged. They are out to disparage the settlements in order to support their extreme personal views. They have used the naming convention and legality statement to turn the articles on settlements into their ideological battleground. It appears they are imposing their side of the Israel/Palestine conflict on the pages of Misplaced Pages, a repository intended for the free transfer of knowledge. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You say you agree, but you don't agree. You make edits in explicit violation of the convention. I had you in mind when I wrote that enforcement is what we need right now. Zero 10:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me where in the naming convention that is a violation, Zero? I know you had me in mind when you wrote it but I've went to lengths to explain the naming convention neither equates the term with the villainy attributed to it here, nor imposes a ban on its use when no clear bias is present. You seem to be taking a position that any use of it in reference to modern entities is biased. The naming convention disagrees with your position, but in consideration of the charged claims of "some editors" asks it be done with qualifications. Using the term J&SA and additionally placing it in parenthesis is in complete accordance with the guidelines. I've explained why my position enforces the naming convention while some editors banning the use of the term violates it. You have not addressed anything I said but rather choose to make general statements that have little basis in the guidelines. I'm sorry but I don't find this to be a fruitful way to discuss anything. Try putting your politics aside and read the guidelines with an open mind for once. If you just want to make baseless accusations as others have here, then the record will bear that this is your way of conducting a discussion. If you instead choose to explain yourself as I have, that might give us something to talk about. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Line 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, term "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used" (my bold). Those words "not merely referring to a specific land area" are there in order to prevent people writing that specific places are in Judea and Samaria Area. You did what this rule expressly says not to do. Zero 11:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Line 5 would prevent someone from writing "Alon Shvut is located in the Judea and Samaria Area." Which is not what I did. This is how I introduced it: "Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank, (Judea and Samaria Area)." It's not the same as saying it's "located in Judea and Samaria". The parenthesis change the context from location to administration because it doesn't just say {Judea and Samaria) but rather (Judea and Samaria Area) which is an administrative context. This is relevant because Alon Shvut is administered under the "administrative area of Judea and Samaria". The guideline allows for referencing it in the context of administration and suggests one of two ways. Or "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria", or "Judea and Samaria Area". This is the intention of the parenthesis. It's like saying "The city of Detroit is located in the state of Michigan, (Wayne County administration)". If this is problematic for some people, then it can be clarified further: "The city of Detroit is located in the state of Michigan, (Administered in Wayne County)". The term "Judea and Samaria Area" is already a name of the administrative area and allowed in this context. But if it bothers some people it can be clarified further: "Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank, (the administrative area of Judea and Samaria)." This will certainly have some people in a huff but people's hate for the term cannot strip the guidelines from the allowance they make for its use. Before accusing me of changing the intention of the guidelines, please try to explain why the guidelines allow for use of the term in the context of administration? Before accusing me of violating something, maybe ask yourself why you and some editors are stripping the guidelines of the allowances it makes. If the guideline had agreed with editors who think any use of the term is biased, then the guidelines would have said so clearly and editors wouldn't be able to introduce it in any way whatsoever. This is clearly not the case. The guidelines don't agree with some editors who feel the term cannot be used without bias. This is why they made the allowances, which are there for a reason. Now, let's try a little intellectual exercise. What if we said something this: "Alon Shvut is an Israeli settlement located southwest of Jerusalem, one kilometer northeast of Kfar Etzion, in the West Bank. It is governed by the laws of the administrative area of Judea and Samaria Area." Do you now think this would dispel the objections? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course not, it would still violate the clear intention of line 5. It isn't a sort of game of finding some clever wording to get the same information into the article despite the best efforts of the writers of the rules. Read WP:LAWYERING. Zero 23:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Zero, it's not at all clear that line 5 intends to prevent the use of the term in an article, and that its introduction is a violation of the spirit of the guideline. This has been the position of editors who have mistakenly interpreted the guideline as saying that the terms Judea and Samaria are extremist hateful terms and their use isn't allowed in articles about modern entities. The spirit of the naming convention, it seems to me, is rather about refuting such claims. The naming convention does not adopt the position that the term is hateful and cannot be used without bias. This seems to be the heart of the issue, not the wholesale banning of the use of the term, as suggested here. My effort to explain, by analyzing specific articles of the guideline, why applying such a prohibition violates its spirit, does not seem to apply to WP:LAWYERING. This is not the first time you've said this about my arguments, so I'll kindly remind you to also read the Wikilawyering guideline and remember that it's a two edged sword which cautions editors against making pejorative frivolous accusations about it. The guidelines there rather advise editors to discuss the issues themselves and refrain from making blanket references to the term, without an explanation for why they do so. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Noone has said that the use of the term "Judea and Samaria" is "hateful". That is a strawman. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Hateful" is one of the milder ways to describe the superlatives showered on "Judea and Samaria". You can read them in links at the top of the section, here's an example:

"'If' you persist in reintroducing a POV term that hitherto has been used with great restrictive economy, then you are openly tempting or inviting all other editors to use terms that they, discretionally, have refrained from using with regard to 'settlers' (a euphemism what Palestinians, were they familiar with comparable western examples in the US, Libya, Algeria, would call carpetbaggers), such as 'colonizers', 'thieves', 'under belligerent occupation'.These are the Palestinian POV-equivalents of 'Judea and Samaria'." --Nishidani

Others have also noted the term as being hated by some editors. " If the only way we can mention the historic nature of the geographic area is by using the hated words "Judea and Samaria," then we are required to use those words. --Brewcrewer". Nothing strawman about it. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So your only evidence that some editors are describing the term "Judea and Samaria" as "hateful" is Brewcrewer's allegation that they hate the term? If you want to make such an accusation, please cite diffs. RolandR (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to split hairs then let's go all the way. I didn't say "some editors are describing the term "Judea and Samaria" as "hateful"", I said "...editors who have mistakenly interpreted the guideline as saying that the terms Judea and Samaria are extremist hateful terms...". The two might sound similar but they're not the same. Evidence for this includes this compilation of sources, mentioned in the naming convention guidelines. This diff, the quote from which you didn't acknowlege, expresses the extremist hateful way the terms is viewed (I didn't say viewed by whom specifically). This one is for the one you noticed. I think that should be sufficient but if you'd like more, then you might like to sift through these: AlonShvutTalk:legal, AlonShvutTalk:Naming, NamingConventionTalk. If you're still not persuaded after all these then maybe one of us is reading things a little differently. In which case if you'd like to believe my statement is a strawman argument, well, that's alright too. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Again extrapordinary wikilawyering to work round or rasp down declarations that originally suggested some of your interlocutors view these terms as 'hateful'

You quote me in a diff. What did I say?

