Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources

Why the "not a modern toponym" or "not understood outside of Israel" theory fails
User:MeteorMaker has been trying to promote the theory that the term "Samaria" is "not a modern toponym" or "not understood outside of Israel". He has not supported it with any actual sources making that claim, but rather has tried to develop as synthesized argument based on his interpretation of how various sources use the term. Even worse, he has been presented with multiple English language sources that use the term and thus refute his theory, but has rejected them on various grounds, claiming that they are referring to the biblical Samaria, or that the sources are Israeli. Now, to begin with, there is nothing wrong with a source simply because the person happens to have been born in Israel. I repeat, there is nothing wrong with a source simply because the person happens to have been born in Israel. The sources brought are English language, generally North American or European, which is all that matters. If we brought Hebrew language sources, that would be a different matter, but we haven't, we've brought North American and European publications. However, even if you exclude people born in Israel (not that there is any reason to), your claims still fail, as the multiple sources below show: As is clear from the above, and hundreds more sources, User:MeteorMaker's theory is both entirely unproven, and, in fact, disproven. MeteorMaker, please desist from trying to edit-war your theories into Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Its intention was to establish a Jewish settlement in the heart of Samaria, the northern bulge of the West Bank, densely populated by Arabs." Ian Lustick For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, p. 45.
 * 2) "Few in number until the late 1970s, the young Gush Emunim settlements in Samaria, the Etzion bloc, and Kiryat Arba attracted the most idealistic and dynamic fundamentalist activists." Ian Lustick For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, p. 54.
 * 3) "Rabin intended the settlement to be temporary and to relocate them later within the confines of the Allon plan, not in the heart of Samaria. The settlers, however, refused to move." Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. ''To Rule Jerusalem", Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 170.
 * 4) "The row houses of Ofra, a Jewish suburb to the north of Jerusalem, are planted in deep red soil at the foot of Ba'al Hatzor, the highest mountain in Samaria." Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. ''To Rule Jerusalem", Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 213.
 * 5) "In August 2005, reversing his longstanding position on championing settlement of the Land of Israel, Sharon evacuated all of the Jewish settlements in Gaza (some 9,000 people living in twenty-one communities) and four small settlements in the northern part of Samaria (West Bank)." Alfred J. Kolatch. Inside Judaism: The Concepts, Customs, and Celebrations of the Jewish People, Jonathan David Company, 2006, p. 270.
 * 6) "On 18 September 1978, one day after the signing of the Accord, 700 Gush Emunim members established an unauthorized settlement in Samaria..." Lilly Weisbrod. Israeli Identity: In Search of a Successor to the Pioneer, Tsabar and Settler, Routledge, 2002, p. 112.
 * 7) "LAST STAND IN SAMARIA", Kevin Peraino, Newsweek, August 15, 2005.
 * 8) SAMARIA, Martin Gilbert, The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Routledge, 2005, p. 134 (and other maps showing Samaria).
 * 9) "The relative success in establishing official settlement in Kfar Etzion and unofficial settlement in Kiryat Arba prompted groups of Israelis to attempt settlement in the major town in Samaria — Nablus.", Allan Gerson. Israel, the West Bank and International Law, Routledge, 1978, p. 139.
 * 10) "In Samaria the voting percentage increased from 75% in the Jordanian period to 83.9%..." Allan Gerson. Israel, the West Bank and International Law, Routledge, 1978, p. 185.
 * 11) "Nevertheless, Haganah commanders recognized that the size of the Iraqi force and its location in northern Samaria made it a dangerous threat." Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, University of Nebraska Press, 2004, p. 153.
 * 12) "The prospects for a successful defense also improved during this period with the arrival of a large Iraqi expeditionary force in northern Samaria, enabling Glubb to withdraw..." Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, University of Nebraska Press, 2004, p. 279.
 * 13) "...wanted to concentrate their forces along shorter defensive lines in the mountainous terrain of central Samaria." Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, University of Nebraska Press, 2004, p. 296. (many other similar examples in this book).
 * 14) "The first actual step taken by the group was to settle in Elon Moreh in Samaria." Santosh C. Saha, Thomas K. Carr. Religious Fundamentalism in Developing Countries, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, p. 73.
 * 15) "Northern Samaria is one of the harsest setting in the territories... In addition there have been many convoys bringing food, medical supplies, and other necessities to blockaded villages in Samaria and on the western "seam line". David Dean Shulman. Dark Hope: Working for Peace in Israel and Palestine, University of Chicago Press, 2007, p. 102.
 * 16) "Arafat lived in the casbah of old Nablus in Samaria and held his meetings in small Nablus cafes or in the New Generation Library." John Laffin. Fedayeen; the Arab-Israeli Dilemma, Free Press, 1973, p. 26.
 * 17) "(Though the northern parts of Samaria were occupied by the Iraqi army, as a Hashemite sister state, Iraq allowed Abdullah to exercise his political influence over the territories its armies controlled)." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 12.
 * 18) "Kiryat Arba (near Hebron) and Elon Moree (in Samaria) were, until 1977, the only settlements founded in the West Bank outside the lines of the Allon Plan." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 95.
 * 19) "In 1981, at the end of Begin's first term as Prime Minister, there were about 80 settlements in the West Bank, some in the densely-populated Arab areas in Samaria and elsewhere." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 96.
 * 20) "The first settlement had been built in Samaria, and settlers believed that they had begun the task of preventing territorial compromise in the West Bank." David Weisburd. Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985, p. 30.
 * 21) "While the government had acted quickly to forcibly uproot previous settlement attempts, it did not move against the settlers in Samaria through December 7." David Weisburd. Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985, p. 32.
 * 22) "Success in restoring some order was due to the energy and skill of the district governors — in Hebron a Palestinian, Nairn Tucan, in Samaria another, the active Ahmed Khalil, and in Jerusalem Abdullah Tell." Ann Dearden. Jordan: history and special problems, R. Hale, 1958, p. 85.
 * 23) "...as a reaction to the October War, and the character and impact of the illegal settlement attempts in Samaria from late 1974 onward." William W. Harris. Taking Root: Israeli Settlement in the West Bank, the Golan, and Gaza-Sinai, 1967-1980, Research Studies Press, 1980, p. 135.
 * 24) "As regards physical activity Gush Emunim had carried all before it for two years and had planted the presence in Samaria which would be extremely difficult to curb, let alone uproot." William W. Harris. Taking Root: Israeli Settlement in the West Bank, the Golan, and Gaza-Sinai, 1967-1980, Research Studies Press, 1980, p. 157.
 * 25) "In Samaria, the number of women employed in sewing has risen from 100 in 1967 to just over 3000 in 1972." Vivian A. Bull. The West Bank--Is it Viable?, Lexington Books, 1975, p. 123.
 * 26) "A third sector was opened up in the north, where Gen. Elazar sent the armoured brigades of Ram and Bar-Kochva from Ugda Peled to take Nablus and Jenin in Samaria." John Laffin, Mike Chappell. The Israeli Army in the Middle East Wars 1948-73, Osprey Publishing, 1982, p. 19.
 * 27) "For example, in the case of the settlement-city of Ariel - the largest settlement in Samaria, coincidentally named after Ariel Sharon - the design was stretched into a long, thin form." Stephen Graham. Cities, War, and Terrorism: Towards an Urban Geopolitics, Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p. 181.
 * 28) "Likud planners designated Ariel to become the largest Jewish town in Samaria, with as many as one hundred thousand residents by the year 2010." Robert I. Friedman. Zealots for Zion: Inside Israel's West Bank Settlement Movement, Random House, 1992, p. 72.
 * 29) "... but late on June 6 he broke through to capture Nablus, the key to road communications in Samaria... Jordanian defences in Samaria fell apart." John Pimlott. The Middle East Conflicts: From 1945 to the Present, Orbis, 1983, p. 68.
 * 30) "On the other hand, we visited the planned city of Ariel on the top of a mountain in Samaria, one of Israel's West Bank settlements." Peter Laarman. Getting on Message: Challenging the Christian Right from the Heart of the Gospel, Beacon Press, 2006, p. 46.
 * 31) "Yael Meivar was shot by terrorists near the settlement of Alei Zahav in Samaria." Anthony H. Cordesman, Jennifer Moravitz. The Israeli-Palestinian War: Escalating to Nowhere, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005, p. 26.
 * 32) "Marking Israeli Arbor Day at a Jewish settlement in Samaria on Feb. 3, Shamir said...", Andrew C. Kimmens. The Palestinian Problem, H.W. Wilson, 1989, p. 211.
 * 33) "Carter concluded that the unresolved issues included... the future of the Palestinians in Samaria, Judea, and Gaza..." Herbert Druks. The Uncertain Alliance: The U.S. and Israel from Kennedy to the Peace Process, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, p. 175.
 * 34) "Jewish settlements in Samaria in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would be under Israeli sovereignty." H. Paul Jeffers. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Jerusalem, Alpha Books, 2004, p. 212.
 * 35) "Instead the government based its view on the map previously introduced by Clinton Bailey which envisaged three self-governing Palestinian enclaves, with an Israeli corridor in Samaria." Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Dawoud Sudqi El Alami. The Palestine-Israeli Conflict: A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld Publications, 2001, p. 86.
 * 36) "Instead, he chose total disengagement from Gaza and the dismantlement of four settlements in northern Samaria." Zvi Shtauber, Yiftah Shapir. The Middle East Strategic Balance 2005-2006, Sussex Academic Press, 2007, p. 123.
 * 37) "Prior to forming his new coalition with the Labor Party, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon strong-armed members of his Likud cabinet to support Labor's idea of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and four settlements in northern Samaria." Getz, Leonard. "Likudniks Against Sharon: Rebels or Loyalists?", The Jewish Exponent, 01-13-2005.
 * 38) "Understandably so: in the end, the Gaza withdrawal took all of six days while the pullout from four settlements in northern Samaria was accomplished in a single day." Zelnick, Robert. Israel's Unilaterialism: Beyond Gaza, Hoover Press, 2006, p. 157.
 * 39) "The four West Bank settlements that Israel is evacuating are all located in the biblical Land of Israel — territory that observant Jews believe was promised to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria, was inhabited by the tribe of Menashe, one of the 10 tribes of Israel that were forced into exile." "Biblical significance of West Bank settlements", International Herald Tribune, August 23, 2005.
 * 40) "Others not only support comprehensive talks but call for abandonment of Israel’s plan to disengage from Gaza and four settlements in northern Samaria." Sofaer, Abraham D. "Disengagement First", Hoover Digest 2005 No. 1, Hoover Institution.
 * 41) "In August 2005, Israel vacated the Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip--mainly in Gush Katif--as well as four settlements in northern Samaria." Inbari, Motti. "Fundamentalism in crisis - the response of the Gush Emunim rabbinical authorities to the theological dilemmas raised by Israel's Disengagement plan", Journal of Church and State, Autumn, 2007.
 * 42) "Four settlements will be evacuated in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank." Tamir, Naftali. "Naftali Tamir: Retreat with peace in mind", The Australian, August 15, 2005.
 * 43) "There are many who believe that a Palestinian State should be established in the near future, with Samaria, Judea and the Gaza Strip as its territory." Gilland, Bernard. "Zionism, Israel and the Arabs", Contemporary Review, January 2003.
 * 44) "it was discovered that the Israeli Defense Ministry had begun covertly recognizing certain "unauthorized" settlements in Samaria". Hitchens, Christopher. "The iron wall"], Salon.com, April 13, 1998.
 * 45) "The plan favors the western slopes of Samaria..." "Israel's next war? A Chronology", PBS Frontline.
 * 46) "During 2003, Israel's Ministry of Construction and Housing decides to finance the buying of caravans or light mobile homes by regional Jewish councils in Judea, Samaria and Gaza..." "Israel's next war? A Chronology", PBS Frontline.

