Simon Adler (talk | contribs) →Requested move 4 June 2016: striking support |
m →Requested move 1 June 2016: relisting |
||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
{{requested move/dated|Ancient Palestinian synagogues}} |
{{requested move/dated|Ancient Palestinian synagogues}} |
||
[[:Ancient synagogues in Palestine]] → {{no redirect|Ancient Palestinian synagogues}} – this is the precise term used in RS which refer to these buildings. It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_synagogues_in_Palestine_(region)&diff=525096904&oldid=491815745 moved without consultation] using the rational that "Ancient synagogues in Palestine" is "more descriptive." While factually correct, Palestinian synagogues is the correct terminology and also lends itself to the specific architectural design prevalent in the region at the time, i.e. "in Palestine" does not allow for the additional documented architectural aspect of the synagogues. [[User:Chesdovi|Chesdovi]] ([[User talk:Chesdovi|talk]]) 18:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC) |
[[:Ancient synagogues in Palestine]] → {{no redirect|Ancient Palestinian synagogues}} – this is the precise term used in RS which refer to these buildings. It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_synagogues_in_Palestine_(region)&diff=525096904&oldid=491815745 moved without consultation] using the rational that "Ancient synagogues in Palestine" is "more descriptive." While factually correct, Palestinian synagogues is the correct terminology and also lends itself to the specific architectural design prevalent in the region at the time, i.e. "in Palestine" does not allow for the additional documented architectural aspect of the synagogues. [[User:Chesdovi|Chesdovi]] ([[User talk:Chesdovi|talk]]) 18:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC) <small>'''''-- Relisting.''''' '''<font face="Papyrus">[[User:Anarchyte|<font color="#209ccc">Anarchyte</font>]] <font color="#000"><small>([[Special:Contributions/Anarchyte|<font color="#2e1c87">work</font>]] | [[User talk:Anarchyte|<font color="#2e1c87">talk</font>]])</small></font></font>''' 06:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)</small> |
||
:How does this not violate your TBAN? [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC) |
:How does this not violate your TBAN? [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' articles should be X in Y as per common usage throughout the encyclopedia. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' articles should be X in Y as per common usage throughout the encyclopedia. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] <sup><font color="Green">[[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]]</font></sup> 18:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:09, 11 June 2016
Palestine C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Gevald....
Chesdovi, this...this is crazy. What are you doing? Are you a Canaanist or something?—Biosketch (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Move procedures
If an editor objects to the name of the article, they should follow the process laid out at WP:RFM, not unilaterally decide what is "POV" and seek to replace the terms used by reliable sources with the ones that they prefer. nableezy - 19:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Requested move 3 May 2016
- 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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 03:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Ancient synagogues in Palestine → Ancient synagogues in the State of Palestine – In line with standard conventions (Synagogues in <foo country>) and in parallel with the proposal to move Oldest synagogues in the Land of Israel to Ancient synagogues in Israel GreyShark (dibra) 20:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. The standard English name for the area historically is Palestine, and your persistent attempt to rewrite historical usage by rewording the past according to the contemporary political split creates anachronisms. The State of Palestine is not recognized by the major actors and while a reality for most, is geographically indeterminate, just as Israel has not defined its borders. Since both states have no borders, defining synagogues in one or the other is going to be meaningless and confusing.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, not all synagogues need to be categorised as being located in present-day countries. Chesdovi (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. The current name has been the scholarly standard for more than a century. Zerotalk 10:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose and merge this into Land of Israel article about the same thing since there's much overlap. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Greyshark's proposal provides a clearer definition for the location of the synagogues. At the moment the two articles are overlapping in scope, and I don't think merging into a single "region" article is in line with most precedents (which follow countries). My only concern is how we deal with the more hotly disputed areas such as the synagogues in the Old City of Jerusalem (including the Jewish quarter), an area which is in the "Palestinian territories" / "State of Palestine", and in Israel (despite the latter not having gained international recognition). Oncenawhile (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose blatant political motives for move. Palestine is not universally recognised as a state. InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Most of the synagogues are in Israel
I don't get this article at all. Looking at the list of synagogues, they are not in Palestine but in Israel. I changed the link to Palestine Region for clarification, but I still think this article is a POV fork and should be deleted, we can use ancient synagogues in the land of Israel article which covers all of this. This article can be merged into Ancient Synagogues in Israel. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think this proposal has no viable chance of being accepted. But we could, and should, simply remove all those that are in Israel. Debresser (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why won't it be accepted? Other than the word Palestine in the lead, it's all about Israel. If we remove all those synagogues that are in Israel, we'll be left with nothing. I propose moving the list to the Israel section and adding some of the sources from here to that article as well. But I do think the article is a fork and should be AFD, but I know that won't happen either. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Can you do a little study of history, both of you. This allergy to the default use of Palestine for the region from paleolithic times to 1948 is absurd.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- The article referred to "state of Palestine," I changed it to Palestinian Region, but my point still stands, this article is almost a duplicate of the Israel one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs)
