Coppertwig (talk | contribs) Archiving some threads and closing some with collapse boxes |
Coppertwig (talk | contribs) →Physical geography: Note: in my previous edit, I posted a new version of clause 6 (i.e. with subclauses modified according to the discussion) in section "Exception (modified version)"; comments w |
||
Line 346: | Line 346: | ||
====Comment==== |
====Comment==== |
||
:''(When this discussion started, the above proposal read "As an adjective in the term "the [Samarian/Judean] hills" or "the Judean desert" or variations thereof")'' <span style="color:Purple; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
What is the purpose of this addition? Isn't it clear that Judean Desert is allowed just as Judean hills are allowed? --[[User:Zvika|Zvika]] ([[User talk:Zvika|talk]]) 06:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
What is the purpose of this addition? Isn't it clear that Judean Desert is allowed just as Judean hills are allowed? --[[User:Zvika|Zvika]] ([[User talk:Zvika|talk]]) 06:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:It's my understanding that MeteorMaker (who is, however, topic-banned) may have interpreted the earlier wording as applying specifically to "hills" rather than to all geographical features. "It should be sufficient to state that the hills themselves, and nothing else, may be described as "Samarian"/"of Samaria"/[...]." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration&diff=284290213&oldid=284108900] I suppose adding "desert" may tend to support this interpretation by implying that only "hills" and "desert" are allowed, not other geographical features. It might be better instead to insert "geographic" as I did here: "As an adjective as part of a geographic phrase which appears in a source, for example "on the Samarian foothills", or" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration&diff=282777482&oldid=282773815]. MeteorMaker struck out the part containing the word "geographic" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration&diff=282782223&oldid=prev here]. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
:It's my understanding that MeteorMaker (who is, however, topic-banned) may have interpreted the earlier wording as applying specifically to "hills" rather than to all geographical features. "It should be sufficient to state that the hills themselves, and nothing else, may be described as "Samarian"/"of Samaria"/[...]." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration&diff=284290213&oldid=284108900] I suppose adding "desert" may tend to support this interpretation by implying that only "hills" and "desert" are allowed, not other geographical features. It might be better instead to insert "geographic" as I did here: "As an adjective as part of a geographic phrase which appears in a source, for example "on the Samarian foothills", or" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration&diff=282777482&oldid=282773815]. MeteorMaker struck out the part containing the word "geographic" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration&diff=282782223&oldid=prev here]. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
Line 358: | Line 359: | ||
:::::::It looks like the best way to get feedback on that issue. I suggest a heading with subsection for each fo the subclauses.--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
:::::::It looks like the best way to get feedback on that issue. I suggest a heading with subsection for each fo the subclauses.--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::::::That will be 5 new threads, if the last 2 sub-sub-clauses (of [[#Occupied etc Territories]]) are bundled together with the subclause they depend on. I think I'll wait a short while to see if there is any objection to doing it that way. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 00:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
::::::::That will be 5 new threads, if the last 2 sub-sub-clauses (of [[#Occupied etc Territories]]) are bundled together with the subclause they depend on. I think I'll wait a short while to see if there is any objection to doing it that way. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 00:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
'''Note''': I've included this subclause in the modified version of clause 6 which I posted in [[#Exception (modified version)|a thread above]]. (Please comment on it.) Perhaps this thread could be closed with collapse boxes as I did with a few others, but it seems too soon to close this one. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] ([[User talk:Coppertwig|talk]]) 02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== General support == |
== General support == |
Revision as of 02:04, 7 June 2009
Occupied etc Territories
A first mulling over in my head, inviting initial responses and redrafting before someone puts a proposal on the main page.
"# When refering collectively to those areas captured by Israel during the Six Day War, the terms the Israeli-Occupied Territories or the Occupied Territories are most widely used internationally may be used. The terms include the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.
"##The terms may or may not include the Sinai Peninsula, according to whether a historical or the present-day situation is being discussed. If, in a particular instance, the reader may be left in any doubt whether Sinai is included, then editors should make this clear in the text.
"##The Status of Jerusalem is particularly complicated. East Jerusalem, excluding the former enclave of Mount Scopus, is generally regarded as part of the Occupied Territories. It is sometimes explicitly listed as such but is also sometimes implicitly included as part of the West Bank. Editors should be aware of the potential for differences in usage between sources and should make the sense being used clear in the article.