Discussion

 * (1)"Its intention was to establish a Jewish settlement in the heart of Samaria, the northern bulge of the West Bank, densely populated by Arabs." Ian Lustick For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, p. 45.
 * (2)"Few in number until the late 1970s, the young Gush Emunim settlements in Samaria, the Etzion bloc, and Kiryat Arba attracted the most idealistic and dynamic fundamentalist activists." Ian Lustick For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Council on Foreign Relations, 1988, p. 54.
 * Comment. (1), (2) Cherrypicking. As shown, Lustick is citing settler language and explicitly documented that this is annexationalist language. These two quotes are thus immaterial.Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Lustick nowhere explains that he is "citing settler language", nor does he state that the term "Samaria" is "annexationalist language", nor does he include the word in quotations of any sort. Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in fact he does. You may have seen this quote before:
 * "'For political purposes, and despite the geographical imprecision involved, the annexationist camp in Israel prefers to refer to the area between the Green Line and the Jordan River not as the West Bank but as Judea and Samaria.'"
 * As about citing settler language, it's pretty obvious to even a casual reader that Lustick does, so obvious that he doesn't feel a need to spell it out. He's not using the term "Samaria" anywhere in the book except when describing the settler movement's ideals or ambitions. It's anything but a clear, unambiguous case of a scholar using the term, and we have wasted lots of time arguing over this isolated instance, so I suggest you find better, unequivocal examples instead of defending your misrepresentation of Lustick's book to the death. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out before "Judea and Samaria" != "Samaria". Also, as has been pointed out before, "it's pretty obvious to even a casual reader that Lustick does, so obvious that he doesn't feel a need to spell it out" = inaccurate, self-serving original research. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, how did you arrive at the conclusion that it's "inaccurate"? MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By reading his words, instead of his thoughts, as you apparently imagine you can do. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So... what exact words does Lustick use to express that thought, that is apparently very clear to you? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Its intention was to establish a Jewish settlement in the heart of Samaria, the northern bulge of the West Bank, densely populated by Arabs." Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that means ""Judea and Samaria" != "Samaria""? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes you think they are the same thing? Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No response then? Good, you concede the point. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have missed G-Dett's response immediately below, which makes the point better than I could have done. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we read his words, instead of his thoughts, as you apparently imagine you can do, then Samaria=Samaria.--G-Dett (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (3)"Rabin intended the settlement to be temporary and to relocate them later within the confines of the Allon plan, not in the heart of Samaria. The settlers, however, refused to move." Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. ''To Rule Jerusalem", Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 170.
 * (4)"The row houses of Ofra, a Jewish suburb to the north of Jerusalem, are planted in deep red soil at the foot of Ba'al Hatzor, the highest mountain in Samaria." Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. ''To Rule Jerusalem", Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 213.
 * Comment.3 and 4. The two authors throughout use the ‘West Bank’ as their preferred designation of the area, and identify other names for it with specific groups, the IDF or religious settlers. Note their record of an interview with a rabbi from the extremist settlement at Kiryat Arab, who echoes the sentiments of Rabbi Kook.
 * "‘Rabbi Waldman, his dark moustached mouth waiting in a white field, bristled. We had referred to the lands where ancient Israel once stood as the West Bank. “No one ever called the country of Jordan the East Bank,” he reprimanded us. “In the same manner, you cannot call this the West Bank if you want to relate to the essence of the area.”"
 * "Naming is rarely innocent; choice of place names carries meanings, forwards claims. To those who would trade land for peace, this is the “West Bank.” The military authorities who administer these lands, for whom they are mainly a troublesome job, call them “the territories“. To the religious nationalist settlers they are Judea and Samaria (Yehudah and Shomron in Hebrew), the historical copre of the ancient Jewish nation.’ Roger Friedland, Richard D. Hecht. To Rule Jerusalem, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 152."
 * The authors use "West Bank" more frequently, but they also used this term. Their interview with the rabbi is about the phrase "Judea and Samaria", this issue is about the term "Samaria". Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, could you kindly provide a reliable source for your oft-repeated claim that "Judea and Samaria" ≠ "Judea" and "Samaria"? The authors clearly state that J+S is Israeli terminology, who exactly says that doesn't apply to the terms in isolation? MeteorMaker (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * MM, could you please provide a reliable source for your oft-repeated claim that when an author refers to "Samaria" he is actually referring to the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria"? Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a claim I've never made. When you say "Again you are referring to the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria", not the term "Samaria"", implying that the "Samaria" in "Judea and Samaria" is some kind of other, nobler Samaria, untainted by any association with Israel, and unrestrained as a toponym to the primary group of users Kolatch describes, do you have a source for that or is it your own theory? FWIW, Kolatch says "these lands" are Judea and Samaria [to the settlers], not "this land". MeteorMaker (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not claiming he's actually referring to "Judea and Samaria" when he refers to "Samaria", then stop bringing examples of "Judea and Samaria" when he is talking simply about Samaria. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you think he's referring to an administrative district when he says "'To the religious nationalist settlers they are Judea and Samaria (Yehudah and Shomron in Hebrew)"? The English conjunction "and" seems a little out of place in a Hebrew name for an adminsitrative district, if that is actually what you claim it's called. Do you have a reliable source for that? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice try at reversing the onus of proof again. You make a straw man claim, then ask me for a reliable source for it. Anyway, if you're not claiming he's actually referring to "Judea and Samaria" when he refers to "Samaria", then stop bringing examples of "Judea and Samaria" when he is talking simply about Samaria. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, a strawman argument is a deliberate and substantive distortion of an interlocutor's position. If you think you've been misunderstood or misrepresented, specify in what way. Panicky, repeated, and unsubstantiated claims that one has been "strawmanned" are in fact personal attacks, and at any rate won't be taken seriously. You can avoid even the appearance of pressing "Strawman!" as a panic button in the face of Socratic checkmate simply by clarifying your position in the face of what you feel might be a mischaracterization.--G-Dett (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (5)"In August 2005, reversing his longstanding position on championing settlement of the Land of Israel, Sharon evacuated all of the Jewish settlements in Gaza (some 9,000 people living in twenty-one communities) and four small settlements in the northern part of Samaria (West Bank)." Alfred J. Kolatch. Inside Judaism: The Concepts, Customs, and Celebrations of the Jewish People, Jonathan David Company, 2006, p. 270.
 * Comment. Yes, but three pages earlier he writes ‘That notwithstanding, the building of Jewish communities in the West Bank – or Judea and Samaria, as Jews refer to it – commenced.’p.268. (b) The four communities were withdrawn from what the Palestinians, under an agreement with Israel, call the Jenin Governorate. Why then the insistence that a Palestinian administrative district be called by a name favoured by the Occupying power, i.e. by neighbouring Israel?Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you are referring to the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria", not the term "Samaria". Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, a reliable source for your oft-repeated claim that "Judea and Samaria" ≠ "Judea" and "Samaria" would be helpful. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, a reliable source for your oft-repeated claim that when an author refers to "Samaria" he is actually referring to the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria" would be helpful. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 4). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 4). Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (6)"On 18 September 1978, one day after the signing of the Accord, 700 Gush Emunim members established an unauthorized settlement in Samaria..." Lilly Weisbrod. Israeli Identity: In Search of a Successor to the Pioneer, Tsabar and Settler, Routledge, 2002, p. 112.
 * CommentIt is Weissbrod, by the way. She habitually glosses ‘Judea and Samaria’ with 'The West Bank' p.88 even in the pages Jayjg cites pp.112-13, and the text here uses the Gush Emunim designation, precisely those associated with the establishment of Samaria as the term. The West Bank is used as a gloss throughout these books, precisely because everyone in the reading world globally knows what West Bank means, as opposed to Samaria or Judea.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weissbrod is referring to "Samaria", not the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria", and she does not include the term in quotes. She uses the term as a simple geographic designator, and no-where indicates she is quoting anyone. Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 Lily Weissbrod is an Israeli, which makes this source unusable as evidence of outside-Israel use of the toponym. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by a British publisher. The United Kingdom is "outside-Israel". Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Jayjg: an Israeli source is poor proof that non-Israelis use the term. The nationality of the publisher is immaterial and your "discrimination" objection is distasteful and willfully misleading. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, MeteorMaker: Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by a British publisher. Your attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin is distasteful and inappropriate. The United Kingdom is "outside-Israel", and the alleged ethnicity or national origin of the source is irrelevant and willfully misleading. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you seek to provide evidence that term X is used outside country Y, examples of term X being used inside country Y don't do much for your argument except weakening it, by showing that you're in such short supply of proper examples that you must pad your list with 1/3 irrelevant filler. The discussion would also benefit if you refrained from constantly making distasteful, inappropriate and willfully misleading allegations of racism. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom - where the term was used - is not inside Israel, and your attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin is distasteful and inappropriate. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have suggested before that you strike your obvious lie that I "attempt to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnicity". I have also asked, many times, for clarification how you think when you insist that one's nationality magically changes with the nationality of the publications that print one's writings. According to your theory, is Lily Weisbrod a citizen of 1) the United Kingdom and Israel or 2) the United Kingdom only or 3) every country her works have been published in?
 * When you have formulated a reply that explains your revolutionary new theory in meticuluous detail, it could perhaps be posted as one of your Featured Articles, Good Articles, or Do You Knows. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll stop noting your distasteful and inappropriate attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin as soon as you stop doing it. Also, regarding my "theory", nice try at reversing the burden of proof, and inventing a straw man and then insisting I have to defend it.. Unlike you, I have no "new theory", revolutionary or otherwise. And regarding FAs, GAs, and DYKs, I had another DYK on the front page yesterday, and a GA currently being reviewed. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're very persistent with that lie. This was the third time I asked you to strike it, and in response you repeated it yet again. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And you're very persistent in trying to discriminate against sources on those grounds. I've told you that I'll stop referring to it as soon as you stop doing it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No response then? Good, you concede the point. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you may have missed G-Dett's response immediately below, which makes the point better than I could have done. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No he's not. That's a serious accusation, and a false one.  Given your track record of serious, false accusations of this kind, you should tread lightly.--G-Dett (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (7) "LAST STAND IN SAMARIA", Kevin Peraino, Newsweek, August 15, 2005.
