Talk:Barkan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"West Bank region of Samaria"?[edit]

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) 10:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes - the article uses terminology which is used here. NoCal100 (talk) 15:05, 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) 15:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map does not say "Samaria"/"Shomron". It says "Samaria". Your original research is just that - original research. NoCal100 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't an Arabic word for "Samaria" on the map because, to my knowledge, such a word does not exist. Most of the main WB population centers have dual name labels anyway. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"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."

This is completely wrong. The term Samaria is an ancient/historical fact. All you need to do is read Book 3/Chapter 3 of "The Jewish War," written by Flavius Josephus in the 1st Century. He gives a very specific description of the region. Throughout the West Bank, nearly everything is written in Hebrew/Arabic/English, and Shomron is simply the Hebrew word for Samaria.MG196 07:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barkan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

name[edit]

WP:WESTBANK makes it fairly clear saying something is "in Shomron", which "Barkan, Shomron" does, is disallowed. From that guideline: 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". The Hebrew usage here does not negate that. If it is necessary to disambiguate by regional council it needs to be clear that what is discussed is the regional council and not a place name. nableezy - 23:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely disagree – this is not the same issue as the Judea/Samaria nonsense – hence the move back. As previously advised, please do an RM if you want to make a move. Number 57 11:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your disagreement, you have moved a page without consensus and are now demanding consensus to move it. nableezy - 19:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly about it cannot be asserted without qualification that a place is "in Samaria" is not clear to you? nableezy - 19:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I moved the page without consensus, then you should be moving it back to where I moved it from, not to a third title. Once you start moving it elsewhere, it's perfectly reasonable for me to revert your move and request an RM. Given that this is all you've done on Wikipedia for the past couple of days, I'm not sure why you haven't started one yet. Number 57 22:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because you know full well that the inevitable no consensus results in your undiscussed move being used. You are abusing the process here, claiming this is the status quo, when the status quo was Barkan. Not Barkan, Israel. I wish to revert both moves, but that wasnt exactly possible. nableezy - 23:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one that moved it from Barkan in the first place. Because of the order of the moves and the creation of the DAB page, your option for opposing my move was to move it back where it came from. If you can't, the only option available to you (aside from move warring) is an RM. Number 57 00:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thats BS, and the lie of that is fairly clear. You claim that if I did not like the original move from Barkan, Israel then my only option was to move it back to Barkan, Israel. Then why was your only option in opposing the move from Barkan to Barkan, Israel not to move it back to Barkan? I dont really care who did what, this page was at Barkan and any moves after that were challenged and as such none should stand absent an RM and consensus. Including yours. nableezy - 17:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, this page is the primary topic and should be moved back to Barkan. The disambiguation page currently at Barkan should be moved to Barkan (disambiguation), which should then be linked to from a hatnote at Barkan. Of the four place names listed on the dab page, Barkan, Fars gets 43 hits in the last 20 days, Barkan, Nowshahr gets 2, Barkan, Yemen gets 13 and Barkan, Shomron gets 52 in only 2 days. This is strong evidence that this page is the primary topic. I have not considered the people listed because, as far as I am aware, none of them is commonly referred to by his or her last name (in contrast to, for example, Churchill). Since a disambiguator is unnecessary, there is no need for any dispute as to what it should be. --NSH001 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

needs an admin to do that, wont let me move this back to Barkan. nableezy - 00:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You won't get one to do it unless you start an RM. Unfortunately you appear to be making even more of a mess of this by moving the DAB page as well. Number 57 00:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the mess was created by the editor who moved Barkan in the first place. It is commonplace, when correcting disambiguation errors, to move both the primary topic and dab pages, so that is not "making even more of a mess", it's standard operating procedure. Policy is very clear on this, Barkan is the primary topic, and putting it there also avoids any dispute and time-wasting over the name. Perhaps a sensible admin will come along shortly and do the moves for us, but if not I will start a WP:RM. --NSH001 (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can we get a consensus to have this page at Barkan, and the disambig page at Barkan (disambig)?🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 14:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was the original status of things, and if Number57 would stop being so disingenuous about this by pretending the move here is Barkan, Israel -> Barkan, Shomron and not in fact Barkan -> Barkan, Shomron we could handle this easily. But trying to play fast with the procedure to get his preferred name set as the status quo from which consensus is needed to move it leaves it here for now. I'd welcome any admin deleting Barkan and moving this article there. Then if Number57 wishes to, he can start an RM for moving it to Barkan, Shomron. nableezy - 17:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I also think it should be Barkan, Shomron since it's in the Shomron regional council, which as was pointed out is not the same as Judea/Samaria. But I also know how things work on Wikipedia so I would tolerate the Barkan page, but it would not be my first choice. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is exactly the same as the Judea and Samaria dispute. We specifically disallow saying something is in, present tense, Judea, in Samaria, or in Judea and Samaria. And we only allow that to be used when referring to the administrative division (the Judea and Samaria Area) by actually referencing explicitly that administrative division and only using it in the context of that administration. That is apples to apples the same as in Shomron. Here the administrative division is the Shomron Regional Council. If you want to reference that administration then do it by calling it the Shomron Regional Council. I tried doing that, but even that was reverted. But the naming convention is clear, you cannot say a place is "in Shomron", and calling this place "Barkan, Shomron" does exactly that. nableezy - 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WESTBank as clearly stated is not set in stone, it's general guidelines. In this case we have a council called Shomron and that overrides the general guideline. The article itself makes it clear the story. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 17:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While Nableezy's argument is a correct interpretation of WP:WESTBANK, the only policy that is relevant here is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as I explained above. It is better if we can quickly gain an informal consensus to make the moves I described, and would save time, since a formal WP:RM is bound to follow policy and result in the same moves. --NSH001 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is fairly well dealt with in the guideline when it discusses dealing with the Judea and Samaria Area, which is only to be used in the context of the Israeli district administration. Im not sure if you really get how WP:WESTBANK came to be, but read up on this. That guideline is a community consensus that was overseen by the arbitration committee as part of an arbitration case. You want to throw that away here cus you like the word Shomron well then good luck with that. nableezy - 18:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Barkan, West Bank → Barkan – to comply with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See previous section. Updating with the latest figures for page hits in the last 20 days:

It's very clear from these data that this page is the primary topic. NSH001 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane talk 04:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I was going to include the move of the dab page (which was at Barkan), but I see Nableezy has already (correctly) moved it to Barkan (disambiguation) (thanks, Nab), so only the one move is necessary. --NSH001 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport as the proposer of this move. The move is also supported by WP:WESTBANK, but I'll let Nableezy elaborate on that. --NSH001 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per primary topic and WESTBANK. nableezy - 06:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Barkan, Israel" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Barkan, Israel. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Huldra (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barkan&oldid=1199529681"