This is anarchive of past discussions aboutWest Bank.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

Shrike, your edit[1] has been reverted. You should followWP:BRD rather than engaging in edit warring.ImTheIP (talk)20:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

ImTheIP, Its you who engage in edit warring you reverted twice in the last days please explain why Israeli view cited inWP:RS is undueShrike (talk)13:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, no Shrike, I'm not edit warring. The above talk page comment is two days old and you didn't bother to respond, thus it was within my right to revert. This strategy, or behavior, of not responding until the other party reverts is quite frustrating. The wording "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this" has been chiseled out through endless discussions and you can't unilaterally change it.WP:BRD,WP:ONUS, the burden is on you to explain your change and to seek consensus.ImTheIP (talk)13:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It is useful to recall that this began with another editor attempting to insert incorrect (as in wrong) text into the article "arguing that because it does not compel its citizens to settle in the areas, it therefore does not constitute "occupied territory" as defined by theFourth Geneva Convention" Now we have "arguing that because it does not force its citizens to settle in the areas, it therefore does not constitute violationFourth Geneva Convention" which is not precisely wrong but a) it is a completely inadequate discussion of a complex legal issue and b) it is completely undue since it is a minority position (of 1). "Israel disputes this" is more than sufficient and is what is used in numerous articles.Selfstudier (talk)14:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

One of the "the area" part of the the sentence should be deleted.Empyrius (talk)11:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

In the CIA fact book it seems to include the population of East Jerusalem in the Israel figures afaics. So in that case, the WB (normally includes EJ) pop is understated by 0.37 million. Otoh,This source gives pop of 3.05 million including EJ for 2020 (sourced by them to PCBS). Anyone any suggestions how to fix this up in the infobox (and the lead I guess)?Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 25 Decemb er 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps data3 label3 redoubled so you have two entries for Palestinian population3.05 inclusive of EJ, and another for Jewish/settler population. At the moment no one knows whether the population figure refer s exclusively to Palestinians, or includes Jews as well.Nishidani (talk)21:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thisedit request toWest Bank has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Under the heading “Israeli waste disposal”, second paragraph (beginning “In 2007 it was estimated that 38%”), “treatment” has a typo: treatrment. Please remove the extra “r”.69.114.137.1 (talk)02:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

 DoneCannolis (talk)02:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thisedit request toWest Bank has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Add citation from New York Times:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/world/middleeast/peace-plan.html

Need to add citation for: "In 2020, President Donald Trump unveiled his peace plan, which radically differs from previous peace plans.[citation needed]Nalotic (talk)09:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Done.Selfstudier (talk)11:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding Jordanian dinar to currency such as in theState of Palestine andPalestinian territories page.

Egyptian pound (NIS;EGP) |Israeli new sheqel (ILS) |Jordanian dinar (JOD)^[1]
Doremon764 (talk)22:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right, adding it.Dan Palraz (talk)20:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This sentence:Immediately after the 1967 war,Theodor Meron, legal counselor of Israel's Foreign Ministry, advised Israeli ministers in a "top secret" memo that any policy of building settlements across occupied territories violated international law and would "contravene the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention".

Should be updated with an additional reference:

"Fifty years late Meron, citing decades of legal scholarship on the subject, Meron reiterated his legal opinion regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories.^[1]"DavidHeap (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)DavidHeap (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)DavidHeap (talk)14:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@DavidHeap: Sure. Don't see why not. That's added.Iskandar323 (talk)15:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Nableezy, I suggest you re-read the sentence. It doesn't say *all Jews* use the term, but rather thatsome, which is factually correct, and requesting source for such trivial thing -- in my opinion -- undermines the importance of sourcing.In any case, even many Evangelical Christians use that term. So, I suggest writing:called by some Israelis and othersArchway (talk)04:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

To say it is called that by a minority while not including that the majority of Americans, including Jews, say West Bank is POV pushing, and yes all challenged material requires sources. And it doesnt matter that "others" may call it that, and even if it did it would be weasel worded tendentious nonsense.nableezy -14:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You didn’t do research as to how many call it X vs Y. The internet is full of articles mentioning “Judea and Samaria”. The fact you thought the sentence was referring to *all Jews*, when it was written “some”, strongly proves, in my opinion, that you’re impulsive or withADHD (this is on topic, not personal), as this is one of the symptoms — not separating cases/people/places, or over-generalising, and now — again — attacking me personally, strictly againstWA:No Personal Attacks; and as such, leads me not to engage with you anymore. Wikipedia should be handled, again IMO, by people who know how to restrain their personal views — which we all have. Cases *regarding me* now should be decided by a community vote, avoiding any discussion with you.Archway (talk)08:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If we were to be really pedantic, the source cited makes no real evaluation of how many people use “Judea and Samaria” as terminology, so any statement quantifying this is a bit undue; it might be more precise to call it the name adopted by the Israeli government, based on the reference on theJudea and Samaria page. If so, it should probably also be mentioned under etymology to provide context for the Israeli government's renaming process, and perMOS:LEAD.Iskandar323 (talk)11:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It shouldnt even be in the lead as the terms arent equivalent. Judea and Samaria does not include East Jerusalem, West Bank does. A group of editors who never addressed that issue edit-warred that in to the lead, and since I did not want to edit-war it stuck. But it still should be removed entirely.nableezy -13:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You seriously accusing me of violating NPA then saying I am impulsive or ADHD? Yeah, good luck with that one. Good luck with restraining your personal views on theillegality libel on settlements too. Toodles,nableezy -13:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Tombah please reviewWP:WESTBANK, and the etymology of Judea and/or Samaria is not relevant to this article. And while we are at it, reviewWP:OR as well.nableezy -04:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Since 7/2/1968.

See:https://israelidocuments.blogspot.co.il/2016/01/blog-post_26.html,https://jpress.org.il/olive/apa/nli_heb/SharedView.Article.aspx?href=MAR/1968/07/28&id=Ar01114,http://www.snunit.k12.il/seder/mabat/power2.html (in Hebrew).

Also, in September 1978, president Jimmy Carter has approved that name ("I hereby acknowledge that you have informed me as follows (…) In each paragraph in which the expression 'West Bank' appears it is being, and will be, understood by the Government of Israel as Judea and Samaria.").