- Nishidani I am not allergic. But if you disagree that Jerusalem is in Israel, then I disagree that Ashkelon is in Palestine. I am not more allergic than you are. Please keep in mind that article are being read by modern people, not paleolithic ones. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not quite, because the region of Palestine includes the modern state of Israel, and most of the world agrees that Jerusalem is not in that modern state. nableezy - 15:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Can you do a little study of history, both of you. This allergy to the default use of Palestine for the region from paleolithic times to 1948 is absurd.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why won't it be accepted? Other than the word Palestine in the lead, it's all about Israel. If we remove all those synagogues that are in Israel, we'll be left with nothing. I propose moving the list to the Israel section and adding some of the sources from here to that article as well. But I do think the article is a fork and should be AFD, but I know that won't happen either. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I removed all those that are unequivocally in Israel. I then restored the previous text "modern Palestine". If anybody wants the list to remain as large as it was before, the text should say "Palestine region", as Sir Joseph changed it, and the title must be changed to include the word "region" as well. See my opinion at the merge discussion Talk:Ancient_synagogues_in_Israel#Proposed_merge_with_Ancient_synagogues_in_Palestine. Debresser (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, I checked each item before I removed it. If I made a mistake, please discuss. However, wholesale reverts will not be accepted, and editors promptly reported at WP:ARBPIA. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- As another by the way, this article was created by notorious promoter of the word "Palestine", Chesdovi, whose mess we are still cleaning up on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, Chesdovi went berserk on Palestinization of all possible and impossible Wikipedia articles raising mess and havoc, so perhaps this is a way to standartise it without his participation (now banned from adding "Palestine" to any article previously not including it).GreyShark (dibra) 13:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Merge it with the Israel one
and put it in a section named "West Bank and Gaza Strip". Half of them are not under the authority of the Palestinian Authority, defenently not under the State of Palestine which administer nothing.Just put them there. It says "land of Israel".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Merge it with the Israel one
Wait, you changed it Palestine region, then removed ones that are covered by that? How exactly does that make any sense at all? nableezy - 15:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I restored those, the region was known as Palestine and largely still is. Get over it. nableezy - 15:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're missing a step. Chesdovi had it as Palestine (state), I changed it to the region. Then Debresser removed the entries that are in Israel. You need to learn to AGF a bit more often. And I still think we don't need this POV Fork article. If the subject is a religious subject, then it makes sense to use Land of Israel. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, "Land of Israel" isnt the common name of the region in English, its Palestine. The subject is about ancient houses of worship in a defined region. That region is "Palestine", which includes both the modern state of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. So "in Palestine" would be what an English encyclopedia would and should use. nableezy - 16:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is true that many ancient Palestinian synagogues are today located in Israel. To prevent any confusion, this page should be moved to its original name as that is the scholarly term used in the sources which were consulted to create this truly amazing and fascinatingly informative page. Chesdovi (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Which original name? Debresser (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Chesdovi, please be careful that you don't violate your ARBPIA topic ban. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Having been spectacularly wrong twice (or was it three times?) about what exactly is covered by my TB, I would think again before warning me about where I can or cannot edit. Chesdovi (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know where you get spectacular or why you're so snippy. I was just gently reminding you of your many topic bans and to be careful. Discussing renaming an article might run afoul of your Palestine TBAN and if this gets contentious, these edits might be broadly construed as being under ARBPIA sanctions, so just be careful. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Having been spectacularly wrong twice (or was it three times?) about what exactly is covered by my TB, I would think again before warning me about where I can or cannot edit. Chesdovi (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Chesdovi, please be careful that you don't violate your ARBPIA topic ban. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Which original name? Debresser (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nableezy. 1. "Palestine" is definitely not the name of the region any more. That is true for older sources, but not acceptable on Wikipedia of the 21st century. Not without the qualifier "region". You know this very well, compare for example Palestine (region). 2. Your edit goes against consensus here. 3. I will report you in the most serious way if you make another wholesale revert, which is both wrong in itself and against consensus. You are well aware of WP:ARBPIA. Debresser (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Against consensus, are you kidding me? From 2011 until a week ago this article covered a topic that you find personally misnamed based on a political belief that something that we on Wikipedia say is the name of the region (see the name of the article Palestine (region)) is not actually the name of the region. A week ago you and two other users who have been on a campaign to expunge the name of the region as the name of the region from this encyclopedia, change this article. Because nobody else noticed it for 5 days you think you have consensus? I think you need a refresher on WP:BRD, but it goes something like this. You introduce a change. Its challenged. You then discuss. Your change was the bold change here, your revert is what is improper. Nishidani, from his rather on point comment above, and me both object to that change, and I invite you, if you actually want to pretend to follow the processes you claim to care about, to self-revert your change until there actually is a consensus for it. You keep losing these arguments whenever more people are brought in, at any number of AfDs and RFCs, but you persist in waging the same argument at these obscure articles over and over, confident that more eyes wont see it and then when they do you claim a consensus for your change. Feel free to report whatever you like, though I find much like the threat to report me earlier, that isnt something you intend to follow up on. Back to the point. This article covered synagogues in the area commonly known in English as Palestine. I personally dislike the recent changes in a number of articles that change "Palestinian territories" to "Palestine" meaning a state because they miss the main point about Palestine as a state, that its still a political construct as it doesn't control its territory which remains under Israeli occupation. When Palestine is used as a noun it should still be taken to refer to Palestine (region), meaning the area in the modern state of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. You all dislike that Palestine is the name of the region used on Wikipedia? Then try to move the article Palestine (region) to what you think is the common English name for it. Instead of making us perform this same tedious exercise over and over on page after page. nableezy - 02:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is true that many ancient Palestinian synagogues are today located in Israel. To prevent any confusion, this page should be moved to its original name as that is the scholarly term used in the sources which were consulted to create this truly amazing and fascinatingly informative page. Chesdovi (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, "Land of Israel" isnt the common name of the region in English, its Palestine. The subject is about ancient houses of worship in a defined region. That region is "Palestine", which includes both the modern state of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. So "in Palestine" would be what an English encyclopedia would and should use. nableezy - 16:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- 1. I am not on any campaign. 2. I have no problem with the word "Palestine", when used correctly. The correct use is ambiguous at least. For clear proof of that fact see the first few lines of the Wikipedia article Palestine. In the 21st century, "Palestine" is not a region, so this must be disambiguated. In this specific case, where we have a "in Israel" and a "in Palestine" article, there can be no disagreement that this article refers to the "modern, partially recognized, state in the Middle East" and not the region. 