Talk:Argaman

Open season

So I guess that with the superseding of the settlement convention we can expect this text on the illegality of settlements to be challenged more boldly, including outright deletion by unregistered users. If required to preempt the recent WP:SYNTH objections being raised by registered users at Tomer, this report by Btselem [1] devotes a chapter to the illegality of settlements and provides an overview of all settlements in the West Bank in 2002 including the subject of this article.Tiamut^talk 20:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What makes Btzelem reliable source on International law?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you really going to pretend that there are not hundreds, thousands, of sources that say exactly what B'tselem says on the legal status of these settlements? nableezy - 19:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Until a reliable news source discusses this issue specifically with respect to Argaman, this issues does not belong in the article, especially the way it was shoved in to create awkward reading. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Until WP:BREWCREWERSAYS turns blue, your declamations lack authority over the content of the article. nableezy - 20:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In this encyclopedia, article content is based on the consensus of editors and the relevant WP policies. My stated position is a normal and typical comment of the type you will find on any talk page. Your snide and silly comment was entirely unhelpful and entirely unconducive to the collaborative project we try to create here. I had hoped you understood this much by now. Further deterioration of this discussion will most likely be ignored. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, your statement was not a normal and typical comment, and if that is normal and typical then we have a bigger problem. Your statement, as I read it, was if whatever criteria I set as the threshold for inclusion is not met, the material should be removed. You are right though, the content is based on consensus and the relevant policies and guidelines. There is currently no consensus to change the article. Instead of going through this incestuous dance on this page then that page, can we get try to actually get a real RFC on this going somewhere, one where we all agree to the ground rules, that is properly moderated and closed? Or do you actually enjoy having this same discussion on page after page? nableezy - 05:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The current wording is WP:OR as doesn't mention Argaman.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, it talks about all Israeli settlements. Dont make edits like that, you know that there is no consensus for it, as 3 separate editors just reverted that same removal one day ago. I havent been mistaken for a patient man in some years, though I am trying. nableezy - 05:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Three separate editor didn't participate in talk this clear WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The argument that a simple transitive relation like this is synthesis or OR is not a valid argument. I don't understand why people keep making it. The statement "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this" is true. It applies to this settlement. To say so does not advance a new position in relation to the topic of the article because the topic of the article is an Israeli settlement. Giving an Israeli settlement a name doesn't exclude it from the set of Israeli settlements and it doesn't invalidate the transitive relation. Editors could provide evidence that this settlement is not considered to be illegal under international law by the international community for some reason or they could provide evidence that, unlike the rest of the settlements, the Israeli government considers this particular settlement to be illegal under international law, or perhaps they could try to demonstrate that the illegality of this particular named instance of an Israeli settlement under international law doesn't matter to anyone, but arguing that the statement is OR is plain wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Argaman legal status isn't discussed by WP:RS hence its WP:UNDUE and WP:OR as the language of the policy is clear " published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article".The source that presented is not directly related.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the argument is invalid. I explained why. If someone can demonstrate that the topic of this article is not an Israeli settlement in the West Bank I might be open to rewording the statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What he said. nableezy - 13:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks Sean.hoyland, and sorry if my post implied a source was needed. "A simple transitive relation" is not SYNTH or OR. I just thought a list of names would help definitively put to rest the clamourings of those arguing otherwise. My mistake. Tiamut^talk 19:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sean, this is obviously an example of an Israeli settlement in the West Bank. However, this does not mean that every generality that applies to settlements should also be included in specific examples, especially where no source makes a direct link and a wiki hyperlink admirably connects to this content. The insert of generalities in a specific article such as this is synthesis and undue. Ankh.Morpork 22:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it really isnt. A notable controversy about this and every other settlement is that it was established, and exists, in contravention of customary international law. A source that applies this statement to all settlements applies the statement to, you guessed it, this and every other settlement. It is not SYNTH to use a source saying all settlements are illegal under international law to say that all settlements are illegal under international law. It is likewise not UNDUE to include the notable POV (that being the POV of nearly every competent body on the planet) that this settlement, along with every other one, is illegal under international law. Try again. nableezy - 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What is notable and verified by sources is that settlements in general infringe international law. This notability does not extend to Argaman, do you propose the boilerplate inclusion merely because it is an example of an settlement? Ankh.Morpork 23:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it is verifiable by sources that all Israeli settlements violate international law. All of them. Which, surprise surprise, includes Argaman. nableezy - 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I accept that it is factually correct. But this does not address why this general statement is notable to a specific place. Are you stating that all concepts that apply to a category can be included in all articles concerning objects of this category? Ankh.Morpork 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that, like the BBC does, WP should include the fact, and thank you for acknowledging a fact, that each settlement is illegal under international law where it is relevant. I am stating that such a statement is relevant to the actual articles for each settlement. I dont think I have stated anything beyond that. If you want somebody to play the straw man game, please ask somebody else. nableezy - 00:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But why are you considering this article "relevant" for a statement said about a wider category that this belongs to? What principle are you using to ascertain the "relevance" of general statements to specific examples? Ankh.Morpork 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Its clear case of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR as no WP:RS discuss Argaman and international law--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