These are the references from the Hebrew article.Omeritzics (talk)21:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Entirely correct, but you'll never get the antisemites in control of Wikipedia to refrain from any opportunity to post anti-Jewish lies.— Precedingunsigned comment added by82.68.94.86 (talk)16:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

SeeWP:WESTBANK, that's what we follow here on WP.Selfstudier (talk)21:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria Area is the official name of the district that includes most of the West Bank, but does not include East Jerusalem and the expanded Jerusalem municipality. "Judea and Samaria" is a name used by some Israelis, and often since the 1970s the government of Israel, to refer to the West Bank. The article says that.nableezy -22:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Official" according to whom? The international community holds the area in question to be Palestinian land, and none of the sources above seems to be indicate that the Palestinian Authority uses the name Judea and Samaria. A quick look at reliable sources in English also shows "West Bank" to be by far the mostWP:COMMONNAME.Jeppiz (talk)23:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The "West bank" means, the "West bank of Jordan". Since Israel has the "West bank" again, that name doesn't fit anymore, because it should be the "East bank", right? So, the Israeli government has renamed the "West bank" based on ancient districts from the second temple period (AFAIK).Omeritzics (talk)11:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Hebrew article explains it better than me, so better you read it.Omeritzics (talk)11:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Not the way it works, what Hebrew WP does is their business.Selfstudier (talk)11:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not what I meant to say. What I tried to say is, that my English isn't as good as well, so the Hebrew article better explains what I'm trying to say.Omeritzics (talk)11:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

English WP followsWP:WESTBANK. Then there isJudea and Samaria Area for the Israeli administrative area.Selfstudier (talk)11:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"Judea and Samaria" is basically a made-uppropaganda name, which is only used for an illegally occupied territory. Which should avoid using offensive names for Palestinian territories.Dimadick (talk)17:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there any way that "Israel - Location Map (2012) - ISR - UNOCHA.svg" (or a different map) could be included here to show where the West Bank is? Most Wikipedia geography articles have this information. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk)15:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

How about this one

. Tells you it is between Israel and Jordan and shows the Med?Selfstudier (talk)16:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not bad but I like the other because it shows the relative size of the West Bank to Israel (which is not cut off). -SusanLesch (talk)21:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It showswhere the West bank is, it's not intended to compare the West Bank to Israel.Selfstudier (talk)21:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We could show both, a laCrimea.Onceinawhile (talk)22:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I just leave you with this suggestion. This article has five or six extremely detailed maps of a place. Perhaps Wikipedia could show where that place fits into the world map. -SusanLesch (talk)00:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't do that, no. Almost all regions in the world are shown within the country to which they belong (Småland,Alsace,Tuscany etc.). Using a map of the West Bank and Israel would give the impression the West Bank is part of Israel, which would be highly POV. We could have a map of Palestine, with the West Bank coloured, like the maps of countries in the regions articles I mention above.Jeppiz (talk)00:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I swapped the map, and additionally made several changes to the infobox. The infobox does not need to explain the Oslo Accord areas, and it also shouldnt be using a name in the language of the occupying power as a native name. The Hebrew is in the lead, but the Arabic should be whats in the infobox as the only official language of Palestine.nableezy -00:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well done, fully support that.Jeppiz (talk)00:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a digit separator (,) displayed in the population section of the infobox, in the relevant years, ie: 2,019 rather than 2019. I have attempted to edit this but it does not show up in the editor and I am unsure how to resolve. T.17mtv (talk)20:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. If someone would make the figures in the lead match the infobox figures, please (then use refs instead of no wiki markup).Selfstudier (talk)22:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@SelfstudierI don't understand your edit here?Synotia (talk)14:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

SeeWP:WESTBANK.Selfstudier (talk)14:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I already saw your edit summary ;) No but I don't understand how I violated this?Synotia (talk)14:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria area, which you wikilinked to is an Israeli administrative district and nothing to do with the West Bank, I agreed to set it as aname used although some editors might well object to that as well.Selfstudier (talk)14:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

How does it have nothing to do with the West Bank? The West Bank is a geographical area, and the Judea and Samaria administrative district encompasses that entire geographical area? And why are you opposed to linking the article?Synotia (talk)14:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

SeeWP:WESTBANK, sigh.Selfstudier (talk)14:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Which point does it violate? Do you understand yourself what you link to?Synotia (talk)14:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read 5 (and then 6).Selfstudier (talk)14:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I did it again for you. In my edit I clarified that it's some Israeli institutions who do so, and if a reader clicks on the link you removed, they'd see more about it. How does it violate NPOV? Is my mindset not bureaucratic enough, or do you not understand this yourself? Every time I ask for a clarification I receive the vaguest response.Synotia (talk)14:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That's twice you have said that I do not understandWP:WESTBANK. Do you understand what "namely that it cannot be used without qualification as though it is the neutral point of view." means? Also take a look at the section up the page - "Judea and Samaria is the official name"Selfstudier (talk)14:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

take a look at the section up the page - "Judea and Samaria is the official name" What page are you talking about?

That's twice you have said that I do not understand WP:WESTBANK. Yes it is. Have I used it without qualification?Synotia (talk)14:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This page. And I am done explaining English to you.Selfstudier (talk)14:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It does not explain anything. ChatGPT understands English better than you anyway.Synotia (talk)14:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The Judea and Samaria Area does not in fact cover all the West Bank as it does not include East Jerusalem. But theres no reason to link to the administrative district when not discussing the administration of that district.nableezy -23:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

"admninistrative" instead of administrative in the first lineHeya24 (talk)22:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed.Synotia (talk)07:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In the "Cisjordan" section, which describes how the West Bank is called Cisjordan in some languages, I think it would be appropriate to mention how that name used to be another name for Mandatory Palestine. After the sentence about Transjordan, please add the following sentence:

During theMandatory Palestine period and earlier, the termCisjordan was used for the area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River (seewikt:Cisjordan), which after the independence of theEmirate of Transjordan in 1921 became coterminous with the Mandate.87.58.119.203 (talk)15:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Was Cisjordan used much in English sources during the mandate period? Do you have a source saying that it was an alternative common name? (WP is not a source). It seems the "definition" has altered over time.Selfstudier (talk)19:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Turns out I was wrong. When I read the Wiktionary entry for Cisjordan, and also the long-deleted Wikipedia articleCisjordan (last version before deletionhere), earlier today, they gave me the impression that the name was in widespread use for millennia, all the way up to some point during the 20th century. But now that I am looking for sources, it appears that there isn't any proof of that online. As best as I can tell, the name saw some use during the Mandate period, but it doesn't appear to have been widespread or even close to the dominant name for the area. "Cisjordan" has seen some use throughout history and even today, but if it was ever the dominant name, it stopped being so long before the 20th century.