3. You and Nishidani try to argue that the edits are POV motivated, and that is not an argument. All editors who address the point, agree that this article should not include places unambiguously in Israel. 4. Yes, I am not threatening, but I am not going to accept the "argument" that I am allergic to a term as an excuse to make a POV revert from a well known POV editor, and will report such behavior in the most clear way I can and ask for maximum protection against such behavior. Debresser (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- 'Palestine is not a region in the 21st century'. Oh for fuck's sake, pull your mental socks up. 'Ancient synagogues are not constructed in the 21st century, but over the preceding 2 millennia, and, for the nth time, the vast weight of scholarly tradition down to the present day (compare Emanuel Pfoh's, [The Emergence of Israel in Ancient Palestine: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives,] Routledge, 2016, published just last month) uses Palestine as the default term for that region in describing the history from the Neolithic to 1948. The edits are POV, they are part of the push limited to Israeli textbooks and some scholarly works, to rewrite the landscape in Israelitic terminology, and pass that off as normative. It is, I'l allow, also emblematic of a certain reluctance to read scholarship. Thje conceptual error you mistake is puerile, apart from being an attempt to trump scholarship with petty political ideological rewritings of history.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- As you know I favor academic sources over others, so I'll address that genre. There is some increase in the use of "Land of Israel" but it is still a small minority practice in English. Scholars who want to write about a larger area that includes Syria as well have "Levant" at their disposal. For the most part, however, "Palestine" is the scholarly term of choice for the region from ancient times up to 1948 at least. This usage has a large majority and no real competition. I don't believe it is possible to make a good case for using any other term for the region when the context is historical. Like Nab, I don't believe that "Palestine" means "State of Palestine" by default, except in very restricted cases where the context makes it clear. Zerotalk 09:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nishidani and Zero As much as you claim to be academic in your approach to sources, but you are missing the point. Nobody is saying that "Palestine" was not the designation for approximately the region covered in this article before, but "Palestine" now is not the same as "Palestine" then. As Zero says himself as well, there is a difference between before and after 1948, the year the state of Israel was officially founded. Nowadays, in any reliable source, including academic sources, "Palestine" refers to the political entity, not the region. All expletives (Nishidani: "for fuck's sake") and unfounded POV accusations (Nableezy: "a campaign to expunge the name of the region") will not help here. Debresser (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- 1. I am not on any campaign. 2. I have no problem with the word "Palestine", when used correctly. The correct use is ambiguous at least. For clear proof of that fact see the first few lines of the Wikipedia article Palestine. In the 21st century, "Palestine" is not a region, so this must be disambiguated. In this specific case, where we have a "in Israel" and a "in Palestine" article, there can be no disagreement that this article refers to the "modern, partially recognized, state in the Middle East" and not the region. 3. You and Nishidani try to argue that the edits are POV motivated, and that is not an argument. All editors who address the point, agree that this article should not include places unambiguously in Israel. 4. Yes, I am not threatening, but I am not going to accept the "argument" that I am allergic to a term as an excuse to make a POV revert from a well known POV editor, and will report such behavior in the most clear way I can and ask for maximum protection against such behavior. Debresser (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't like expletives born at exasperation with jejune comments, study logic and avoid the kind of silly remarks that engender such 'outbursts'. It is not a 'claim' that I and others prefer academic sources: it is a 'practice' readily verifiable from the sources that a few of us customarily add. If all had the same WP:RS highbar, these conflicts would mostly disappear from Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
What's the feeling about restoring this page to its original name: "Palestinian synagogues" or "Ancient Palestinian synagogues"? Chesdovi (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Im fine with that. The attempt to redefine this article as being about the "State of Palestine" was already rejected in the requested move, and this underhanded tactic of doing so based on 3 people agreeing amongst themselves and then claiming consensus when there are now four users opposing it should not fly. nableezy - 14:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- And Debresser, I fully intend on re-reverting your revert. You dont get to make some change and demand that it be accepted as consensus when the move that would have defined the article the way you want to now define it was roundly rejected not one month ago. nableezy - 14:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please stop putting me together with Debresser? My main concern was that Palestine was not listed as Region, but to the state. Once it was switched to the state and not region, then the entries needed to reflect that and then there's no real point to this article other than an obvious POV Fork. If the palestine is switched to region, I think it's OK, but again the entries would be duplicated in the Israel article and while it's OK, I think we can merge the two. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Um Im not. Debresser reverted me. And the attempt to change this to be defined as the state was rejected in the requested move in the section immediately above. I have no idea what you mean by if this is a state article then its an obvious POV fork, but whatever. nableezy - 15:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- My issue was that Palestine was linked to the state, not the region. I find the article POV due to many issues, but if it's linked to State, then 90% of the list didn't belong. I would be more OK with the Palestine linked to region not state, but I still think it should be merged since there is no point in having two articles that are basically the same. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Um Im not. Debresser reverted me. And the attempt to change this to be defined as the state was rejected in the requested move in the section immediately above. I have no idea what you mean by if this is a state article then its an obvious POV fork, but whatever. nableezy - 15:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please stop putting me together with Debresser? My main concern was that Palestine was not listed as Region, but to the state. Once it was switched to the state and not region, then the entries needed to reflect that and then there's no real point to this article other than an obvious POV Fork. If the palestine is switched to region, I think it's OK, but again the entries would be duplicated in the Israel article and while it's OK, I think we can merge the two. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- And Debresser, I fully intend on re-reverting your revert. You dont get to make some change and demand that it be accepted as consensus when the move that would have defined the article the way you want to now define it was roundly rejected not one month ago. nableezy - 14:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Chesdovi "Palestinian" is even worse than "in Palestine", in my opinion. It was changed for the better.
