Talk:Ancient synagogues in Palestine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
No, you misrepresent what I wrote. Scholars now use "Palestine" as the designation of the region when writing about historical periods. Please read more carefully. Zerotalk 23:30, 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)
But you linked it to the state I thought? Either way, youre saying your fine having it linked to the region? nableezy - 16:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Oops, sorry misread all that. nableezy - 16:12, 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)
I guess not seemingly deliberately obtuse, just deliberately obtuse. Ill be reverting this move in a bit, and as WP:RM lays out if a move is challenged, as yours is, you need to follow the process to request a move. nableezy - 15:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Good. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you seriously not understand the rather simple process laid out at WP:RM? nableezy - 18:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and btw, your new title of this article isnt even proper English. nableezy - 18:40, 2 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)
RS refer to synagogues on the Golan as being Palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 22:55, 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)
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)
@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

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. (closed by a page mover)  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  05:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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)
Completely baseless claim regarding the use of the term Palestine seemingly pulled from thin air. nableezy - 15:15, 3 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)
Just that this section is not about that proposal... Perhaps we close this one as "no consensus for move" and open another one? Debresser (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
No. nableezy - 15:15, 3 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 get at google books, 2,950 for "Palestinian synagogues" vs. 13,900 for "synagogues in Palestine", as one would expect.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 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)
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.

Requested move 15 June 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 - There is no evidence that the current title is not serving its intended purpose and is not inconsistent with our COMMONNAME policy. There is clearly no consensus to move to anyone of the bantered about alternatives. Additionally, four back to back RMs in 2 short months all with the same positions for and against by essentially the same locus of participants, and all with the same results call for a moratorium on new RMs for at least 6 months and the article has been so move protected. Mike Cline (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


Ancient synagogues in Palestine → Ancient synagogues in the Palestine region – Previous proposals were closed as "no consensus", but prove that there is a high degree of unhappiness with the present title. This proposal should be free from the problems of my previous proposal that led to it being closed as "no consensus", and will bring more proof that the present title is ambiguous and unacademic, and therefore untenable. Wikipedia policies and guidelines will also be shown to point to the need for the proposed move.

As said before, the first step in the right direction was taken when the lead was changed from "Ancient synagogues in Palestine refers to synagogues in modern Palestine, built by the Jewish community from antiquity to the early Middle Ages." to "Ancient synagogues in Palestine refers to synagogues in the region commonly referred to as Palestine, built by the Jewish community from antiquity to the early Middle Ages." The point being, of course, the switch from "State of Palestine" to "the region commonly referred to as Palestine". This proposal seeks to do precisely the same, in a more concise manner, with the title of this article. This in accordance with WP:PRECISION, which reads "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.", accurately summing up the reason for the proposed move.

The "Palestine" article is a disambiguation page, and over the last half year or so, I have seen many disambiguation edits, changing a simple "Palestine" to either the state or the region. Just today I saw this edit. This proposal is similar to that trend, in that the term "Palestine" in the title of this article is ambiguous, even though I stress that this proposal is not based on our disambiguation guidelines, but it is still based on the same need for clarity. This is all the more so in recent years, when the word "Palestine" has become more and more associated with the state rather then the region, commensurate to the rise of the recognition of that state in the international community. According to WP:COMMONNAME, the present title should therefore rightfully refer to the state, while in reality it doesn't, and nobody claims that it does, even if only for the obvious reason that there was no such state "from antiquity to the early Middle Ages", which is the period covered by this article.

The claim was made by User:Nableezy[1], that we should "use the terminology that sources use for a given time period". That argument would mean that the present title is inadequate for sure, because during the Hellenistic time the area was called "Coele-Syria", under the Romans "Syria Palaestina", and under the Byzantines "Palaestina Prima", to mention just a few of the more well known.


The claim was also made that academic sources use the term "Palestine". I counter this by bringing some chosen examples of other terms used by academic sources of high repute. I want to stress, that my proposal is based mainly on the need for a precise title, which should unambiguously refer to the region in common usage of English. In my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines regarding titles, academic literature is a source secondary to many other guidelines, like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE, and academic usage is not the last word in this question.