I still feel that there should be some mention of the history and changing definition of the name "Cisjordan", but I can't find very many useful sources. Most places mention the name only in passing, or state without proof that the name was widely used during the Mandate. Here are what few things I could scrape together:

[2] - Mentions that the area was called "Cisjordan" by Herodotus.

[3],[4],[5] - Scholarship mentioning the name, all from after the Mandate period.

There's alsothis link from McGill University, apparently an old version of this exact Wikipedia article, which has a section about the name "Cisjordan". It claims that Cisjordan was a term for "the entire region between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, particularly in the historical context of the British Mandate". Again this is unsourced, but there doesn't appear to be sources anywhere else in that link so McGill must have removed them all from their version. If someone can identify which exact revision they copied from, we will be able to go back in this article's revision history and see if there was a source in the article to begin with, but I doubt there was.

I should also add that Wikipedia has the articleCisjordan Corpus, about an archeological discovery made well after the Mandatory period (2003), but I don't know if that is relevant. Other articles that have wikilinks to Cisjordan:WhatLinksHere

My Google-fu has carried me as far as it was able to, but this was all the possibly useful stuff I could find. If you or someone else are able to find something I couldn't, Selfstudier, it would be great. Sorry for the long message, but this was everything I found after spending the past hour madly searching. -87.58.119.203 (talk)23:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Cis/Trans is used a lot in biblical scholarship and there is an unresolved debate about whether the Jordan was ever really a border and whether the Israelites went to Cis via Trans. That's probably the origin of the terminology. Anyway, it looks like Cis/Trans just means West/East of. The Ottomans also divided things up at the Jordan for whatever that is worth. Palestine's historical borders are nebulous but obviously bits of Trans would have been in there. At any rate the British decided on a reduced "Palestine" and set the Iraq/Trans border to make Jordan and thereby giving rise to all sorts of historical mythology.Selfstudier (talk)14:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting to hear. As said earlier, I had difficulty finding any useful sources, but you are more knowledgeable on this than I am. If you have some sources that could be used in the article, it would be great if you could write something about the history of the name "Cisjordan" and its relation to Transjordan. I'm sorry that I'm not able to be of more help. -87.58.119.203 (talk)18:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Content regarding settlements, segregated roads, water rights, etc.. are not mentioned. I propose a new section dedicated to all of this information.Makeandtoss (talk)13:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Not mentioned"? I take it you haven't read the article?--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇}14:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Right-wing and religious Israelis see it as their ancestral homeland, with numerous biblical sites."

Surely Israelis don't see it in terms of "biblical sites" as the Bible is not a part of their cultural heritage. The article should be updated to express how Israelis see their ancestral homeland in their own cultural and religious terms, otherwise the information is being presented in a condescending, Western Christian understanding of the place and context of Israel.

"the Bible is not a part of their cultural heritage"...huh? Given the existence of theHebrew Bible it's not obvious how you got to "Western Christian understanding of the place and context of Israel". Also, by the way, this article is covered by restrictions. Have a look at the top of the page - WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. Editors must beextended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except formaking edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' perWP:EDITXY.Sean.hoyland (talk)09:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

An edit summary of a word or two vaunting the fixing of some unidentified POV has no value unless that POV is self-evident

'[Mediterranean Sea|Mediterranean]] in theLevant region ofWestern Asia that forms the main bulk of thePalestinian territories.'

was deleted. It is sourced to the CIA handbook, which rightly states it as a fact, - the WB is larger than Gaza) ergo not a POV, except to editors who wish to challenge the fact that the West bankl as legally defined is a Palestinian fiction since it has not been absorbed largely by Israeli carpetbagging. If that is RH's 'rationale' i.e., POV it has no place here in contradicting a fact.

Asking another editor to address the talk page to explain changes, when the eraser hasn't troubled themselves to justify their expunging of facts is laughable.Nishidani (talk)07:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

this should be updatedMonochromemelo1 (talk)23:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Explain with sources, what it is that you mean, please.Selfstudier (talk)11:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The area C of the West Bank has been transferred from military control to civilian control and loosened regulations making settlement expansion easier. Israeli civilian law is now implemented Israeli settlements under the settler administration.https://fmep.org/blog/resourcecat/fmep-settlement-report/https://peacenow.org.il/en/annexation-under-the-radar-the-establishment-of-the-settlements-administration-under-minister-bezalel-smotrich-reportMonochromemelo1 (talk)18:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Finance MinisterBezalel Smotrich takes charge of most of the Civil Administration, obtaining broad authority over civilian issues in the West Bank. Israeli peace groups condemned the move as de jureannexation of occupied territories.^[1][2] Rights lawyerMichael Sfard tweeted that the action "entails de jure annexation of the West Bank".^[3][4]

This is what you would like to cover? Might it not be better to updateIsraeli occupation of the West Bank at least in the first instance?Selfstudier (talk)18:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh okayMonochromemelo1 (talk)19:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Also seeThirty-seventh government of Israel and the PalestiniansSelfstudier (talk)16:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Crossing Points section, in the 2nd sentence: "...is controlled by...", would be improved written as, "... has been controlled by". Thank you!MxBuster (talk)11:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Thisedit request toWest Bank has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Rephrase the following line from:

"It has an estimated population of 2,747,943 Palestinians, and over 670,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank, of which approximately 220,000 live in East Jerusalem."

to:

"It has an estimated population of 2,747,943 Palestinians and 670,000 Israeli settlers. Approximately 220,000 of these settlers live in East Jerusalem."

---Side Note: if you are able, check the two sources cited, I don't see those exact figures in either of the sources. These numbers may need to be updated.Agent4911 (talk)21:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 DoneAndumé (talk)04:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to make sense from the history section, as it seems messy. Lots of things are repeated, and it has a huge section about economy, while the historical situation is absent or repeated in all the subheadings. I'm not competent enough in this topic to summarize or to move the economy data to another section, but I think it should be done.Theklan (talk)09:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to find out what life was like before the Jordanian annexation. Things such as "who lived in what is now the West Bank?" "Were there Jews there in the recent (post 1800) past?" "Has it always been farmland?"