- Nableezy WP:CONSENSUS is not an "underhanded tactic". Revert against consensus and a simple and true argument on your own peril. In short, either we remove all synagogues in Israel, or we add the word "region" to the article title. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, consensus is not an underhanded tactic. What is underhanded is changing the scope of the article and claiming consensus for it when you are now the minority position in this section and when not one month ago the attempt to change the scope was explicitly rejected in a requested move. Im changing it back, based on that consensus. nableezy - 16:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I added region to satisfy you. Good luck with that report. nableezy - 16:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- And finally, you dont get to make ultimatums here, or at least you dont get to expect anybody will follow them. nableezy - 16:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am fine with your edit, since 1. you added the word "region" 2. I added the word "(region)" to the article title. I disagree with you that your edit has consensus, but mine for sure has. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Now youre being seemingly deliberately obtuse. The article Palestine (region) has the (region) in it because Wikipedia articles use parentheses to disambiguate one article from another and then will have a disambiguation page (Palestine). There is no other article that has as part of its title Ancient synagogues in Palestine and thus we do not disambiguate the article title. See WP:DAB. And no, your edit again does not have consensus. nableezy - 02:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- That is correct. Feel free to create the article Ancient synagogues in Palestine about the synagogues in the state of Palestine. Debresser (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Now youre being seemingly deliberately obtuse. The article Palestine (region) has the (region) in it because Wikipedia articles use parentheses to disambiguate one article from another and then will have a disambiguation page (Palestine). There is no other article that has as part of its title Ancient synagogues in Palestine and thus we do not disambiguate the article title. See WP:DAB. And no, your edit again does not have consensus. nableezy - 02:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am fine with your edit, since 1. you added the word "region" 2. I added the word "(region)" to the article title. I disagree with you that your edit has consensus, but mine for sure has. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
How about before the next move, the name is discussed prior to the move, not after? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be nice, but it should be moved back to the original name. Ive invited Debresser to do that rather than revert myself. If he or she is unwilling then I think administrative relief regarding this nonsense is called for. nableezy - 18:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- What about AS in Palestinian Region? I think that is better English. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Debresser has just stubbornly stuffed it up again, by showing he is a non-native speaker of English. Moreover Ed-Dikke and several others (Umm el Kanatir, Hamat Gader etc.) are in the Golan, since when was the Golan the 'Palestinian region'? The title must be adequate to the content, and if you need a standard historical term, it has to be Syro-Palestine. One could remove them and create Ancient Synagogues in the Golan, and leave the article as 'Ancient Palestinian synagogues' or 'Ancient synagogues in Palestine'.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sj, thats both not better English and makes no sense. Whats a Palestinian region? Nish, Id prefer the latter suggestion, but am not opposed to the former. nableezy - 19:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- in the PR then should work. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- 'Ancient synagogues in Palestine' is the most neutral of all suggestions. In ancient history a check will show that one speaks of synagogues within regions (Galilee/Judah/Samaria etc) of Palestine, not 'in the region of Palestine'. The word 'region' in English, unless it refers to a subset of an entity, always carries an implication of geographical indefiniteness. 'Palestine' is quite as specific in usage as England, Egypt, Turkey, France, and any non-native speaker will see immediately that we are creating an unnecessary pov problem if we say 'in the region of Palestine' just as it would be silly to say 'villages in the region of England/France/Turkey', a terminology that implies the villages are more or less near to England etc. This is just linguistic commonsense, sir Joe.Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is a difference between "The English Region" and "the region of England." So too with "The Palestinian Region" Sir Joseph (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- What is the "Palestinian region"? What source uses such phrasing? I dont know, as exasperated as I am with this nonsense, how yall so indefatigable in this effort to erase Palestine. nableezy - 20:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is a difference between "The English Region" and "the region of England." So too with "The Palestinian Region" Sir Joseph (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- It works as English yes, is it necessary in the least? No. nableezy - 19:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well as everything in that "region" since it works and it's descriptive of what the article is about and it's acceptable to most, then to avoid conflict we should use that name. Palestine will just continue to bring disruption. Is it the State or the region? If it's the region, as the article specifies then the name should reflect that. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- What dont you people get about disambiguating titles on this encyclopedia? We add more specific details to titles when there are multiple subjects we cover that fit with one. That isnt the case here. And no, Palestine will not continue to bring disruption. What is bringing disruption is those editors that insist on expunging Palestine or creating such discombobulated titles as this. We have a title that works better, and it just so happens to be the stable article title here. Any change to that, if challenged, requires a RM. nableezy - 19:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- When you type Palestine in Wiki, you get a disambig page to see which page you wanted, but the article name should reflect the article content. This article is about the region commonly called Palestine. As such, the title should be Synagogues in the Palestinian Region. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Umm yeah, because Palestine could lead to a number of articles. In the context of "Ancient synagogues in Palestine" however it does not lead to several possibilities. And you still have not said what source uses the incredibly awkward phrasing "Palestinian region" (and the R would not be capitalized in English unless theres some proper name of Palestinian Region that I am unaware of). nableezy - 20:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- When you type Palestine in Wiki, you get a disambig page to see which page you wanted, but the article name should reflect the article content. This article is about the region commonly called Palestine. As such, the title should be Synagogues in the Palestinian Region. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- What dont you people get about disambiguating titles on this encyclopedia? We add more specific details to titles when there are multiple subjects we cover that fit with one. That isnt the case here. And no, Palestine will not continue to bring disruption. What is bringing disruption is those editors that insist on expunging Palestine or creating such discombobulated titles as this. We have a title that works better, and it just so happens to be the stable article title here. Any change to that, if challenged, requires a RM. nableezy - 19:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well as everything in that "region" since it works and it's descriptive of what the article is about and it's acceptable to most, then to avoid conflict we should use that name. Palestine will just continue to bring disruption. Is it the State or the region? If it's the region, as the article specifies then the name should reflect that. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- 'Ancient synagogues in Palestine' is the most neutral of all suggestions. In ancient history a check will show that one speaks of synagogues within regions (Galilee/Judah/Samaria etc) of Palestine, not 'in the region of Palestine'. The word 'region' in English, unless it refers to a subset of an entity, always carries an implication of geographical indefiniteness. 'Palestine' is quite as specific in usage as England, Egypt, Turkey, France, and any non-native speaker will see immediately that we are creating an unnecessary pov problem if we say 'in the region of Palestine' just as it would be silly to say 'villages in the region of England/France/Turkey', a terminology that implies the villages are more or less near to England etc. This is just linguistic commonsense, sir Joe.Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- in the PR then should work. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- What about AS in Palestinian Region? I think that is better English. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Nishidani Instead of whining about my English, feel free to make a fair proposal to improve the English, while keeping the main point of my edit: the need to differentiate between Palestine as a state and a region.