Examples of academic sources using other terms (italics are mine):

  • [2]: "Conference program: “The Synagogue in Ancient Palestine” (Helsinki, Sept 21-24, 2016)", including a keynote lecture on "Writing as Power: Texts, Pictures, and Daily Life in Ancient Levantine Synagogues" and another lecture on "Reassessing the Impact of 70 CE on the Origins and Development of Palestinian Synagogues".
  • [3]: "8 Recent discoveries of synagogues in the Levant, such as that in Huqoq" which is in this article.
  • [4]: "Other churches and synagogues in the Levant and North Africa were also demolished and vandalized." Which includes Israel/Palestine, since it continues to discuss the Holy Sepulchre.
  • [5]: "Our first indications of synagogues in the Palestinian region are in the Roman period."
  • [6]: simply divides according to the name used in the period, as per Nableezy (explained above).
  • [7]: "THE DESIGN OF THE ANCIENT SYNAGOGUES IN JUDAEA"
  • "OD. Chen, On Planning Synagogues and Churches in Palaestina: A Comparison with Syria and Illyricum, in G.C. Bottini et al. (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land, Jerusalem 1990" (no link available)

My previous proposal was called "Ancient synagogues in Palestine (region)" and one of the main problems with that nomination was, in the words of the closing editor, that "For increased clarity, a parenthetical disambiguator should apply to the entire page title rather than to just a part of it." That issue has been resolved in this proposal, the idea for which was handed to me by that very same uninvolved closing administrator,[8] for which I am thankful. I understand that this means he will not be closing this proposal, but I hope he will take part in the discussion.

It is well known to me that a number of editors, coming from WP:PALESTINE, will reject any proposal for a rename of this article. These editors have a tendency to show up as a group and by their numbers have managed to sway many discussion according to their POV. I may also have a POV, but this proposal is free of it. As proof I can show that at one time I was in favor of merging "Ancient synagogues in Israel" into this article.[9]. I therefore feel the need to bring to mind the excellent, if a bit short, Wikipedia essay: "Consensus is weighted voting".

In short, the arguments against the present title are the conflicts with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE as well as with a number of academic sources, and the issue is easily and perfectly resolved by accepting the present proposal: Ancient synagogues in the Palestine region. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per all the arguments above as nominator. I also apologize that the proposal came out this long. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per arguments above.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Has anybody thought about "Synagogues in ancient Palestine" yet?--TMCk (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
That, assuming wrongly, that the thoroughly RS-source based default English term Synagogues in Palestine, is not acceptable, is the proper alternative. It leaves none of the ambiguities religious or political people worry needlessly about, and is descriptively accurate, as the absurdly vague 'Palestine (region) is not. I would suggest you open up an RfC alternative suggestion for this.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but see especially the "The claim was made" section above, why that would be less accurate than the present proposal. Also note that we don't have an Ancient Palestine article, but we do have a Palestine (region) article. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I see only "ancient Palistinian" discussed which is not the same as "ancient Palestine" (which also appears in sources).--TMCk (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy close: As there is currently a discussion about whether or not to merge this article with Ancient synagogues in Israel still taking place this is clearly an attempt to effect the decision being made there. Only once the merge discussion is completed should we consider renaming this article (if it isn't merged). Ebonelm (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
That discussion has basically come to a conclusion already. The consensus there is not to merge. There is no need to formally close such discussions, and the merge template is only a formality. There is therefore no basis in the existence of that discussion to close this proposal. Neither this proposal, nor any of those made before it, were made to affect that discussion, nor did anybody see them as such. Also note that this is a formal requested move, while the merge discussion is informal, and if anything, your argument should lead to the conclusion to close the merge discussion (which, as I said, has already come to a conclusion). Debresser (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There have been 16 edits made to that merge discussion today (the 15th) so I'd hardly call that coming to the end. Also given that an attempt to move this page to an almost identical title was closed yesterday this coming close to constituting disruptive editing. Ebonelm (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Please check again. There were 2 edits there on the 15th, and the other edits were to another section. Your claim of disruptive editing is countered simply enough by reading the previous closure: "So this decision is made without prejudice, i.e., if anyone would like to begin a new RM proposal of a title suggested herein, such a proposal would be within the guideline, WP:RMCI, and is fine by me." and see also that very same proposal on Ancient synagogues in Israel you are referring to where to closing editor himself says "another RM can be opened immediately per WP:RMCI".[10] Please refrain from claiming disruption or making false claims. It so detracts from the discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - Debresser, please do not wholly misrepresent what I've written, it is incredibly annoying. I did not say use the name of the place at the time, I said use what sources use for the name during that time. And for antiquity through at least the British mandate that name is Palestine. Since you insist on performing this incredibly tedious exercise apparently every week, oppose as unnecessary and awkwardly worded. The current name is clear concise and not in any way ambiguous. Ancient can't refer to a modern state if Palestine, and Palestine on its own doesn't default to a modern stayed either. All of your arguments have been debunked repeatedly yet you persist in repeating them. It's getting old. And one more time, please do not misrepresent what I've written. nableezy - 23:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(#1) I think I understood you correctly and explained you correctly. In any case, my main arguments are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE, and they have never been debunked (nor can they be!), since they weren't even mentioned in any of the previous proposals! You apparently haven't even noticed the differences between my previous proposal and this one. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
And I'm telling you that you didn't, so who do you think knows better the meaning of my comments you or me? Common name you say? This is a descriptive title there is no common name. Precision you say? This is precise. There is no other possible target for ancient synagogues in Palestine. Any other meaning of Palestine would be anachronistic. I have noticed the difference, but I also note that much like the last move you make claims that are flatly untrue with the expectation that nobody notices or calls them out. And even then, you still haven't realized how poor a title this is. It's barely passable English! nableezy - 23:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I do. This is the point of view called non-originalism, embraced in some schools of Judicial review.[11] Your claim that I make "flatly untrue" statements is flatly untrue. :) The proposed title wasn't made up by me, rather by somebody who according to his Wikipedia userpage is an American writer, so take it up with them, and stop the BS "barely passable English"! Your allusions to the fact that I am not a native English speaker are, and I quote you, "getting old". By the way, your talkpage shows the Egyptian flag with the text "You have my love and my heart" from the Egyptian national anthem, so maybe you're not an native speaker of English yourself? But who cares?! Not me. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
yeah okay, you know what's in my own head better than me. In that case I should apologize to you for the thoughts I'm having now. NPA and all. But you have made flatly untrue claims. Among them that I said use the name of the place at the time (despite your claims to understand what I've written that is in fact flatly untrue). Also that Palestine is not used by sources since 1948 to refer to the area under discussion in the time range under discussion. And now it's that there is a high degree of unhappiness with this title and that it's those disruptive people from WP:PALESTINE coming as a group that is causing this disruption. Your self-awareness skills are almost jedi like, I'm almost in awe. nableezy - 00:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
To please it is we strive. Support you must. :) Debresser (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This is necessary to differentiate between the state of Palestine and the Palestine region. The project pages as cited by the nom support this page rename, and it is hoped that there will be no incivility in this debate as in past debates on this subject. Rather than opposers and supporters biting each other, it would be far more helpful if opposers would cite a policy or a guideline to support their opposition. Thank you all for listening.  What's in your palette? Paine  03:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is it necessary? Does it say "State of Palestine" in the title? Could Ancient X in Palestine possibly refer to a state declared in 1988? The problem I have with this is that it is an awkward title that isnt needed. Palestine in this context can only refer to the region. Any other use is anachronistic, and as this is the only possible target it needs no further disambiguation. WP:PRECISE has a fairly good example of this with Mother Teresa. We dont use Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta as the title because it is unnecessarily overly precise. Same with this. Anyway, if one wanted to actually include region in the title, the less awkward phrasing would be Ancient synagogues in the region of Palestine. Ive read a fair amount of material on this place, and I have rarely, if ever, seen the formulation the Palestine region. It reads to me as something that was translated in English to another language and then back to English. Finally, a technical point on English from our resident pedant User:Nishidani (I say that with love):

