Talk:Judea and Samaria Area/Archive 1

Begging the question
I've edited the page to get rid of some phrases that seemed to beg the question as to whether the area ought to be called West Bank or Judea and Samaria. We can't imply support for either position; we should only record that some people say Judea and Samaria, but that most say West Bank. I also deleted the disambiguation tag, because I don't see how this is a disambig page. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Pharos, I'm not aware of any consensus to move this. Did I miss it? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * See Talk:West Bank. The notice has been up for quite a while and attracted a number of comments, of which yours has been the only one to express opposition.--Pharos 23:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How many expressed support? Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I did, User:Dooley did, User:Guy Montag said he wouldn't mind it, User:Heraclius made a snide comment that one can presume means support in a way, and User:John Z made a comment about the Israeli official equivalence of the terms strongly implying support. There has been no response from Slim for seven days.--Pharos 23:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Pharos, the only reason I didn't respond was that there seemed to be no interest in redirecting this, so I thought the discussion was over. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see my new comment at Talk:West Bank. Thanks.--Pharos 23:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Talk:West Bank

 * Look, Slim, is there anything that you think should be in a Judea and Samaria article that doesn't belong in the West Bank article? If not, I can't see how separate articles can be justified.--Pharos 23:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * More or less what's there at the moment. I think it's analagous to Israeli West Bank barrier and Apartheid Wall. There are particular reasons for the use of the minority term, and the article explains them. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Tomer requested that Israeli West Bank barrier and Apartheid Wall be merged, and you agreed, as I agree, and will post to that effect there shortly. As far as I can see, you're not naming a single fact from Judea and Samaria that doesn't belong in this article.  There is just no reasonable purpose given for two articles.--Pharos 00:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was persuaded there was a good reason for having both Israeli West Bank barrier and Apartheid Wall and I can see the same holds true here. viz. that there are distinct motivations for the use of both terms, and both are used by millions of people. I'm not sure I understand the argument in favor of merging. My reasoning with Apartheid Wall was that it's a perjorative term and therefore shouldn't be given its own page, but that's not the case with Judea and Samaria. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Pharos, by all means copy comments, but please don't delete them. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * N.B. I had moved the discussion above copied from Talk:West Bank and Slim's reply here to Talk:West Bank.--Pharos 01:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge West Bank into Judea and Samaria
I'm removing the tag that the section "be merged into West Bank" for 3 reasons. (1) Judea and Samaria are the OFFICIAL names of the areas used by the State of Israel and the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (i.e., Census Bureau). See my edit to article for references and links. (2) Recent renaming of the area as "West Bank" of Jordan is similar to the Roman renaming of the land from Judea to Syria Palaestina in 135 C.E. in an attempt to stamp out any remaining hopes for Jewish national existence and is representative of an extreme anti-Jew POV. (3) There has been no further debate on the issue here for approximately 3 months. Doright 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[slimVirgin], you say, "we should only record that some people say Judea and Samaria, but that most say West Bank." Does your position take into account that the only Country that has exercised control over this land for approximately 40 years officially refers to it in its official government and census publications as Judea and Samaria? Doright 22:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Added tag Merge West Bank into Judea and Samaria Doright 03:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed tag Merge West Bank into Judea and Samaria Doright 18:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Odd wording
"Since the Israeli capture of this area from Jordanian occupation in 1967, the long used names Judea and Samaria are not used by people who want to de-emphasize Israel's and the Jewish people's relationship with the land. "

This is rather odd, as it sort of implies that the term "Judea and Samaria" were in popular international usage prior to 1967, but have fallen out of use since. What is this trying to say? I think it's trying to say "People who refuse to use the term Judea and Samaria are making a political point", but it's not entirely clear. Morwen - Talk 18:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Does anyone else think this needs a POV tag?  It seems to me that the author of this is trying to legitimize the Israeli perspective on what the region should be called rather than describe the commonly accepted naming conventions for the area.  Whenever I hear "Judea and Samaria," it's either in a biblical context or a pro-Israel context.  The name "West Bank" does not have anywhere near this level of ideological charge (the words "West Bank" do not suggest that one side's claim to the region is more legitimate than another's).  I seriously doubt that use of the term "West Bank" instead of Judea and Samaria makes a deliberate political point.  Rhesusman 18:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No I don't think a POV tag is needed. Rather, feel free to improve the article, if you think it can benefit by your contribution.  Actually, as suggested in the article, "West Bank" is an ideological anti-Jew term.  One might expect that "West Bank" refers to the physcial geography related to a river.  However, the "West Bank" is primarily the mountains or high ground. If France was called the "West Bank," do you think that would be a neutral term? After all, it is the "West Bank" of The Rhine.Doright 23:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