[2] talks about international law and also lists some facts about Argamon. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not clear how such source could be used and what line you want to introduce using this source?(please cite page number)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Argaman Sean.hoyland - talk 20:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Israeli-occupied West Bank

Why is an article on Argaman the prompt for discussing the sovereignty of the WB? Are we expected to comment on the wider regions of all places when discussing small villages or are the insertion of loaded political comments the strict preserve of Israeli settlements? Ankh.Morpork 13:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If we don't let the reader know that the settlement is located in a territory occupied by Israel, then the reader may think that the settlement is actually located in Israel. We can't assume that the reader knows that all "Israeli settlements" are actually located outside of Israel. As that is actually quite counter-intuitive, a clarification is in order. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Its clearly stated that it is in West Bank and not in Israel--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It expressly states that it is in the WB. This is already hyperlinked and the article should not make allowances, especially one's that are contentious and undue, for people'e geographic nescience. Ankh.Morpork 13:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly stated that it is in the West Bank, yes. But does the reader know that the West Bank is located outside of Israel? That is not something we can assume. Adding a simple "Israeli-occupied" qualifier removes this possibility of misunderstanding. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If he want to know what is "west bank" he will click the link if this would be important WP:RS would mention it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be needed to click a link in order to get basic facts straight. Readers are lazy and assuming they're not is a mistake. As it is now, an uninformed reader may be left with the impression that Argaman is a human settlement located in an Israeli region called "West Bank". That is a possibility we should seek to eliminate. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone is in agreement that we should strive for clarity where possible. However, in this instance the additional clarity is attained by emphasising a political aspect of West Bank sovereignty in an undue manner and NPOV concerns surely supersede the need to assist the "lazy and uninformed reader" especially where a single click will amply discuss this topic. Ankh.Morpork 17:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying that the West Bank is occupied is a perfectly WP:NPOV compliant statement, as it is by far the world view. Even parts of the Israeli government acknowledges that WB is occupied. Right-wing Israelis don't view WB as occupied (they call it "disputed") but WP:NPOV allows us to ignore such tiny minority POVs. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Again per WP:V bring a source that discuss Argaman and mention the legal status of West Bank until that we shouldn't add this--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. nableezy - 20:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What of this sources do you consider can be used without attribution?Becouse that what is asked for as I understand.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Every. Single. One. nableezy - 03:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The fifth source, the book "Israel's occupation" seems ok. Mentions Argaman on page 123: (link). --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We requested an independent secondary source that discusses the "illegality" in connection specifically with Argaman. As far as I can see, that has yet to be proffered. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no dependency between the illegality of this named instance of an Israeli settlement and an independent secondary source that discusses the illegality in connection specifically with this named instance of an Israeli settlement. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources are addressing the general topic of Israeli settlements, it is for this reason that an independent source was requested specifically related to Argaman. Ankh.Morpork 13:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that and that's fine. My view is that detailed discussion of the legality issue beyond the current boilerplate statement or thereabouts is best based on sources that deal with this settlement. But there is no more reason to exclude information because the source doesn't contain the string "Argaman" or "Argoman" (as it appears in this UN document) than there is to exclude information because the source doesn't include the coordinates. It's an Israeli settlement. It's in the West Bank. It's regarded as illegal under international law etc. It also has some other attributes that have no bearing on its legality such as its name and some attributes that do have a bearing on its legality such as its coordinates. Legality information that applies to all Israeli settlements also applies to this settlement. What I would like to see is people moving past the notion that legality information can be excluded because a source doesn't contain a certain string of characters towards a more sensible discussion about what should be included so that readers get a decent overview of the issues that are pertinent to this settlement. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Legality information that applies to all Israeli settlements also applies to this settlement.". This is obviously correct but does not take into consideration the need for due weight. Information that applies to Israel, the Middle East, Asia also apply to Argaman, that doesn't mean we include it unless a source considers it notable in relation to the specific topic.Ankh.Morpork 14:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

I'd like to edit the section about settlements to account for the United States joining Israel in proclaiming that Settlements aren't illegal under international law. Shachna1979 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That is discussed in International law and Israeli settlements, but the reliable sources continue to use international community for who considers settlements illegal. nableezy - 17:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that if wiki is going to display on the individual settlement page that "Settlements are consider illegal" instead of having the reader find that information in some other wiki page, then the reader should also be informed on this same page that it isn't just Israel that disputes the illegality of the settlements. The USA's dispute against the international community is a pretty big statement. It should be included in this page. Shachna1979 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Another edit request

Add disambiguation at the top of this article to Tyrian purple, which is known as "argaman" in Hebrew. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)