- @Nableezy Your hammering on perceived ulterior motives is beginning to sound repetitive and is a WP:AGF violation, showing only your own POV. Either way, it is not an argument in and of itself. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Debresser: I don´t see any talk-page consensus for this move here. And I find it most unfortunate that editors start moving articles around, when any possible move is still being discussed here! I´m moving the article back, to what was a stable name before this latest mess, Huldra (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- 'Whine'? I'm imagining a world of disattentive kids coming home with their report cards and saying:'Hey, Mom. Our teecher's a reel winja. Jus' look at all the red ink she spladded ova mi homwirk! Cudn't she just fix it, instead of maken all this fuss? Hell's bells.'Nishidani (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 1 June 2016
Ancient synagogues in Palestine → Ancient Palestinian synagogues – this is the precise term used in RS which refer to these buildings. It was moved without consultation using the rational that "Ancient synagogues in Palestine" is "more descriptive." While factually correct, Palestinian synagogues is the correct terminology and also lends itself to the specific architectural design prevalent in the region at the time, i.e. "in Palestine" does not allow for the additional documented architectural aspect of the synagogues. Chesdovi (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- How does this not violate your TBAN? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose articles should be X in Y as per common usage throughout the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This was the name and it was changed for a reason. The term "Palestinian" is misleading, in view of the other meanings of the word. Also, proposal made by editor whose tendency is to promote the word "Palestinian" regardless of appropriateness. Sources use a variety of terms, including "Israel" and "Land of Israel", and the term "Palestine" is in decline ever since 1948, including in academic circles. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment. There is nothing ambiguous about the meaning of the word 'Palestinian' in these contexts. Those who think it is ambiguous, bring politics to the subject, ignore this standard usage, and show a non-native understanding of English. Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- It may be your opinion that the term is not ambiguous, but from the fact that people disagree with you, is the best proof that you are per definition wrong. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Or that they are wrong. nableezy - 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I only see this hair-raising ambiguity in one minute constituency, wiki editors on this topic, several of whom are not native English speakers*, and none of whom appear familiar with secular scholarship and its standard terminology. When Steven H. Werlin had his recent Ancient Synagogues of Southern Palestine, 300-800 C.E.: Living on the Edge, (BRILL, 2015) peer-reviewed for book publication, no professor had heart attacks with a wanker's image of Yassir Arafat, a kippah on his head, touting torsion catapults to members of the Byzantine press inquiring how he was coping with them damned Aravim from the deserts.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- (note) 'Ancient synagogues in Palestine region' is foreigners' English. You simply cannot head an article on the English wiki that way, unless you write 'Ancient synagogues in the region of Palestine'/or more uglier 'Ancient synagogues in the Palestinian region', which would still sound awkward to any competent scholar.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- As usual, Nishidani is 100% correct regarding usage of the English language. The title "Ancient synagogues in Palestine region" is incorrect English, whatever else can be said of it. Zerotalk 05:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I only see this hair-raising ambiguity in one minute constituency, wiki editors on this topic, several of whom are not native English speakers*, and none of whom appear familiar with secular scholarship and its standard terminology. When Steven H. Werlin had his recent Ancient Synagogues of Southern Palestine, 300-800 C.E.: Living on the Edge, (BRILL, 2015) peer-reviewed for book publication, no professor had heart attacks with a wanker's image of Yassir Arafat, a kippah on his head, touting torsion catapults to members of the Byzantine press inquiring how he was coping with them damned Aravim from the deserts.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Or that they are wrong. nableezy - 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - @Chesdovi: there seems to be a split in sources calling them Palestinian and being in Palestine. You have any idea how the numbers stack up? nableezy - 15:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I will have to look into this a bit more, for while my original intention was to document synagogues in Late antiquity Palestine, there may be some sources which refer to the synagogues at the time as a distinct architectural design as we have with Category:Byzantine synagogues. If so, more text to this page documenting the architectural genre will allow it to be placed in Category:Synagogues by architectural design as opposed to Category:Synagogues by country or the like. The title may also need to be changed. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. I expected the same. Which is why I think that with 2 opposes and this statistic finding, we can safely close this discussion. Debresser (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, that isnt how this works. You and one person do not get to veto things here. nableezy - 16:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nish, I saw that as well, however Im not sure google searches are going to help us here as much as other topics as they are both descriptive titles that one might not expect to find in quotes. Also, theres the time range to consider, ancient synagogues. Id expect "in Palestine" to get more ghits, but Im wondering, based on a perusal of sources, how many of those are specific to this topic. Chesdovi having done a bit of research on this might be able to answer that. nableezy - 16:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why waiting for input from Chesdovi, I guess the real point I'm making is, scholars who specialize in Jewish history have no problem in just using what is the default term 'synagogues in Palestine' and even, if apparently less so, 'Palestinian synagogues' (/so too 'Palestinian rabbis,' 'Palestinian Talmud' etc). Only some wiki editors get nervous, for the obvious reasons, and I take this anxiety to bear witness to the political contamination of the historical imagination, which is not trammeled by contemporary temptations to rewrite the past, but suspends the present in order to better imagine the past. The interesting thing, by the way, about synagogues is that they may well have been developed first in Egypt un der the Ptolemies. Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- The only person to get nervous is you, when some badly needed clarification is being added by good editors. However that may be, we write an encyclopedia here on Wikipedia, and in some cases we must be more precise than the authors of whatever publication. Please pay attention, that on another discussion you recently advocated to ignore a 20:1 (!) usage of a certain term, precisely because you claimed we need to be more precise than sources. Your POV is so blatant, it is disgusting. Debresser (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
we ('good editors' as opposed to the bad guys who insist RS determine usage) write an encyclopedia here on Wikipedia, and in some cases we must be more precise than the authors of whatever publication.