"##The terms the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Palestinian Territories refer to those of the territories that were part of pre-1948 territory of the Mandate of Palestine. It therefore includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and, usually, East Jerusalem and excludes the Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula. Whilst these terms are not deprecated, in most many cases it will be simpler and less likely to cause dispute just to refer to territories explicitly, for example as "the West Bank and the Gaza Strip".
"##The term the Disputed Territories is strongly associated with one side of the debate and for that reason is generally deprecated. However, it may be used:
"###in verbatim quotes, where it is generally best not to paraphrase it,
"###or when discussing and explaining the use of the term itself."
--Peter cohen (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your contribution. Mostly it looks good to me (although I don't know enough about the topic to be able to judge). I have some concerns about the statement "the terms the Israeli-Occupied Territories or the Occupied Territories are most widely used internationally." This is the type of statement that would require verification by one or more reliable sources, which you haven't provided. The guidelines should reflect consensus, and I'm not sure whether there would be consensus for a statement of that nature. Even if true (and generally agreed upon) now, it could change in future, so I'd hesitate to make such a statement in the guidelines. I did a couple of Google News searches which, without doing a proper investigation, looking only at the number of hits and the nature of the hits on the first page or two, seem to suggest that "West Bank" may be used far more often than "Occupied territories" in this context (remembering that each of those terms will have hits that are talking about other parts of the world). Generally, the guidelines should talk about how to write the articles, not make statements about the real world such as whether a certain term is used more often out there; those sorts of statements can appear in articles, where they can be edited more easily if things change in the real world.
- How about changing "are most widely used internationally" to "may be used" in the first clause?
- Hmm. If the United Nations considers East Jerusalem to be occupied, and if Israel considers it to be part of Israel, can it be called "occupied" in Wikipedia's neutral voice? If not, maybe many other parts of the world also couldn't be called "occupied" because the occupying force might tend to issue a decree that the territory is now part of their country. Would such a decree tend to be considered by Wikipedia to represent a significant minority POV? I'm not sure. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I've made a couple of alterations to the draft above. What I was thinking as part of the complication is that the likes of Britain and the Vatican believe that Jerusalem as a whole should have been a corpus separatum or that it should be an internationally administered holy city. The corpus separatum issue is why most countries avoided siting embassies there even before 1967 and why some have Consulates General there to this day. It's a whole layer of extra complication on top off the situation with the rest of the land captured in 67.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- To remove a double negative (which I find hard to follow) and generally simplify while keeping the same meaning, I suggest that "The terms the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Palestinian Territories exclude those areas that were not in the pre-1948 territory of the Mandate of Palestine (i.e. the Golan Heights and Sinai). Whilst these terms are not deprecated, in most many cases it will be simpler and less likely to cause dispute just to refer to "the West Bank and Gaza Strip"." be changed to "The terms the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Palestinian Territories refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and while these terms are not deprecated, in most many cases it will be simpler and less likely to cause dispute just to refer to "the West Bank and Gaza Strip"."