While I'm willing to accept the possibility that "West Bank" may have had anti-Zionist or even anti-Semitic origins (although I've never heard anything to that effect - do you have any evidence of that?), it's certainly does not have an anti-Jewish connotation now, and I'm surprised that you think it does. Even Fox News refers the area as "West Bank" and not "Judea and Samaria." The vast majority of people I know of who talk about the region use the term "West Bank." The only people I hear using the term "Judea and Samaria" are pro-Israel activists, and even then not all of them use it (indeed, even they tend to use the term West Bank!). Just because something lacks a pro-Israel connotation does not imply that it it has an anti-Israel connotation. Again, whatever the term's origins (and I'd like to see evidence that it has anti-Semitic origins before believing that), I've never met anyone other than you and the author of this article who thinks "West Bank" is anti-Semitic or anti-Jew. Don't believe me? Look at every major English-language news source on the Internet. They almost universally use "West Bank" and only use "Judea and Samaria" when quoting Israeli officials or talking about how the Israeli government describes the region. Rhesusman 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm nominating this to be checked for POV all the same. This article suggests that the term "Judea and Samaria" is the more legitimate term.  It also suggests that use of the term West Bank is inherently connected with an anti-Israel agenda.  If you ask me these are both POV, but this warrants further discussion.  Rhesusman 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. However, I'm having some difficulty connecting them to the text of the article.Doright 05:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your courtesy, but the article plainly suggests that failure to use "Judea and Samaria" as opposed to West Bank to refer to the region indicates some anti-Israel or anti-Zionist agenda. If someone uses the term West Bank to refer to the region, I can't tell what their stance on the Israeli-Arab conflict is solely from that, but if someone uses the term "Judea and Samaria" in a modern context you can safely bet that the person is strongly pro-Israel.  People who prefer to say West Bank are not trying to de-emphasize anyone's connection to the area.  How would something like this sound as a more NPOV alternative to the first paragraph:


 * Judea and Samaria is the historical and Biblical name used by the Israeli government for the region known outside of Israel since the Six-Day War as the West Bank, the Jordanian name for the region.


 * I would prefer this wording because it does not ascribe any agendas to people who say West Bank today. For my part, I would be interested in knowing what most Israelis call the region when they speak English.  Most Israelis I have heard talk about the region refer to it as West Bank when they're speaking English (although probably not when they speak Hebrew).  As for the sources that indicate anti-Semitic origins for West Bank, the Boris Shusteff one looks like it's just a pro-Israel polemic, and I'm not sure how appropriate that is as a citation.  The first source listed looks like the only one that's needed, since its purpose appears primarily to inform rather than advocate.  Rhesusman 15:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your collegial consideration of this matter. The article currently states:"'Judea and Samaria are not used by people who want to de-emphasize Israel's or the Jewish people's relationship with the land.'"
 * I would like to explore your claim that this plainly suggests that failure to use "Judea and Samaria" indicates an anti-Israel or anti-Zionist agenda. Symbolizing the essential logic of the article's statement, we see that it states:
 * If A, Then B.
 * Where,


 * A = I Want to de-emphasize Israel's or Jewish relationship with the land
 * B = I Do not use Judea and Samaria


 * That is, If I Want to de-emphasize Israel's or Jewish relationship with the land, Then I Do not use Judea and Samaria.


 * Logically, you must accept this to be true, since you affirm an even stronger version of its "contrapostive" in your own comments. You state, "if someone uses the term "Judea and Samaria" ... the person is strongly pro-Israel." Note, the contrapositive of a statement is always logically equivalent to the original statement.


 * Contrapositive
 * If not B, Then not A.


 * That is, If I use Judea and Samaria, then I do not want to de-emphasize Israel's or Jewish relationship with the land.


 * However, rejection of your claim does not require the above analysis. As shown below, your claim can be rejected immediately once it is understood to be the "Converse" of the article's text. You make the mistake in logic called the "converse error," when you infer that a statement implies its converse.