 * Comment.Samaria is used in the title, and once in the text, which otherwise prefers West Bank. The title is followed by the gloss ‘Disengaging from Gaza will be hard. The West Bank could be harder.’ The topic links are to ‘The West Bank’. The one statement using the term quotes a fanatic:
 * "'One right-wing parliamentarian, Arieh Eldad, has warned that Sa-Nur could become the 'Stalingrad of Samaria'.'"Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet, the article uses the term Samaria. It uses both, just as this article (Israeli settlement) uses both. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One is a direct quote by an Israeli, the other is an allusion to the historical past (read page 2 and you will understand). Newsweek does not use the term "Samaria" at all, except when explaining what settlers call the West Bank. This has been pointed out to you numerous times before, you still insist on misrepresenting this source and many others. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article nowhere states or implies that its use of the term is "an allusion to the historical past"; rather, that's more inaccurate, self-serving original research. This has been pointed out to you numerous times before, you still insist on misrepresenting this source and many others. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is kind of the nature of allusions — few authors feel a need to put in a footnote that says "this is an allusion to X". The Newsweek article is titled "Last stand in Samaria", and contains an interview with a settler who uses the term, and a brief recount of the siege of Masada. I trust the context is obvious to everybody else, so I won't waste my time explaining it one more time. FWIW, neither Kevin Peraino nor Newsweek are known to have used the term ever again (except when explaining that it's settler-speak for the West Bank). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, as stated above, the article nowhere states or implies that its use of the term is "an allusion to the historical past"; rather, that's more inaccurate, self-serving original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My dictionary defines "allusion" as "an expression designed to call something to mind without mentioning it explicitly; an indirect or passing". What is your understanding of the word, really? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't be drawn into attempts to do original research about sources. I also won't allow your constant attempts to do so to pass. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I note you keep avoiding the question (assuming you didn't mean looking up a word in a dictionary counts as OR). Again, how is an indirect reference to a Bible-age event in Jewish history (on page 2) not an allusion?
 * See my immediately previous comment. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The one that prompted the response "I note you keep avoiding the question"? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the one that noted that I won't be drawn into attempts to do original research about sources, and I also won't allow your constant attempts to do so to pass. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How exactly is your opinion more valid than everybody else's? MeteorMaker (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (8)SAMARIA, Martin Gilbert, The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Routledge, 2005, p. 134 (and other maps showing Samaria).
 * CommentThis is the first piece of evidence worthy of attention. Distinguished historian. He uses the Mandatory terminology throughout, irrespective of changes in political and national control of these areas. To be discussed, especially since in this he is ioncoherent for he uses these designations while most, if not all, of his maps follow the international usage 'West Bank' which Israeli law abolished, and Israeli usage does not accept.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He uses the designation "Samaria" on several maps. Period. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (9)"The relative success in establishing official settlement in Kfar Etzion and unofficial settlement in Kiryat Arba prompted groups of Israelis to attempt settlement in the major town in Samaria — Nablus.", Allan Gerson. Israel, the West Bank and International Law, Routledge, 1978, p. 139.
 * Comment.You fail to note that before he uses this term Gerson notes,
 * ‘On February 29, the popular term, ‘West Bank’, was by official fiat, abandoned in favour of ‘Judea and Samaria’ – the historical and geographical designation of the region and one not without nationalist and religious overtones of association with the Jewish people. p.111 Gerson through refers to the West Bank as the default term, since where the term is used he follows the language of people who use it like Moshe Dayan, and exponents of Gush Enumin. Gerson therefore supports the point made by Lustick and several others, that these terms are specifically nationalist terms, with a strong setler POV.
 * As before, you bring arguments based on the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria", not the designator "Samaria", which Gerson uses naturally, with no indication that he is "following the language of people who use it". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, a reliable source for your oft-repeated claim that "Judea and Samaria" ≠ "Judea" and "Samaria" would be helpful. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, a reliable source for your oft-repeated claim that when an author refers to "Samaria" he is actually referring to the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria" would be helpful. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 4). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 4). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (10)"In Samaria the voting percentage increased from 75% in the Jordanian period to 83.9%..." Allan Gerson. Israel, the West Bank and International Law, Routledge, 1978, p. 185.
 * The problem is the use of the term relates to the Jordanian period of rule, when in Israel the area was still officially called the West Bank, and the modern admninistrative divisions now in place did not exist. Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The book was published in 1978, long after Jordanian rule ended. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This quote is attributed to Davar, an Israeli newspaper. Not usable as evidence of outside-Israel use. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Israeli sources are not invalid, and in any event the book was published by Routledge, an "outside-Israel" publisher. Irrelevant objection dismissed. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (11)"Nevertheless, Haganah commanders recognized that the size of the Iraqi force and its location in northern Samaria made it a dangerous threat." Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, University of Nebraska Press, 2004, p. 153.
 * (12)"The prospects for a successful defense also improved during this period with the arrival of a large Iraqi expeditionary force in northern Samaria, enabling Glubb to withdraw..." Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, University of Nebraska Press, 2004, p. 279.
 * (13)"...wanted to concentrate their forces along shorter defensive lines in the mountainous terrain of central Samaria." Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, University of Nebraska Press, 2004, p. 296. (many other similar examples in this book).
 * Comment. Again, Jayjg, you've been googling without reading. These three quotes come from a history of the 1948 war, when Mandatory language was employed. Our discussion is on contemporary conventioned Western usage to describe the West Bank, not on historical British or Jewish usage. All three are irrelevant, and like most of the above, to be elided as immaterial to the point.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Nishidani, the quotes come from a book published in 2004, almost 60 years after the 1948 war. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly historical usage, in reference to the British Mandatory administration district. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly published in 2004, not historical usage. What British Mandatory administration district? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Samaria, obviously. Are you seriously saying that a book on history cannot use toponyms from the historical period it describes? That must be one of the strangest objections yet in this discussion (and many other objections, like the "pleonasm" one you repeated ad nauseam before you backed off from, unable to explain your thinking) were already positively surreal. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, published in 2004, not historical usage. Your irrelevant and inaccurate comments about your use of pleonasms, which were proven quite effectively to be pleonasms before you backed off, unable to explain your thinking, is what is actually surreal. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have a pretty unique definition of "pleonasm" if you say that the phrase "Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank" contains one. You have manoeuvred around every request to point out what exactly you find redundant, and why. You will not answer this question either, so let's hope you don't write many articles on history, lest you inadvertently revive terms like "Byzantium" or "Crusader State". MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase "what is today" is a pleonasm. The statement "Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of the West Bank" is equally, if not more, accurate, and has three fewer words. I've explained this to you many times, so your claim that I "have manoeuvred around every request to point out what exactly you find redundant, and why" is "deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors"; please desist. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you're saying either that 1) the area has always been called the West Bank (cf "what is today the Sun") or 2) that the area didn't exist at all until recently (cf "what is today the Internet"). Both would be proper uses of the term pleonasm. Yours is not, it's an entirely new interpretation of the term. And your notion that history books have the power to magically revive whatever historical terms they use, to the point that they can be used in WP as modern terms, is equally absurd. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually, I wasn't saying either of those. Stop trying to construct straw man arguments for me. And here's a hint - any time you construct an argument on my behalf, one that is not something I have explicitly stated myself, then it is invariably a straw man: while it is undoubtedly possible to accurately present my arguments, it is apparently impossible for you (and another editor who follows me from article to article) to do so. It is unclear why you consistently fail to accurately present my arguments - and to be honest, the reason isn't important: the end result is that the arguments/statements/thoughts you attribute to me are actually arguments/statements/thoughts that you think are easy to refute, rather than ones I have actually argued/said/thought. Or, to quote wikipedia's straw man article, you attempt to present a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. I say "attempt" because your positions often lack even this superificial resemblance, though you clearly intend them to resemble mine. I make exactly and only the arguments I make, not the arguments you wish I had made, or would like me to make. Inserting "what is today" into the sentence is like saying "Park Slope is a neighborhood in what is today Brooklyn", or "London is the capital city of what is today the United Kingdom." "What is today" is a pleonasm. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No response then? Good, you concede the point. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have missed my response immediately below, which makes the point quite well. Also read G-Dett's review below of your meta-strawman tactics. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange then that 2,810 other WP articles also use those three words that you have determined to be a pleonasm. Your misunderstanding probably stems from your belief that the terms "Samaria" and "West Bank" are contemporaneous, which has conclusively shown to be wrong.
 * That isn't what "strawman" means, Jay. But your misunderstanding – which you've been good enough to state explicitly – explains your incessant and ubiquitous misuse of this basic term.--G-Dett (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How odd; Jay, who claims he isn't reading any of my posts, is now very busy trying to fix his erroneous definition of "strawman" following my post above. If the end result is his actually understanding this favorite term of his, all well and good.  So pasting in the Wikipedia definition (which is accurate) was a good sign.  But it does rather confuse things, because Jay's erroneous definition of "strawman" argument ("one that is not something I have explicitly stated myself") is a much better guide to his objections to MM's posts, than Wikipedia's correct definition.  And he's no sooner introduced Wikipedia's correct definition than he's gotten himself into a fresh muddle, because if MM's posts "lack even this superificial resemblance" required of a strawman argument, then, ahem, they're not strawman arguments.  They might, for example, be something like, oh, I don't know, reductios ad absurdum.  Hint hint.  Which, unlike strawmen, aren't fallacies.