'If' you persist in reintroducing a POV term that hitherto has been used with great restrictive economy, then you are openly tempting or inviting all other editors to use terms that they, discretionally, have refrained from using with regard to 'settlers' (a euphemism for carpetbaggers), such as 'colonizers', 'thieves', 'under belligerent occupation'.These are the Palestinian POV-equivalents of 'Judea and Samaria'.

We have (a)the Israeli POV and (b) the International POV.

• (c) You wish to add the Israeli settler POV., and tone down the language of the international POV. I.e. stack the pages with two pro-occupying power POVs by interoducing a third term:the Israeli POV,and its subset, the settler POV, to balance the 'International POV'.
• No one here goes about calling for a Palestinian POV, which, in the literature, and on the street, sees the whole project as one of theft, colonization, carpetbaggery and military thuggishness. To invite rhetorical clutter into these articles is foolish as well as a violation of an established entente. Build articles, don't waste our time on POV pushing for the community you have such strong feelings about.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Give me examples since the Arbcom decision and its conventions on naming were adopted, of any known, experienced editor in the 'pro-Israeli' camp who has consistently over two years tried to introduce 'Judea and Samaria' as a default term designating the area in which settlements are found, only to be subject to 'strong-arm' tactics and 'ideological bullying'? Unless my memory deceives me, neither camp has squabbled over this, and what you are discussing is the effect of Gilabrand's attempt to reintroduce the term for one settlement, while failing to show how Alon Shvut, rather uniquely, qualifies as one of those rare exceptions outlined in the protocol. Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The highly improper POV addition to the legality statement "having no basis in international law" has been on the pages for nearly a year and no one contested it until now. Its removal, agreed to by the editor who wrote it, shows that silence over the passage of time is not evidence that it's proper. Misplaced Pages is a developing production. Improprieties may be on pages for a long time but that does not mean they're valid. Most experienced editors are civil people, do not like turning their love for the craft of editing, into an inflammatory ideological battleground, nor do they like being subjugated to the type of venom spilled on these issues such as in your arguments. Their silence cannot conceal the intimidation applied to the terms in your one-sided disparaging views. Since becoming involved in this article, I've heard many comments decrying the imaginary ban and vilification of the term. Here are the words of several editors from the recent discussions:

• "This proposal, that the guidelines disallow for the mention of the historic term, is word-playing. The guidelines, and specifically 6C, was specifically put in place because editors were removing all mention of Judea and Samaria. The guidelines were meant to disallow editors from erasing the historical context of Judea and Samaria from every Misplaced Pages article, not to further perpetuate the problematic behavior that led to all the bans." --Brewcrewer
• "Everybody agrees and it is reliably sourced that the settlements are in a region that was -- at the very least -- once known as Judea and Samaria. This historic fact is not only notable, but this Jewish terminology is in essence the seminal dispute in the Israel-Arab conflict. I can't imagine there is any policy basis for removing such important information from Misplaced Pages." --Brewcrewer
• "Can anyone point to policy prohibiting mention of Judea and Samaria in articles about geographic entities in Judea and Samaria?" --Brewcrewer
• "MichaelNetzer has worded his argument here and at AE pretty well. The alternative title that some editors may not like still has historical importance that should be mentioned. Explain why it is relevant, add the source, the end." --Cptnono
• "Further pushing and shoving here will be viewed dimly - the best way forward is to enlarge and source out the history (archaeology etc.) to determine its relevance to ancient entities, to ensure that mention of them is as uncontroversial as possible in the lead." -- Casliber

Now I ask you, Nishidani, can you please produce the stipulation in the Naming convention that equates Judea and Samaria with "colonizers", "thieves" and "belligerent occupiers", such as you base your case on? Can you please produce some agreed upon consensus demonstrating this to be Misplaced Pages's view of the settlements? Can you please explain why you allow this poison to command your editing and policy in an environment that politely asks to keep it outside of the work here? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

MichaelNetzer - try UNSC Res 252 and numerous reminders. The annexation of East Jerusalem was declared illegal by UNSC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 .. UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 .. UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 .. UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980 .. UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 ... Israel's annexation of the Golan was also condemned by the UNSC Res 497

When your Secondary Source accurately reflect the UNSC resolutions you might have a point. Otherwise they're not WP:RS and you're pushing a denialist POV ... talknic (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile ... talknic (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The dispute is about the WB Naming Convention, Talknic. Please stop littering this discussion with your irrelevant political crusade. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

MichaelNetzer - "3) Guidelines 4–6 refer to modern times (after 1948)" Judea and Samaria were legally placed under Jordanian administration by the 1949 Armistice Agreement. Under their legal administration, the place name was officially changed to the West Bank. Now it is commonly known as the West Bank, because that is its official name ... talknic (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to name editors of standing who have, since the Arbcom decision, pushed 'Judea & Samaria' into these articles. So far you have no reply. No one has tried to revive that term over the past 2 years as effectively neutral and equal to West Bank, except yourself for the past few weeks. In lieu of data to the contrary, this means that since the Arbcom case, highly experienced pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors have not used that phrase in the way you now wish it to be used. The rest of your remarks indicate a failure to construe my remarks grammatically and conceptually, and raise, eheu (I avoid the term like the plague) 'strawman' spectres. Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice I explained why silence in the face of aggressive editing and hostile arguments is not an indication of their validity. Nothing is being avoided. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Uhm,.. I wasn't around here for those two years, except as an observer. I never bullied, strongarmed, or harassed or intimidated anyone who might have taken it into their head to push the 'Judea & Samaria' meme. I watched, from the sidelines. So your inventive theory about a two year silence 'ìn the face of aggressive editing and hostile arguments' is nonsensical. Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't specifically name you when I said "some editors", Nish. Happy to see you weren't one of them, though I hope you're not trying to make up for that lost time now. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I watched these pages during my editorial absence, and, over two years, I saw no editors from the pro-Israeli side violating the interpretation that I am now, bizarrely, called on to defend. Since none of them, and they are present on this page and at AE against Nableezy, pushed the 'Judea & Samaria' line, no editors, Nableezy or whoever, woulòd have had an opportunity to engage in strongarm tactics on a non-existent (until recently) distortion of policy of the kind you are now trying to get across. Michael, as far as my understanding goers, you have emerged as a solitary paladin for a reading of policy no one other than yourself has dreamt of, from the day Arbcom made its deliberations, and the policy section was finished,(May 2009) to late October 2011. I'd like you to address this point seriously. How do you account for that absolute restraint and silence on this by a dozen of the best or most productive orm most intransigent pro-Israeli IP editors over that period? Surely not intimidation? I mean, I broke a law that had me up for a 5 years prison term as a recalcitrant pacifist (wimp), whereas I guess a lot of chaps here have IDF service to their credit, and don't pee in their undies at the spectre of a wild word or two thrown their way on a digital screen.Nishidani (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I account for it in the same way I account for "No basis in international law" being on the legal statement of many settlements, in violation of the consensus on the legal statement, RS and VER, and no one other than myself noticed it or said anything about it if they did, for nearly a year. Again, silence over the passage of time is not evidence of validity. But from one wimp to another, certainly you understand most editors are not here to fight wars and don't always feel like making waves. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This again? What dont you understand about "no basis in international law"? The ICJ rejected the basis of the Israeli argument. Do you still not get that? Israel argued that because Jordan did not have a legal right to the WB that when Israel took control of the territory it did not become occupied territory and thus GCIV does not apply. The basis of their argument is that due to the no state having legal control of the WB GCIV does not apply. The ICJ rejected that basis, saying that it does not matter who held the territory prior to Israel capturing them. I honestly cannot believe you still do not understand this. nableezy - 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that I've explained this issue enough times but I'll do so once again for the record. Here is a review of the disagreement between us:

