Talk:Karnei Shomron

"Western Samaria region of the West Bank"?

I wonder, is there really a reliable source for the claim that a part of the West Bank is called "Samaria"? To me, it appears to be Israel-specific (and thus POV) terminology. I suggest simply "The northern part of the West Bank". MeteorMaker (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

yes - the article uses terminology which is used here. NoCal100 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That map is a bilingual map, showing what the areas are called locally (and it has never been in question that the area is called "Samaria"/"Shomron" by Israelis). The CIA, the organization that issued the map 15 years ago, never uses the term "Samaria" (see for yourself in their online archive, so it's clearly a misrepresentation of the purpose of the map to claim that the CIA uses this Israel-specific terminology. Here's another example of a bilingual map, you would not use that to claim that "Exhibition Center" is a Chinese word. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a French map from 1791 makes reference to the regions of Judea and Samaria. DevilInPgh (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Shomron"

This is the English language Wikipedia and editors are reminded that this topic area has been the subject of a number of arbitration cases, including WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBPIA2. The second of these arbitration cases resulted in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) which states: 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" with certain explicitly named exceptions. Please do not make such edits. nableezy - 04:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit completely misses the point in those naming conventions. You can use the term when you are actually quoting somebody. As in X minister said "the settlements in Samaria will begin building at midnight". You cant just find a source that uses the term and put it in quotes here. The naming conventions are clear on this point and attempting to side-step them with these games is disruptive. nableezy - 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You're misconstruing the guideline, Nableezy. The guideline speaks to a choice between terms like "West Bank" and "Judea and Samaria." There never was any sort of consensus that banned the words "Judea" and "Samaria" from Wikipedia. In this instance, LM did not replace the new modern term with Judea and Samaria, he added information about the historic nature of the geographic area. Erasing any mention of the historic nature of the area violates NPOV, if it's not disruptive.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That is absolutely and unequivocally not true. The guidelines specifically say the following when discussing usage for after 1948:

• 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
  • 6B) When discussing physical geography using the terminology that appears in international expert journals, for example as part of a proper name ("the Judea Group aquifer"), or as an adjective qualifying a term ("The Samarian hills"), or
  • 6C) The term is being mentioned rather than used, as in "Samaria is a term used for ...", or
  • 6D) 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.

Note the "must be in the one of the situations". You were a part of those discussions and know full well what they were about. You are know presenting a strawman argument, as nobody is erasing the "historic nature of the area", for topics dealing with antiquity the terms Judea and Samaria can and are used in abundance. This is about a settlement established in 1977 in which editors are now attempting to call the modern area by a term that a consensus says they cannot use. If you wish to change those naming conventions you can try to gain a consensus to do so. What you cant do is attempt to side step them because you and a group of your pals have the numbers at this article. nableezy - 04:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If my "group of pals" want to edit the article we have every right to. It's called WP:CONSENSUS, and the policy trumps any guideline. As for for the guideline, again, it refers to choosing one terminology over the other, not for the banishment from Wikipedia any mention of the historic nature of areas in Israel. There is no argument that the area is not in the historic Shomron, thus its removal is uncalled for.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You do in fact have the right to edit the article, you do not however have the right to disregard the policies of this website. Please read WP:CONSENSUS which says in part, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right. That naming convention represents a consensus on a "wider scale" than the 3 of you here and now on how NPOV applies to the usage of the terms Judea and Samaria. You again distort what the guideline says. I have quoted to you were it says that usage of the terms for periods after 1948 must be in one of 4 instances. None of those instances are satisfied here. This type of tendentious editing goes against the discretionary sanctions in place in this topic area. This continual method of forcing editors to solve the same problem in 100 different articles is disruptive. nableezy - 04:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is disruptive. It is very similar to the multiple talk page discussion going on regarding settlements and occupation not too long ago that did not reference each other. Someone should probably make a request for clarification at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. It sounds like there needs to be clarification even if it is just tinkering with the wording to make it clear what the intent of th case and guideline were so that new editors don't get confused. I won't address the continuous "pals" accusation but will stop any further accusations now by saying that I got here from seeing Libi notified then checking out what was going on.Cptnono (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Except there was no "wider consensus" there but there is here. No clarification is needed, the naming conventions are clear and brewcrewer's attempt to distort the clear meaning of those conventions does not matter. nableezy - 13:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The naming convention stipulates the 'terms "Samaria" or "Judea" cannot be used without qualification in the NPOV neutral voice', so Brewcrewer isn't correct in his above interpretation. Also, a local consensus cannot overturn the wider consensus that resulted in the naming convention. PhilKnight (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And once again a user has reinserted material that is not acceptable under the naming convention and has yet again not seen fit to write one word on the talk page. nableezy - 14:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked LibiBamizrach for 48 hours, reverted his/her edit, and protected for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If editor's are misinterpreting it then it means it is not clear. Did you notice how the blocked editor said that he was doing it right (or so he thought) by having it quoted, PhilKnight? Instead of worrying about a narrow consensus maybe some action should be taken to make the wording even clearer at the guideline. No one should have been reverting at all. There should have been a centralized discussion requesting clarification. This is especially true if this conversation was taking place in multiple venues.Cptnono (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors arent "misinterpreting it", they are attempting to distort it and wikilawyer around it. The claim that just placing it in quotes and citing a reference using the word is acceptable according to the naming conventions is both plainly bogus and has been addressed on this talk page. Without saying one word here on this talk page where the issue was being discussed, the editor re-reverted the edit. Please dont try to distort what is happening here. This discussion has not been taking place in "multiple venues", and there is nobody to "request clarification" from. This is as central as a centralized discussion can be, as this is the only place it is being discussed. nableezy - 03:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is a separate article on Alonei Shilo, which is officially part of Karnei Shomron. There is no real point of having a separate article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Weak oppose. There is one municipal council (Karnei Shomron Local Council) which covers more than one settlement, not an uncommon arrangement elsewhere in the world. Maps show that Alonei Shilo is geographically quite distinct from the Karnei Shomron settlement, and so it seems reasonable to keep even though the population is low (as per WP:GEOLAND). Klbrain (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)