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.

These are the reasons I oppose this move. That said, I wouldnt be opposed to Synagogues in ancient Palestine, that might even be an improvement over the current title and would allow for an expansion of the content to cover more than just the buildings themselves but their role in society as well. nableezy - 06:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It intrigues me when someone asks me a question I've already answered. If you reason that X of Y is "less awkward" than Y X, then with all due respect I would have to call that faulty reasoning, because X of Y means exactly the same thing as Y X in this case. And with the preposition "of", you use three words when you could use just two words. I suppose a title like Ancient synagogues with a qualifier like Ancient synagogues (Palestine region) would be acceptable to me; however, the proposed title is also supportable. There is no reason why the title Ancient synagogues in the Palestine region would not "allow for an expansion of the content to cover more than just the buildings themselves but their role in society as well" just as easily as the title you suggest. So please explain the difference, as it sounds merely argumentative to me – as if you're trying to cloud the issue. But then, why would you do that? What I would really like to see is an opposer who would cite a policy or guideline that would challenge the necessity and usefulness of the proposed new title, rather than opposers who seem to only express their valued opinions. Remember that the closer of this debate will look for opinions that are backed by a policy or guideline and give those more weight than opinions that are unsupported/unsupportable.  What's in your palette? Paine  08:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I gave that policy or guideline. WP:PRECISE says not to be unnecessarily overly precise. That precision is a matter of making it so that there is one target topic for an article title. And that the title that we currently have already achieves that. And finally, as discussed above, places arent "in Palestine" as a modern state. The State of Palestine is not a country, it doesnt have territory for something to be "in". So saying "in Palestine" on its own, as the sources of this article invariably do, refers to the region. And to be clear, I oppose the region of Palestine and the Palestine region as being unnecessarily precise. You harp on my saying one is less awkwardly worded than the other as though thats the basis of my oppose, and it emphatically is not. The reason I oppose the move is that it is both awkwardly worded and wholly unnecessary as ancient combined with Palestine can only mean the region commonly known as Palestine. Thats the issue here, one that you dont address at all. You also completely ignored the quote from Nishidani that"region" always carries an implication of geographical indefiniteness. You said youve already answered my question, but I dont see it anywhere. The questions I actually asked of you were Why is it necessary? Does it say "State of Palestine" in the title? Could Ancient X in Palestine possibly refer to a state declared in 1988? If I missed your answers to those questions please enlighten me, as I have yet to see anybody come close to answering them. So if youre going to start your comment with I already answered the questions asked it be nice if you actually answered the questions asked. nableezy - 10:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The need for the proposed change, the imperative need, I'd say, I have explained above. In short: 1. a title should correctly reflect content, which at present it doesn't (WP:PRECISE) 2. the present title is most likely to be understood by readers of this encyclopedia as referring to the state (WP:COMMONNAME) 3. the present title does not reflect the wide range of terms used in academic sources.
I really dislike to add my commentary to every part of the discussion, and I always disliked it when other editors did so, but in view of the low level of the "arguments" brought against this and other proposals, which I can only explain with POV explanations, I am just not willing to let all kinds of wild, ill-conceived, empty or false claims sway this discussion. I have worked too serious on preparing this proposal, and the voices calling out for a change to this title have been too many and too strong, to let that happen. Debresser (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You cant seriously be arguing COMMONNAME requires this title and in the same sentence saying the wide range of terms used in academic sources. And how do those academic sources show that "the Palestine region" is a common name for the subject of the article? Too many and too strong lol. Its you and a couple others. That is neither many nor strong. nableezy - 12:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I can and I do. Since there is a wide range of names, admittedly most of them with a variation of the word "Palestine" in it, we should not use any one specific term, but a description. The best description would be "in the Palestine region", as per this proposal. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
ummm, have you read COMMONNAME? You're making conflicting arguments here, on one hand saying X is required as per COMMONNAME and then in the same breath saying there is no common name. You see what that's nonsensical right? nableezy - 17:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you used the same PRECISE page that has already been used to support this rename. Also, the example you gave when you cited PRECISE, "Mother Teresa" is akin to merely "Ancient synagogues", and so is a poor example since the latter must be qualified in some way, and the former does not need any qualifier. Hopefully then you see how the "Mother Teresa" page title is not representative of what is needed here. What is needed here is for more people to support this page move and fewer people writing comments that are TL;DR, with all due respect to the editor who wrote the book-length comment below.  What's in your palette? Paine  15:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