There is little about this SPECIFIC area, with almost all of it dealing with the post British Mandate period. It's actually very odd - lots of information about everywhere else, even the "east bank".Therealex (talk)18:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

UnderIsraeli occupation, which is considered illegal underinternational law^[1]

The source for this line in the infobox is from 1990, which cannot account for 30+ years of development. A more contemporary source is needed to confirm this status as of 2024. –Zfish118^⋉talk 12:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC) –Zfish118^⋉talk12:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This has been on my todo list for a while, please allow some time and I will update (and slightly correct) this. Unless someone wants to do it first.Selfstudier (talk)12:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello - would someone with editing access change the opening sentenc to the history section. This from 'From 1517 through 1917, the area now known ..' to 'From 1517 to 1917, the area now known ..' The reason is 'through' in this context is minor use, which is just one country. The use of 'to' in this context is near universal. The article does not require the use of a niche English language. Thank you.93.216.106.183 (talk)17:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Done.Selfstudier (talk)18:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Danke.— Precedingunsigned comment added by93.216.106.183 (talk)19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thisedit request toWest Bank has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

While the West Bank territory did not first emerge in the wake of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the name "West Bank" did emerge as a term in the wake of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, as being on the West Bank of the Jordain River. The West BankTerritory is the historical and biblical name for the central region of Israel, bordered by Judea to the south and Galilee to the north.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SamariaYaffalandis (talk)13:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate.M.Bitton (talk)15:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thisedit request toWest Bank has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

The text suggests that Basque is a Romance language. It is not.Luisperezcamacho (talk)12:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't believe that it does. The text refers to Romance languages, including x,y,and z, and some others, including a, b, and c. To me, that reads as "others" means "other languages that are not Romance languages.PianoDan (talk)20:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Change from:

 The remainder are Christian (mostly Greek Orthodox) and others.

To:

 The remainder are 1–2.5% Christian (mostly Greek Orthodox), and others.

It's mentioned in the existing ref there.galenIgh21:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

 Question: don't you think that the readers are capable of working it out all by themselves?M.Bitton (talk)18:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No.

I was looking for that info, searching on and reading Wikipedia. Took a while to find it by general web searching which lead me to that external site. Then I realized it's a linked reference in this Wikipedia article.

In theory people don't need any text in articles, and each Wikipedia page can be just a set of external links. But it's customary to have some prose and to summarize relevant information.galenIgh22:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done: This is a helpful clarification to make because if readers are left to their own devices, they may conclude from the data originally presented in the article that it is up to 8% Christian which vastly differs from what is stated in the source.Left guide (talk)05:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

who says "Maʽarávit"? It's Maʽaravít.2600:8800:2C09:3200:A5F7:4504:20BC:DAB8 (talk)16:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I think you had mistakenly reverted my edit while reverting the sock.[6]Makeandtoss (talk)09:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

While we should indeed mention the Israeli narrative, things have changed a bit with the 2024 ICJ ruling. Essentially the court has ruled that all these reasons for holding on to the West Bank are without any legal foundation. Before, this was subject of debate but that debate is over for all practical purposes so it needs to be clarified somehow.Selfstudier (talk)14:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It is missing, and it very important part about this area147.235.196.127 (talk)19:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Not done. SeeWP:WESTBANK.Selfstudier (talk)20:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:WESTBANK addresses terms for the West Bank in English. I believe that theWP:COMMONNAME in Hebrew is "יְהוּדָה וְשׁוֹמְרוֹן" ("Judea and Samaria"), as reflected in bothWikipedia andWikidata. (Yes, the calque "West Bank" exists in Hebrew, as pointed out inWP:ARBPIA2 but, from what I've read, in Hebrew that's the one viewed as having a (Jordan-centric) POV.) Assuming some would object to "יְהוּדָה וְשׁוֹמְרוֹן", a possible compromise is to use "אֵזוֹר יְהוּדָה וְשׁוֹמְרוֹן" ("Judea and Samaria Area")—seeWP:WESTBANK rule #5.Dotyoyo (talk)08:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. No end run around WP:WESTBANK by way of a different language.Selfstudier (talk)10:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@BarrelProof:[7]:Top UN court says Israeli occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegalMakeandtoss (talk)08:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The BBC source does actually make it clear that the occupation is illegal, so I don't understand that part of the edit summary but there is a problem with "since 1967", at the outset, the occupation itself would not have been illegal but became so with the passage of time (no intent to leave and all the other reasons given in the AO). That part needs fixing up.Selfstudier (talk)08:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of the edit summary you're referring to, but I agree with you. The sentence in the Wikipedia article that I changed said the occupation has been illegal since 1967. The cited source does not say that and the ICJ did not declare that (AFAIK). My edit converted a false statement into a true statement. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk)14:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I don't think we need attribution for the ICJ, top authority on international law, in the opening paragraph. A good middle ground would be ".., whose continuation is illegal under international law."Makeandtoss (talk)07:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, for me the point is that issue is finally resolved because it is the ICJ. At some point, sources may simply report the illegality as a fact without referring to to the ICJ, do we have any of those yet?Selfstudier (talk)09:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: It was reaffirmed in addition to having been resolved, as RS have long described the occupation as having become illegal. Yes, we have at least one:[8]: "In fact, the US moved its embassy to West Jerusalem, despite Israel’s continued illegal occupation of the eastern half of the city, in 2018."Makeandtoss (talk)11:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Although RS have long described the occupation as illegal and that was a significant view, there were dissenting views. Agreed that no longer matters, just that I would prefer but do not insist on, because it will likely take a little time to sink in, more RS just straight up saying it. One is however sufficient so if you want to do away with the attribution I won't object.Selfstudier (talk)11:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the attribution.Makeandtoss (talk)09:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't its inclusion here violateWP:NPOV?Shoshin000 (talk)08:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

How?Selfstudier (talk)08:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a disputed area, and the State of Palestine is apartially recognized state.

Kashmir for example does not have a huge Pakistani or Indian flag on its page, as it would give an impression of partiality to a reader, thereby undermining the absorption of information.Shoshin000 (talk)08:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Readers are not stupid children. It most certainly does not violate NPOV. Israel does not claim it is part of Israel, it is administered as occupied territory. It is part of the State of Palestine. Israel is also a partially recognized state and a disputed area for some people. That has nothing to do with it.Sean.hoyland (talk)09:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair points. I'll leave this here however:According to a 2020 report by Gallup based on data from the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of adults in the United States lack English literacy proficiency.

Anything that gives an impression of partiality should be avoided imo.Shoshin000 (talk)09:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSelfstudier (talk)18:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thisedit request toWest Bank has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

217.218.145.194 (talk)23:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove the muncipality site of tulkerem because i think thats hacked.