1. You're saying that the ICJ rejected Israel's position on the legality of the settlements "as having no basis in international law" and that this is why you added the phrase into the legal statement.
2. I'm saying that the ICJ made no such statement "as having no basis in international law" and that adding this to the legal statement is effectively injecting a POV slant into the ICJ decision, in violation of the consensus previously arrived at concerning the legal statement.
3. We have both reviewed the ICJ decision and have not found any such statement by the ICJ, nor any such judgement by the court about whether Israel's position has any or no basis in international law. We have then agreed that "as having no basis in international law" be removed from the legal statement as unsupported in the source.

So then, whom of us is the one who doesn't understand? The one who is injecting a personal opinion about the ICJ decision into the legal statement and continues to assert its validity, or the one who is pointing out that such an opinion is not supported in the decision, and is a violation of the consensus on the legal statement? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. One more time. The Israeli argument has as its basis that territory not legally held by a sovereign nation cannot become occupied territory when another nation takes control over it. The ICJ rejected that, saying that the prior status of the territory is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the territory is occupied. That is, they rejected the basis of the Israeli argument. You have twice mistaken exasperation for agreement, this time after I cautioned you to avoid that earlier. nableezy - 13:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just dealing with the issue of the inclusion of the illegality of the settlement in the lead and in a separate section, WP:Legality of Israeli settlements calls for the sentence in the lead to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body. That alone is reason to both include the sentence in the lead and for it to be expanded in a section in the body. There is consensus for this, and until that consensus changes that line and section will remain. nableezy - 14:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the disruptive placement in the article, interrupting the flow of sections about the settlement itself, which you seem to insist on. I re-arranged all the sections in the article for better flow and you reverted the placement. It was never agreed in the Legality project that it becomes such a disruptive issue commanding prominence that's not warranted on pages about specific settlements. Framkly, Nableezy, your blatant effort to turn Misplaced Pages into your private ideological battleground is poisoning any prospect of collaboration. You must put these issues behind you and turn your attention to the improvement of the project. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The disruptive placement in the article??? Do you hear yourself arguing to include, in the first sentences, terms like Judea and Samaria and then arguing that expanding on what most sources consider the only noteworthy aspect of a settlement is interrupting the flow of the article? Yes, you rearranged the article to bring the most noteworthy aspect of the settlement, it being illegally constructed in occupied territory, to the end of the article. Your idea of what merits prominence does not concern me, and the repeated attacks on editors such as myself and Nishidani all the while playing the victim and crying that the big bad monsters are strong-arming and bullying you is becoming more than a bit tiring. Frankly, the ideological battleground was drawn up by users who seek to impose inaccurate or plain wrong material in encyclopedia articles, gaming every guideline to the point that its meaning is unrecognizable in the way it is being argued. First you sought to say that the settlement is in Judea and Samaria despite a prohibition on saying that a modern location is in either of those places. Next you attempted to define the West Bank as what is historically known as Judea and Samaria, despite the fact that this is plainly wrong and that the two terms used together was introduced by those who wished to lay claim to title of the West Bank as the settlement enterprise began to take off. Next you attempted to claim that the West Bank is equivalent to the Judea and Samaria Area, which is also wrong, as the West Bank includes East Jerusalem and the surrounding area that Israel effectively annexed whereas Judea and Samaria Area does not include either. You have tried, by hook or by crook, to use any method to attempt to force in these terms into the lead of the article, and now you claim that I am trying to turn Misplaced Pages into private ideological battleground?!? If you would like me to respond to that blatantly hypocritical attack I can do that, otherwise kindly refrain from making such asinine accusations. The legality guideline calls for including the sentence in the lead and expanding on it in the body. That is the current consensus and until that consensus changes it remains how the articles will be structured. The WESTBANK guideline specifies when exactly the terms Judea and Samaria may be used when dealing with articles on modern locations. Despite your best efforts to distort that guideline into allowing the use where it specifically prohibits it, its meaning remains clear to all but the most disruptive and tendentious of editors. nableezy - 15:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh? Are you suggesting the consensus on WP:Legality of Israeli settlements agreed the legal statement should be the most prominent noteworthy item in the article about each individual settlement? Can you point to exactly where in the project on the legal statement this was agreed to? Or is this like "having no basis under international law"? Maybe next we should just delete everything else in these articles. Based on what's said here, they seem to serve their purpose sufficiently with the legal statement alone. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont believe I said anything of the sort, and this constant misrepresentation of both my comments and the policies of this website is becoming more and more tiring each time. nableezy - 19:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems you said the illegality of the settlement is the most noteworthy thing about it and thus the reason why you reverted the edit which moved them so they are not disruptive to the sections about the settlement itself. And you base your reasoning on the consensus in discussion on the legal statement. I don't think I missed anything but if I'm wrong, please explain why you said that and why you reverted the edit. If you're tired of what you believe is my misrepresentation, then explain what you meant by that with regards to the revert. I don't seem to be the one misrepresenting anything here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I did say it was the most notable aspect of the settlement, I did not however say that should be the most prominent noteworthy item. I dont have much to say about your repeated misunderstanding about without basis (the ICJ rejected the basis for the Israeli argument, it really is not as difficult to understand as you feign). I dont claim it should be the most prominent item, as can be seen by the fact that it is neither the first sentence of the article or the first section of the body. However, this repeated tactic of claiming that the section on the illegality of the settlement is disruptive to the sections about the settlement itself is so obviously spurious that I have so far neglected to respond. Ill do so now. The section on the illegality of the settlement is a section about the settlement itself (it is about that specific settlement being a violation of international law) so the argument that it disrupts sections about the settlement itself has no basis. nableezy - 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, if the legal statement was specific to Alon Shvut, it would say "The international community considers Alon Shvut a violation..." As I remember, it was proposed in WP:Legality of Israeli settlements that the statement make specific reference to each settlement it appears in, but the suggestion was not accepted by the consensus. Either way, it is a general statement on the settlements, only inferring application to Alon Shvut but not specifying it. It interrupts and disrupts the sections specific to Alon Shvut. But since you mentioned it, and in that my primary concern is the flow of sections specific to Alon Shvut, do you object to placing the legal statement as the first one in the body of article? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We can make the section open with something like Like all settlements in the Israeli-occupied territory, the international community considers Alon Shvut to ... to alleviate your concerns on specificity. Anything else? nableezy - 13:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand my concern which I've stated repeatedly. The addition you're suggesting was brought up in the project on the legal statement but was rejected by the consensus. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, not even a little bit. The sentence in the lead is what has a specific consensus. That there should be a section in the body also has consensus, but no wording was either "approved" or "rejected". So, again, in the section in the body, if you would like to ensure that it is specific to the settlement, would you oppose starting it with Like all settlements in the Israeli-occupied territory, the international community considers Alon Shvut to ... Would that alleviate your concerns, or is this just a game of trying to remove the section through any handy excuse? If your concerns about specificity are genuine you have no reason to reject this. nableezy - 13:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