no, not at all. Ancient synagogues would be analogous to an article on nuns, this being more specific it is analogous to Mother Teresa. The point of that was to say you shouldn't be unnecessarily overly precise. And I'll note you once again did not answer a single one of my questions. As far as the tldr comment, try actually reading it. We are after all writing an encyclopedia, being unwilling to spend the 5 minutes it would take to read those comments shouldn't be too much of a burden. nableezy - 16:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, but it is quite the burden to read a long, drawn out treatise that only serves to cloud the issue. You seem to agree that there is no need for any qualification of "Palestine" – there is no need to show our readers that the title of this article (the very first thing our readers see, and when indexed, the ONLY thing readers see) holds a word, "Palestine", that could describe the "state" or it could describe the "region". That is indeed the issue here. At first glance at the present title, readers have no way of knowing whether it's the region of Palestine or the state of Palestine. This proposed title may not be the best possible title, but it is a step in that direction from an ambiguous title to a more well-defined and precise title. To ignore this need is to be willing to confuse readers, Wikipedia readers who are not experts as some editors in this discussion are.  What's in your palette? Paine  08:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The comment you insist on not reading does not "cloud the issue", and if you find it to be a burden then I cant help you. But, once again, you never answered any of my questions. Or even responded to my counterpoint to your previous comment. "It intrigues" people discuss things with somebody while completely ignoring what their interlocutor has written. And yes, at first glance, readers do have a way of knowing. The State of Palestine is a political construct, it is not a place. Things are not "in" it. Was this short enough of a comment that you will read it, and one might hope, actually respond to whats written and not ignore it to repeat assertions that Ive already told you I dont agree with? I dont agree the title is "more precise", I dont agree that the current one is ambiguous, so continuing to assert that as though it were undisputed fact is something that "intrigues me". nableezy - 18:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I must've missed something when I just looked again at what you previously wrote in response to my posts, because the only question I see is the one I specifically told you I'd already answered. Everything else appears to just be assertions on your part, mostly from sources, and again I must reiterate that the guidelines take precedence over sources no matter how many nor how scholarly they may happen to be. I concede that you are an expert on the subject of Palestine, and you may even be at least as expert as I am on Wikipedia; however in this debate you seem to be letting some things cloud your good judgement. In the previous debate it was mainly your statement about the "(region)" qualifier applying to only part of the proposed title that swayed me to close the debate as no consensus. And yet so far in this debate you have said nothing new, while the nom and supporters still try to improve this article. While very important, sources still do not trump guidelines on Wikipedia. If you can show another guideline that might trump PRECISION and COMMONNAME, that is how you might sway the next closer. Again, forgive me if I've overlooked your questions. I just haven't recognized any other than the one I aready mentioned. Feel free to ask them now, and I shall do my best to answer them.  What's in your palette? Paine  22:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Questions are generally things that end in a question mark. Like does it say "State of Palestine" in the title? And I kind of think Im fairly expert in Wikipedia, and I find the line you may even be at least as expert as I am on Wikipedia fairly condescending. As is while the nom and supporters still try to improve this article (the implication being those who oppose the move are not trying to improve the article. Ive already said I disagree with your view on WP:PRECISE, that it says do not be overly precise and that is the attempt here. Ive already countered COMMONNAME, which honestly is one of the more foolish guidelines to cite. When somebody says all these sources use all sorts of names and in the same breath says COMMONNAME supports a specific title it makes me question my sanity. Because how exactly can there be a wide range of names used but one of them is the commonly used name? No matter. My position on this issue has been made as clear as I can make it, and I see nothing in the guidelines cited that actually support moving this page. The proposed title is both unnecessary and poorly phrased, for reasons laid out before and in comments that you see fit to ignore because spending 2 minutes reading them would be too burdensome. nableezy - 23:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that what is needed here is to realize that, while there may be a "perfect" title for this page, or even a title that is "more perfect" than the one suggested by the nom, that suggested title is "more perfect" or better and more precise than the present title of this page. If this must be done in small steps to eventually reach a "perfect title", then please let's garner consensus for this better title as suggested by the nom.  What's in your palette? Paine  15:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