- I.e. after 80,000 edits, you still do not grasp that the fundamental rule dictating our usage is what RS analysis determines as the standard terminology. No!!, you reply: 'we', defined in Manichaean terms as those who are 'ethically', if not 'ethnically', on the 'right' side of an argument, decide how to phrase things, in the face of sources written by experts. Thanks for the clarification. On a point of usage, again, in implying in the last line that only 'blatant' (meaning 'perspectives you dislike strongly') POVs are 'disgusting', you give the game away. Let's drop this. Giving elementary policy or English lessons to editors who refuse to grasp policy or read serious books is tedious (a morally neutral term).Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why waiting for input from Chesdovi, I guess the real point I'm making is, scholars who specialize in Jewish history have no problem in just using what is the default term 'synagogues in Palestine' and even, if apparently less so, 'Palestinian synagogues' (/so too 'Palestinian rabbis,' 'Palestinian Talmud' etc). Only some wiki editors get nervous, for the obvious reasons, and I take this anxiety to bear witness to the political contamination of the historical imagination, which is not trammeled by contemporary temptations to rewrite the past, but suspends the present in order to better imagine the past. The interesting thing, by the way, about synagogues is that they may well have been developed first in Egypt un der the Ptolemies. Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. I expected the same. Which is why I think that with 2 opposes and this statistic finding, we can safely close this discussion. Debresser (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 4 June 2016
Ancient synagogues in Palestine → Ancient synagogues in Palestine (region)? – To avoid confusion between the political entity State of Palestine and the region Palestine (region). These are distinct areas, the region being the wider of the two. The present article includes a multitude of synagogues in the wider region. The lead sentence of the article was recently improved to read "Ancient synagogues in Palestine refers to synagogues in the region commonly referred to as Palestine", after I urged the point, and I think it is important the title also reflect this.
I would like to stress a small technical point, because it has been misunderstood by some editors in the discussions on this talkpage above. This move is requested to avoid confusion, which I would call disambiguation. The term "disambiguation" as used on Wikipedia may be a bit more limited, but that does not detract from the point, which is the fact that some clarification needs to be added to the word "Palestine". In this regard, please notice that recently, many instances of the word "Palestine" have been made to link to either the state, the region or "Mandatory Palestine", and this is just another case where some clarification is needed.
On a note, I am open for alternative proposals along the same line, like Ancient synagogues in the Palestine region, for example. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support if paraphrased Ancient synagogues in the region of Palestine. Better than an everlasting argument between Israel and Palestine. The lead will say that "Region of Palestine today encompasses the State of Israel and Palestinian Territories".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fine with me as well. But why do you need that phrase in the lead? Why wouldn't it be enough to simply link to Palestine (region)? Debresser (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Reject. This is the third effort to destabilize a perfectly neutral title. Repeated recyclying of a complaint after it is turned down, each within days, is poor practice.Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is my first official move discussion, as suggested above by Nableezy.[1] and [2] Whining is also poor practice. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify for you what a native speaker of English understands by "whining". It means a nagging pertinacity typical of children in the face of adult refusals to placate the obstinately reiterated whimsies of the immature. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what a non-native speaker would be referring to as well. You couldn't have described your last few posts here in any better way. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Don't be silly, and inanely provocative. The reiteration of a turned down suggestion is in the record, and you with it. You are totally unfamiliar with any serious scholarship outside your profession, and I'll say this in Chesdovi's favour, that his personal religion never gets in the way of an omnivorous curiosity about, and respect for, secular scholarship. That is why, unlike yourself, he is useful to this encyclopedia, even if I often disagree with him.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Insinuating that of my over 80,000 edits nothing was useful for Wikipedia is rather insulting, weren't it that it is patently incorrect. I doubt you have any way of knowing my attitude towards what you call secular scholarship. Suffice it to say that I have studied in universities in Europe and Israel. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Don't be silly, and inanely provocative. The reiteration of a turned down suggestion is in the record, and you with it. You are totally unfamiliar with any serious scholarship outside your profession, and I'll say this in Chesdovi's favour, that his personal religion never gets in the way of an omnivorous curiosity about, and respect for, secular scholarship. That is why, unlike yourself, he is useful to this encyclopedia, even if I often disagree with him.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what a non-native speaker would be referring to as well. You couldn't have described your last few posts here in any better way. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify for you what a native speaker of English understands by "whining". It means a nagging pertinacity typical of children in the face of adult refusals to placate the obstinately reiterated whimsies of the immature. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is my first official move discussion, as suggested above by Nableezy.[1] and [2] Whining is also poor practice. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - completely unnecessary and displaying a complete disregard for the language that modern sources use for the topic of the article, that being invariably "Palestine" and "Palestinian". The thing of this is that there are so many entangled POVs here that they overlap in somewhat surprising combinations. There are those that want to lay claim as being "in the state of Palestine" anything in the occupied territories, ignoring the crucial difference between a state and a country and just because one exists the other does not automatically follow, combined with those that want to remove any mention of "Palestine" as having been the place that Israel now largely occupies, either as lawful sovereign or belligerent occupant, so they go along with the X is in Palestine formulation in modern village articles in order to relegate the commonly used name of the place for the time period under discussion here. Then there are those that want to deny any existence of such a thing called Palestine, both present or past. What should be followed is something similar to WP:WESTBANK in which we use the terminology that sources use for a given time period, eg for antiquity we say something happened in Judea or some place was in Samaria, and for things past a certain point we again follow the sources. Sources refer to these synagogues having been built in Palestine. Full stop. There isnt any other meaningful destination topic for an article titled Ancient synagogues in Palestine, and as such no need to disambiguate. There is zero policy basis for this, and it should be rejected. nableezy - 06:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- “ignoring the crucial difference between a state and a country”