 * You claim "'the article plainly suggests that failure to use 'Judea and Samaria' as opposed to West Bank to refer to the region indicates some anti-Israel or anti-Zionist agenda.'"
 * Respectfully, I submit that your claim is false because your claim is actually the "Converse" of the article's text.
 * Symbolically, your claim is:
 * If B, Then A.
 * Where, A and B are as defined above. That is, your claim that the article statement plainly suggests its converse is false. If I Do not use Judea and Samaria, Then I Want to de-emphasize Israel's or Jewish relationship with the land, can not be infered from the article. You are incorrect in your assertion that "the article plainly suggests" If B, Then A, since that is the converse of what the text actually says. Respectfully,Doright 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I did take logic in undergrad so I know what you're talking about mechanically. However, most people's thought processes don't follow this strict Aristotelean pattern. When Judge Alito said at his confirmation hearing "That's what I believed at the time" his statement plainly suggested that he no longer believes the notion in question although his statement doesn't logically entail it. Even though in a strict logical sense, a proposition does not entail its converse, a lot of readers will assume that it will, especially when they read the next sentence (which does not necessarily entail, but certainly suggests that use of West Bank as opposed to Judea and Samaria indicates anti-Zionism - especially with that "for example" bit). Couldn't what you want to say be said less controversially by saying "Politically, the name Judea and Samaria has a pro-Israel connotation, and individuals who disagree with Israel's claim to the region are unlikely to use it. "West Bank," the Jordanian name for the region, has been more commonly used outside of Israel since the 1967 war." I don't think such wording would broadcast any ideological perspective. As it's written now, it looks like it was written by someone who is very pro-Israel. There is a difference between logically entailing something and plainly suggesting it. The current wording may not do the former, but it does the latter. Rhesusman 01:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Problem
The use of these names may also serve as a reminder that, prior to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jewish communities existed there

This is kind of a weasely phrase. Does the name serve as such a reminder or doesn't it? And who is saying that either way? This is a completely unnattributed opinion. Rhesusman 16:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Explain Revert
I recently made an effort to edit this article to be less ideologically-charged. I must ask, Doright, why you have reverted the article to its previous form with the claim that my edit represents original research. I don't understand that at all. In fact, all I did was change the wording to still say what you claim the article says now, but in a more direct, less confusing, and less ideologically-charged way. I wasn't trying to "factually" correct the article, just re-word it in a manner that avoids reflecting a point of view. I didn't add anything that would constitute original research. I respect your convictions if you're a pro-Israel activist (the types of links you are putting on the page suggest that you are), but Wikipedia is not the place to ply that trade. I also asked for a citation for a piece of information whose relevance and accuracy were questionable. I don't see how the inclusion of that constitutes original research. By the way, it's considered common courtesy to explain why you plan on reverting on the talk page before doing so. Revert Rhesusman 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Original Research = "the name Judea and Samaria has a pro-Israel connotation"
 * Your change is POV and ideologically-charged. You have already agreed that the text in question is factually correct. Since you took a basic logic class, you should know that it is FALSE that your edit and what that text says are the same. Please do no attempt to poison the well by making ad hominem innuendos about what may or may not be my convictions.  For example, I can say I respect you if you are an antisemite, but Wikipedia is not the place to ply that trade, but I would not do that and neither should you.  Furthermore, I provided you not one, but 3 citations.  You deleted the other two.Doright 11:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know what your problem is here. First, I wasn't making an ad-hominem attack on you at all.  I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with being pro-Israel.  If you ask me, it's a perfectly normal, mainstream opinion to have.  That's part of the reason I respect it.  Comparing that to you calling me an anti-Semite does not make a shred of sense.  That's not an ad-hominem attack, but a reasonable inference based on the sort of citations you're providing.  There's nothing wrong with you having that opinion and admitting it on the talk page if that's how you really feel.  Maybe I came off as a little patronizing.  I apologize if I came off the wrong way.  Given what I said, I think it's only fair that I say, no, I don't agree with everything Israel does and everything it's supporters claim.  But I certainly would not describe myself as either an anti-Zionist or an anti-Semite.  I don't believe I have said anything that suggests the former and I know I haven't said anything that suggests the latter (I'm saying this to clarify my own position on the matter, not to suggest that you necessarily called me an anti-Semite).  There's nothing particularly negative about being called pro-Israel.  There's something really negative about being called an anti-Semite.  The comparison is unwarranted.