 * I hope Jay continues reading my posts, albeit through fingers pressed over his eyes like a child watching horror movies, because it might help him, one day, to use this term he loves the sound of accurately and responsibly.--G-Dett (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (14) "The first actual step taken by the group was to settle in Elon Moreh in Samaria." Santosh C. Saha, Thomas K. Carr. Religious Fundamentalism in Developing Countries, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, p. 73.
 * CommentAgain useless. The whole relevant chapter uses the 'West Bank' as the default term, and the specific description refers to Gush Emunim's language, in accordance with its fundamentalist concepts of Eretz Israel. Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, an invalid objection. The source uses both terms, and nowhere indicates that it is "referring to Gush Emunim's language" - no quotation markes, inverted commas, etc. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Implied — but may obviously be read as if this was the authors' own term. The authors, as Nishidani notes, use "West Bank" as the default term however. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Implied — but may obviously be read as if this was the authors' own term" = inaccurate, self-serving original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (15)"Northern Samaria is one of the harsest setting in the territories... In addition there have been many convoys bringing food, medical supplies, and other necessities to blockaded villages in Samaria and on the western "seam line". David Dean Shulman. Dark Hope: Working for Peace in Israel and Palestine, University of Chicago Press, 2007, p. 102.
 * Comment. Impressive, until you actually read the whole page and find out that Shulman specifies that he is talking about the ‘northern West Bank’ p.102 Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and clearly uses both descriptors. Just like this article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 David Dean Shulman is also an Israeli, which makes this source unusable as evidence of outside-Israel use of the toponym. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by an American university press. The United States is "outside-Israel". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Jayjg: an Israeli source is poor proof that non-Israelis use the term. The nationality of the publisher is immaterial and your "discrimination" objection is distasteful and willfully misleading. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Meteormaker: Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by an American university press. Your attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin is distasteful and inappropriate. The United States is "outside-Israel", and the alleged ethnicity or national origin of the source is irrelevant and willfully misleading. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (16)"Arafat lived in the casbah of old Nablus in Samaria and held his meetings in small Nablus cafes or in the New Generation Library." John Laffin. Fedayeen; the Arab-Israeli Dilemma, Free Press, 1973, p. 26.
 * Comment. Again immaterial since the reference is to the pre-1967 period, where Mandatory language was still used on occasion in foreign accounts, and not to contemporary usage.
 * Again, invalid objection, since the book was published in 1973, well after 1967, and decades after 1948, the Mandatory period. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly historical usage, in reference to the British Mandatory administration district. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly published in 1973, not historical usage. What British Mandatory administration district? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 13). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 13). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (17) "(Though the northern parts of Samaria were occupied by the Iraqi army, as a Hashemite sister state, Iraq allowed Abdullah to exercise his political influence over the territories its armies controlled)." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 12.
 * Comment. Immaterial. The reference is to 1948, when Mandatory language prevailed.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Invalid objection. The book was published in 2006, 60 years after the Mandatory period. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly historical usage, and thus irrelevant to the extent of the modern toponym's usage domain. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly published in 2006, not historical usage. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 13). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 13). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (18)"Kiryat Arba (near Hebron) and Elon Moree (in Samaria) were, until 1977, the only settlements founded in the West Bank outside the lines of the Allon Plan." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 95.
 * Comment. The reference is again to the West Bank, which is not Israel's preferred usage, but Western usage, and Samaria as a part of it, which is Israel's preferred usage. The contradiction subsists.
 * The source uses both terms, as does this article, per WP:NPOV. No contradiction exists. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See (19). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See (19). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (19) "In 1981, at the end of Begin's first term as Prime Minister, there were about 80 settlements in the West Bank, some in the densely-populated Arab areas in Samaria and elsewhere." Joseph Nevo. King Hussein and the Evolution of Jordan's Perception of a Political Settlement with Israel, 1967-1988, Sussex Academic Press, 2006, p. 96.
 * Comment. The West Bank against was not usage acceptable to Begin, whereas Samaria and Judea were. The areas populated were overwhelmingly Arab areas, and the Samaria here refers to areas which have perfectly legitimate Arab designations, i.e. governorates in the northern West Bank. Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your objection doesn't even parse into English. The source uses both "West Bank" and "Samaria", as does this article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 Joseph Nevo is also an Israeli, which makes cites (17), (18) and (19) unusable as evidence of outside-Israel use of the toponym. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by a British publisher. The United Kingdom is "outside-Israel". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Jayjg: an Israeli source is poor proof that non-Israelis use the term. The nationality of the publisher is immaterial and your "discrimination" objection is distasteful and willfully misleading. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Meteormaker: Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by an American university press. Your attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin is distasteful and inappropriate. The United Kingdom is "outside-Israel", and the alleged ethnicity or national origin of the source is irrelevant and willfully misleading. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (20)"The first settlement had been built in Samaria, and settlers believed that they had begun the task of preventing territorial compromise in the West Bank." David Weisburd. Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985, p. 30.
 * (21)"While the government had acted quickly to forcibly uproot previous settlement attempts, it did not move against the settlers in Samaria through December 7." David Weisburd. Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985, p. 32.
 * Comment(20/21) But Weisburd at the outset of his book states
 * All but one of these outposts were established in the “Occupied West Bank”, as it is generally called in the United States, though the settlers who live in these areas prefer to use the term “Judea and Samaria” when speaking of the region. The latter term emphasizes the connection of their settlements to the ancient Land of Israel’ p.9