- I've taken the liberty of editing the above proposed text, changing the order of the 3rd and 4th point so that East Jerusalem is discussed along with Sinai as potentially included in "occupied territories", and I've added some wikilinks. I hope you don't mind me editing your text here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay I've tried again reversing the hrasin in the second point and explaining the third and fourth points further. I don't mind your changes at all. Feel free to make more until it is ready to go on the main page.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I've made a couple of alterations to the draft above. What I was thinking as part of the complication is that the likes of Britain and the Vatican believe that Jerusalem as a whole should have been a corpus separatum or that it should be an internationally administered holy city. The corpus separatum issue is why most countries avoided siting embassies there even before 1967 and why some have Consulates General there to this day. It's a whole layer of extra complication on top off the situation with the rest of the land captured in 67.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Gloss for quotes
- "where it should generally be glossed with "(Israeli term for the [northern/southern] West Bank)"," Added by MeteorMaker here: [1]
- Summary: Four editors opposed including the phrase. (☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC))
Extended content
|
---|
|
Current status
As the outcome of this page will be linked to an arbitration case, I am curious to see how the participants and other observers see it as progressing. Please comment below, but please keep comments on other comments to a minimum (I will ask noninvolved admins remove or trim ad hominem or off-topic or unduly long statements). I am setting up some subheadings to maintain some order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is heading towards a policy
- Probably. No guarantee. Very little discussion activity at the moment. Planning to do an RfC, but perhaps waiting first to (a) find out who among the "Judea & Samaria 8" get exemptions to participate in the discussion, and (b) hopefully get consensus on a single version, if possible, before putting out an RfC. There seems to be disagreement on a few points in the threads above, but the people who expressed disagreement are not currently actively discussing. Not sure what process to follow: perhaps asking uninvolved admins or uninvolved editors to close discussions in some threads. Some questions may need to be left open during the RfC, but hopefully not too many so it won't be too complex for participants. (I.e. easier if there's just one version to consider.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Probably. As Coppertwig says, it is remarkably quiet in here. I do think it will be useful to have things set as policy but it will help to have a substantial number of people be seen to support it. At Talk:Israel#Disputed Territories there is a discussion that is about to reach its 3-month anniversary with a small number of editors fighting for a minority terminology to be used for the occupied territories. Such a discussion could potential crop up in any number of other articles. A centralised policy will at least confine discussion to one place. However, I think we should reach a near-consensus here before throwing things open for editors who have not even considered the principles behing IPCOLL.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Probably. Hopefully, now that the arbcom case is closed, we can have some civilised discussion motivated by common sense and encyclopedia-building. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If so, do you support the current wording
- Acceptable, but room for improvement. For example, the year when the modern period starts should probably be given as a single number rather than several choices. Also there are suggestions in the threads above that could be incorporated. I'm not strongly opposing anything (not blocking consensus if I'm the only one opposing anything, at least for now). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Acceptable Willing for minor changes to happen. Also want Occupied Territories covered.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Acceptable Overall structure and tone is good. Minor points may need further clarification/adjustment. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Acceptable Ditto OrangeDog & Peter cohen. Just some tweaking needed. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
No, this isn't heading towards a policy
If not, why not
Shall we split voting for consensus on individual segments of guidelines to facilitate process
Yes
- Yes. It will be easier to get consensus that way. Otherwise, if it's all put into one bundle, then many people will vote "oppose" on the whole thing because there's one little part that they oppose. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes Agree with Coppertwig's rationale.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes Seems to be a good idea. Let's not go overboard with it though. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No
Consensus on 6 existing proposals thus far
- Given the preliminary consensus of the three editors above, I have detailed the following below for acceptance or otherwise:
- Here please vote support/oppose/comment on each of the six segments currently on the guideline page:
Antiquity
(1) References for antiquity follow sources and use Judea and Samaria for the period up to the first century CE.
Support
- Al Ameer son (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unomi (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Peter cohen (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- – Quadell (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Pharos (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Zvika (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Bearian (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
British Mandate (1920-1948)
(2) In the context of events during the British Mandate (1920-1948), terms used by the British administration (ie "Judea" and "Samaria") are probably most appropriate. When used, they should be prefixed with "the British Mandate district/s".
Support
- Unomi (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- --Peter cohen (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- – Quadell (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Pharos (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- But this should not be so strignant as to become distracting, definitely the first instance should be clarified but subsequent ones should be weighed for readability and repetitiveness concerns. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Zvika (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
- Al Ameer son (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if you would share your reasons for opposing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Al Ameer son (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
(3) Guidelines 4–6 refer to modern times (After 1948? After 1950? After 1967?).
post 1948
- Unomi (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Peter cohen (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Second choice. – Quadell (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Pharos (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
post 1950
post 1967
Oppose
- Al Ameer son (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I would appreciate it if you would share your reasons for opposing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Al Ameer son (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment
-
- Which year do you support, or do you oppose the whole clause? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Contemporary usage
(4)" West Bank" or "the West Bank" (capitalized) is the most commonly used name for the land area known by that name, and is to be used. The terms "northern West Bank" and "southern West Bank" can be used to refer to parts of it.
Support
- Al Ameer son (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unomi (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Peter cohen (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Although I'd prefer a discussion of the terms somewhere in the article(s). hmwithτ 21:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- – Quadell (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Support generally, except for the "southern West Bank"/"northern West Bank" thing, as these are not quite the same as "Judea" and "Samaria".Pharos (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Zvika (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Bearian (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
administrative area of Judea and Samaria
(5) When discussing specifically the administrative area of Judea and Samaria, in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area, the term "the administrative area of Judea and Samaria" or Judea and Samaria Area (with the last word capitalised as here) may be used.