MichaelNetzer - "if the legal statement was specific to Alon Shvut" You say 'if' and then proceed to build a strawman. The law addresses ALL the illegal settlements of which Alon Shvut is only one ... talknic (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. It is a general statement about all the settlements, including but not limited to Alon Shvut. It is not however a statement specific to Alon Shvut, such as "Alon Shvut is an illegal settlement" or "Alon Shvut sits on the road to Jerusalem", from which nothing is inferred about other settlements. As a general statement on all settlements it is distinguished from information specific to Alon Shvut. Is this so difficult to communicate or is it simply more advantageous to confuse the issue? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen the coma so humped before. Turns out you are screwed, MN. There have been zero responses from anyone not already (edit:poopely) involved in the topic area. Any editor not involved in the topic area will not sift through the silliness to give you any advice on actually improving the article. Some might call it filibustering. I call it editing in the topic area of "OMGWTFRTFM dummy". I suggest you start edit warring and opening requests for enforcement since that is the only thing that will get anywhere. You could try IPCOLL. Unfortunately, I tried that and it is now being used to poo all over the topic area. Just give up and let the babies have their bottles. A few years of negotiations will make it all worthless anyways ($10 says at least 1/2 of the settlements' population stays but it all works out until someone blows something up with a tank or a vest) Cptnono (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I see it a bit differently. If you step back a bit and just look at the overall trend, all of the little conflicts over details and generic issues at the article have resulted in a substantial improvement over the past year. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree Sean, about the long term trends. Still, Cptnono's point about filibustering or "humping the comma", adopted disruptively in debates to promote declared ideologies is a compelling statement about the intellectual integrity of some editors whose purpose should otherwise be to improve the encyclopedia. Some people just seem to be out to destroy, instead of build. But who knows, seems that's what it takes for the builders to build even better. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My standards are too high then. That is not substantial improvement. There is a slight improvement MoS wise. There is some additional more content. It is all overridden by politics, though. But who am I to complain about content when I have spent more time contributing to the bickering than the improvement. I am shocked (no sarcasm text yet!) that others have found themselves in the same conundrum. I say we make the article all about wine in an effort to bury the politics. This might seem like the most unecyclpedic and uncollaborative thing to do but it would equal what is going on right now. Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised there aren't more editors in the same conundrum. Or maybe they just make themselves a little invisible. Your standards are just fine, wonders have been done with articles free of political antagonism in just short weeks. As a statement on the wider conflict of the article, if people would otherwise spend their time building and improving themselves instead of dedicate their lives to spitefully destroying others, we'd surely have more peace in the Middle East and Misplaced Pages. The irony in the wine is reaching new heights. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, MichaelNetzer, I've been on-and-off following these discussions – or some of them, as I'm not sure how many there are now – but not to the extent that I feel confident enough to involve myself one way or the other. Hopefully that'll change as the circumstances allow it. I am, however, thoroughly impressed by your consistently even-tempered demeanor in dealing with the harsh language that's been characteristic of some of the responses toward you. That in itself is remarkable and should serve as model for how editors interact in this project.—Biosketch (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I find myself constantly failing my own standards, but thank you kindly, Biosketch. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So, Biosketch, you think that claiming editors "dedicate their lives to spitefully destroying others" as a fine example of good behavior. Remind me to not ask you for examples of bad behavior. But all this won't matter soon, MichaelNetzer is getting steadily more and more offensive and the admin case against him is only a matter of when and not whether. Zero 11:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since you're interested in what I think, I'll be completely open with you. I think if you spent less time plotting how to drag this or another editor who disagrees with you to AE, and instead channeled your energy to engaging them in a spirit of good-faithed collaboration, you'd find them more than willing to respond in kind. Threatening editors with AEs as an instrument of intimidation, which is the impression one gets from your comment directly above and from this obscenity, is all the more problematic given your authority as an Admin here. Your role – the role of all of us but yours in particular – should be to promote an environment that's conducive to resolving disputes. I'm not seeing you performing that role here.—Biosketch (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I recall, I took someone to AE only once in the last couple of years, so that comment of yours is pretty empty. There is also nothing obscene in my warning to Gilabrand about misreporting sources (and it would have been sterner if I'd realized she also changed "villager" to "infiltrator"). Finally, what dispute are you referring to? An agreement was made about a vexing naming issue and now someone wants to break it. The quickest dispute resolution process would be to enforce the agreement, then we could go back to bickering about other things. This "dispute" is nothing more than a monumental waste of time. Zero 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind you going after me Zero, but I'd not like see it compromise you as a frivolous complaint. Take caution with material you're gathering on me. The quote you mentioned above was about "people" in the context of the "wider conflict": "As a statement on the wider conflict of the article, if people would otherwise spend their time building and improving themselves instead of dedicate their lives to spitefully destroying others, we'd surely have more peace in the Middle East and Misplaced Pages." I clearly didn't say that in the context of editors. The wider conflict of the article is the conflict in the Middle East. The mention of Misplaced Pages after the Middle East is intended to say that when we are able to achieve more peace in the ME, we'll also have more peace in WP. I'd not want to be responsible for you being reprimanded on this one. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Cptono. I love that 'humped the comma'. Unfortunately you wrote 'hump the coma', which is also pretty descriptive of the state of mind (coma) this pointless hairsplitting has induced in me. In hermeneutics there's room to make Finneganswakish interpretations of even simple propositional terms, turning a lucid consensus into an image of dumb self-deception. The consensus prevailed for two years. Michael essentially is saying we have been labouring one and all under a massive misprision, or misunderstanding of the policy many of us risked our wiki lives to get written. It's rather like saying the Federalist papers were written by people who did not understand what they were doing in writing them, and mean something wholly different from the documented intentions of their authors, and the traditional interpretations that have prevailed for two centuries.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, let's not exaggerate, Nishidani. Misplaced Pages consensus is an evolving entity. It changes from day to day sometimes. It's not at all like the Federalist papers. Though I haven't for the life of me yet found where in the guidelines it states the terms are spiteful, biased, equatable with thieves, or forbidden for use in qualified contexts. So maybe you've all misunderstood the guidelines after all. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Try to stick to the point. You are the only person in two and a half years who thinks no one else has understood a protocol everybody however seems to honour in the sense you deny it has.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have also been the only one to have noticed an improper addition to the legal statement. So what? But I've already answered you before. Maybe you all misunderstood the guidelines. Human nature is such that if we're passionate enough about something, it's not entirely out of the question that we might understand or interpret a document about it in the way that supports our position. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No. You have convinced yourself that none of the editors who were in on the drafting of the protocol, and who engaged in a huge research effort through over 100 academic RS on the issue of the political-polemical-ideological valency of 'Judea & Samaria' in settler rhetoric within Israeli national-political discourse understood what they agreed to. As my mother used to say to me when I got uppity and was threatened several times with expulsion from school, 'Everybody is out of step but my Johnny!' I'd certainly allow for the heuristic possibility that all of the community who determined a constitution did not understand what they thought they understood by the terms of consensual rules they established. But the burden of proving this lies with the Johnny come lately, who certainly should not invent arguments about 'strong-arming' 'intimidation' or 'threatening' attitudes to explain why no one thinks as he or she does.ps. there is nothing improper about the legal statement. That one nation, with a decidedly vested interest in not accepting the international consensus, dissents from what the highest world court says is the legal lay of the land does not undermine the fact that the judgement rendered is the only one that fits the law as consensually and unanimously interpreted by 15 judges from all over the world, each hailing from countries with different political and cultural interests. Were there a basis for the Israeli position, the ICJ would not have rendered an opinion that is unanimous on virtually all relevant points. In wiki, we allow just leeway for the difference, as per NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