 * Secondly, as for my wording being POV and orignial research, I disagree. Do a Google search.  Look to see who's saying Judea and Samaria (in a political context) and look who's saying West Bank.  Maybe it was a mistake of me to assume that was common knowledge.  My bad.  I'll freely admit that.  I should have found a source that stated that more directly.  However, if my claim that using Judea and Samaria in a political context has a pro-Israel connotation is original research, then the first sentence of the third paragraph is also original research (they don't say the exact same thing, but they're supported equally well or badly, depending on how you look at it).  As for what we said not meaning the same thing, I'll also admit that I may have been sloppy and imprecise.  I would argue, however, that I am not being POV.  This is what we seem to agree about 1) the historical name for the region is in fact Judea and Samaria 2) more people outside of Israel call the region West Bank than Judea and Samaria 3) people who want to de-emphasize the Jewish connection to the region (which, let's face it, is almost certainly because they disagree with Israel's claim to the region) prefer not to use the term.  I am not entirely certain whether you think that using the term in a political context has a pro-Israel connotation or not.  I thought you did, but it looks like you may disagree with that.


 * It's true that when you go through a logical analysis, I agree with what you're saying. My problem with your preferred wording is not that it is factually inaccurate, but that it is more confusing and suggestive (of a POV) in its tone and emphasis than it needs to be.  As I already explained, just because something is accurate doesn't alone mean it's adequate.  People don't think in strict Aristotelean terms.  Here are my specific problems with the current wording:  1) There are many reasons a person would use the term West Bank instead of Judea and Samaria.  By giving prominence to the anti-Israel reason, it makes it seem like that is the most common reason.  That's POV (My version may have this problem too).  2) The sentence is worded in such a way as to make it seem like Judea and Samaria is a more legitimate term that has been wrongly usurped by West Bank ("long used names" and "despite being the literal land of Judah").  That's POV (I'd simply like the article to note that Israel and its supporters prefer to call it Judea and Samaria in a political context - the fact that Judea and Samaria is the historic name, would fit nicely into the second paragraph where it wouldn't look like it was trying to legitimate a claim).  3) Connecting the last two sentences with "For example" makes it sound like people are using West Bank instead of Judea and Samaria because they are trying to de-emphasize the Jewish people's relationship with the land.


 * Also, it's worth pointing out that Israel and the Jewish people are not conceptually identical. Most people don't dispute or try to de-emphasize, in my experience, the Jewish people's traditional and historical ties to the region.  That's why I preferred a wording that refers to people who disagree with the modern day State of Israel's claim to the land as opposed to people who want to de-emphasize the Jewish people's relationship with it.  There are plenty of people who fall into the former category but not the latter.  I was trying to be more accurate and inclusive in my wording.  Look, it's obvious to me that you're far more strongly committed to the current wording of this than I am to changing it.  I certainly did not intend to spend this much time discussing this, nor did I expect this discussion to be reach this emotional level.  I'd be happy to continue discussing this with you and attempt to reach a compromise on the wording of this, but I won't try to change it any more.  I'd like to point out, however, that I'm not the only one who has had issues with the way this is worded.


 * Thirdly, as for the citation note, you didn't read carefully. I put a second  note in a different paragraph.  That's the one your revert caused to disappear.  That's another issue.  See the heading before this one.  Rhesusman 05:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Odd wording again
"Since the Israeli capture of this area from Jordanian occupation in 1967 ..."

Describing the status prior to 1967 as "Jordanian occupation" seems odd to me.

I was under the impression that, following the cease-fire in 1948, when the area was indeed occupied by Jordan, the people of the area petitioned the King of Jordan to incorporate the area into the Kingdom of Jordan.

I'd have used the wording:

"Since the Israeli capture of this area from Jordan in 1967 ..."

Tim Martin


 * Hi Tim, I'm a little confused. First you say, Describing the status prior to 1967 as "Jordanian occupation" seems odd to me. Then, in the very next sentence you say, "when the area was indeed occupied by Jordan."  I fail to understand the difference between "Jordanian occupation" and occupied by Jordan." Regards,Doright 09:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Changes
Thanks to whoever changed it this article is much better now. However, I still think the "may refer to" bit is a little weasely. Rhesusman 20:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