- Country, state and nation state are all interchangeable in common usage. Nation can be used in an ethnic sense but I have never heard state used this way. You hear of stateless peoples or stateless nations but countryless states is an oxymoron.Jonney2000 (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- A country controls its territory, a state is a political entity that other states say is a state. Thats the primary difference. nableezy - 08:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Reminds one of 國 guó which in Chinese refers to all three: country, nation, state. But in the ancient chronicles describing China’s periphery, it was the reflex term for all sorts of entities, from tribal centres to ethnic aggregates controlling a territory. Modern scholars now understand it in those con texts as meaning what it meant etymologically, any walled town or set of towns (vs. 城 chéng, inner wall) controlled by local chieftains opposed to Han/Wei dynasty expansionism.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- The state has very limited recognition. Note, even those who say that certain areas are not Israel, do not automatically recognize a Palestinian state. The country also has limited control over its territory, more policing than in the sense a sovereign state controls its territory and defends it against foreign powers. Historically, neither ever existed. So all POVs aside, Nableezy, the single most neutral term available to us is "Palestine (region)"/"region of Palestine". Debresser (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- That isnt true. 136 states recognize Palestine. The rest of your comment makes absolutely no sense to me, as it is seemingly a completely disconnected set of thoughts that dont really have anything to do with the comment your responding to. All that said, no, it isnt (see I can just assert things and say its true just like you!). nableezy - 16:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- 1. That is an unsourced statement. 2. That is still not all 3. The UN does not recognize Palestine as a full member state. 4. Which begs the question, as what do those 136 states (claimed) recognize Palestine. 5. Where are all those 136 embassies? 6. If so, what is the relevance of that "recognition"? 7. What does all of that mean for us on Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- 1. Heres 135, ill find the 136th lol. 2. Who said all. 3. Who cares. 4. As a state. 5. Not relevant. 6. The relevance is that they say its a state. 7. That its a state, not necessarily a country. 8. None of this has anything to do with this article, and I have no idea why it is youre badgering me over it. My point above that Palestine is a state, not a country, meaning it doesnt actually control its territory so places arent "in Palestine" as a modern country. So when we say "in Palestine" it means the region by default. Even more so for an article like this where any other use or any other word would be anachronistic, much like the Judea /Samaria or West Bank guideline. nableezy - 16:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- That still leaves the considerable number of 57 states that do not recognize Palestine. Including Western Europe and the Northern America. Also take into account that there are 22 Arab countries and 48 Muslim-majority countries (overlapping), whose opinion on the issue is rather predictable. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- What exactly does that have to do with anything at all? nableezy - 23:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- That still leaves the considerable number of 57 states that do not recognize Palestine. Including Western Europe and the Northern America. Also take into account that there are 22 Arab countries and 48 Muslim-majority countries (overlapping), whose opinion on the issue is rather predictable. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- 1. Heres 135, ill find the 136th lol. 2. Who said all. 3. Who cares. 4. As a state. 5. Not relevant. 6. The relevance is that they say its a state. 7. That its a state, not necessarily a country. 8. None of this has anything to do with this article, and I have no idea why it is youre badgering me over it. My point above that Palestine is a state, not a country, meaning it doesnt actually control its territory so places arent "in Palestine" as a modern country. So when we say "in Palestine" it means the region by default. Even more so for an article like this where any other use or any other word would be anachronistic, much like the Judea /Samaria or West Bank guideline. nableezy - 16:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- 1. That is an unsourced statement. 2. That is still not all 3. The UN does not recognize Palestine as a full member state. 4. Which begs the question, as what do those 136 states (claimed) recognize Palestine. 5. Where are all those 136 embassies? 6. If so, what is the relevance of that "recognition"? 7. What does all of that mean for us on Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- That isnt true. 136 states recognize Palestine. The rest of your comment makes absolutely no sense to me, as it is seemingly a completely disconnected set of thoughts that dont really have anything to do with the comment your responding to. All that said, no, it isnt (see I can just assert things and say its true just like you!). nableezy - 16:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- The state has very limited recognition. Note, even those who say that certain areas are not Israel, do not automatically recognize a Palestinian state. The country also has limited control over its territory, more policing than in the sense a sovereign state controls its territory and defends it against foreign powers. Historically, neither ever existed. So all POVs aside, Nableezy, the single most neutral term available to us is "Palestine (region)"/"region of Palestine". Debresser (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Reminds one of 國 guó which in Chinese refers to all three: country, nation, state. But in the ancient chronicles describing China’s periphery, it was the reflex term for all sorts of entities, from tribal centres to ethnic aggregates controlling a territory. Modern scholars now understand it in those con texts as meaning what it meant etymologically, any walled town or set of towns (vs. 城 chéng, inner wall) controlled by local chieftains opposed to Han/Wei dynasty expansionism.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- A country controls its territory, a state is a political entity that other states say is a state. Thats the primary difference. nableezy - 08:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- All of these points were made in the preceding 2 discussions, so repeating them is pointless, except as an exercise in mnemonics, if one needs to learn by rote.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. This is an independent proposal, so there is nothing pointless about any part of this discussion. Don't try to diminish this proposal, please. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy on disambiguation is what diminishes the "proposal". nableezy - 16:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- As I showed above, that point is incorrect.
