This is an archive of past discussions. 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 the current talk page.
Shrike, your edit [1] has been reverted. You should follow WP: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 in WP:RS is undue Shrike (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 the Fourth Geneva Convention" Now we have "arguing that because it does not force its citizens to settle in the areas, it therefore does not constitute violation Fourth 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)
Early economic impact
One of the "the area" part of the the sentence should be deleted. Empyrius (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Population data
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 population 3.05 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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2022
This edit request to West Bank has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no 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)
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)
^According to Article 4 of the 1994 Paris Protocol. The Protocol allows the Palestinian Authority to adopt multiple currencies. In the West Bank, the Israeli new sheqel and Jordanian dinar are widely accepted; while in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli new sheqel and Egyptian pound are widely accepted.
You are right, adding it. Dan Palraz (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Israeli settlements
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)
User:Nableezy, I suggest you re-read the sentence. It doesn't say *all Jews* use the term, but rather that some, 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 with ADHD (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 against WA: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 the Judea and Samaria page. If so, it should probably also be mentioned under etymology to provide context for the Israeli government's renaming process, and per MOS: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 the illegality libel on settlements too. Toodles, nableezy - 13:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Tombah please review WP:WESTBANK, and the etymology of Judea and/or Samaria is not relevant to this article. And while we are at it, review WP:OR as well. nableezy - 04:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2023 (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 most WP: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)
"Judea and Samaria" is basically a made-up propaganda 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)
Location
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 Geography-of-west-bank1. 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 shows where the West bank is, it's not intended to compare the West Bank to Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 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)
Digit separator:
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)
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 a name 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)
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 understand WP: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)
Small typo
"admninistrative" instead of administrative in the first line Heya24 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Fixed. Synotia (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Cisjordan name
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 the Mandatory Palestine period and earlier, the term Cisjordan was used for the area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River (see wikt:Cisjordan), which after the independence of the Emirate 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 article Cisjordan (last version before deletion here), 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 also this 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 article Cisjordan 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)
Apartheid
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)
Biblical sites
"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 the Hebrew 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 be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Hannibal delendus est
An edit summary of a word or two vaunting the fixing of some unidentified POV has no value unless that POV is self-evident
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)
The west bank is now under de facto and je jure israeli annexation
Finance Minister Bezalel 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 jure annexation of occupied territories.[1][2] Rights lawyer Michael Sfard tweeted that the action "entails de jure annexation of the West Bank".[3][4]