POV fork?
From quickly looking through the earlier talk page discussion, I know that this has been discussed before, but I'm not sure how I understand how this article does not constitute a POV fork. It seems to me that the West Bank article can discuss the usage of the name "Judea and Samaria," by Israelis to refer to the region, and that any other information about history and politics can and should be accommodated by the West Bank article. What is the argument for a separate article here? john k 18:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You make the change and then ask questions? Not too sincere, so you probably don't want to listen to any replies anyway. If you really want to be bold (and a true wikipedian) suggest an AFD. --Shuki 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer to that is very simple. As far as many Jews are concerned, the name West Bank itself violates NPOV, because it implies that the land is not Jewish land. However, no one (except total liars) can argue that this land is not the land historically known as Judea and Samaria. Yehoishophot Oliver 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No one (except total liars) can argue that Israel together with the territories is not the land historically known as Palestine. Should we then not rename such articles? &mdash;Ashley Y 23:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ashley, which liars are deny the use of the word 'Palestine'? The first sentence of the Palestine article is pretty straightforward, though I couldn't find in that article when the first use of the word was. Land of Israel = Palestine. What's your point? Judea and Samaria is a fictitious name invented by 'liars'? --Shuki 14:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, maddening.  Surely nobody can deny that the area is on the West Bank of the Jordan river.  Beyond that, you are basically saying, yes, this article is a POV fork, and that it should be.   That is not an adequate response. The use of "Judea and Samaria" to refer to the territory between the Jordan River and the 1949 green line, btw, is obviously a made up name invented by propagandists. The terms "Judea" and "Samaria" obviously existed, but the precise geographic signifier of "territory in the Mandate of Palestine which was controlled by Jordan between 1949 and 1967" is surely a new usage.  And the term "West Bank" is completely lacking in any kind of ethnic signifiers.  It's not like it's being called "Eastern Palestine" or "Northern Palestine" or something like that, which would obviously be POV.  "West Bank" is a completely non-political, so far as I can tell, geographical signifier. john k 23:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the "Status" section
I have a few issues with the Status section of the article for various reasons that I'm going to outline: The following reasons assume that the Status section is relevant and remains in this article Even if the Status section is left in the article, the second paragraph should at least be removed. I want to make sure that others agree with me before making any changes. -- Mathan 05:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrelevance: Assuming that this article is about the origin, history and usage of the term "Judea and Samaria" the status of the territory itself is not relevant to the term used to describe it, and should only be included in the main West Bank article.
 * Irrelevance: The second paragraph is irrelevant because it discusses the reasons for occupation and not the status of the area.
 * Improper Citation: the citation for the claim that security is the Israeli government's traditional argument for occupation does not support this claim.
 * POV: That "Israeli claim to the territory has been weakened" is a point of view.

"It is the official name of the area in the Israeli sources and the Hebrew media"
Could we possibly get more weasely than "the Israeli sources" and "the Hebrew media," while also taking POV shots at Ha'aretz? Italiavivi 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The name Judea and Samaria has been used to describe this region throughout 3000 or more years of history, it was never known as the West Bank. The name West Bank is a complete non historical term invented extremely recently. So, this area, referred to many hundreds of times in the worlds most popular book as Judea and Samaria is just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.187.128 (talk) 20:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Are the lists needed?
I propose removing the lists of councils and cities, we have a navbox which serves this purpose, the Hebrew names also ruin the style. Chesdovi 11:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are similar lists in the other Israeli districts and they describe what's in the district.--Towerdefence 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they should all be removed, it's a needless and unnecesary duplication of infomation. In Center District (Israel) the former municipaly list can be retained. Why have an infobox aswell as these lists stating the same thing? Chesdovi 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