Not done... it is not clear what changes you want made, the word "tulkerem" is not found anywhere in the article. -Adolphus79 (talk)00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Thisedit request toWest Bank has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

palestine should be shown as a country on the map as any other country is...Its discriminatory against Palestinians.27.63.22.90 (talk)12:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate.Yeshivish613 (talk)15:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

By my reading ofTelephone numbers in Palestine, adding +972 to the lead is reasonable (though, to be fair, my view on this is loosely inspired by+972 Magazine). Would that be fine?FortunateSons (talk)21:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not. +972 is to telephones in Israel. And I think your editing is getting rather tendentious, FortunateSons,Huldra (talk)22:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

+972 is used by Palestinians in the West Bank as well, not just settlers. From the lead:The telecommunication system in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is considerably dependent on the Israeli infrastructure, therefore, from most countries, dialing +972 would often be the better option to access phone numbers in the Palestinian territories. In some cases, when the number was allocated directly by an Israeli company, this would be the only option. However, from many Arab or Muslim countries that block the Israeli access code, dialing 970 is the only option to access the Palestinian telecommunication system. Syria is currently the only country that blocks both 972 and 970 access codes. Lebanon lifted the ban on the 970 code in July 2008 but still blocks the 972 code.FortunateSons (talk)22:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I think adding that to the lead isWP:TRIVIA. Maybe in the body?Wafflefrites (talk)19:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It’s just for the calling code section, where +970 is already included?FortunateSons (talk)19:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

You mean the infobox, not the lead? Originally you said lead. Yes, I agree to infobox not lead. Make sure to add a reliable source.Wafflefrites (talk)01:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s what I meant, sorry. Will add it with a source, thanks!FortunateSons (talk)13:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

More often than not - the Hebrew name of the West Bank is יהודה ושומרון (i.e. Judea and Samaria), not הגדה המערבית (i.e. the West Bank). This is also the name of the Hebrew Wikipedia article. For example - when googled "יהודה ושומרון" I got 2,690,000 results, and only 334,000 for "הגדה המערבית" despite the fact that Hebrew has no capitalization and "הגדה המערבית" can refer to any west bank of any river.2.54.163.140 (talk)18:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you able to provide a romanized spelling for this, like "HaGadáh HaMaʽarávit"?FortunateSons (talk)09:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Google translate is still translating it as הגדה המערבית

https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=iw&text=West%20Bank&op=translateWafflefrites (talk)02:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I also found an online Hebrew English dictionary. I don’t think what the IP is saying is right because it is not following the dictionary results

https://doitinhebrew.com/Translate/default.aspx?kb=US+US&l1=en&l2=iwWafflefrites (talk)02:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Look google mapshttps://www.google.com/maps/place/West+Bank/@31.947351,35.227163,8z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x151cd5939f3bc783:0x449b6cf65963131e!8m2!3d31.9465703!4d35.3027226!16zL20vMDgycGM?nogmmr=1&hl=iwWafflefrites (talk)03:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Here’s another map in Hebrew and it is West Bank not Judea Samaria

https://hashiloach.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/wsi-imageoptim-west_bank__gaza_map_2007_settlements-he2-768x955.jpgWafflefrites (talk)03:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I oppose changing the translation because the English Wikipedia name of West Bank corresponds to the name of the area under Jordan rule. This is mentioned in the Hebrew Wikipedia which uses the term West Bank in its etymology section :

“ השם "הגדה המערבית" מתייחס להיותו של האזור בגדתו המערבית שלנהר הירדן. מקור המונח בימיהשלטון הירדני, אז הייתה ממלכת ירדן מורכבת משני חלקים, שביניהם נהר הירדן: "הגדה המזרחית" שהיאעבר הירדן, ו"הגדה המערבית" שהיא יהודה ושומרון. הירדנים טבעו את השם "הגדה המערבית" בשנת1950, במטרה לטפח אחדות ב"ממלכת שתי הגדות" ולהימנע משמות עםמשמעות לוואי בדלנית, כמו "פלסטין". השם "הגדה המערבית" הפך לרווח בשפות זרות, כגוןאנגלית (West Bank) וצרפתית(Cisjordanie, שפירושו "צד זה של הירדן", להבדיל מעבר הירדן), וגם כיום זהו השם המקובל בעולם בהתייחס ליחידה הגאו־פוליטית (להבדיל מהשמות הגאוגרפיים, הדתיים וההיסטוריים של האזור בשפות השונות).”

translation:

“ The name "West Bank" refers to the region being on the west bank of the Jordan River. The term originated during the Jordanian rule, when the Kingdom of Jordan consisted of two parts, separated by the Jordan River: the "East Bank," which is Transjordan, and the "West Bank," which is Judea and Samaria. The Jordanians coined the name "West Bank" in 1950, with the aim of fostering unity in the "Kingdom of the Two Banks" and avoiding names with a separatist connotation, such as "Palestine." The name "West Bank" has become common in foreign languages, such as English (West Bank) and French (Cisjordanie, meaning "this side of the Jordan," as opposed to Transjordan), and is still the accepted name worldwide for the geopolitical unit (as opposed to the geographical, religious, and historical names of the region in various languages).”

hebrew wiki:

“ בשיח הישראלי הכינוי "הגדה המערבית", או בקיצור "הגדה", משמש בעיקר אנשי שמאל המעדיפים להימנע מההקשר היהודי הבולט של "יהודה ושומרון". המתנגדים לשליטת ישראל באזור לרוב רואים במונח "יהודה ושומרון" כלי בהשתלטות הישראלית עליהם, ולכן הם מעדיפים לקרוא לאזור "הגדה המערבית" או "השטחים הכבושים" (מונח רחב יותר, העשוי לכלול גם את רצועת עזה ורמת הגולן). לעומתם, חוגי הימין הישראלי מעדיפים את הכינוי "יהודה ושומרון" דווקא בשל ההקשר היהודי שלו[16], ורואים במונחים האחרים ניסיון לטשטש את זיקתו של האזור לעם היהודי. משום כך, כאשר בנימין נתניהו השתמש בביטוי "הגדה המערבית" (באנגלית) בנאומו, היו שראו בזה סטייה מעמדותיו הימניות[17]. מי שרוצים בכינוי בעל קונוטציה נייטרלית יותר יכולים לקרוא ליהודה ושומרון בתור "השטחים" או "האזור" גרידא; במונח "האזור" נעשה שימוש גם בחקיקה הישראלית[18]. “

Translation:

” In Israeli discourse, the term "West Bank," or "the West Bank" for short, is used primarily by leftists who prefer to avoid the prominent Jewish connotation of "Judea and Samaria." Those opposed to Israeli control of the region often see the term "Judea and Samaria" as a tool in Israel's takeover of them, and therefore prefer to call the region the "West Bank" or "the Occupied Territories" (a broader term that may also include the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights). In contrast, right-wing Israeli circles prefer the term "Judea and Samaria" precisely because of its Jewish context[16], and see the other terms as an attempt to obscure the region's connection to the Jewish people. For this reason, when Benjamin Netanyahu used the term "West Bank" (in English) in his speech, some saw it as a deviation from his right-wing positions.[17] Those who want a more neutral connotation can simply call Judea and Samaria "the Territories" or "the Region"; The term "the area" is also used in Israeli legislation[18].”