Support
- Al Ameer son (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unomi (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Peter cohen (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Nb. there should be quote marks around "Judea and Samaria Area" (thus). Hopefully a non-controversial change. It was my typo in the first place.
- OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- – Quadell (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Pharos (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Zvika (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
Exception
- Summary: No consensus for this version of clause 6. Changes have been suggested and a modified version is proposed in the next thread. (☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC))
Extended content
|
---|
Support
Oppose
Comment
|
Exception (modified version)
(6) As of the time these guidelines were proposed (in March 2009), given the references which had been examined, some editors were not convinced that there was a proportion of nonpartisan usage in reliable sources of the terms "Samaria" and "Judea" to refer to places in the context of events in modern times sufficient that the terms could be used without qualification while conveying a sufficiently neutral voice. The terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice; for example, it cannot be asserted without qualification that a place is "in Samaria". Any uses of the terms must be in one of the situations described below:
- 6A) The terms are used inside verbatim quotations from sources, or
- 6D) When discussing physical geography using the terminology that appears in international expert journals, for example as part of a proper name ("the Judean Group aquifer"), or as an adjective qualifying a term ("The Samarian hills"), or
- 6E) The term is being mentioned rather than used, as in "Samaria is a term used for ...", or
- 6F) The term is being used within the article about itself, where its meaning and usage has already been explained to the reader; although additional qualifications may be needed for some uses even there.
Support
Oppose
Comment
- I've tried to incorporate the changes for which there seems to be consensus. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Alternative proposals
Please place a specific alternative proposal to one of the above and rationale here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
For geographical areas
*6G) Samaria(n) or Judea(n) may be more technically accurate than northern/southern West Bank when referring to a geographical area. In particular, it may be more appropriate to follow the designations given in the referenced sources.
- Sorry if this has already come up, but "Samaria(n)" is not precisely congruous to "in the northern West Bank", and likewise with Judea(n). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds a good statement to comment on. I am putting a quote box around it and log below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've knocked up File:Judea-maps-overlay.png to show a few different designations. Couldn't find a good map with the boundaries of the Judean desert though. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- The map you have produced and the date of some of the input suggests that Samaria might have been used to describe an administrative area prior to the Mandate. Unfortunately our coverage of the Ottoman Empire is not as good as that of the Roman one. Perhaps instead of this being a new 6G, it should be an ammendment to 2 above.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know about administrative areas, but, on Western maps, pretty much the whole of the north of the old Roman province (delimited by Jerusalem) was referred to as Samaria, with the south as Judea. The important point is that these are vastly wider areas than what is currently covered by the West Bank. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that. Is there a way to get things in the wording to make it clear that we are referring to a much larger area? I can see it being interpreted differently and more problematically. Also, how much are we talking about historical geographic texts and how much about a modern term? Does anyone have access to modern books on the geography of Israel to see how they describe things?--Peter cohen (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- In modern usage in Israel, the term "Judea and Samaria" (as a conjunction) refers exclusively to the West Bank, and the separate nouns "Judea" and "Samaria" usually refer to the southern and northern parts of the West Bank, respectively. However, "Judea" and "Samaria" might also be used in a geographical context, in which case they would be interpreted based on geographical features. For example, much of the Judean desert is outside the West Bank. This use should definitely be allowed, at least in geographical articles. --Zvika (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Which then suggests that 6D above is sufficient unless English-language geographers have a different practice. Do Israeli history books tend to cover the area under the Ottomans and therefore have evidence about whether Judea and Samaria were used by them? All I'm really aware of was that there was a Syrian area which took in the whole of the Levant and not just the modern Syria, but I don't know if it was subdivided.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- In modern usage in Israel, the term "Judea and Samaria" (as a conjunction) refers exclusively to the West Bank, and the separate nouns "Judea" and "Samaria" usually refer to the southern and northern parts of the West Bank, respectively. However, "Judea" and "Samaria" might also be used in a geographical context, in which case they would be interpreted based on geographical features. For example, much of the Judean desert is outside the West Bank. This use should definitely be allowed, at least in geographical articles. --Zvika (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying that. Is there a way to get things in the wording to make it clear that we are referring to a much larger area? I can see it being interpreted differently and more problematically. Also, how much are we talking about historical geographic texts and how much about a modern term? Does anyone have access to modern books on the geography of Israel to see how they describe things?--Peter cohen (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know about administrative areas, but, on Western maps, pretty much the whole of the north of the old Roman province (delimited by Jerusalem) was referred to as Samaria, with the south as Judea. The important point is that these are vastly wider areas than what is currently covered by the West Bank. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- The map you have produced and the date of some of the input suggests that Samaria might have been used to describe an administrative area prior to the Mandate. Unfortunately our coverage of the Ottoman Empire is not as good as that of the Roman one. Perhaps instead of this being a new 6G, it should be an ammendment to 2 above.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've knocked up File:Judea-maps-overlay.png to show a few different designations. Couldn't find a good map with the boundaries of the Judean desert though. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds a good statement to comment on. I am putting a quote box around it and log below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I don't think the conclusion is that 6D is sufficient. We can (and should) have an article on the geology of Samaria, for example. If 6G makes it clear that the nouns should be used in a geographical (rather than political) context, then I would support this proposition.