please let's garner consensus for this better title as suggested by the nom.

That is ambiguous and reads as if you are counseling us, all, to get up a consensus for Debresser's proposal, which, I'll synthesize my WP:TLDR post, is based on Debresser's lack of knowledge of English usage, of secular scholarship on the subject of Synagogues in Palestine, and political distaste based on his misprision of that term as scholars use it. One of the problems here is editors' fundamental insouciance to relevant sources. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It looks as though you did not find the sentence you quoted to be ambiguous after all, since you perceived the correct ambition of it. So let me just ask, if a hundred scholarly sources do not agree with a Wikipedia guideline, which should be followed? the sources or the guideline? If I'm not mistaken, it's the guideline that should be followed. If you think the guideline needs to be changed, then that is to be discussed on the talk page of the guideline. Both the sources and the guideline are exceedingly important; however, the guideline takes precedence over the sources, no matter how many nor how scholarly.  What's in your palette? Paine  08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
except I don't agree that is a better title. I think it is demonstrably worse as being mangled English and introduced with the sole intention to deny the fact that the sources routinely call the place under discussion here Palestine, full stop. nableezy - 16:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course, you're entitled to disagree, Nableezy. I also disagree – I disagree with your "sole intent" assertion. In the Encyclopedia Wikipedia, Palestine refers to no less than fifty different things, places, people, even a racehorse. How can the word "Palestine" be considered precise and non-ambiguous as used in this page title?  What's in your palette? Paine  10:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The suggestion makes a clearly defined reality vague, for in English usage, Palestinian (region) suggests either that Palestine is a subset of some larger geographical or political entity (as it often was under the Assyrians/Persians/Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and Arab Califates) or that Palestine extends into the broader Southern Levant, including Lebanon, Syria and the Transjordan. In one implication, Palestine as a region becomes a subset, in the other, peripheral areas are subordinated to it, as subsets. Ridiculous, and contradictory.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I need more help to see the meat of your argument, Nishidani, since Palestine (region) is presently more well-defined than the many usages of "Palestine" at the disambiguation page. Are you looking to modify or delete the article on the Palestine region as ridiculous and contradictory?  What's in your palette? Paine  10:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
All you have to do is parse closely what I have argued extensively, with documentation above. If you have a specific query, by all means drop it in here. I have lunch, and some professional work to be crammed into the 2 hours before the Belgium-Ireland Uefa cup match, at 3 pm, which will destroy my interest in the larger world for 2 hours. But briefly, I couldn't give a fuck for the always provisory state of wiki pages, articles or disambiguations, which always need adjustment and provide no guidance. The only wiki pages I regard as relevant are policy pages. If I work an article, I read it and examine the sources, and inform myself of what the scholarly literature tells me is required to write up the subject encyclopedically. Nothing else interests me, except as a student of the pathologies of nationalism, ideology and the inflections on rational discourse of the fallout from traditional metaphysical/religious speculations which is everywhere evidenced mostly on talk page defenses and offenses, and which should be sternly put into ascriptive form rather than being passed off as factual. One does this most efficiently by paying acute care to the niceties and distinctions of our mother tongue, which in this case tells us that, for the moment, 'Ancient Synagogues in Palestine' is the simplest neutral descriptor for the contents of the article. Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, well, that certainly clears it up. Enjoy the sport!  What's in your palette? Paine  15:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Comment

If this is an RfC it is malformed in favour of one view, misrepresents the evidence, and is crafted to produce the verdict the proposer wants.