I am thinking it is ok to add both “West Bank” and the ”Judea and Samaria” Hebrew name in Hebrew?? Maybe we can even add “the area” as used by Israeli legislation? But I am not sure??? The Hebrew Wikipedia says “West Bank” is used by leftists in Israel, “Judea and Samaria” is used by rightists, and those in politically in the middle avoid both. Additional discussions by other Wikipedians about what to do with the translations would be helpful.@FortunateSons, what do you think about adding all three Hebrew names: West Bank, Judea and Samaria, and the area/the territories/the region? Is this too complicated??Wafflefrites (talk)16:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites, thank you very much for the thorough work. Two (or more) foreign languages would require translations and phonetic spellings which takes up space but are otherwise totally acceptable to me. I think (based on the Hebrew article names and anecdotal experience) that Judea and Samaria is the most commonly used term, but I’m not strongly attached to the order between J&S and WB, with the area named third, and would base the order of the first two on the frequency of use, which someone who actually knows the language should figure out. If we add all 3, I would suggest an explanation in a footnote, just to add some clarity for readers?FortunateSons (talk)16:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the footnote is a good idea. I think the direct Hebrew translation of West Bank should go first as that is the translation of the Jordanian name of the area (and since we are working on the English Wikipedia which uses the West Bank as the common name).. J&S would go second as that is the common name Hebrew speakers are familiar with.Wafflefrites (talk)17:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable as well!FortunateSons (talk)19:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I am tagging @Talgalili and @Eliezer1987, both native Hebrew speakers whom I have interacted with on Wikipedia before. Hopefully they may able to respond and help us.

Hello! We are working on the Hebrew name for West Bank. It appears there are several names used in Hebrew, and the most popular one is Judea and Samaria. We are having difficulty with the transliterations for this name. FortunateSons thinks it might be HaGadáh HaMaʽarávit. If you are able to, could you please us with this transliteration? Additionally, would you be able to check if what the Hebrew Wikipedia sources says about the various Hebrew names for the West Bank is accurate? Do people also call the West Bank “The territories”/“The area”/“The region”, and would it be confusing for Hebrew readers to see all these extra names, or would they think it silly (and maybe for simplicity, we just include West Bank/Judea and Samaria in Hebrew)?Wafflefrites (talk)01:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Sorry, I wasn’t quite clear about that: HaGadáh HaMaʽarávit is West Bank. DeWiki uses Mechos Jehuda we'Schomron, but I’m not sure if that’s right.FortunateSons (talk)06:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Although "HaG[á]dáh HaMaʽarávit" is phonetically reasonable, it's very rare to see accent marks like á on wiki (or generally) for Hebrew transliteration. Also, Modern Hebrew speakers don't distinguish between patah, the vowel marked with "a" in that transliteration, and qametz, the vowel marked as á, nor do they pronounce ayin as a consonant (if that's what the ʽ symbol was for). A general-purpose transliteration could beHagada HaMa'aravit, and a precise option for academic philological use isHaggādâ hammaʿărābît. We don't yet have wiki guidelines for Hebrew transliterations (as opposed to in-line use of Hebrew names and terms) and it has caused a lot of strife on other pages—I would love to get to drafting them if anyone else is interested.GordonGlottal (talk)12:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@GordonGlottalThank you, I have updated it to the general-purpose transliteration. Is there an equivalent transliteration for „Judea and Samaria“?FortunateSons (talk)12:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the general question: Israelis seeHagada hama'aravit as a translation from Arabic. Translating the article title in Hebrew as "hagada hama'aravit" is therefore accurate, but UNDUE—we might as well include literal translations of "West Bank" into German or French. IMO the lede should read "TheWest Bank(Arabic: الضفة الغربية, romanized:aḍ-Ḍiffah al-Ġarbiyyah), also called Judea and Samaria (Hebrew יהודה ושומרון, romanized:Yehuda VeShomron) . . . "

The only difficulty is that in America the term "Judea and Samaria" is exclusively used by right-wingers to assert Israeli territorial claims, so I understand why some editors don't want to give it weight. But it's the generic name in Hebrew. Some Israelis do also use "The Territories" (השטחים) for the West Bank, but it's hard to tell how common that is, because the same term is the normal way of translating English "Occupied Palestinian territories" and "Israeli-occupied territories", i.e. in another sense it can include Gaza and the Syrian Golan. So one does read "X happened in The Territories" and know that to the writer it was a synonym for "West Bank", but word searches are pretty useless.GordonGlottal (talk)12:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding territories, does the same apply to area?

For J&S, I think using (Hebrew יהודה ושומרון, romanized:Yehuda VeShomron, translatedJudea and Samaria/Judea and Samaria) might be less controversial, but support your version (even if I don't think that it could archive consensus for now). @Wafflefrites, what do you think?FortunateSons (talk)10:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Based onthis state from 2012, such a solution would not contravene WP:WESTBANK in my opinion.FortunateSons (talk)10:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, GordonGlottal! It is helpful to have people familiar with Hebrew to help us with the transliterations. Based onBritannica’s entry for West Bank, they only have the transliteration for the Jordanian term (West Bank) for the area. They do mention thatwithin Israel, the area isalso known as Judea and Samaria. Maybe we can do something similar? But I am also not opposed to adding the Hebrew and transliteration for J&S. For the Wikipedia infobox though, I think what we currently have is the most reflective of the current naming of the area from an international perspective without the undue weight (as reflected in English language sources) of adding J&S, which as GordonGlottal mentioned can be seen as bringing in the political view of the more further right perspective (even within Israeli politics).Wafflefrites (talk)16:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe “TheWest Bank (Arabic: الضفة الغربية, romanized: aḍ-Ḍiffah al-Ġarbiyyah; Hebrew: הַגָּדָה הַמַּעֲרָבִית, romanized: Hagada HaMa'aravit), also known within Israel asJudea and Samaria (Hebrew יהודה ושומרון, romanized: Yehuda VeShomron), is located on the western Bank of theJordan River and the larger of the twoPalestinian territories.”? Alternatively, we could go back to the 2012 version entirely? But this seems to comply withWP:Westbank 6.3/4. either way, right?FortunateSons (talk)16:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a / for the infobox and use both Hebrew terms, but keep West Bank for the English part?FortunateSons (talk)17:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