Concerning your question, I am not aware of Ottoman regions called Samaria or Judea but I will try to look this up. --Zvika (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- With a little help from a friend, I found a map of administrative regions in Palestine in the 19th century: [2]. It is in Hebrew but the captions read, from north to south: Acre Sanjak, Nablus Sanjak, Gaza Sanjak, Jerusalem Sanjak. Thus it appears that the terms Judea and Samaria were not used as administrative divisions in the late Ottoman empire. --Zvika (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you (and your friend) for your time and effort.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Support
- This probably has merit, but we should do more research on it first.Pharos (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
Comment
- While I might personally support this proposal, I also see the argument against it, and I don't think it has a reasonable chance of gaining consensus. It seems to me to directly contradict the first sentence of clause (6). If the parentheses are deleted, so that it's talking only about the adjectives, it may have a better chance of gaining consensus. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm leaning more towards this than I was earlier. However, I would like to see evidence of contemporary usage in English-language grologicla or geographical textbooks or academic journals. When the map which OrangeDog used was produced, you would be more likely to find material referring to the geography of Bohemia or of Moravia than to that of the Czech lands, but now we have Geography of the Czech Republic but not Geography of Bohemia. We now have a main article called Gdansk and not Danzig, which would have been the case then. Clearly Judea and Samaria were terms in use among British geographers at the time the mandate was established and these terms would have lasted out the mandate. But do modern English-language geographical or geological textbooks and journal article still refer to areas called "Judea" and "Samaria", or just to the "Judean hills"? A lot can change in 90 or 60 years.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I ran some searches on Google Scholar for articles mentioning Judea, and found quite a few (including some with the alternate spelling Judaea) which refer to the geographical region. For example:
- "The fault pattern in the northern Negev and southern Coastal Plain of Israel and its hydrogeological implications for groundwater flow in the Judea Group aquifer", Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 1994 [3]
- "Radiocarbon loss from DIG in vadose water flow above the Judea Aquifer, Israel", International Conference on Isotopes in Environmental Studies, Monaco, 2004 [4]
- To be fair, these seem to be written by Israeli scholars, but I attribute this to the natural tendency of researchers to study regions close to where they live. In any case, the above examples are published in international English-language journals and conferences. --Zvika (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I need to have a look in detail at other results in your Google searches, but the two examples you give both seem to refer to an entity called variously "Judea Aquifer" and "the Judea Group aquifer" situated in the Judea Hills and this the usage is an adjectival part of a longer proper name. I think this type of usage would be better approached by amending 6D. There might be a better example of Judea being used on its own elsewhere. But I don't think these two convince me.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I ran some searches on Google Scholar for articles mentioning Judea, and found quite a few (including some with the alternate spelling Judaea) which refer to the geographical region. For example:
Shorter version of 6A
Do you support 6A if the part about the gloss is deleted?
6A) The terms are used inside verbatim quotations from sources, or
- Summary: Deleting the part about the gloss appears to have consensus and this edit has been done. (The part deleted was "where it should generally be glossed with "[Israeli term for the [northern/southern] West Bank]"".) (☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC))
Extended content
|
---|
(Context: this is a proposed subclause of clause 6 above.) Support
Oppose |
6B without "and Zionists"
Do you support 6B if the "and Zionists" part is deleted?