There were three proposals within a month to get rid of the idea that Palestine pur et simple is the default term in scholarship on this area of the world. In rapid succession, these failed to get consensus. Each of these variants has been opened up immediately after the failure of the earlier discussions

  • Ancient synagogues in Palestine → Ancient synagogues in the State of Palestine, Not moved, 3 May 2016, discussion (No consensus)
  • RM, Ancient synagogues in Palestine → Ancient synagogues in Palestine (region)?, No consensus, 5 May 2005, discussion (no consensus)
  • RM, Ancient synagogues in Palestine → Ancient Palestinian synagogues, Not moved, 1 June 2016, discussion (no consensus)

Now a fourth proposal has been made, again by Debresser.

  • Ancient synagogues in Palestine be renamed and moved to Ancient synagogues in the Palestine region.

The voting so far indicates it is now reduced to a numbers game. All on board to get the right POV established here in the face of historical usage in English, which per WP:Commonname should be the sole criterion for determining the proper NPOV wording.

The ‘high degree of unhappiness’ Debresser refers to does not mean, as he claims, that there was a ‘is a high degree of unhappiness with the present title.’ To the contrary, it means, reread the comments, that at least half the contributing editors are happy with the long-stable ‘Palestine’ title , and the other half are unhappy. This fourth attempt is only an expression of an inability to accept that there is no consensus, not of an ‘unhappiness with the present title,’

The repeated refusal to accept a no-consensus verdict is felt uniquely by editors who have a high degree of commitment to establishing the usage sanctioned in Israeli textbooks. For Israelis and a part of the Jewish community but not in the scholarly community of either Israel or the diaspora, the term Palestine has acquired negative associations; the fact that in Arabic the same term is used meant it was ‘stigmnatised’ and they do not want anything rooted in their history associated with it. In the second generation there were some concessions, which were then swept away in the third generation. Arabs in the ‘Land of Israel ’ (a religious term for Palestine) were described as 'Arabs of Eretz Israel' (a rare Biblical term that obtained currency through its adoption in rabbincal texts), implying their subordinate relationship and essentially extraneous presence in a ‘Jewish’ region, despite the fact that Israel/Palestine has never, in 4,000 years been an exclusively Jewish country. (Eli Podeh, The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Israeli History Textbooks, 1948-2000, IAP 2002 pp.92-93) people raised on this just can't accept in the English speaking world that 'eretz israel' is simply called 'Palestine'. They take it as giving historical legitimacy to Palestinians. All I see here is distaste, unease, with the term ‘Palestine’, which, against all evidence, is taken by some editors as bearing a purely modern political connotation associated with Palestinian national aspirations. If you like this is a clash between editors raised in a specific national or religious educational system, and editors who just read the standard English scholarly works on the topic.

Debresser, as is his custom much to one’s repeated sense of grief, has totally misread one major objection. He writes:

The claim was made by User:Nableezy[3], that we should "use the terminology that sources use for a given time period". That argument would mean that the present title is inadequate for sure, because during the Hellenistic time the area was called "Coele-Syria", under the Romans "Syria Palaestina", and under the Byzantines "Palaestina Prima", to mention just a few of the more well known.

Good grief, Debresser. For the nth time: Nableezy, Zero, myself and most wiki editors distinguish primary sources and secondary sources. You think our argument in favour of modern secondary sources is an advocacy for using the primary source language they cite. No one has ever argued such an absurd proposition, and your misapprehension here constitutes a strawman argument.

Both myself, User:Zero0000 (here) and Nableezy have consistently argued over all pages regarding this argument that the only valid criterion for determining names is to follow the majority indications nin ‘’reliable sources’’ meaning not, as Debresser takes it, primary sources in Greek, Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic, but modern scholarly works written by qualified specialists under academic or notable publishing houses’ imprint.

When he replied to these comments, Debresser made his habitual mistake, repeated above. He is simply wholly unfamiliar with the scholarship, as opposed to the Jewish religious primary and secondar texts, on the history of this region. This indeed is the cause of most of our disputes: he cannot see what constitutes academically peer-reviewed scholarly evidence, and this leads him to the most extraordinary claims. He replied:

’in any reliable source, including academic sources, "Palestine" refers to the political entity, not the region.’

This is patently, incontrovertibly untrue. I refuse to believe Debresser is lying through his teeth. He is only providing evidence that he’s unfamiliar with scholarship, and that he personally cannot think of the word 'Palestine' in any other than the psolitical sense. Proof of this has already been provided.

No amount of remonstration (see also here) or correction by editors familiar with scholarly usage, to the effect that the evidence goes overwhelming the other way,- ‘synagogues in Palestine’ with no qualification, is listened to. He insists on making this elementary confusion between modern religious books, political usage and scholarship.

