Talk:Barkan

message: 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)
replies: text: yes - the article uses terminology which is used here. NoCal100 (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "West Bank region of Samaria"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060301024022/http://sdf.shomron.org.il:80/yishuv/barkan.html to http://sdf.shomron.org.il/yishuv/barkan.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: needs an admin to do that, wont let me move this back to Barkan. nableezy - 00:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Barkan, Israel" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]