Talk:Tachlifa of the West

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tachlifa of the West → Tachlifa the Palestinian — See below Chesdovi (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support Chesdovi (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The correct name for this page all boils down to sources and secondly, to accuracy:
Sorces: This article was originally called Tachlifa the Palestinian. This was based on material from the Hebrew-English edition of the Babylonian Talmud by Isidore Epstein, published by the Soncino Press where the Hebrew for Yehuda bar Ma’arava is translated as “Judah the Palestinian.” We also have R. Tahlifa the Palestinian in the same edition, B. Metziah. (We also have this quoted in tertiary sources: Mathematical social sciences, Volumes 1-2, North-Holland, 1980.) So we have a good RS which translates “bar Marava” as “Palestinian.” But there are also source which call this rabbi “Tachlifa of the West”, ([1]), including an instance in the above citied RS. (In BK 33b, Epstein uses the literal translation “R. Tahlifa the Western”, with a footnote clarifying “the Palestinian”.) So why choose “the Palestinian”?
Accuracy: Using “Palestinian” in place of “son of the West” is much more specific as to the location of this rabbi. It is not clear as to what “of the west” refers to. (Nowadays, The West refers to America and her European allies and it can refer to anything due west of anything.) While we do have Simlai the Southerner, Epes the Southerner, that is due to the fact that a more specific classification is not possible, viz. the southern region of the Land of Israel is actually called The south. “The West” by itself however does not refer to a region in Babylonia (or Palestine), but rather refers to a different country completely. In Babylonia, they called people from the Land of Israel “Son of the West”, because Palestine was west of Babylon. Was there a country in antiquity call “The West”? No. Therefore the preferred translation is what is intended: “of Palestine” and that is why some translators have used “the Palestinian”.
It is therefore clear that we combine both these factors and revert the title to the original name. (It being so far clear that only one other editor (whom I suspect - bears a super strong POV linked to the raging I/P conflict - i.e. his oppostion would have little to do with confusion that may arise over ethniticy or nationality and the like) has an issue with this title.)
(Note that when there are no sources, we would have to use the basic translation, as in יוסף אל מערבי – a Moroccan rabbi known as being from “the West”, unless we would opt for “Jospeh el-Marabi, or Yousuf el-Marabi, or Yosef el’Maravi”. In this case, we do not have “Tachlifa bar Marava” as the title, as the sourced anglicised version of the word in this context supersedes it.) Chesdovi (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Instead of making any further page moves...

Instead of making any further page moves it would be better to get a consensus. One means of doing so would be opening a WP:RFC and putting a page move request into it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2011 move had no consensus, it was a consensus of 1. A page should be named correctly. It should not follow someone's POV to put Palestine wherever he can get a chance. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus of 1 was enough to do the page move. Everything necessary and appropriate was done regardless of whther you like the actual results anymore. And the point remains the same. Stop Editwarring and get a consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The move was against policy. The name of the article needs to reflect the name of the person. And the name of the title of the article how it is now is how it should be. Tachlifa of the West in Aramaic translates to Tachlifa of the West in English, not Tachlifa the Palestinian. Anything else is OR. If you want to add paragraphs of OR and edits to say otherwise, you may do so, but the title of the article should be the man's name. You don't need a consensus for that, that's the policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that Tachlifa the Palestinian comes up in a google search. It almost seems that Chesdovi might be able to counter your, "I just don't like it." with sources. If and when he opens a RFC should he provide these reliable sources you'd better come up with a better argument. This is a matter up for consensus. I'm sorry at this point you don't understand policy but should he attain this consensus you are just going to have to not like it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "I don't like it" I said it's not his name. You can't change someone's name and use that as the article name. I have other sources that don't translate it at all, and leave it as bar Maarava, and I saw a source that even uses Tachlifa from Ceasaria. But when you write an article on Wikipedia, you use the translation of his name, and bar maarave means of the west. It is you who just doesn't like it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a plethora of people from ancient times who have a various known names. In Hebrew she was called Helini Hamalka, but the page is called Helena of Adiabene, not Helena the Queen. We use the name sourced for common English usage. Arda of Armenia was known in her time as simply Arda. And Tachlifa of Keysari was a different person. Chesdovi (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyway, Chesdovi, it the event your not topic bannned, an RFC would be the best way to go. Sources will go alot more in the way the way of making your case as will showing that you preferred name is the WP:COMMONNAME.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Chesdovi is topic-banned. 2. There was no consensus in 2011, and that move should never have been made. Debresser (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Above I suggested Chesdovi refrain from action here until his WP:ARE is resolved and they say this is exempt. 2.There was nothing inappropriate about the page being moved in the way it was. A discussion was opened and it also seems above that it was closed by an uninvolved party. 3. In the event Chesdovi is clear to edit here and feels that this page should be moved, or in the event that anyone else feels this page moved, the best possible scenario they can take is to seek some means of gaining a consensus such as WP:RMCM.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is customary to summarily undo edits made by sockpuppets or banned editors. 2. As you can see yourself, he closure was not based on any consensus. There was no discussion there. I was amazed that an experienced editor like Vegaswikian agreed to this move. 3. No reason to go there. As per the above arguments, the move is void. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say your move should be "void", since you moved the page without prior agreement at talk. Chesdovi (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such rule. If anything, it was you who created the article with this POV title. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...or you could say it is you who recreated this article with your POV title. It seems only Chesdovi has POV. Debresser has NPOV. Chesdovi is guilty. Debresser is innocent. This is pathetic. Chesdovi (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With Sir Joseph and Debresser in concurrence, and with the fact that Tachlifa of the West is a well known and used name for this individual that can be sourced, there is a consensus of two editors that this article should remain named Tachlifa of the West. Lacking a compelling argument to change the articles title I also concur that this article should remain unchanged. A consensus of 3 editors Tachlifa of the West.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "SirJoseph and Debresser in concurrence"? Debresser (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for catching that. It seems we have a consensus here. Do you agree?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All we have to keep it as is is the following: "Tachlifa of the West in Aramaic translates to Tachlifa of the West in English" against my rational above. Instead of editors just saying they prefer the current name, can we have some compelling arguments? Chesdovi (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are TOPIC BANNED from this page. Why are you still editing? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You think I should be banned from this page, but I am not topic banned from this page, just like I am not topic banned from Tomaccio. Where have you highlighted here that this relates to I/P? This is a dispute centred around name conventions. I prefer the historic common use in RS, while you prefer literal or translation. You persistently force you POV without waiting for due consensus. Chesdovi (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it's open at ARE it's probably better, that you act as if there is a topic ban. Your choice certainly.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]