For the Britannica entry, they have an infobox too and they only included the West Bank transliteration, not J&S. I tend to look at Britannica a lot for reference on Wikipedia topics. I am only one editor though, for better community consensus maybe we can do an RfC for the infobox?Wafflefrites (talk)17:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Works for me, but I’m happy to back down if there is no appetite for an Infobox change until we have figured out the rest of the lead. Do you have a preference on the first sentence?FortunateSons (talk)17:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not like the 2012 version because it doesn’t explain why the West Bank is called that due to its geographical location. Your 17:00 17 April 2025 (UTC) version looks ok to me but you removed “that make up theState of Palestine” which I think is important forWP:BALASP. I am also ok with the current version of the lead. Reading the other comment by Zero in the thread below, I am thinking this is a very political/politicized topic and therefore I think it is best to get wider community consensus to determine how to handle this on English Wikipedia.Wafflefrites (talk)22:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but I’m not quite sure how to structure it without needlessly splitting the votes. How about those options:

Inclusion:

A. Exclude all mentions of Judea and Samaria (J&S) from the first sentence, including the common-use Hebrew term

B. Include in some way

Methods (support for a higher number constitutes support for a lower one unless otherwise disclosed):

1. Hebrew for WB and J&S , but no translation for J&S

2. Hebrew for both, with translations in ()

3. Hebrew for both, with translations outside of ()

4. Mention J&S as a name used by the some Israelis

4. Include as common name

5. Include as common name, remove literal Hebrew translation of West BankFortunateSons (talk)23:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort! I think that may be overly complicated though!

How about this?

1. Exclude all mentions of Judea and Samaria from the first sentence.

2. Include Judea and Samaria in the first sentence with qualification that it isalso known within Israel asJudea and Samaria. Do not include the Hebrew or its transliteration for Judea and Samaria. RemoveJudea and Samaria Area from the second paragraph so that the sentence reads: Since then, Israel has administered the West Bank (except for East Jerusalem, which was effectively annexed in 1980).

3. Include Judea and Samaria in the first sentence with qualification that it isalso known within Israel asJudea and Samaria. Include both the Hebrew and its transliteration for Judea and Samaria. RemoveJudea and Samaria Area from the second paragraph so that the sentence reads: Since then, Israel has administered the West Bank (except for East Jerusalem, which was effectively annexed in 1980).

I believe all three options areWP:WESTBANK compliant. PerWP:WESTBANK, Judea and Samaria may be used with qualification. Using Britannica’s West Bank article as a reference, the closest option would be #2, and I usually think that Britannica is a pretty neutral source. I think only mentioning Judea and Samaria one time in the lead is appropriate for due/undue weight.Wafflefrites (talk)23:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good, thanks! @Huldra, @Zero0000, @GordonGlottal any objections

/alterations or can we do an RfC like this?FortunateSons (talk)23:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to qualify it as "also known within Israel" and then not include the Hebrew/transliteration. I also think that it's important to mention the West Bank's current political/government status in the lede—what do you envision replacing "Israel has administered the West Bank as the Judea and Samaria Area" with?GordonGlottal (talk)22:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You can also add a your version as #4 option. Normally I would agree with adding the transliteration along with the Hebrew but I am getting the sense that this might be a politically sensitive /contentious topic due to the geographical location/region so that is why I am deferring to the Wikipedia community/ suggesting an rfc. The reason I included “Judea and Samaria” in English with no Hebrew and transliteration is because that is how Britannica did it, so I thought it might get some support since that is how a reliable source is presenting it.Wafflefrites (talk)00:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that Judea and Samaria is a common (but not the common) name, and should be added as such (in Hebrew and English, IMO). Are there any objections to this?FortunateSons (talk)09:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Please readWP:WESTBANK (andWP:ARBPIA2) cheers,Huldra (talk)20:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

@Huldra, I might be reading this wrong, but I don’t think that what I’m trying to do is covered there. I‘m just looking to add it as an aka, such as it is used here[9], but not as a neutral term within an articles. Would attributing it, for example, as “in Israel:“ per 6.3/4. ofWP:WESTBANK, fix the issue for you?FortunateSons (talk)21:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Used as such/in a similar manner by:BBC,DW,Al Jazeera,NYT,LA Times, etc.FortunateSons (talk)21:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

At a quick glance: each one of those sources use Judea and Samaria in s citation, as x, y, or z mentioned "Judea and Samaria". So no, this is still covered byWP:WESTBANKHuldra (talk)23:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but they are using it to say the Israeli equivalent to “West Bank” is “Judea and Samaria”, which is the only statement I want to put into the first sentence. Clearest within LA Times:Israel’s government refers to the West Bank by its biblical name, Judea and Samaria, and considers it the historical heartland of the Jewish people. Palestinians, the U.S. government and the international community refer to the occupied territory as the West Bank.

Alternatively, would you be fine with using the common-use Hebrew term (mentioned directly above), and then adding a translation? This way, it’s very unlikely that someone misunderstands this to be a neutral term.FortunateSons (talk)23:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Nope. Btw, the Israeli equivalent to “West Bank” was “Judea and Samaria”, also whenWP:WESTBANK andWP:ARBPIA2 happened. Nothing has changed there. You need anWP:ARBPIA6 for that to change, methinks,Huldra (talk)21:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s not entirely true, there have been some reecent changes, if you consider this source acceptable:Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denounced a move by Israel’s parliament on Sunday to approve a bill to replace the term "West Bank" with “Judea and Samaria,” calling it a serious escalation aimed at annexing the occupied territory.[10]. In addition, there is some politicised use in the US as well. Not enough forthe common name of course, but clearly a significant increase nonetheless.FortunateSons (talk)22:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I have two questions: Does a clarification on the scope of this require anWP:ARCA, or what instrument is to be used for clarity of scope for WESTBANK? Isthis something I have to be concerned about? This discussion and the thread below might be relevant here.FortunateSons (talk)22:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and that was community consensus. To get consensus to change that would probably be very difficult and require a significantWP:RFCBEFORE.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)01:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Okay, thank you. Just to be clear, no action from arbcom would be required?FortunateSons (talk)14:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