 * He does not use the term in his Map of the area p.10 on page 28 he specifies Samarian hills as being in the north of the West BankNishidani (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue at hand is the term "Samaria", not the phrase (and Israeli administrative district) "Judea and Samaria". The source uses both "Samaria" and "West Bank", as does this article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 David Weisburd is also an Israeli, which makes cites (20) and (21) unusable as evidence of outside-Israel use of the toponym. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by an American university press. The United States is "outside-Israel". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Jayjg: an Israeli source is poor proof that non-Israelis use the term. The nationality of the publisher is immaterial and your "discrimination" objection is distasteful and willfully misleading. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, Meteormaker: Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by an American university press. Your attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin is distasteful and inappropriate. The United States is "outside-Israel", and the alleged ethnicity or national origin of the source is irrelevant and willfully misleading. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (22)"Success in restoring some order was due to the energy and skill of the district governors — in Hebron a Palestinian, Nairn Tucan, in Samaria another, the active Ahmed Khalil, and in Jerusalem Abdullah Tell." Ann Dearden. Jordan: history and special problems, R. Hale, 1958, p. 85.
 * Comment. Again you are citing a ref. to the 1940s, when Mandatory usage prevailed, and not a source bearing on contemporary usage. Immaterial, since no one is contesting Samaria was used at that period. Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The book was published in 1958, ten years after the Mandatory period ended. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly historical usage, in reference to the British Mandatory administration district. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly published in 1958, ten years after the Mandatory period ended, not historical usage. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 13). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 13). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (23)"...as a reaction to the October War, and the character and impact of the illegal settlement attempts in Samaria from late 1974 onward." William W. Harris. Taking Root: Israeli Settlement in the West Bank, the Golan, and Gaza-Sinai, 1967-1980, Research Studies Press, 1980, p. 135.
 * (24) "As regards physical activity Gush Emunim had carried all before it for two years and had planted the presence in Samaria which would be extremely difficult to curb, let alone uproot." William W. Harris. Taking Root: Israeli Settlement in the West Bank, the Golan, and Gaza-Sinai, 1967-1980, Research Studies Press, 1980, p. 157.
 * Comment: Can't be evaluated due to restricted content. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote is clear, and another disproof of your theory. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (25) "In Samaria, the number of women employed in sewing has risen from 100 in 1967 to just over 3000 in 1972." Vivian A. Bull. The West Bank--Is it Viable?, Lexington Books, 1975, p. 123.
 * Comment: Legit, if weak. "The West Bank" is still the majority term. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Legit, period. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (26) "A third sector was opened up in the north, where Gen. Elazar sent the armoured brigades of Ram and Bar-Kochva from Ugda Peled to take Nablus and Jenin in Samaria." John Laffin, Mike Chappell. The Israeli Army in the Middle East Wars 1948-73, Osprey Publishing, 1982, p. 19.
 * Comment: Clearly historical usage. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly published in 1982, 34 years after the Mandatory period ended, not historical usage. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 13). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 13). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (27) "For example, in the case of the settlement-city of Ariel - the largest settlement in Samaria, coincidentally named after Ariel Sharon - the design was stretched into a long, thin form." Stephen Graham. Cities, War, and Terrorism: Towards an Urban Geopolitics, Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p. 181.
 * Comment: "West Bank" is again used consistently in the book, while "Samaria" occurs exactly two times . One is in the bibliography (a World Zionist Org document), the other is Jayjg's quote. It seems unlikely "Samaria" is part of the author's own vocabulary, since he does not use it elsewhere . I would say this lone instance of Stephen Graham using the term is akin to an instance of the term "das Vaterland" in a book about modern German white supremacy groups and their ideology or ambitions — a term that is in frequent use within the group, but hardly used as an acceptable alternative to Germany by anybody else. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your original research is fascinating. However, he nowhere indicates he is using the terminology of any other groups; rather the source uses both terms, as does this article. Also, comparing Jewish groups to neo-Nazis is gratuitous and distasteful. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The source does not use the term Samaria at all, except this lone instance.MeteorMaker (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ...in which it uses the term. Your theory is again disproved. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's only used once, in reference to the settler movement, weakens your hypothesis. Now, if it had been used consistently, throughout the book... but that is not the case. I'm inclined to believe it's not part of Graham's own terminology. You are, of course, entitled to your own interpretation, but unequivocal evidence, it's clearly not. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I have no "hypothesis"; rather, I've just disproved your hypothesis, yet again. "I'm inclined to believe it's not part of Graham's own terminology" = inaccurate, self-serving original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's my opinion, and I'm entitled to one. It's not less valid than yours, that "Samaria" is part of Graham's own terminology. What do you make of the fact that he's only used it once, ever, and in reference to the settler movement? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no hypothesis. Graham used the term, I quoted him. Your attempts to put quotes around the term, when Graham did not, are noted, and rejected, as self-serving original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that he doesn't use it anywhere else is evidence enough that you have misinterpreted a simple reference to the terminology of the settlers he's talking about. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "The fact that he doesn't use it anywhere else is evidence enough" = self-serving original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, a pretty strong indication that you're misconstruing this source, like you've done with many others. Remember, the whole rationale for compiling this list is to synthesize evidence that doesn't exist in reliable sources. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (28) "Likud planners designated Ariel to become the largest Jewish town in Samaria, with as many as one hundred thousand residents by the year 2010." Robert I. Friedman. Zealots for Zion: Inside Israel's West Bank Settlement Movement, Random House, 1992, p. 72.
 * Comment: Another source that directly contradicts Jayjg's claims . Page xxiv: "[...] Judea and Samaria are part of the Land of Israel, said Drobles [cochairman of the settlement division of the World Zionist Organization], using the Biblical names for the West Bank". Page xxxiv: "Gush Emunim's rabbis proclaimed that settling [...] Judea and Samaria, otherwise known as the West Bank was part of the divine process [...]". Restricted content on Google Books makes the rest of the instances of "Samaria" difficult to evaluate, though the one Jayg quotes appears to be another case of a neutral author using the toponym when describing the settler movement's ambitions. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, no contradiction whatsoever, since we are discussing the use of the term "Samaria", not the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria". Also, there is no indication whatsoever that the author is "using the toponym when describing the settler movement's ambitions". Continual dismissal of sources based on self-serving theories about the authors' motivations are summarily dismissed. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, can you explain more fully your theory that when the author refers to "the Biblical names for the West Bank," what he really has in mind is "an Israeli administrative district"?--G-Dett (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The author refers to Samaria in quote 28, not "Judea and Samaria". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why is Drobles saying J+S are part of the Land of Israel, not is, as one would expect if your hypothesis were correct? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I have no hypothesis, you do. I'm just quoting the source: "Likud planners designated Ariel to become the largest Jewish town in Samaria, with as many as one hundred thousand residents by the year 2010." Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember why you're quoting these sources in the first place: As a substitute for sources that actually say anything to the effect of "Samaria is a widely used term outside Israel" (which is what WP requires, anything else is blatant OR). I'm sure you've been looking long and hard, but in the end, you had to make do with sources that — at best — are mere anecdotal evidence of outside-Israel usage, and not sufficient for WP. However, this source, like so many other you've presented, clearly and plainly states the opposite of what you've been trying to prove. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually, I'm quoting these sources solely to disprove your argument, which is based on anecdotal evidence. Claiming I am quoting these sources for any other purpose is deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors; please desist. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have produced more sources that contradict your position (like Friedman above) than sources that support it (none at all to be precise, except a few counts of anecdotal evidence). Still you're repeating your absurd claim that verbatim quotes from Encyclopedia Britannica et al are "anecdotal". You keep linking to WP:V a lot but it appears you haven't read it. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have taken no position, so I obviously cannot have produced any sources that contradict it. Rather, I have produced sources that refute your theory. Still you're repeating your absurd claim that verbatim quotes from Encyclopedia Britannica et al state that "Samaria is not well understood outside Israel" and "Samaria not a modern toponym". You keep linking to WP:V a lot but it appears you haven't read it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I leave it to other editors who are reading this to determine if you're a person who hasn't taken any position. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (29) "... but late on June 6 he broke through to capture Nablus, the key to road communications in Samaria... Jordanian defences in Samaria fell apart." John Pimlott. The Middle East Conflicts: From 1945 to the Present, Orbis, 1983, p. 68.
 * Comment: Clearly another pre-67 reference to the area. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Published in 1983, long after the Six-Day War, and decades after the mandatory period. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly historical usage, and thus irrelevant. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly published in 1983, and this not "historical usage" - highly relevant, and again disproves your theory. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 13). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 13). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (30) "On the other hand, we visited the planned city of Ariel on the top of a mountain in Samaria, one of Israel's West Bank settlements." Peter Laarman. Getting on Message: Challenging the Christian Right from the Heart of the Gospel, Beacon Press, 2006, p. 46.
 * Comment: The sentence actually reads as if "Samaria" were a settlement and not Ariel, which might be an indication of the level of research the author did before chatting with the settlers. I will give this one the benefit of the doubt though. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (31) "Yael Meivar was shot by terrorists near the settlement of Alei Zahav in Samaria." Anthony H. Cordesman, Jennifer Moravitz. The Israeli-Palestinian War: Escalating to Nowhere, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005, p. 26.
 * Comment: Cordesman and Moravitz use the term "the West Bank" 107 times in the book, "Samaria" 12 . Seven are direct quotes by Israelis, three (including Jayjg's quote) refer to the Israel-declared administrative districts, two could not be determined due to restricted content.
 * The source uses both "West Bank" and "Samaria", as does this article. There is no indication whatsoever, that the author is referring to "Israel-declared administrative districts", since there is no "Israel-declared administrative district" called "Samaria". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if your interpretation is correct, it's 107-3 (with two indeterminable) against "Samaria" being a majority term in this book. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually there are over 40 legitimate uses on this page alone, since all of your objections have been incorrect at best, often distasteful, and sometimes irrelevant. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (32) "Marking Israeli Arbor Day at a Jewish settlement in Samaria on Feb. 3, Shamir said...", Andrew C. Kimmens. The Palestinian Problem, H.W. Wilson, 1989, p. 211.
 * Comment: With the preceding sentence "The Likud bloc led by Shamir continues to support Israeli sovereignty over all of the occupied territories", the reference to "Samaria" becomes ambiguous — is it Likud/Shamir's terminology or the authors' own? Google Books only lets us see 2 of the 7 instances of "Samaria" . One is a quote by an Israeli rabbi, the other looks like an official Israeli statement, though it's difficult to say with any certainty. The preferred toponym seems to be "the West Bank" with 30 instances however. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The only "ambiguity" is the usual self-servingly invented one. The author uses the term "Samaria" naturally, nowhere indicating he is quoting or using the language of anyone else. The source uses both "West Bank" and "Samaria", as does this article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cannot be evaluated due to restricted content, but maybe somebody who owns the book can clarify if the other five instances are also Israeli quotes. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the quote. Another disproof of your theory. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the reliability record of your alleged sources, I'd say there's a 3% chance that this one might be legit. But I'd like to be able to read it first. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Odd, considering I've reliably quoted 100% of the time. Per the quote. Another disproof of your theory. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What you need is a quote that actually states that "Samaria" is widely used outside Israel. There is no shortage of Shamir quotes and quotes by other Israelis using the term, and why you keep bringing them up when, as you claim, other nationalities use it too, is frankly a little difficult to understand. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would I need that? Remember, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just disproving your argument, which is based on anecdotal evidence. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe you don't have to prove your claims like everybody else? If you cannot prove that Samaria is widely used outside Israel, it cannot go in Wikipedia articles. To preempt your predictable parrot response, here is a link to a bunch of sources that prove that Samaria is not widely used outside Israel. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any claims, I've just refuted yours. And you certainly cannot try to force me to defend a claim you wish to make on my behalf. If you want to remove the term, you need to prove your theories about it. So far your anectodal evidence has been utterly refuted. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I leave it to other editors to determine if you have "utterly refuted" my arguments. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (33) "Carter concluded that the unresolved issues included... the future of the Palestinians in Samaria, Judea, and Gaza..." Herbert Druks. The Uncertain Alliance: The U.S. and Israel from Kennedy to the Peace Process, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001, p. 175.
 * Comment: Herbert Druks uses "Samaria" consistently and avoids the term "the West Bank" entirely, so, finally, some bona fide anecdotal evidence for Jayjg's hypothesis.
 * Just one source among many disproving your hypothesis. I have no hypothesis, I'm just disproving yours. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One instance is not proof of widespread acceptance, which you need in order to prove your hypothesis. Synthesized anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dozens of instances on this page alone. And I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just disproving your theory. Conclusively, I might add. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Synthesis of anecdotal evidence never "disproves" reliable sources here on Wikipedia. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's why your theory fails so miserably. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was cheap. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was accurate. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in any widely used sense of the word. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In all meaningful senses of the word. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excluding the sense Wikipedia attaches to the word, obviously. Again, Synthesis of anecdotal evidence never "disproves" reliable sources. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, in all meaningful senses of the word. Again, Synthesis] of anecdotal evidence never "disproves" reliable sources. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say "made up of whole cloth" is a meaningful sense of the word "accurate". MeteorMaker (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (34) "Jewish settlements in Samaria in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would be under Israeli sovereignty." H. Paul Jeffers. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Jerusalem, Alpha Books, 2004, p. 212.
 * Comment: Jeffers is simply paraphrasing Ehud Barak, a fact that would have been evident to Jayjg had he bothered to read the preceding paragraph: "Barak arrived with his position on the public record:" . There are four instances of "Samaria" in the book, two of the ancient Samaria, two from Barak quotes. The term "the West Bank", in comparison, occurs 30 times.MeteorMaker (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The author "paraphrases" Barak using the term "Samaria". The source uses both "West Bank" and "Samaria", as does this article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Still an Ehud Barak quote. No other (non-historical) uses of Samaria here, so, again, no cigar.MeteorMaker (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, a quote of H. Paul Jeffers, and published in the United States. Another disproof of your theory. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeffers quotes (or paraphrases) Ehud Barak. Period. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Jeffers nowhere uses quotations marks or any other indication that he is paraphrasing or quoting Barak. Period. It's quote of H. Paul Jeffers, and published in the United States. Another disproof of your theory. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quotation marks are not a requirement for a paraphrase. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeffers nowhere uses quotations marks or any other indication that he is paraphrasing or quoting Barak. Period. Self-serving original research is required to turn a simple English statement into a "paraphrase". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a colon immediately before the paraphrased sentence, whose sole function is to serve as a paraphrase indicator. Again, since you missed it the first time: "Barak arrived with his position on the public record:" MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand why you prefer to read it as a paraphrase. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (35) "Instead the government based its view on the map previously introduced by Clinton Bailey which envisaged three self-governing Palestinian enclaves, with an Israeli corridor in Samaria." Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Dawoud Sudqi El Alami. The Palestine-Israeli Conflict: A Beginner's Guide, Oneworld Publications, 2001, p. 86.
 * Comment: Sherbok-Cohn and El Alami use "West Bank" consistently in the book, except in three places, one of which (again) acknowledges the fact this list was intended to refute: "The Israelis insisted on referring to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria". Of the other two, one is a paraphrased statement by Menachem Begin (where the term is again glossed with "The West Bank"), the second (the one Jayjg chose) appears to be another paraphrased statement, this time by Benjamin Netanyahu. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about the term "Samaria", not the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria". The authors use both "West Bank" and "Samaria", as does this article. The notion that these are "paraphrases" is another example of that self-serving theory regarding the motivations of the authors. The authors, however, simply use the term. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The authors do not use "Samaria" except in quotes or paraphrased quotes by Israeli PMs, and one explanation that it is Israel-specific terminology, the opposite of what you intended the cite to show. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "paraphrased quotes by Israeli PMs" = self-serving original research. Invalid objection dismissed, and another disproof of your theory. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 34). MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 34). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (36) "Instead, he chose total disengagement from Gaza and the dismantlement of four settlements in northern Samaria." Zvi Shtauber, Yiftah Shapir. The Middle East Strategic Balance 2005-2006, Sussex Academic Press, 2007, p. 123.
 * Comment: Zvi Shtauber and Yiftah Shapir are Israelis. . MeteorMaker (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on alleged ethnic or national origin, and the book was published by a British university press. Your attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin is distasteful and inappropriate. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (37) "Prior to forming his new coalition with the Labor Party, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon strong-armed members of his Likud cabinet to support Labor's idea of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and four settlements in northern Samaria." Getz, Leonard. "Likudniks Against Sharon: Rebels or Loyalists?", The Jewish Exponent, 01-13-2005.
 * Comment: Leonard Getz is the National Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America . MeteorMaker (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on their being Zionists, and the use was published in an American newspaper. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (38) "Understandably so: in the end, the Gaza withdrawal took all of six days while the pullout from four settlements in northern Samaria was accomplished in a single day." Zelnick, Robert. Israel's Unilaterialism: Beyond Gaza, Hoover Press, 2006, p. 157.
 * Comment: Robert Zelnick, unsurprisingly, states the opposite of what Jayjg sets out to prove: ::