All this is irrelevant to the issues at hand. The Naming Convention does not support the position stated above nor the sources cited, as asserting the use of the terms is hateful or biased. Hammering at these sources, which most can be considered biased themselves, does not support the case for the naming convention having agreed with them. On the issue of legality, you're again making a personal assessment that is not supported in the ICJ decision. We seem to be discussing opinions much more than the sources in question here. Maybe that's alright and needs to be aired out, but the disagreement I have is not about an opinion on the naming convention and legal statement. Rather that the opinions stated above are not supported in the relevant sources. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is your claim that is irrelevant. The only grounds for your assertion that some editors see the term "Judea and Samaria" as "hateful" is your interpretation of a second editor's assessment of several other editors' opinion. This is laughably inadequate evidence for anything. RolandR (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I suggest you read Book 4 of the Odyssey, the Proteus episode. It is suggestive for your debating style, which keeps altering or disfiguring the reasoned arguments of your opponents on this issue. 'Most sources' (academic treatises) used to establish the political nature of 'J&S' are now considered 'biased themselves'. I.e. as editor, you don't accept what the majority of RS say, when their conclusions conflict with your private beliefs.

Of course I made a personal assessment on the ICJ since that is what your string of repetitious positions amounts to, personal assessments no one else agrees with. I appropriate the same right to make assertions which you have used throughout these humongous threads. It staves off the boredom.

All your arguments are irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is to abide by the terms of the Naming Convention as consensually interpreted for two years before you decided to argue no one except yourself understands it.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll look up the Odyssey. I know I'm a little persistent but I don't think I'm distorting what others are saying. And I haven't been the only one not agreeing with the interpretation of the guideline in question. Maybe we should talk about the guideline over a cup of coffee in a less tense setting. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course they understood what they agreed to. That's why they agreed to art 2 which says that editors should use "the British Mandate district of X" when referring to Judea and Samaria in the context of the British Mandate, despite having it pointed out to them that no such districts existed at the time. I think that is a good demonstration of the quality of this guideline.

And the likely reason "consensus has prevailed" is that most experienced editors don't want to deal with a bunch of other editors protecting their political gains. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fantastic that Nish knew I was talking about him. Seriously, coma coma coma coma coma. No one wants or does read past the third one in a sentence. Pulling a forth is reserved for real writers, but they would not even dare it. I am stunned no one commented on my use of "poop". I have also intentionally left other errors in my writing for you to look at. The others are due to intoxication (butt you all new that).Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I also think Nish is brilliant and endearing. But I now see that I'd better get off my but and pay more attention to your spelling mistakes. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been too ill to work that page, though I have a lot of notes to it, and I am not quite happy talking endlessly to no purpose. Agreement is improbable. In any case, I think one should, as Casliber suggested, just drop it and work the article. One thing that needs expansion is a section, at the moment we have just a bare demographics section, on the multiethnic mix there, more detail on the Peruvians and Amharic-speaking communities for example. I edited in, for those who haven't access to it, a comment from an interview with Incas, in the chapter on Alon Shvut which Donna Rosenthal wrote half a decade ago. It bears, in the remarks on how 'J&S' is conceived of, on what we are discussing and therefore I'll plunk it here as well.