district of Israel?
How can territory which Israel does not officially claim to be Israeli territory be a district of Israel? john k 23:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it's just practicalities. It is currently under Israeli administration and disricts are made for administrative purposes. Chesdovi 00:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's administered like a district (sort of...), but surely they can't actually call it a district, can they? john k 04:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war developing?
Back & forth it goes. Instead of the endless reverts, how about discussing the issue(s) on this page? By my count multiple editors are already eligible for 3RR warnings, or about to be. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Some editors have taken upon themselves to promote "Judea" and "Samaria" from historical regions to current geographical, without presenting much support for the change or even discussing it beforehand. There is one discussion going at Judea and one at Samaria, however the nature of the evidence presented there so far should rather discourage such attempts. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * MeteorMaker has some unsourced theories about the terms Judea and Samaria, and is neither willing to provide reliable sources for this theories, nor willing to accept evidence to the contrary, but instead has determined that he will promote his theory across Wikipedia, and excise any mentions of the terms from articles. Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange then that the article had reflected those "unsourced theories" for years until CanadianMonkey decided to start a revert war by imposing his own unsourced theories on it, which not only are at odds with all encyclopedias but also so difficult to find evidence for that all he has come up with after several months in fact is better evidence against them . MeteorMaker (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, whenever counter-evidence is provided for your unsourced theories, you either ignore it, or adjust the theory to exclude the evidence on spurious grounds (e.g. it's only used in Israel, or by former-Israelis, or the source is really talking about the biblical Samaria despite no evidence of same, or the source is speaking from the viewpoint of Israelis despite no evidence of same, etc.). Jayjg (talk) 07:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We have yet to see theories (unsourced or otherwise) from me, so when you say "whenever", you're discussing a highly hypothetical scenario. I have only requested sources for your claim that "Judea" and "Samaria" are modern toponyms outside Israel. The cites you have produced have conclusively been shown to be written by Israelis (9 of 11) or misrepresented (the author uses "West Bank" consistently, but 1) has used "Samaria" once in a Bible allusion  or 2) writes about fundamentalist settlers and uses "Samaria" occasionally when discussing their ideology or ambitions.
 * Contrary to your recollection, your counter(productive) evidence has never been ignored, only thoroughly refuted. Please accept that, and try to find evidence that isn't practically self-refuting, preferably using Wikipedia methodology.MeteorMaker (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course we've seen theories from you; for example "Samaria" is the ancient area, "West Bank" the modern. However, you've never actually provided any reliable sources to back up your theories. Please desist from ideological revisionism and game playing. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a "theory" I share with available online encyclopedias: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, Bible Encyclopedia, American Heritage Dictionary. I have posted that link a few times before; you may have missed it. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No one disputes that there was an ancient kingdom of Samaria. However, you still haven't provided any reliable sources that support your claim that the term is not a "modern toponym". Certainly the refences you have provided do not make that case. Please provide reliable sources for your theories. Jayjg (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If there were a modern region called "Samaria", wouldn't that be mentioned in any encyclopedia? You might have noticed that all quotes in the link above use the past tense, or use the word "ancient" to make clear that "Samaria" is not a modern toponym. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting theory. Do you have any reliable sources that make that same claim? Jayjg (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Jayjg: I have posted that link a few times before; you may have missed it. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you have, but since it doesn't say that Samaria is not a modern toponym, it's not relevant. On the other hand, I have posted WP:SYNTH to you several times, which is quite relevant. You may have missed it. Jayjg (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) All right, let's see if I have reliable sources. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia says: "Samaria, central region, ancient Palestine. Extending about 40 mi (65 km) north-south and 35 mi (55 km) east-west, it was bounded by Galilee to the north, Judaea to the south, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and the Jordan River to the east. It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory.''" The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says: "Samaria, an ancient city of central Palestine in present-day northwest Jordan (Pre-67 edition - MM). It was founded in the ninth century B.C. as the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, also known as Samaria." Columbia Encyclopedia says: "Samaria, ancient city, central Palestine, on a hill NW of Nablus (Shechem). The site is now occupied by a village, Sabastiyah (West Bank)." Encarta says: "Samaria, ancient city and state in Palestine, located north of present-day Jerusalem, east of the Mediterranean Sea. [...] In modern times, a sect of Samaritans practices a religion similar to that of the biblical Jews, with some admixture of Islam. Few in number, they make their home around their ancient temple site of Mount Gerizim, near modern Nābulus, in the area now known as the West Bank." Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names says: "Samaria, Samaria, (Hebrew: Shomron), West Bank. The central region of ancient Palestine and its capital, now called Sabasṭiyah."

Re the usage domain of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria": Encyclopedia Britannica Online says: "West Bank, area of the former British-mandated (1920–47) territory of Palestine west of the Jordan River, claimed from 1949 to 1988 as part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan but occupied from 1967 by Israel. The territory, excluding East Jerusalem, is also known within Israel by its biblical names, Judaea and Samaria." Columbia Encyclopedia says: "West Bank, territory, formerly part of Palestine, after 1949 administered by Jordan, since 1967 largely occupied by Israel (2005 est. pop. 2,386,000)[...] Israelis who regard the area as properly Jewish territory often refer to it by the biblical names of Judaea and Samaria." Now let's see your sources. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. There is no Judea listed in the Oxford English Dictionary, just Judean, as in the Hills. It says,  “A. adj. Of or pertaining to Judæa or southern Palestine. B. n. A native or inhabitant of this region.” In the usages, it does recently note, “1973 Times 3 Dec. 17/6 David Ben-Gurion..took a leading part..in recruiting for the Judaean battalions of the Royal Fusiliers.”