6B) In phrases such as "the area called Samaria by many Israelis", etc., or
- Summary: No consensus for this subclause. Withdrawn by proposer, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
(Context: this is a proposed subclause of clause 6 above.) Support
Oppose
|
Re-include 6C
6C) In phrases such as "the biblical region of Judea", "the region historically known as Judea", etc. Such wording can be used only as a secondary location identifier, and should not generally replace the term "West Bank" when describing modern places.
- (Copied from my comment above, following Coppertwig's suggestion) I agree that in a sentence like "Efrat is an Israeli settlement in Judea" there is an implication that Judea is part of the Jewish Land, a claim which is disputed and therefore not NPOV. But there is also a slightly weaker interpretation of this statement: that Efrat is located in a region which was once ruled by Jews. This is a fact and, to some Israelis, this fact constitutes a justification for the existence of a Jewish settlement there. (Please note that this is not my personal opinion.) Thus, perhaps a more neutral sentence would be "Efrat is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, in the region historically known as Judea." I think the clause should allow such a statement. --Zvika (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Support
- Support by nominator. Zvika (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
- What is the relevance of mentioning a term that was used 2000 years ago in situating a modern village? Answer: It is only of relevance as part of right-wing Zionist discourse which is a minority viewpoint and should not be given undue weight.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely, this viewpoint should not be given undue weight, but it should also not be forbidden completely, which is what this policy amounts to unless 6C is included. Hence my proposed wording in which it is made clear that the contentious terms should only be used as secondary designations. Furthermore, while this might be a minority viewpoint on a worldwide level, it is most certainly a majority among the residents of Efrat, say, and the article on Efrat should therefore give reasonable coverage of that opinion. In my opinion, this is similar to articles on Creationism and other minority viewpoints, which prominently cover the minority viewpoint (while expressly describing it as such). One would not get very far with an article on Creationism if one were required to place every mention of a creationist belief as a quote from a RS. --Zvika (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still not happy with your example. The article on creationism uses indirect speech to say what creationists claim. I would rather have something like "Efrat is an Israeli settlement in the Southern part of the West Bank, an area which the settlers refer to as Judea after the biblical state." This way Wikipedia isn't endorsing the use of Biblical terms to describe modern places but is reporting usage.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely, this viewpoint should not be given undue weight, but it should also not be forbidden completely, which is what this policy amounts to unless 6C is included. Hence my proposed wording in which it is made clear that the contentious terms should only be used as secondary designations. Furthermore, while this might be a minority viewpoint on a worldwide level, it is most certainly a majority among the residents of Efrat, say, and the article on Efrat should therefore give reasonable coverage of that opinion. In my opinion, this is similar to articles on Creationism and other minority viewpoints, which prominently cover the minority viewpoint (while expressly describing it as such). One would not get very far with an article on Creationism if one were required to place every mention of a creationist belief as a quote from a RS. --Zvika (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment
- Perhaps "biblical region of Judea" is better than "region historically known as Judea" which is better than "historical region of Judea". I did a few Google searches just now and find 307 hits for "biblical region of Judea", many of the first page of which are present tense, e.g. "Tanya Neppe is an artist from the town of Tekoa in the biblical region of Judea. She specializes in oil, mixed media, and acrylic" (on some web page out there). I didn't find any Google Web hits for phrases such as "historical region of Judea" (or Samaria).
I prefer the phrasing "in the region historically known as Judea" to "historical region of Judea"; the latter could be interpreted as asserting that the region is Judea and that it's a region of unusual historical significance. I didn't find any Google hits for either phrase.