No, it is a community process. That is a different question than if it's a good idea, which I'm not so sure about.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)15:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Understood, I’ll see what the outcome of the Hebrew discussion is, thanksFortunateSons (talk)16:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria Area is already in the second paragraph in the lead. According toBritannica,

“ The use of “Judea and Samaria” is associated with the right wing in Israeli politics, which rejects the call for atwo-state solution that aims to end theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict. By contrast, the term “West Bank” has much wider recognition, having been enshrined in international treaties, such as theOslo Accords between the Israeli government and thePalestine Liberation Organization (PLO). “

I think it isWP:TOOSOON for English Wikipedia to be using Judea and Samaria as alternative names for the internationally recognized name of West Bank. Until the international community decides to change the West Bank name into Judea and Samaria/recognize it as Judea and Samaria, Wikipedia should not be jumping ahead. Judea and Samaria are the ancient, pre-Alexander the Great names for the area, and the ancient Israelites, Tribe of Judah, etc. lived there before subsequent conquests. West Bank is currently the internationally recognized modern name where both modern day Israelis and majority Palestinians live.Wafflefrites (talk)03:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s a fair point, thanks.

What do you think about the common-use Hebrew name, as mentioned by the IP above?FortunateSons (talk)08:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I don’t really have any thoughts on that as I am mostly focused on the English language parts of the article.Wafflefrites (talk)19:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

But no objection either?FortunateSons (talk)19:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It makes sense to me if we are to include the Hebrew names, can add the common Hebrew name. When I type “West Bank” into google translate it gives הגדה המערביתWafflefrites (talk)01:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Anyways I have no clue about the Hebrew. When I used google translate in the past, I think I remember seeing it changed Israel to Palestine when I used it in sentences like this posthttps://support.google.com/translate/thread/15256747/why-do-you-translate-israel-as-palestin?hl=en

Will let the Hebrew native speakers handle this one.Wafflefrites (talk)02:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Reading through the google thread, the issue was Land of Israel (Eretz Israel) being translated into Palestine.Wafflefrites (talk)02:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Google fixed the translation, btw, now Land of Israel in Hebrew translates into Land of Israel in English

https://translate.google.com/?sl=iw&tl=en&text=אֶרֶץ%20י%D6%B4שְ%D7%82רָאֵל&op=translateWafflefrites (talk)03:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s quite interesting! If you don't mind, I would suggest we discuss this in the topic above and notify relevant any wikiprojects(s)?FortunateSons (talk)14:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes sure. Make sure to include Wiki project Palestine because we want to try to have a neutral sample and maybe some Arabic speakers also know Hebrew? I am hesitant about changing the translation though because I think the issue is not common name, but thatJudea and Samaria Area does not have a Hebrew Wikipedia page. The Hebrew Wikipedia merged the West Bank into the Judea and Samaria area topics!Wafflefrites (talk)14:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh wait, I found the Hebrew Wikipedia article. It is aseparate article called Judea and Samaria district.Wafflefrites (talk)16:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I have notified Israel, Judaism, Israel Palestine Collaboration and Palestine; are you okay with this selection?FortunateSons (talk)16:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I think this is good. The West Bank is a topic of interest to all those wiki projects and this helps to at least reduce some bias from either side.Wafflefrites (talk)17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks!FortunateSons (talk)19:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Although "Judea and Samaria" should be mentioned in the article, presenting it as an altname seems to me a direct violation ofWP:WESTBANK, which would require an RfC to change. Also, an "altname" means an alternative name in English, not a name used in another language and certainly not the name used by an occupying power in its own language. I'll also note that Israeli sources frequently use "West Bank" when writing in English. Search English newspapers like Times of Israel, YnetNews, Haaretz, JP, or evenIsrael Hayom (compare the url to the headline) for countless examples. So to refer to "Judea and Samaria" asthe Israeli name is simply not correct. It is one Israeli name and it carries a political connotation that should be mentioned alongside it.Zero^talk12:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that this prohibited by Westbank, as I think that we’re on the mention side of the mention-use distinction. However, the current consensus in the discussion directly above this one seems to favour two or three Hebrew terms (with translations and transliterations), as well as an explanatory footnote about differences in use. You’re welcome to participate!FortunateSons (talk)12:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zero0000, do you happen to have a high-quality English-language source for the specifics on divergent uses? I think we’re making progress on a first sentence that isWP:Westbank compliant by modifying the 2012 state of the article, but I couldn’t find anything scientific for the explanatory foot note?FortunateSons (talk)17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

If you disagree, then please take it toWP:ARCA. Btw, we don't mention in theCrimea article that it is calledru:Крым in Russian,Huldra (talk)22:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

There has been clarifications above that this does not require ARCA, but that astandard community process would be sufficient to change or revoke WESTBANK, which I do not intend to do for now. @ScottishFinnishRadish, can I can safely assume that any stable post-2009 version (such asthis) and any equivalent is WP:Westbank compliant, or does that assessment put me at risk of sanctions?FortunateSons (talk)22:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a content decision like that.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)23:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I know that I don’t have to have that decided through ARCA, but could ARCA clarify this, or is it outside their mandate? If not, which venue is appropriate for the conduct-side of WP:WESTBANKS scope?FortunateSons (talk)23:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Huldra, we absolutely do, in theCrimea#Name section. Maybe this would be a good option here as well, to remove all the non-English names and their transliterations to a dedicated section.Alaexis_¿question?20:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@User:Alaexis that is way down in the article. In this article we mention it in thelead, in the very first sentence! And yes, I think it would be a good idea to place that further down, in its own section,Huldra (talk)21:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to do just that, let's see if it works for other editors!Alaexis_¿question?20:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, but we should also remove the (non-English) names from the infobox, methinks..Huldra (talk)20:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I have now done so. This works for me as well, as it resolves the acute issue until some clarity emerges with regards to whether the recent political and social changes mean that J&S is a sufficiently common name.FortunateSons (talk)21:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

ok, thanks!Huldra (talk)23:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Alaexis! This works for me!!Wafflefrites (talk)22:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Huldra for bringing up the Crimea article as an example.Alaexis_¿question?07:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)