No Samaria listed separately either, but it notes “a. A native or inhabitant of Samaria, a district of Palestine named from its chief city, anciently the capital of the kingdom of Israel; esp. one who adheres to the religious system which had its origin in Samaria.” In usage, it recently notes: “1977 Sci. Amer. Jan. 100/1 Although the kingdom of Samaria vanished long ago, the Samaritans still survive today as perhaps the smallest ethnic minority in the world.” There is also a specific reference to the ‘good’ Samaritan and an adj., which says, “B. adj. a. Of or pertaining to Samaria or the Samaritans; used by the Samaritans. Also Comb., as (sense b of the n.) Samaritan-like adj. Samaritan Pentateuch: a recension of the Hebrew Pentateuch used by the Samaritans; the MSS. are written in ‘Samaritan’ (i.e. archaic Hebrew) characters.” b. absol. (quasi-n.) in various contextual uses, e.g. the Aramaic dialect formerly spoken in Samaria; the character in which this is written; the Samaritan text of the Hebrew Pentateuch.

Based on this RS, I assume Judea and Samaria, has something to do with Palestine since it is used for both. I am unaware to what religious system it specifically refers. As I am also unaware of any growing usage of Aramaic or Samaritan, I dont think this works. I am somewhat at a loss. However, thirty years hence, it sounds like that ‘smallest ethnic minority’ is now probably just an endangered species. I really didn’t find OED all that enlightening, as to what J and S are, and never were the two words used together.

So, I did a little RS checking at LexisNexis academic. It was somewhat more enlightening, since the two terms both appeared and seem somehow attached, one with the other. I searched for ‘Information Major U.S. and World Publication”: (Judea) and DATE(>=1948-01-01 and <=1977-01-01) and got 9 hits, dated from Sept. 23, 1969 to November 14, 1976, 8 from NYT, one Economist. There are several somewhat helpful.

The first, NEW YORK TIMES, September 23, 1969, Tuesday, says “Israel repts cease-fire lines relatively quiet; repts UAR commandos blasted culvert in Suez Canal area, repts several exchs of fire across canal; repts Arab guerrillas made bazooka attack on Israeli village of Tzafririm in Judea; Arab commando is killed when hand grenade he carries explodes, Gaza.” The second, NEW YORK TIMES, October 31, 1969, Friday, says “Denis Rohan trial resumes; Rohan testifies that he was choosen by God to become King of Jerusalem and Judea and to build his Temple; describes his childhood problems; illus.

The third is helpful too, NEW YORK TIMES, March 13, 1971, Saturday, “[Golda] Meir says she is prepared to negotiate with Arabs on everything but that she will not be dictated to; questions whether Sadat actually is prepared to make peace; says there are many plans, not only Allon's, for occupied west bank; says Gahal party and religious groups want Judea and Sumaria but that she does not want 600,000 more Arabs; expresses opposition to bilingual state like Lebanon and declares that Israel must be Jewish state while retaining Arab minority; says she is opposed to establishment of ind Palestine on west bank because it would be too small to be viable but big enough to wage war on Israel; declares that final borders between Israel and west bank must not divide but connect Israel and Arabs and that each must have access to holy places in other's territory;

the fourth article (of substance), NEW YORK TIMES, April 4, 1976, Sunday, says “Naomi Shepherd article on Israeli settlement policy in occupied territories. Since '67 Israel has set up 55 settlements--paramil, agr villages and urban centers--on territory captured during '67 Arab-Israeli war. Population of these settlements is estimated unofficially at 8,000. Israeli spokesmen insist that presence of settlements does not foreclose options in future negotiations with Arab states and that land involved has not been annexed by Israel but also state that location of settlements indicates Israel's ideas on future defensible borders. Foreign Min Yigal Allon maintains that future settlement should be conducted according to thoroughly prepared plan serving Israel's strategic needs. Need for such plan has been obvious during last few mos. While there is general agreement on settlement in Sinai region and Golan Hts there has never been govt consensus on future of West Bank, and agreement that led to formation of coalition Govt explicitly states that West Bank's fate cannot be decided without new elections. Theoretical framework within which settlements operate is twofold: on West Bank, it follows Allon Plan of '67, which suggests that Israel retain mil control of strip of territory bounding west bank of River Jordan, return most of Judea and Samaria to Arab rule, but retain small mountain ridge and south of Bethlehem, essential to defense of Jerusalem. Plan, put to King Hussein and rejected, has not been approved by Israeli Govt. Other guideline is so-called 'Oral Law' of Labor Party, a verbal consensus on nature of defensible borders for Israel which served as basis for Labor alignment's election platform in '69 and '74. Its tenets are that Israel would not go down from Golan Hts, that defensible border in south might run from El Arish on north Sinai coast to Ras Muhammed on Red Sea, that Israel must control Sharm el Sheik, linked by narrow strip to Eilat, that Jordan River must be 'security border' of Israel and under Israeli Army control. 1st West Bank settlement was in Hebron in '68. New settlement in Kadoum, near Nablus, threatens future of Prime Min Yitzhak Rabin's Govt. Natl Religious Party Mins Yosef Burg and Zevulun Hammer have threatened to resign if settlers are removed, and Mapam Party has threatened to leave coalition if settlers are not. Allon and Defense Min Shimon Peres are in conflict on issue. Illus (L).”