"[...] Judea and Samaria, what most of the world refers to as the West Bank." MeteorMaker (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the geographic term "Samaria" here, not the phrase and Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Robert Zelnick is discussing an Israeli administrative district" = self-serving original research.  MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who do you imagine you're quoting there? As far as I can tell, you. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, so you agree now that when Zelnick says "[...] Judea and Samaria, what most of the world refers to as the West Bank", he is not talking about an administrative district, but in fact about the two supposedly "neutral geographical" names "Judea" and "Samaria". MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? Zelnick says "Understandably so: in the end, the Gaza withdrawal took all of six days while the pullout from four settlements in northern Samaria was accomplished in a single day." That's what we're discussing here, not some other statement of Zelnick's on some other topic. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Zelnick explicitly states that most of the world refers to the territories as the West Bank. You keep insisting that "Judea" and "Samaria" are the widely accepted names, contrary to your own source. MeteorMaker (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the geographical region Samaria, Zelnick says "Understandably so: in the end, the Gaza withdrawal took all of six days while the pullout from four settlements in northern Samaria was accomplished in a single day." Regarding your claim that I keep insisting that "Judea" and "Samaria" are the widely accepted names, provide a diff where I state that. Until then, please deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. I make no claims; I just disprove yours. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are not the widely accepted names, they have no place on Wikipedia. Are you saying you're not making that claim? MeteorMaker (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (39) "The four West Bank settlements that Israel is evacuating are all located in the biblical Land of Israel — territory that observant Jews believe was promised to the Jewish people in the Old Testament. The area of the West Bank, known as northern Samaria, was inhabited by the tribe of Menashe, one of the 10 tribes of Israel that were forced into exile." "Biblical significance of West Bank settlements", International Herald Tribune, August 23, 2005.
 * Comment: Clearly a reference to ancient history. The article uses "West Bank consistently, as does every article in the International Herald Tribune online archive. There are 5144 instances of "West Bank", while "Samaria" is used 48 times, every time accompanied by an explanation of the term to the effect of "the name the settlers use for the West Bank". . MeteorMaker (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Clearly a reference to ancient history" = self-serving original research. This usage does not include any "explanation" that the term is "the name the settlers use for the West Bank" - how could it, when it's not? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange that the International Herald Tribune says so then, 71 times no less, depite Jayjg having determined that it's wrong. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange that the International Herald Tribune never makes that statement, despite MeteorMaker's wishing they had. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Corrected link above with updated number. From the first ten links: "The West Bank, which many Israelis call Judea and Samaria ", "Samaria, the biblical name for the northern West Bank ", "Samaria, which takes the biblical name for the northern West Bank", "Judea and Samaria are the biblical terms for the West Bank ", "the area that the Bible and many Israelis now refer to as Judea and Samaria, and the rest of the world calls the West Bank ", "Judea and Samaria, the biblical name for the West Bank ". The remaining four are: 1) two letters to the editor (from Israelis), 2) a slideshow that goes with one of the articles above, and 3) one mention of the "College of Judea and Samaria" in the West Bank settlement of Ariel. Official name of an institution, cannot be changed. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not getting your point here. Samaria is also a biblical term. So is Israel, for that matter. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No response then? Good, you concede the point. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have missed G-Dett's response immediately below, which makes the point better than I could have done. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Samaria" as a Biblical, historical, and in recent years ideological term has been sourced to the nines. Do you have any source(s) for your theory that the term is a neutral, contemporary geographic term in widespread use?  Thanks.--G-Dett (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (40) "Others not only support comprehensive talks but call for abandonment of Israel’s plan to disengage from Gaza and four settlements in northern Samaria." Sofaer, Abraham D. "Disengagement First", Hoover Digest 2005 No. 1, Hoover Institution
 * Comment: Abraham D. Sofaer was a member of a Zionist org in his youth . Yes, you are allowed one faux pas in your life, but interestingly, I have not been able to find more than one instance of him using the term "Samaria" either. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Being a member of a Zionist organization is not a faux pas, and Wikipedia does not discriminate against sources because they were once members of Zionist organizations. The usage is published by an American press. Your theory is disproved again. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (41) "In August 2005, Israel vacated the Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip--mainly in Gush Katif--as well as four settlements in northern Samaria." Inbari, Motti. "Fundamentalism in crisis - the response of the Gush Emunim rabbinical authorities to the theological dilemmas raised by Israel's Disengagement plan", Journal of Church and State, Autumn, 2007
 * Comment: Motti Inbari is an Israeli . MeteorMaker (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on alleged ethnic or national origin, and the usage was published an American journal. Your attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin is distasteful and inappropriate. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See 6). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (42) "Four settlements will be evacuated in the northern Samaria region of the West Bank." Tamir, Naftali. "Naftali Tamir: Retreat with peace in mind", The Australian, August 15, 2005.
 * Comment: Naftali Tamir is an Israeli . MeteorMaker (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC) MeteorMaker (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on alleged ethnic or national origin, and the usage was published by an Australian newspaper. Your attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin is distasteful and inappropriate. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Naftali Tamir is Israel's ambassador to Australia. He's required to use official terminology, even in interviews with local newspapers. Your link is dead so there's no way to verify it, but I'm pretty sure the mention of "Samaria" was in a direct quote. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He's "required to use official terminology, even in interviews with local newspapers"? Really? That's fascinating, if self-serving, original research. Any evidence for that claim? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, part of his job description at the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I believe. I hope you realize that an interview with an Israeli government official isn't exactly the best support one can find for the hypothesis that "Samaria" is widely used outside Israel (by others than Israeli ambassadors, that is).  As for your boilerplate untruth about my alleged "attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnicity", see (6). MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's part of his job description at the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs to use official terminology, even in interviews with local newspapers? Any evidence for that claim? As for your continual distasteful and inappropriate attempts to disqualify sources based on ethnicity or national origin, see (6). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I had warned you enough times already about deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have done so, but such a warning in this case would be meaningless. You have repeatedly tried to disqualify sources on the grounds that they are "Israeli"; once you stop trying to disqualify sources based on alleged ethnic or national origin I will stop having to point out it is distasteful and inappropriate. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Meaningless" is a better label for your deluge of Israeli sources that use the term "Samaria". We all agree the term is used in Israel, so what's the point? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom, United States, Australia, etc. are not "in Israel", and publishers in those countries are not "Israeli sources". Neither are "Zionists", "people who belonged to Zionist organizations in their youth", nor any of the other spurious labels you have attempted to place on sources. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Kindly provide a diff where I've said "The United Kingdom, United States, Australia, etc. are in Israel". I remind you that deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors is against WP:CIVIL. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (43) "There are many who believe that a Palestinian State should be established in the near future, with Samaria, Judea and the Gaza Strip as its territory." Gilland, Bernard. "Zionism, Israel and the Arabs", Contemporary Review, January 2003.
 * Comment: Appears to be legit. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Though Bernard Gilland seems to be an ardent anti-Muslim, writing letters to the Jerusalem Post where he advocates desecrating dead bodies of Muslims and blowing up the Al-Aqsa mosque. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming it is even the same "Bernard Gilland", what would the relevance be? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How many Bernard Gillands could there be on Lille Bakkegaardsvej 2. Espergaerde, Denmark? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No idea. What's the relevance? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (44) "it was discovered that the Israeli Defense Ministry had begun covertly recognizing certain "unauthorized" settlements in Samaria". Hitchens, Christopher. "The iron wall"], Salon.com, April 13, 1998.
 * Comment: "The covenant made by Jabotinsky [...] calls for permanent Israeli control of 'Judea and Samaria' along with the aspiration for so much of what is now Jordan."Note the quotation marks. If "Samaria" were a part of Hitchens' own terminology, he would probably have used the term more than in one single article on salon.com. Compare to the 80 hits for West Bank. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the geographical term "Samaria" here, not the Israeli administrative district "Judea and Samaria". If "Samaria" were a part of Hitchens' own terminology, he would probably have used = self-serving original research. He used the term, period. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After distancing himself from it with scare quotes, yes. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No scare quotes here, though. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not needed after the first time. It's still the same Samaria obviously, he hasn't suddenly begun talking about Samaria, Idaho. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Not needed after the first time." = self-serving original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you think he started talking about a different Samaria all of a sudden? If that was something that he communicated verbally, please indicate where. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said he is "talking about a different Samaria all of a sudden"? Remember, any time you attribute an argument, belief, or thought to me that I have not explicitly stated, it is inevitably a straw man: while it is undoubtedly possible to accurately present my arguments, it is apparently impossible for you (and another editor who follows me from article to article) to do so. It is unclear why you consistently fail to accurately present my arguments - and to be honest, the reason isn't important: the end result is that the arguments/statements/thoughts you attribute to me are actually arguments/statements/thoughts that you think are easy to refute, rather than ones I have actually argued/said/thought. Or, to quote wikipedia's straw man article, you attempt to present a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent. I say "attempt" because your positions often lack even this superificial resemblance, though you clearly intend them to resemble mine. I make only the arguments I actually make, not the ones you would like me to. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't what "strawman" means, Jay. But thank you for clearly (and finally!) presenting to us your entirely erroneous notion of what a strawman argument is – for the future record (and present amusement): any time you attribute an argument, belief, or thought to me that I have not explicitly stated. 