The only example I managed to find of any such phrase with "historical" or "historically": "a larger northern bulge which corresponds to historical Samaria"[5] (Human Rights in the Israeli-occupied Territories, 1967-1982: 1967-1982 By Esther Rosalind Cohen Edition: illustrated Published by Manchester University Press ND, 1985 ISBN 0719017262, 9780719017261)
Here's a source with "bibical": Google snippet "Israel's swift victory, which brought about the reunification of Jerusalem, the return to Israel of biblical Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), the conquest ..." [6] (Israeli national security policy: political actors and perspectives By Bernard Reich, Gershon R. Kieval Contributor Bernard Reich Published by Greenwood Press, 1988 Digitized Sep 5, 2008 ISBN 0313261962, 9780313261961)
The Wikipedia article Hebron says "Located in the Palestinian territories and the Biblical region of Judea", which I think is where I originally got the wording for this subclause. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)- Thanks for the extensive research. I agree with your assessment and I've changed the wording of the proposal accordingly. Also, having slept on this, I think we should make sure that this clause is not used to identify places solely by their biblical name in an attempt to circumvent the basic spirit of the proposal. So I've added a caveat to that effect. What do you say? --Zvika (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Looks OK to me. I added my support above. By the way, the Hebron article also specifies "West Bank" about 3 sentences earlier, so it would satisfy this clause. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect that the problem will be less with Hebron (in which the population is almost entirely Palestinian) and more with places like Ariel, where the lead reads "an Israeli settlement and city in the West Bank, in the Biblical region of Samaria near the ancient village of Timnat Serah," but the link from the disambiguation page reads "an Israeli city and settlement in the West Bank between Nablus and Ramallah." That is precisely the difference in point of view that, hopefully, this guideline will help resolve. --Zvika (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looks OK to me. I added my support above. By the way, the Hebron article also specifies "West Bank" about 3 sentences earlier, so it would satisfy this clause. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the extensive research. I agree with your assessment and I've changed the wording of the proposal accordingly. Also, having slept on this, I think we should make sure that this clause is not used to identify places solely by their biblical name in an attempt to circumvent the basic spirit of the proposal. So I've added a caveat to that effect. What do you say? --Zvika (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
6B with blanks
6B) In phrases such as "also referred to as ___ by ___", if this statement is sourced. Such wording can be used only as a secondary location identifier, and should not generally replace the term "West Bank" when describing modern places.
Support
Oppose
Comment
Physical geography
6D) When discussing physical geography using the terminology that appears in international expert journals, for example as part of a proper name ("the Judean Group aquifer"), or as an adjective qualifying a term ("The Samarian hills"), or
Support
- Zvika (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC) (kindof sortof as nominator)
Oppose
Comment
- (When this discussion started, the above proposal read "As an adjective in the term "the [Samarian/Judean] hills" or "the Judean desert" or variations thereof") ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this addition? Isn't it clear that Judean Desert is allowed just as Judean hills are allowed? --Zvika (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's my understanding that MeteorMaker (who is, however, topic-banned) may have interpreted the earlier wording as applying specifically to "hills" rather than to all geographical features. "It should be sufficient to state that the hills themselves, and nothing else, may be described as "Samarian"/"of Samaria"/[...]." [7] I suppose adding "desert" may tend to support this interpretation by implying that only "hills" and "desert" are allowed, not other geographical features. It might be better instead to insert "geographic" as I did here: "As an adjective as part of a geographic phrase which appears in a source, for example "on the Samarian foothills", or" [8]. MeteorMaker struck out the part containing the word "geographic" here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest including an example without a final "n" on the place name, such as "Judea Group aquifer" as that would then cover the geographical cases people have come up with.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- How about "As an adjective in a geographical term such as "the [Samarian/Judean] hills" or "the Judea group aquifer""? This is intended to implicitly allow other geographical terms, such as "Judean desert"; but not "Judean village", "Judean region", etc., which can be considered political as opposed to geographic designations. Is there a better word than "geographical"? Maybe "geological"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- That seems to make sense, though I would say "physical geography" rather than the overly specific "geology." --Zvika (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. How about "As an adjective of physical geography such as "the [Samarian/Judean] hills" or "the Judea group aquifer""? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think we ought to be able to use this clause to cover the whole geographical discussion. How about:
- When discussing physical geography using the terminology that appears in international expert journals, for example as part of a proper name ("the Judean Group aquifer"), or as an adjective qualifying a term "The Samarian hills".