Not all settlers were born Jewish; in summer 2002, Peruvian Indians left huts and were welcomed into new trailer homes in this Judean hills settlement. Although these former Christians have taken Hebrew names, they do not yet know the difference between Herzl and Hamas. The "Inca Jews" already have been taught the "holy trinity": the Torah, the People, the Land. And they call the West Bank of the Jordan river by its Biblical names Judea and Samaria. "We knew we were coming to a place called 'territories' because we know other Peruvians who immigrated earlier and are living in the settlements," said a kippa-wearing convert who carried a Spanish-Hebrew prayer book. "But I have no problem because I don't consider the territories to be occupied. You cannot conquer what has belonged to you since the time of the patriarch Abraham".

A good example of the way 'J&S' is drummed into the new communities of aliyah settlers as a phrase which effectively establishes a sense of appropriative right over the land, indeed, denies they are 'occupied'. Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm, someone, hardly matters who, said "belligerent occupation" is a Palestinian point of view. No, it is a formal legal phrase that has been applied to the occupied territories by the Israeli High Court of Justice on many occasions. Regardless of public utterances, the Israeli government in its submissions before the court does not dispute it (and could hardly do so because the legal system in the West Bank is derived from the fact). So actually it is an Israeli POV as well as a Palestinian and international one. Zero 15:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I speak for everyone in wishing you only good health and a speedy recovery, Nishidani. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Break

Since we're all here, I'd like to point out the main problem I see with WP:WESTBANK. The terms "West Bank" and "Judea and Samaria" are used for a well defined geographical area. Per wikipedia policy, since it is obviously the most common term in used in English, "West Bank" should be used to describe this area. That's fine. The problem is that this guideline attempts to restrict the terms "Judea" and "Samaria" separately, Because "some editors" were "not convinced" that they can be used in the neutral voice. That's ridiculous. It's politically motivated bullshit, evidenced by the use of the word "nonpartisan". I don't believe WP:RS limits the use of "partisan" sources. We'd have to get rid of quite a few if it did. This guideline should limit itself to 1948 (or whatever) onwards, and anything that happened beforehand, or if not speaking about the whole West Bank, should use what the sources use. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you also believe that wikipedia should use terms "the sources use", when the sources use terms you might find offensive? FWIW, I recall seeing some English sources mention Judea and Samaria with attribution along the lines of "in the West Bank, which is known in some Israeli sources by the Biblical term 'Judea and Samaria'". (e.g. this) However, I'm not advocating that we re-open this particular can of worms. --Dailycare (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following you. Are you saying either the term Judea or Samaria, both of which have been in use (separately) for literally thousands of years, is offensive? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking, if you're in favour of using terms that you find offensive, as long as they occur in sources. Are you? --Dailycare (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally yes, but I guess that could depend on the term and on the source. Now can you explain what this has to do with "Judea" or "Samaria"? Are you saying either of these terms are offensive? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How about colony in Psagot supported by the following:

Fisk, Robert (2007). The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. Vintage Books. p. 494. Unable to bamboozle my way through the Israeli roadblocks on the highway from Jerusalem, I drove up to the illegal Israeli colony of Psagot, from where I had an Israeli-eye view of this new battle to destroy the Palestinian Authority.

Taraki, Lisa, ed. (2006). Living Palestine: family survival, resistance, and mobility under occupation. Syracuse University Press. p. 113. Psagot is an Israeli colony of around one thousand colonists that was illegally built in 1981 on Palestinian land.

and this? nableezy - 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the topic of this discussion? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats what I thought. What does it have to do with the topic of this discussion? I think it is obvious, but since it isnt for you, Ill try to explain. You argue that to use the language of the source, regardless of whether or not those sources use the language that is, by far, used by sources from parties not involved, directly or peripherally because we "should use what the sources user" without regard to the bias of the source and the conscious choice they make when choosing specific language. You argue that one should be able to say that X settlement is in Samaria because a source is referring not to the entire West Bank but to a section of it and we should use whatever language the source uses. So, my question is, if a source can be found saying that it is also a "colony" with another source saying it is built on "the stolen land of X village", should we also use the language of those sources? What exactly distinguishes "Ariel is in Samaria" from "Ariel is in occupied Palestine" (or for that matter Nazareth)? Sources can be found for each, why should we follow the language of one but not the other? nableezy - 02:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As usual, your attempt to read my mind fails miserably. Obviously, if an overwhelming number of sources use certain language, that's what should be used like we normally do. But the way this guideline is set up now, you can't say, to pick a neutral example, that Mount Gerizim is in Samaraia. I understand you consider this acceptable collateral damage when defending your political gains re "Judea and Samaria", but others might see it differently. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, can someone tell me what the heck Samaria has to do with Judaism? Historically it was the land of Samaritans, for over a millenium mortal enemies of Judaean Jews. Jewish travellers never went there in the medieval period. Rabbis frequently said jews should keep clear of it, its people and women. Just curious about the invention of traditions, of which this is one.Nishidani (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Judaism, Nishidani. Though what you say about the source of the name is partly true, no one is arguing that mentioning the name is based on rabbinic doctrine, or Judaism or whether Jews lived there throughout history. The argument is that this is the most common historic name of the region acknowledged worldwide, as much a part of history as the names Palestine, Israel and the ancient north and south kingdoms. The name carries over today as a specific name of the region and acknowledged by the United Nations when it explains that the West Bank is mostly the area known as Judea and Samaria. It is also used by Israel and the rest of the world in referencing the current administrative area of Judea and Samaria. Part of what you say about a lack of intimation to Judaism and rabbinic doctrine proves that its use is not Judaism and settler biased but rather for specific relevance and identification, which "West Bank" does not always satisfy. The 1812 New Madrid earthquake was also centered around the West Bank of a river, as an example. Cheers. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't repeat nonsensical statements ('It is also used by Israel and the rest of the world in referencing the current administrative area of Judea and Samaria.' Almost every example adduced 2 years ago to support this assertion came from a Jewish diaspora source, and the number of examples was negligible compared to 'West Bank'.) You keep forgeting that the term 'Judea & Samaria' is a term retrofitted to judaise 'The West Bank', made by government decree, and then imposed on the media after Begin became PM. No one here is talking of the independent terms 'Judea' and 'Samaria', which everyone uses with equanimity. What you say there is obvious. But, as has been repeatedly shown and argued, is that the 'Judea & Samaria' term is a modern invention designed to assert proprietorial rights over a region, rather than refer objectivity to a topological identity, one part of which has almost nothing to do with Jewish identity, biblical, Graeco-Roman or post-biblical (to citea snippet of a large and complex history), it being an indoctrinated modern fiction that Samaria was an integral part of ancient Israel, and the combined term carries this charged, ideologically contrived and historically false mythic wordage, for instrumental purposes. There were more Samaritans than Jews in Palestine throughout the long medieval period. For this reason, attempts to sneak it back in wreak substantial violence to wiki's neutral voice. You can repeat your 'beliefs till the cows come home. Over 100 books, in the long process of examining this, attest to these facts.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You are simply mistaken. The term was coined by the British administration, not Israel. It was used long before Israel captured the region and built settlements. The United Nation, many countries and scholars continue to use it for specific references on that basis. Not on the basis of it being Israel centric. The name specifies what the West Bank was and remains before Jordan remaned it WB, arguably in order to erase that history. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that. Michael. This was exhaustively examined 2 years ago, and the overwhelming mass of sources show beyond dispute that what you keep repeating is vapid mindless nonsense, happy generalizations. Keep repeating your belief system by all means, but the archives say otherwise. You are not making an argument, you are grasping at broken straws to make settlerdom comfortable with reading about itself on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