Fifth (relevant), The Economist, May 15, 1976, Entitled, Israel; Hanging sword. '''The cabinet debate was a Babel of voices. Mr Allon, the foreign minister, declared: "Israel has the right to all of the Land of Israel, but we cannot live by historical maps. I oppose annexation of densely populated Arab areas in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank]." Mr Zevulum Hammer, an NRP minister who represents Gush Emunim interests, said: "Removal of the Kadum settlers will lead to a crisis that can break the people's spirit and show the Arabs and the world we are not determined to stay in this country."''' The normally mild finance minister, Mr Yehoshua Rabinovitch, said: "We must prepare ourselves for an unacceptable settlement which could be forced upon us." The minister of defence, Mr Shimon Peres, spoke of the danger of "the political and military collaboration between Syria and Jordan. Israel must therefore strengthen its hold on the western slopes of the Samaria hill range, its control of the central routes to the coast, and its defences of the Jordan basin." Mr Peres advised establishing civilian settlements near army bases and put forward a five-year plan which would increase the 26 settlements in the West Bank to 43 and their population from 8,000 to 15,000. The doveish housing minister, Mr Avraham Ofer, presented a plan for six new urban settlements to ring Jerusalem with a population of 30,000-40,000 each. Gush Emunim was quick to take advantage of the ministers' uncertainties and denounce their decision. It declared that the Kadum settlers would move only to an alternative site in the "heart of Samaria" -- that is, the northern half of the West Bank. This hilly area has more than half the West Bank's population and the government is unlikely to allow Jewish settlement there. Latest reports mention Cochav Hashahar, overlooking the Jordan basin, as an alternative site. The settlers' movement will certainly stand fast and there will be no escape from demonstrations and riots which could lead to violent clashes between thousands of Gush Emunim adherents and the security forces. The government's postponement of such a clash has not cleared the air; it has left a sword poised ready to fall.

I should note that all refs post-date the Six Day War, but it seems very hard just to say that, so I ref’d it. Occupying the land was the impetus and that is easy to ref. My next search only covered the next one year (Judea) and DATE(>=1977-01-01 and <=1978-01-01) and got 48 hits. There is nothing unusual about that; Menachem Begin was elected Israeli PM on 17 May 1977.

The first relevant one is best, sorry for the length. The Washington Post, May 19, 1977, Thursday, Final Edition, Israeli Election Seen as Setback To Peace Drive; Any timetable for advancing an Arab-Israeli peace settlement this year, a major objective of the Carter Administration, has most probably been thwarted by the Israeli election results. The man most likely to lead the new government, rightist Likud Party leader Menachem Begin said today on the crucial issue of the territories occupied in the 1967 war: "What occupied territories? If you mean Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, they are liberated territories and they belong to the historic state of Israel." Although the dust has not yet settled from Likud's election victory yesterday and the stunning defeat of the Labor alignment - which has ruled Israel for all 29 years of its existence - the settlement setback and two other points began to emerge from the doubt and speculation: With only 41 seats out of a total of 120 in the next Parliament, Likud's chances of being able to put together a stable and lasting coalition government are exceedingly doubtful. This is of itself a major reason that progress toward a Middle East settlement may have to be postponed… 

They had that one only half right, I’ll stop there with the details of J and S and just provide some headline refs that include the terms, lest you are unsure of the provenance of the current usage of the words. West Bank; State of shock, The Economist, May 28, 1977, 'WE CANNOT GIVE UP JUDEA AND SAMARIA', Newsweek, May 30, 1977 THE ZEALOT, Newsweek, May 30, 1977, Begin's Inflexibility Seen as Bad Omen for Peace Efforts; News Analysis, The Washington Post, June 15, 1977, Israelis Reject Washington's Criticism, The Washington Post, June 29, 1977, Old and new prophets, The Economist, July 9, 1977, 'We Are Here to Stay', Newsweek, August 8, 1977,

These are only in the first twenty refs after May, 19, 1977. I probably need not say more, but will note the same provenance for Eretz Israel and its English euphemism Land of Israel. To make my point, there have been similar editing conflicts here, specifically over this same subject I am not saying these terms are not valid, just that Wikipedia must make the decision to enforce NPOV. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)