 * That howler will be helpful to have in writing, if you continue your present course of incessantly, ubiquitously, and self-servingly misunderstanding and misusing this most basic term in the future.--G-Dett (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Jay has been tweaking his definition of "strawman argument," in response to the posts of mine that he isn't reading. So now there are bits of truth thrown in with the balderdash. But his original, unadulterated definition of "strawman" – 'Remember, any time you attribute an argument, belief, or thought to me that I have not explicitly stated'', it is inevitably a straw man. I make exactly and only the arguments I make''' – even though utterly false, was actually more helpful, because that's his operative definition, the basis for his incessant accusations. The bits and pieces of Wikipedia's accurate definition that he's now troweling in like stucco are sort of obscuring things.

Anyway a couple of weeks ago I suggested that Jay's peculiar relationship to language and argument had no literary precedent. A lightbulb went on in my brain last night however, and I recalled the moment in Through the Looking Glass when Humpty Dumpty challenges Alice on WP:V grounds: Humpty Dumpty looked doubtful. `I'd rather see that done on paper,' he said.

Alice couldn't help smiling as she took out her memorandum-book, and worked the sum for him:


 * "365"
 * "-1"
 * "___"
 * "364"

Humpty Dumpty took the book, and looked at it carefully. `That seems to be done right – ' he began.

`You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.

`To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily, as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right – though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now – and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents – '

`Certainly,' said Alice.

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master – that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them – particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?`

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.' I trust that Jay is paying "strawman" extra.--G-Dett (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (45) "The plan favors the western slopes of Samaria..." "Israel's next war? A Chronology", PBS Frontline.
 * Comment: "A Vision of Israel at Century's End" is written by then-Minister of Agriculture Ariel Sharon. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The PBS webpage in question, however, was not written by Sharon. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but the Ariel Sharon text that is both quoted from and paraphrased is. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your claim that is it a "paraphrase" of an Ariel Sharon text is more self-serving original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder how you define paraphrase if you don't agree that the decription fits any shortened textual representation of a passage, in this case from Sharon's report, from which two direct quotes are also taken, surrounding the paraphrase. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I make no attempts to divine the true intentions of the sources based on self-serving original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for divining, all you need to recognize a paraphrase is there. Haven't you wondered why the cite is truncated so tightly? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wonder when you'll stop trying to disqualify sources using self-serving original research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you can find support in any policy for dismissing identification of a text as a paraphrase as "self-serving original research". MeteorMaker (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you can find any support in any policy for spuriously claiming text is a "paraphrase" and therefore dismissing it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Try this: "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included". MeteorMaker (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (46) "During 2003, Israel's Ministry of Construction and Housing decides to finance the buying of caravans or light mobile homes by regional Jewish councils in Judea, Samaria and Gaza..."
 * Comment: The paraphrased report is written by former Israeli state prosecutor Talya Sason. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The webpage was written by PBS, an American news source. paraphrased report = self-serving original research; there's no indication it is a "paraphrased report". Also, Wikipedia does not disqualify sources based on alleged ethnic or national origin, and the usage was published on an American news-site. Attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin are distasteful and inappropriate.Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The text is a shortened textual representation of a passage from former Israeli state prosecutor Talya Sason's 2005 report "Opinion Concerning Unauthorized Outposts" (read more here), which makes it a paraphrase by definition. Or do you think the compiler of the timeline inserted his/her own thoughts how the settlement expansion was financed, and added the text "according to the government-sponsored report, "Opinion Concerning Unauthorized Outposts" that is released in 2005 and authored by former Israeli state prosecutor Talya Sason" only to mislead the reader? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It may actually be doing so. Still, it didn't include the term in quotes. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, paraphrases rarely do. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but people intending to distance themselves from terminology often do. See scare quotes. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For a moment I thought you were actually backing off from that one. MeteorMaker (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see a textbook case of WP:SYNTH paraded as a refutal of dozens of reliable sources, particularly when verbatim quotes from said reliable sources are flippantly dismissed as "WP:SYNTH", in the second sentence already. Jayjg, could you kindly point me to one single statement in that list of willfully misrepresented (and long-refuted) anecdotal evidence to the effect of "the toponym "Samaria" enjoys wide acceptance today, outside Israel"? MeteorMaker (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice attempt to push your theory onto me. No, unfortunately it is you who has been trying to remove all reference to "Samaria" from Wikipedia, based on your repeated claims that that toponym is not widely understood outside Israel, Not widely understood outside Israel, etc. Not only have your arguments been based entirely on your personal view of how the term is used, but dozens of sources have been brought that disprove your theory anyway. Please stop attempting to edit-war your personal political views into Wikipedia. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have been throwing at least half a dozen WP policies around to see if one sticks, and the result has consistently been that they stick on your own argument. Again, please 1) review WP:SYNTH and 2) tell me exactly where in your painstakingly compiled list of misrepresented anecdotal evidence we can find a direct quote (not a synthesized conclusion) that corroborates your claim that the toponym "Samaria" enjoys wide acceptance today, outside Israel. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! No, it won't work, nice try though. You were the person who attempted to remove all references to "Samaria" from Wikipedia based on your theory that based on your repeated claims that that toponym is not widely understood outside Israel, Not widely understood outside Israel, etc. You have singularly failed to prove your theory, despite your attempts to misrepresent your anecdotal evidence as claiming the same things you claim. Even worse, hundreds of sources actually show your theory to be wrong in practice. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Am I to understand you think you are above WP policies somehow? If you believe WP:SYNTH does not apply to your list of (misrepresented) cites and the entirely unsupported conclusion you draw, and that your WP:OR can trump a fact that has support in multiple encyclopedias and academic works and thousands of news cites, please show your licence to break Wikipedia rules. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please avoid straw man arguments. WP:SYNTH does apply to your theory, since it is you who claims that toponym is not widely understood outside Israel, Not widely understood outside Israel - despite the fact that none of your sources even discusses the term "Samaria" as a toponym, and despite the fact that hundreds of examples show your theory to be mistaken. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And again, Jayjg, where in the suggested wording "Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank" do you see that idea expressed? Your earlier WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR accusations boomeranged back spectacularly, and so did your attempt to paint my argument as a straw man.
 * You may be interested to know that your "hundreds of examples" have been decimated to three or four . However, if you could find something better than anecdotal examples, for instance a source that at least remotely supports your hypothesis that "Samaria" is a modern toponym outside Israel, you would be in a somewhat better position to claim that my "theory" (explicitly supported by dozens of reliable sources, with literally thousands more that could be added in an instant) "fails". MeteorMaker (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please avoid straw man arguments. WP:SYNTH does apply to your theory, since it is you who claims that toponym is not widely understood outside Israel, Not widely understood outside Israel - despite the fact that none of your sources even discusses the term "Samaria" as a toponym, and despite the fact that hundreds of examples show your theory to be mistaken. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your dislike of strawmen is noted. Now, I ask the same question again: Where do you see that idea expressed in the suggested wording:
 * "'Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. Israeli annexationists also use the combined term Judea and Samaria to refer to the modern West Bank'?"
 * And again, why do you feel WP policies such as WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV don't apply to your position in this discussion? MeteorMaker (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As explained many times, the sentence contains the pleonasm "what is today". It was also the West Bank yesterday, and the day before. It also contains that POV about "annexationists". As for your last question, I have no "position", I'm simply resisting and disproving your WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was also the West Bank yesterday, and the day before, why do you call use of the term "the West Bank" an "anachronism" in this revert? It would seem that you need to refine your understanding of either the word "pleonasm", or the word "anachronism", or both. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the political unit known as the "West Bank" did not exist in 1937. Please review anachronism. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So when you say "it was also the West Bank yesterday and the day before", roughly what day before would you say it went from non-West Bank to the West Bank? MeteorMaker (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When what "went from non-West Bank to the West Bank"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The West Bank obviously. Either you're wrong when you say it was "also the West Bank yesterday and the day before" (implying it has always been there) or you're wrong when you say a time qualifier like "what is today" is redundant. If the sentence "Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank" contains a pleonasm like you claim, please indicate where else in the sentence it is stated that Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to whom are "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. [] MeteorMaker (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it. And note, "corresponds roughly to the northern portion" is nothing like saying "different-epoch name for the same area". Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (<---outdent)