- In this, the non-adjectival use of "Judea" or "Samaria" as physical geographical terms are not mentioned at all, either to allow or explicitly to disallow such usage. I think from our discussion elsewhere it is still a moot question whether this specific aspect would reflect current usage. If editors come up with modern international expert journals that use the terms it will be fine, if not, then it won't.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Since nobody had explicitly supported yet, I replaced my suggestion in the quote box with what you suggested. I also changed the section heading of this subthread. By the way: what about your proposed text in #Occupied etc Territories: shall we copy it into another subthread with "support" and "oppose" sections to encourage people to comment on it? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like the best way to get feedback on that issue. I suggest a heading with subsection for each fo the subclauses.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- That will be 5 new threads, if the last 2 sub-sub-clauses (of #Occupied etc Territories) are bundled together with the subclause they depend on. I think I'll wait a short while to see if there is any objection to doing it that way. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like the best way to get feedback on that issue. I suggest a heading with subsection for each fo the subclauses.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Since nobody had explicitly supported yet, I replaced my suggestion in the quote box with what you suggested. I also changed the section heading of this subthread. By the way: what about your proposed text in #Occupied etc Territories: shall we copy it into another subthread with "support" and "oppose" sections to encourage people to comment on it? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- That seems to make sense, though I would say "physical geography" rather than the overly specific "geology." --Zvika (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- How about "As an adjective in a geographical term such as "the [Samarian/Judean] hills" or "the Judea group aquifer""? This is intended to implicitly allow other geographical terms, such as "Judean desert"; but not "Judean village", "Judean region", etc., which can be considered political as opposed to geographic designations. Is there a better word than "geographical"? Maybe "geological"? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest including an example without a final "n" on the place name, such as "Judea Group aquifer" as that would then cover the geographical cases people have come up with.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: I've included this subclause in the modified version of clause 6 which I posted in a thread above. (Please comment on it.) Perhaps this thread could be closed with collapse boxes as I did with a few others, but it seems too soon to close this one. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
General support
I read current draft guideline and it looks reasonable. I have followed the dispute somewhat. A few suggestions:
- 1: say "first century CE (AD)". CE is still not as well known.
- 6B: Even mentioning "Zionists" might be sensitive.
--Apoc2400 (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Whether it says "(AD)" or not seems to me to be a minor point that doesn't affect the meaning, somewhat similar to my adding of a wikilink. You could probably just edit it in wiki-style and see if it stays. Incidentally, WP:MOSDATE says "Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article." Perhaps this doesn't have to apply to guidelines. Perhaps you could change it to just "AD", but I hope people wouldn't editwar over that. Re "and Zionists", in response to your comment and similar comments by one or two others I added a proposal above to delete this phrase. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: The Biblical Judea and Samaria were not confined to the modern West Bank, but included areas within pre-1967 Israel. So the modern usage is actually significantly different from the ancient usage. Also, the expression "The Judean Desert" is an established quasi-traditional geographical term without any particular intended modern political significance... AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- We are already discussing this point above, at #For geographical areas. We would welcome your opinion on the discussion there. --Zvika (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'm having great difficulty follwing the discussions above and trying to figure out exactly what is at issue. I guess I would need to follow the whole process from the beginning to have the proper full context... AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Basically, the question is: do you support making the proposed guidelines on the project page attached to this talk page into policy? On this talk page, people are expressing support or opposition for individual clauses copied from there. For most of them, there seems to be a lot of support. Clause 6 has numerous subclauses, and there is some discussion and development of those subclauses in progress. The underlying issue is: can the terms "Samaria" or "Judea" be used in articles, and if so under what circumstances? If you want extensive background, see the archive of this talk page, and the evidence page of the arbitration case. (I hope I've helped; maybe I'm answering the wrong questions.)
- The point you're making about the terms covering different regions at different times seems to me to be similar to the point OrangeDog makes by providing a link to a map in the "For geographical areas" section above. However, I'm not sure how to translate that into implications for proposed wording.
- Based on your mention of "the Judean desert", I'm adding a proposal above to modify 6D. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'm having great difficulty follwing the discussions above and trying to figure out exactly what is at issue. I guess I would need to follow the whole process from the beginning to have the proper full context... AnonMoos (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: If there is no objection, I think I'm going to archive the active polling threads #Exception, #Shorter version of 6A, #6B without "and Zionists", and replace them with a new thread #Exception (modifed version), containing a modified version of the whole clause 6, taking into account some of the discussion that has occurred. (Also planning to archive some of the first few threads on this talk page.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have not followed this last bit closely, but whatever you do, be careful to keep it as clear and easy to follow as possible. I am wondering whether some collapsible boxes of sections (followed by a summary) might be a better idea. 11:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)