- Why the parentheses ("proposal")? This is a proposed move. I don't appreciate the attitude. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- You have not shown any such thing above. You make an unsupported assertion and act like that makes it so WP:DAB doesnt apply here. Wikipedia disambiguates titles when a title may have two separate titles. That doesnt apply here. As for your last line, I cant really say I care. But they were quotation marks, not parentheses. nableezy - 19:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please note that I never claimed WP:DAB applies. All I said is that the title is ambiguous, confusing, and in need of clarification. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I said it applies, and I said based on it this title as it stands is fine. And I say it is not ambiguous, not confusing, and not in need of any clarification. I actually said you said it doesnt apply based on a series of unsupported assertions, so your comment doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. Hey look, there are those unsupported assertions again. nableezy - 21:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- My point has been well argued, and you have nothing substantial to say against it, and resort to attempts at sarcasm. I will stop here replying to this now useless polemic, and hope other editors will join the discussion. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not really, you say we should include a disambiguation for a place that is routinely used in scholarly sources, including the sources of this article. That isnt an argument, it is an unfounded and unsupported assertion. I wasnt even being sarcastic. Facetious yes, but sarcastic no. nableezy - 22:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- My point has been well argued, and you have nothing substantial to say against it, and resort to attempts at sarcasm. I will stop here replying to this now useless polemic, and hope other editors will join the discussion. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I said it applies, and I said based on it this title as it stands is fine. And I say it is not ambiguous, not confusing, and not in need of any clarification. I actually said you said it doesnt apply based on a series of unsupported assertions, so your comment doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. Hey look, there are those unsupported assertions again. nableezy - 21:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please note that I never claimed WP:DAB applies. All I said is that the title is ambiguous, confusing, and in need of clarification. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- You have not shown any such thing above. You make an unsupported assertion and act like that makes it so WP:DAB doesnt apply here. Wikipedia disambiguates titles when a title may have two separate titles. That doesnt apply here. As for your last line, I cant really say I care. But they were quotation marks, not parentheses. nableezy - 19:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy on disambiguation is what diminishes the "proposal". nableezy - 16:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. This is an independent proposal, so there is nothing pointless about any part of this discussion. Don't try to diminish this proposal, please. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Country, state and nation state are all interchangeable in common usage. Nation can be used in an ethnic sense but I have never heard state used this way. You hear of stateless peoples or stateless nations but countryless states is an oxymoron.Jonney2000 (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose, per all of the above arguments, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- New Proposal. Ancient synagogues in the Southern Levant. It is accurate, NPOV and cuts this wearying argument off at the knees. I am talking to both "camps" here. Irondome (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- No fierce opposition, but the term "Southern Levant" has recently been discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_16#Category:Southern_Levant in relation to Category:Southern Levant, which in the end was emptied and turned into a soft redirect, and one of the arguments against using the term was the vagueness of the term. Also, I don't disagree that "Palestine" was the historic term to refer to this region, so I see no reason to avoid it, and I think that finding evasive terminology is not a solution. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
*Support. I find Debresser's opening statement compelling. I take on board also the statement by Nableezy (06.22 5/6/16). The precision of Debresser's proposal would be useful. In talking of a region it is actually attempting a more NPOV approach. Irondome (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I really dont understand the NPOV argument. The common English name of the place is the name of the place. Now, based on how Ive read Wikipedia policies and articles over the past decade, would see a Wikipedia article titled Ancient synagogues in Palestine (region) and think that there is some region by the name of Ancient synagogues in Palestine. Because thats how and why we disambiguate titles. Compare this with the guideline on when to use West Bank and when to use Judea and/or Samaria (WP:WESTBANK). For the time period that modern sources refer to the area there as Judea or Samaria or whatever, our articles do the same. We dont qualify it because theres a modern Israeli district by the name of Judea and Samaria Area, we dont downplay it. Todays sources will refer to something that was built in ancient times as having been in Judea, and we do the same. They also refer to these things as being in Palestine, and we do the same. How is this any different? nableezy - 03:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed Nableezy. Article lead specifically links to Palestine (region). I withdraw my support, and am beginning to wonder why we are actually having this conversation, if all concerns appear to be met. It would appear that we have a broad cross-party consensus here. Simon. Irondome (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- I really dont understand the NPOV argument. The common English name of the place is the name of the place. Now, based on how Ive read Wikipedia policies and articles over the past decade, would see a Wikipedia article titled Ancient synagogues in Palestine (region) and think that there is some region by the name of Ancient synagogues in Palestine. Because thats how and why we disambiguate titles. Compare this with the guideline on when to use West Bank and when to use Judea and/or Samaria (WP:WESTBANK). For the time period that modern sources refer to the area there as Judea or Samaria or whatever, our articles do the same. We dont qualify it because theres a modern Israeli district by the name of Judea and Samaria Area, we dont downplay it. Todays sources will refer to something that was built in ancient times as having been in Judea, and we do the same. They also refer to these things as being in Palestine, and we do the same. How is this any different? nableezy - 03:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)