(Outdent) All of them do, and again: it does help if you read them. I post them again here, since the link I keep posting apparently goes ignored: "Samaria, central region, ancient Palestine. [...] 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.''" "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." "Samaria, ancient city, central Palestine, on a hill NW of Nablus (Shechem). The site is now occupied by a village, Sabastiyah (West Bank)." "Samaria, ancient city and state in Palestine [...] 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." "Samaria, Samaria, (Hebrew: Shomron), West Bank. The central region of ancient Palestine and its capital, now called Sabasṭiyah."
 * Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
 * The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
 * Columbia Encyclopedia:
 * Encarta:
 * Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names:

Re the usage domain of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria": "West Bank, area [...] occupied from 1967 by Israel. The territory, excluding East Jerusalem, is also known within Israel by its biblical names, Judaea and Samaria." "West Bank, territory, [...] largely occupied by Israel [...] Israelis who regard the area as properly Jewish territory often refer to it by the biblical names of Judaea and Samaria."
 * Encyclopedia Britannica Online says:
 * Columbia Encyclopedia says:

Now, since you declined the opportunity to explain and defend it, and instead focused on a different point that has already been shown dozens of times, can we safely conclude that your "pleonasm" objection lacks substance? MeteorMaker (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area". Thanks for proving my point. Now, since you have declined to provide a single source which actually makes the claims you do, can we safely conclude that your use of pleonasms is at an end? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You note wrong then, since all of them refer to "Samaria" as ancient and "West Bank" as modern. I give you one final opportunity to explain what you mean when you dismiss the suggested sentence(s) below with "Pleonasm!" (a word that most of us understand as indicating some level of redundancy):
 * "Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank. The combined term Judea and Samaria, despite some geographical imprecision, is used in Israel to refer to the West Bank as a whole."
 * So, exactly what do you find redundant in the time qualifier "what is today"? Is it:
 * stated anywhere else in the sentence? Or simply:
 * miscategorized by you?
 * MeteorMaker (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which of your sources says "Samaria is the ancient toponym, the West Bank is the modern toponym"? I give you one final opportunity to quote them making this claim. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary
Related to ../

Brief summary of MeteorMaker's arguments - useage of "Samaria" contravenes 3 key Wikipedia policies, "Naming Conventions", UNDUE weight and Neutral Point of View.

See the second table immediately below this one for the evidence of "Modern Usage Sources" that are summarised here.

Modern usage sources
As requested by Jayjg and CanadianMonkey, here are all the sources that have been presented in this discussion and that state anything about the modern usage of the toponym:

Ashley kennedy3's list
Usage ."the term is sometimes used within Israel; predominantly by "fanatical Jewish chauvinists" for political motives, to describe Illegal Jewish Israeli settlements within the Occupied Palestinian Territories." Shown by the term not being applied to Tel Aviv District.(Israel insider Ma'ale Adumim larger than Tel Aviv, I don't think so) Gush Emunim apply the term to the West Bank as a geopolitical manoeuvre devoted to an ideology "greater land of Israel".(Ha'aretz) The terms "Judea and Samaria" are also highly controversial in Israeli society itself, and are often employed specifically as a collective reference to the illegal Israeli settlements in that area, historically and presently, especially by Jewish settlers and their supporters.(Jpost Arutz Sheva) "Newsweek Nov 20 1995" [...] it stretches to the fanatical Jewish chauvinists who want to expel the Arabs from the land they call Judea and Samaria--a territory that, depending on how you read the Bible, could stretch past the Jordan as far as the Euphrates. Says Sternhell: "The minimum the religious Zionists can live with is the West Bank." "Newsweek Nov 13 1995" The religious settlers in the occupied territories believe that God gave them the West Bank--which they call by the Biblical names Judea and Samaria-and that no temporal leader can give the Promised Land away. Left-wing Israelis prefer "HaGada HaMa'aravit" (הגדה המערבית "The West Bank" in Hebrew) or "Hashetahim Hakvushim" (השטחים הכבושים, The Occupied Territories). Many Arab Palestinians object to this term as a rejection of their claim to the land. Nevertheless, the term al-Yahudiyya was-Samarah is used by Arab Christians in reference to the Bible.(Murqus, Sa'īd. Tafsīr kalimāt al-Kitāb al-Muqaddas, Cairo, 1996, in Arabic)Jewish daily As used by JVL in "The College of Judea & Samaria" where the college is described As a demonstratively Zionist institution, the College has two key requirements: every student must study one course per semester on some aspect of Judaism, Jewish heritage or Land of Israel studies, and the Israeli flag must be displayed in every classroom, laboratory and auditorium on campus.JVL

APCR again used by right wing extremists for West Bank.

Now lets' look at what the official name of the geopolitical area is:

US officially designates the West Bank the occupied territories.... Library of Congress

Dore gold wants Disputed territories... B'Tselem occupied territories

Britain's position...Occupied territories. 

Ireland Occupied territories...

UN occupied territories..

Red Cross; The ICRC in Israel, the Occupied Territories and the Autonomous Territories indexed under Palestine, interesting.

and yet wiki uses a term that is controversial in Israel.

RS sources; Gershom Gorenberg OT

David Kretzmer OT

Kitty Warnock OT

Felicia Langer OT

Idith Zertal, Akiva Eldar, Vivian Eden, Vivian Sohn Eden OT

Stephen C Pelletiere OT

Eyal Benvenisti OT

Joost R. Hiltermann OT

Emma Playfair OT

Erica Lang OT

Esther Rosalind Cohen OT

Linda Bevis OT

John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt OT

Paul Hunt OT

Ghāzī Khurshīd, Ibrahim Abid OT

Lynne Rosengrant Franks OT

Neil Alger DT

William B. Quandt DT

Colin Shindler; Judea and Samaria; Used in conjunction with the right wing ultra nationalist religious movement.

Joseph Telushkin JS Judea, Samaria, and Gaza: Views on the Present and Future By Daniel Judah Elazar Published by American Enterprise Institute, 1982 ISBN 0844734594

Term used according to the Israeli settlement policy in an effort to create ‘facts’ that would eliminate once and for all the possibility of repartitioning the land west of the Jordan river. PP 3 and 18

Religious Fundamentalism in Developing Countries By Santosh C. Saha, Thomas K. Carr Contributor Santosh C. Saha Published by Greenwood Publishing Group, 2001 ISBN 0313311552, p 71 guess how it is used?

Free Speech and National Security: Most of the Papers Were Delivered at the Conference on ..., Held in Jerusalem in December 1987 By Shimon Shetreet Published by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990 ISBN 0792310306

Judea Samaria used to describe the Israeli settlements and West bank Gaza termed territories.

As with the Britannica, the article can be about the Historical Biblical myths or about the modern area. If it is used for the modern area then it should be noted that the term is used by extremist right wingers (as in a health warning) who openly talk of being against the Israeli government.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica starts straight off with "historical region, Palestine Hebrew Shomron" making it clear that it is a historical region not the new politicised region. A clear distinction should be made between the two.

Conclusions:

The name "Samaria" is used in two entirely separate ways.
 * 1) When referring to the Biblical area. (sometimes then abused by religious fanatics see use 2.)
 * 2) Used by "fanatical Jewish chauvinists" as a means of indicating the Occupied Palestinian Territories and or the settlements.

The article should therefore read:

"the term is sometimes applied contentiously within Israel; predominantly by 'fanatical Jewish chauvinists' for political motives, to illegal Jewish Israeli settlements within the Occupied Palestinian Territories."

...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)