Talk:Ma'ale Shomron

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palestine Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Israel Start‑class Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Merge Nahal Rafiah (draft, heb) into Nahal as requested by Wikipedia authority

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process . Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

I moved the page to Ma'ale Shomron, because of the naming conventions and the precedent set forth by

FWIW, I think it is wrong. This is English WP. A non-Israeli pronouncing 'Ma'ale' will say ma ale ('ale' as in ginger ale). Simply wrong and misleading. --Shuki 17:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzhak (proper English pronunciation: Yi-JAK) is also quite a bit different from Hebrew יצחק (its-HUCK). The idea behind the Hebrew naming conventions are twofold: to give a reader mildly familiar with Hebrew pronunciation (or foreign pronunciation in general) an idea of how to say the word, and to introduce a standard which is both clear to English-speakers and does not deviate far from the direct transliteration (or academic if you will). Maaleh for מעלה violates both things - an English speaker with no idea about the word will say something like MAW-l'h, while in Hebrew it would be more like מאלח. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about yitzhack. Anyway, the thing is that you aren't a native English speaker, so it's very challenging to know what how a native English speaker sees words. One principal rule is that when a word ends with a vower (a e i o u, and sometimes y) then the other vowels inside the word are long: whole, scale, revere, etc... 'Ma'ale' = ma ale ('ale' as in ginger ale). If you really want to be a tzaddik, then go all the way: Maallay --Shuki 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that the CIA is the occupying power in Samaria - the article uses terminology which is used here. NoCal100 (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of that map has been explained to you literally dozens of times, and the fact that the CIA itself does not use the term "Samaria" in any online document has been pointed out ad nauseam. Please review

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

And for those who found the above conversation cryptic: The dispute is simply over whether to use the word "Samaria" in the article. 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) 10:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes - the article uses terminology which is used here. NoCal100 (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 15:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your

WP:NOR. NoCal100 (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The local name, in English, is "Samaria", and that is what this map says. The original research is in violating

WP:REDFLAG, like you do when you base your entire argumentation on one single map, without even considering the possibility that you might have misunderstood its purpose. Are there other sources for your cliam that "Samaria" is an accepted term for "northern West Bank" outside Israel? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not a single map, numerous sources have been presented. You asked 'is there really a reliable source for the claim that a part of the West Bank is called "Samaria"' - this map is the answer. Move on. NoCal100 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous reliable sources that say "Samaria" is used outside Israel to mean the modern West Bank? Could you provide me with a link? MeteorMaker (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

${\displaystyle \leftarrow }$ Actually, NoCal100, why don't we just apply the same standards you used here? Regarding the use of "Israel" vs. "Zionist Entitiy" on

As has been pointed out to you time and again, the above is

WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed on this project. In order to include something along those lines, you need to find a reliable sources that says it, explicitly. If the Weekly Standard article said something like "the word "Israel" is standard usage on al-Jazeera, who do not use "Zionist entity" " - it would be Ok to include it. But for Kauffner to deduce it, is original research. The cherry picking I am reffering to is taking one line out of a long article that discusses how Arab textbooks AVOID using Israel, in order to push the opposite POV. NoCal100 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

So, applying that (i.e. your) logic to this debate, please find a source that says "the term 'Samaria' is standard usage outside Israel". Otherwise, by your criteria, saying that the term "Samaria" is standard usage outside of Israel is original research.
Cheers, pedrito - talk - 17.02.2009 16:11

See Talk:Israeli settlement, multiple reliable non-Israeli sources use the term. Regurgitating the disproved argument at another talkpage won't change the facts. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was just accusing NoCal100 of the same thing... Where is your magic source that says explicitly, as NoCal100 requires, that this is the standard/preferred terminology outside of Israeli/Jewish circles?

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 18.02.2009 07:31

In fact, BrewCrewer, despite the months of discussion at talk:Israeli settlement and elsewhere, not one single source has yet come to light that says "Samaria is used outside Israel". I think we can safely conclude that such sources do not exist. I might add that there are scores of eminent sources that say "Samaria is not used outside Israel", and thousands more can be added with little effort. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a certain amount of insolent audacity to clam that not one single source has yet come to light that says "Samaria is used outside Israel", when this Talk page, and this section has a non-Israeli source that prominently uses the term. Since the article does not make the claim that 'Samaria is the standard/preferred terminology', there is no need for a source that says that. NoCal100 (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Uses the term", yes, but so do we, and in both cases the term's use in Israel is discussed. What you need to find is a reliable source that actually says the term is used outside Israel. I remind you that the opposite position is abundantly well-sourced and that, per

Synthesized conclusions don't cut it, particularly if they, like in this case, are drawn from faulty assumptions. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This is nonsense, this argument has been had on many pages and we continue to have to prove the same thing over and over. The most common description of this place, and every other Israeli settlement (meaning Israeli locality built on occupied land outside of Israel, a bit redundant but some still dont seem to understand) is "Israeli settlement". This instance: This BBC map labels it an "Israeli settlement". Christian Science Monitor only labels it an "Israeli settlement" or a "Jewish settlement", never any other label. The world uses certain descriptions of these places before any other description and this continued insistence to downplay that is bogus. This argument should not be needed on every single settlement page and those remaining from the J+S gang appear to have found a new method of imposing language not recognized by anybody other than the occupying power as the primary language of an encyclopedia. nableezy - 02:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the npov tag as two editors are intent on maintaining the use of language by an extreme minority (Samaria before West Bank and communal village before Israeli settlement). Other comments are welcome. nableezy - 03:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors gangs is not most conducive for colloberation. There doesn't seem to be any configuration that will satisfy you unless the opening words of the article are "Israeli Settlement."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

crowd: an informal body of friends; "he still hangs out with the same crowd (2nd definition). And why should the first description not be the most common one? nableezy - 05:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And brewcrewer, why did you remove the wikilink to West Bank? Why did you place "Samarian hills" before West Bank? That is in addition to using the language of an extreme minority before the common "Israeli settlement" which you completely removed from the first sentence on the laughable pretense that would "satisfy" everybody. nableezy - 06:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]