My point isn't that "Judea or Samaria" is offensive per se, but that some people probably do consider it to be offensive. Of course this is a bit academic, since the obviously predominant term used in English-language sources is West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights, respectively. By the way, the English-language source I cited above says that J&S is a term used by religious settlers. Suggesting that we adopt their terminology in this project is a bit bizarre. Along a similar vein, some of the Arab groups (and maybe even Iran?) refer to Israel as the "Zionist Entity". --Dailycare (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no word or name in the world that does not offend somebody, and we don't base policy on it. The naming guideline never accepted the argument that the name cannot be used for modern entities because it offends some people. There are a lot of people offended by the name West Bank, though no one objective tries to forbid its use because of it. Judea and Samaria are administrative and historic names, not the same as a politically charged name like "Zionist Entity" which has never been known as the name of a place but used only as a political statement. Such attempted comparisons are simply not relevant. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not talking about J&S. I agree that the common term in English is West Bank and that should be used (even if "some people probably do consider it to be offensive"). I'm specifically talking about Judea or Samaria being used separately.

Also, nobody is bothered by the fact the guideline says 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" despite there being no such British Mandate districts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd ... TransJordan and Palestine were separate districts. Judea and Samaria were not in the TransJordan district ... talknic (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a pretty good policy to me, and one that can handle specific geographic features that use the names in questions. Is there an example of a situation where this policy prevents us from doing what is best for an article? Jsolinsky (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no such policy for it to be good. Alon Shvut is compromised by an erroneous claim forbidding to mention "Judea and Samaria Administrative Area" in the lead, even though it's merited by the several mentions of the Judea area in the article. The entire argument is based on grounds that it offends some editors, though the naming guideline makes no such prohibition nor mention of a prohibition of use of the term in the lead. Policy is being blatantly misrepresented and strongarmed by aggressive editing...and some editors don't seem to care. A lot of people are offended by the legal statement being both in the lead and then getting its own section and placed disruptively in the article between sections specific to Alon Shvut in order to give it even more prominence. The arguments made here as if what offends some people holds more visible weight in the article than what offends others is the most blatant violation of NPOV I see here and a blemish on Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality and objectivity. There is no such consensus and there will be no peace here until some editors stop waging their political wars on these pages and crying foul because they're offended by legitimate recognized terms that they don't personally like. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Blatant? You jumped into these articles to break a consensus, both tacit and formal, as the record shows for the past 2 years, started a brushwar, and now complain that people trying to put it out in order to pursue article building rather than contentious POV battles are themselves waging political wars. That is called in Italian, 'throwing the stone and then withdrawing the hand' so that the reaction of the person hit becomes the point of focus, not the hand of the assailant. Okay: if that is your premise, then it is a blatant travesty of NPOV not to mention of every town built on an erased Palestinian village in Israel that the town is in the 'Zionist entity'. How long do you want this jejune POV levering to go on? Not to mention controversial partisan terms is part of a long, rational, coolminded and fair consensus among serious editors. I see the example you tried to set with Alon Shvut has now drifted into Gush Emunim, that we are in for a concerted attempt to revive the dead controversy. Altroche NPOV. This is an attempt to throw back the clock.Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to second the request for one or more examples, preferably highlighted so that they don't get lost in the wall of text. It would probably help if discussions focused of testing the guideline against specific cases to see whether and how it fails. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement highlighted above, reflecting this diff is one example of using the term in the lead (explained here) and giving the legal statement section more proper weight by moving it to after the sections specific to the settlement itself, that it disrupts, considering that it's also present in the lead of the article. The edit does not seem to compromise an objective position on the issues discussed, yet editors reverted it because they said it violates the guidelines and consensus. However, there's no prohibition in the naming convention itself nor in the consensus on the legal statement for such an edit. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

THe longer this argument goes on, the harder it is to WP:AGF that there is not an intentional attempt to undermine a pre-existing consensus in order to advance politically-loaded minority terminology. SHouldn't this g back to Arbcom given it was they that mandated the guideline in the first place.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Undermine a pre-existing consensus"? Are you serious? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That there are strong emotions driving this conflict, and that everyone who's commented in these discussions holds to one position or another on them, needs little elaboration. I think I've tried to extend due respect to editors opposing my position, and conveyed an understanding of their concerns. I believe I'm open to being convinced, though I'm also subject to the same human condition we all share regarding it. We'd all likely more enjoy contributing to the project without this difference. However, the conditions driving it are taking their toll on improving the work. It is not usually my preference to seek such intervention, especially at the capacity of Arbcom, but it seems we're nearing an impasse.

If Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank) is misconstrued to have decided that "Judea and Samaria" is a "politically loaded" term and cannot be used without bias; and if WT:Legality of Israeli settlements is likewise misrepresented to deem the legal statement must be displayed disruptively on pages to give it extra prominence beyond reasonable weight and what the legality project agreed to; and if after all these extensive efforts, (1), (2), {3), (4), (5), most attempts to explain, based on sources, policy and edit reverts, how these two decisions have been aggressively misappropriated - if after all this my position continues to be answered with little apparent WP:AGF, and responses to the substance of my statements are, for the most part, politically loaded assumptions, then perhaps it's in the best interest of a better collaborative atmoshpere that Arbcom attempt to settle the dispute, or alternately provide a more clear statement that can help us move forward. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That you're open to being convinced is asserted in the face of numerous editors who fail to convince you as you continue to repeat the same position. I think the settlement's legality was elided from the lead to please you, though it in perfectly legitimate there. In exchange, zilch, more POV tweaking. As to strong emotions, yes, boredom with the intransigence of one editor who is deaf to all remonstrative appeals to a policy many interpret differently.Nishidani (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If I repeat the same positions, maybe it's because my statements are being distorted and no one is addressing the basic points I've made to reasonable satisfaction. If we try to stop making assumptions about motives and discuss the issues themselves, it might not be so boring and emotional. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a point that hasn't been mentioned but is obvious. (4) Imposes the obligation ('is to be') to use 'West Bank' as the default term. This cannot be glossed as 'Judea & Samaria' since 'West Bank' is toponymic, 'J&S' not so for wikipedia. (5) then reads:

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

The protocol refers to a specific case where the administrative area of settlements is under discussion. Leads do not 'discuss': leads affirm basic data that are then subject to elaboration (discussion) in the body of the article, and therefore it is abundantly clear that (5) is worded in such a way as to occlude the use of this gloss in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If the administrative area is discussed in the article, why can't it be mentioned in the lead? There's no indication that the guideline suggested to prohibit it. Not specifically nor by spirit. One might construe such an inference, but that would be strictly interpretation. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I make the mistake of looking at this page and find the same ridiculous "discussion" still going on. Isn't there anything better to do? MichaelNetzer is still proposing text that the guideline was deliberately designed to exclude. Go and seek an arbitration committee ruling if you like Actually it is a good idea, almost certainly the ruling will be to read the damn guideline and obey it. Zero 09:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's go back to the beginning.

Michael edited originally with the summary:

Judea and Samaria is the long-standing historical name of the region, not only "in Israel" but world wide. The West Bank is a modern application. They are not equal opposing POV names.)

The text he added ran:-

the West Bank, a geographical area historically known by its biblical names Judea and Samaria.

There is not a shadow of a doubt from this evidence that his original starting point was to consolidate a gloss in the text, challenged immediately by other editors as a violation of agreements, in support of Gilabrand, who made her edit only immediately to disappear and leave the battle to others.

The gloss has it that 'Judea and Samaria is the long-standing historical name of the region', which is precisely the sort of tendentiousness the Arbcom decision and subsequent protocol sought to avoid.

Therefore, all later adjustments veil this intent, which is to insinuate 'Judea and Samaria' as 'the long-standing historical name of the region.' This was both historically false, and in violation of the consensual agreement

Now however he is saying something quite distinctly different. He is stepping back from his overt declaration about using 'Judea and Samaria' as coterminous with 'West Bank', and saying that his intent was to speak of 'Judea and Samaria' as the 'administrative Area'. The intent is unchanged. To use 'Judea and Samaria' as an 'administrative Area' in order to jemmy into the lead the term 'Judea and Samaria' as the Israeli toponymic equivalent of 'West Bank', with a right to gloss 'West Bank' throughout these settlement articles, notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous language of the protocol which makes 'West Bank' the default neutral term.

Alon Shvut is compromised by an erroneous claim forbidding to mention "Judea and Samaria Administrative Area" in the lead, even though it's merited by the several mentions of the Judea area in the article.

In layman's language this is called prevarication.Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've already said once that I did not add that sentence. It was added by someone else, and mostly ratified by yourself with a slight change. You're now saying the guideline prohibits it, though you didn't remove it then, which means you seemed to change your position on it. I only edited it very slightly, as you did, and explained the edit. But I have never changed my position about it being a proper addition to the lead, as you seem to have done. My edit summary referred to the term "Judea and Samaria" historically preceding "West Bank", introduced by the British as early as 1947 and based on the historical names of the two regions it covers, "Judea" and "Samaria", going back to antiquity. The West Bank was only introduced by Jordan in 1967. I've explained most of this several times before, yet arguments persist as if none of it has been said before. In this case, you mistakenly misrepresent the editing history as if to say I changed my mind when it was actually yourself who seemed to do so. And you add more accusatory assumptions about my intent based on wrong and misleading claims about the edit history. Is it any wonder that I need to keep repeating myself? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be possible to say that Alon Shvut is administered by Israel as part of the Judea and Samaria Administrative Area as long as it is made clear to the reader that ISRAEL is the party which has applied that label. That seems to be what the policy says. If Misplaced Pages:WESTBANK also has the effect of requiring the use of quote marks in this situation (as I read it), I don't think that is a big deal. Some measure of deference must be shown to carefully negotiated compromises. At a minimum, no such compromise should be reopened unless there is an article which is materially compromised by the policy in question. I have seen no such example in this case. Jsolinsky (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That the Israeli settlement is administered by an Israel aministrative body is in the article lead already.

Alon Shvut (Hebrew: אַלּוֹן שְׁבוּת‎‎) is an Israeli settlement . .in the West Bank. . . It is administered by the Gush Etzion Regional Council.

If anyone wants to waste a month or two making a serious contribution to these issues, they'd do well to work on Judea and Samaria Area (an Israeli administrative area called Judea and Samaria Area.) and Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority. Any reader looking at these comical articles and their maps would conclude that the Governorates of the PNA are in the Judea and Samaria Administrative area, and that all the settlements come within the jurisdiction of the PNA. That's the simple reason why we just say this or that settlement comes under a regional council, as here.

What else is needed, a compass and a cutlunch?Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Another deception not being challenged here is that Judea and Samaria (either as a single entity or two entities together) historically occupied about the same region as the West Bank does today. It is actually quite hard to find maps from before 1948 that show Judea and Samaria occupying that space. Most commonly, "Judea" extended to the coast, and the hilly interior was called something like "Judean hills", but even "Judean hills" included a lot of territory now inside the green line. This Hebrew map is typical: the lower pink region is Judea and the green region above it is Samaria. And of course it is impossible to find a pre-1948 map with a region called "Judea and Samaria". The phrase "Judea and Samaria" is a modern political slogan invented to promote Jewish ownership of the West Bank, and it is not used in its historical meaning. In comparison, "West Bank" has no nationalistic connotation of its own. Zero 14:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it behooves all of us not to characterize any of the opposing arguments as "deception". The term was not invented by Israel, as you say. But rather by the British. Its use has been ratified in United Nations resolutions, a body not known for supporting Israel's position on the WB. To say it was invented by Israel in order to promote ownership of the West Bank is not only erroneous, but a grave vilification and distortion. Israel uses it in reference to its historic bond to the land, not ownership. If it was ownership Israel wanted, it would not have entered into the Oslo agreements and transferred notable parts of it to the Palestinians. If it was ownership, Israel wouldn't be agreeable to a Palestinian state there. And even if the settlers use the term to indicate the same historic bond to the land, it cannot erase the documented history that it was the British who invented the term and that it became used as such by many world agencies to specify the regions that later became known as WB. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Rosenthal, 2005 p.197.