Above Debresser tries to counter the evidence of 13,900 gits at google books by providing some counter evidence

The claim was also made that academic sources use the term "Palestine". I counter this by bringing some chosen examples of other terms used by academic sources of high repute

Let’s look at it:

is a Finnish Conference entitled “Conference program: The Synagogue in Ancient Palestine . I.,e. there is no ‘region’. All the scholars know that Palestine here refers to a specific place, and needs no qualification. Mordechai Aviam of kinneret College doesn’t write ‘region of Israel’ in his lecture. He just replaces the term ‘Palestine’, following Israeli preferred usage (Supporting a regional typology of the ancient synagogues in Israel,). He is the only one to use this substitution. It only proves this is Israeli usage, which confuses native English speakers, who would imagine that he is discussing 'ancient synagogues in the territory of the modern state of Israel' and not those broadly all over historic Palestine.
the use of the phrase has no bearing whatsoever on this issue. We know ‘synagogues in Palestine’ is standard for synagogues. That there is a broader taxonomy (Synagogues in the Levant/Synagogues in the Near East’ etc.etc.) is immaterial to the question raised, or the evidence asked for. By the way, the synagogue at Dura-Europos, as you apparently think it is, is not in the Levant, for example, but in eastern Syria.
Yes, the text refers to synagogues existing on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean from Northern Syria, through Lebanon, down to southern Judea, but our article concerns the specific zone of Palestine, not beyond, and in any case this source frequently uses the word ‘Palestinian’ as in ‘Palestinian Jewry’ ‘Palestinian jewish community’ (pp.10,28) without evoking the spectre of jihad militants from fatah existing in antiquity.
At last, your first and only example of the use of the phrase ‘synagogues in the Palestinian region’. If you actually read the text, it uses ‘Palestinian region’ because it must make a contrast with the region of Egypt.
It uses the ancient Roman classification of Palestine into Prima et secunda, and situates synagogues according to which of those two zones they were found with. So? This only indicates that we are talking of 'ancient synagogues in Palestine'.
It cites DS.Chen’s article ‘On Planning Synagogies and Churches in Palaestrina’ p.3512 n.4 and concludes ‘a manual on the design of sacral buildings, Christian and Jewish, freely circulated in Palaestrina.’ P.356. This ‘evidence’ confirms what Nableezy and others are saying, not what you claim. The fact that one can speak of synagogues in Judea or the Galilee, or elsewhere in any other region of Palestine, does not, as the authors’ own text shows, invalidate the established scholarly convention of referring to all ancient synagogues in that area simple as ‘Synagogues in Palestine’.
  • (7) Chen, On Planning Synagogues and Churches in Palaestina: A Comparison with Syria and Illyricum, in G.C. Bottini et al. (eds.), Christian Archaeology in the Holy Land, Jerusalem 1990
You have no link, and haven’t apparently read the article. You should not cite articles you haven't read, or which cannot be verified. Chen in any case (see 7 above) customarily refers to ‘synagogues in Palaestina’, which is normative scholarly usage and contradicts your affirmation.
I.e. Debresser, if that is your ‘evidence’ you haven’t the foggiest idea of the criteria normatively required in academic work to establish relevant evidence, a criterion we also adopt per WP:RS on the best sources to access in our writing of history. What you have done is produce 1 item of evidence for the usage 'synagogues in the Palestinian region' to confute 13,900 git evidence that 'Synagogues in Palestine' is normal scholarly usage.
  • Adding ‘region’ is a recipe for confusion, as I noted, since in English, and there is no getting round this obstacle ‘region’ is indefinite being either (a) expansive or (b) restrictive. (a) implies southern Lebanon, the Transjordan, and half of Syria (the ancient term Syro-Palestine is the default term in scholarship when you wish to indicate an area inclusive of but also extending beyond the traditional, geographically determined frontiers of ‘Palestine’ proper (here, here, where the allusion is to John Hyrcanus's conquests beyond Palestine; ). This obvious objection was ignored, though confirmed as correct by native speakers of English. (b) In scholarship, you add ‘region’ to Palestine to a specific ‘part of Palestine’ (Judea, Samaria, Galilee) here, here, here etc. it is rather rare, to boot.Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is a better term than the one currently in use. What I would think is the best term is AS in the Land of Israel, we can then merge this one and the Israel article one. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Could editors please refrain from an automatic vote based on feelings or personal opinions. Wikipedia has very precise technical criteria for determining usage, and unless one can argue in terms of these, and evidence, just stating one's preference has no weight. This is particularly so when editors, as this endless RfC recycling continues, invariably adopt any modification proposed.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
And that is why I think Ancient Synagogues in the Land of Israel would be the best choice. There is no ambiguity in there and the lead can say "synagogues in the current Israel or Palestinian Region" or something that clarifies. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Just to be sure, you do support the present proposal as an improvement to what we had so far? Debresser (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Reread the above link to Eli Podeh's book, and my comments, which reflect far more sources than that. Englilsh usage is clear here, and Eretz Israel is an Israeli or Jewish religious/political term that had no clear traditional boundaries. In the Bavli, though I'd be surprised if that's registered on our wiki page, some sages redefined The Land of Israel as sited in Babylonia. It's the constant manipulation of selective traditions, and the constant recrafting of a complex history into one political spin of it in Zionist ideology - with all of its disgruntlement with 2000 years of Jewish history - that I find objectionable in all of these articles. In any case, such sectarian or political terminology is unacceptable for wiki's neutral voice.Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Nishidani's long post above is based on the incorrect premise, that I would have a problem with the claim that "'Palestine' ... is the default term in scholarship on this area of the world". That is not my point at all. My point is, and I am sorry to have to repeat this ad nauseam, that the title fails WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME, and, indeed, is not the only term used in academic literature to refer to this area in the times relevant to this article.
The false claim that there is something wrong with the English of the proposal has been rebutted above, is becoming really annoying, and especially coupled with subtle references to the fact that I do not live in an English-speaking country looks more like a cheap attempt to try to discredit this proposal and/or me as the nominator than anything else, and I think that if this discussion were held under the guidance of an uninvolved admin, they would already have handed out warnings to stop this per "comment on content, not on editor", not to mention that the claim is simply false. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The incorrect premise is assuming that by saying 'Palestine (region) you are being precise. I informed you that in native English usage - no native speaker has contradicted me - that is not precise.(b)WP:COMMONNAME says we determine such things by RS.

Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above

So one does a GIT analysis in Google Books
(A) "Synagogues in Palestine" = 13,900 GITS
(B) "Synagogues in the region of Palestine" =No results
Without quotes
(A) Synagogues in Palestine = 202,000 results
(B) Synagogues in the region of Palestine = 18,400 results.
This is empirical evidence, not a subjective feeling. It shows that those who write, study, and inform a specialist and public audience about this topic overwhelmingly ignore the nitpicking of those who get upset by the word Palestine, and cannot think of it except as a statelet existing for the last few decades.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You are making another incorrect claim again, this time that I assume "that by saying 'Palestine (region)' you are being precise". That was the previous proposal, about "Palestine (region)". This proposal reads "in the region of Palestine"! And yes, I think that is the the most accurate description possible in English, being both precise, but not overly so (like e.g. "commonly know as" would have been, the way our lead is presently written). Debresser (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You have not responded to the GIT evidence outlined above, which answers in nthe negative precisely your contention. Explain why that massive weight of sources against your proposal is not material to this decision.Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
English lessons, again, and again, and again, simply because you refuse to read, and worse still, refuse to exercise some curiosity as to the semantic outcomes of your various proposals as easily discernible by simple searches which then become an onus placed on other editors.
You are repeating your nonsense and ignoring English usage. I have already shown that 'in the region of Palestine' is unacceptably vague. You can assert the contrary all you like, but you are neither a native speaker, nor interested in the source evidence mustered which contradicts you. I even did a search for Palestine region which got 1,080 results, small change, and the term is again, devastatingly ambiguous, modern, used predominantly to refer to the Palestinian territories in political discourse post 1967
King Hussein’s plan for a federation of the Hashemite Kingdom with the West bank and Gaza in 1972 spoke of Palestine region which will consist of the West Bank and any other Palestinian territories. So too see the proposed Road Map mentions water resources in the Palestine region. It was used a few times as an English calque on the Arabic term al-diyar al-filistiniyya, which is what the Mufti claimed authority over, or by a few books on the Balfour proposal for a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region, where it refers not to Palestine but Palestine and the Transjordan together. In scholarly works on the Ottoman period you get a rare reference or two to Palestine region, but you’ll be mislead unless you recall that Palestine in Turkish maps often referred to the Mutasariflik or administrative district strictly around Jerusalem , the Kudüs-i Șerif, etc.etc. In other words,
Do you realize Debresser that this is interrupting more important world events, like watching Poland take on Germany in the Uefa cup which has just started? This place is not a pilpul pit for the idle. Do some homework for once, or spend some time looking at the finer points of English Sprachgefühl. Not to do so is to risk looking like a Sprachgefooled.Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You know what I and several others consider RS: what the most informed experts in the field determine to be the default usage, and as demonstrated, that is 'Palestine' = the general term used for all the pre-history and history from Paleolithic times down to 1948, and still employed after 1948 in scholarship describing the past. All the ostensible RS you adduce to challenge this have been shown to be inaccurate or to demonstrate the opposite of what you take their 'evidence' to mean. I don't use cheap arguments: the only way to desubjectivize the endless opinionizing here is to subject all dispute to the authority of rigorous sourcing and. no less importantly, to shape proposed titles in correct English, to avoid the risk of frightening the bones of Dr. Johnson. Nishidani (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Your definition of RS is of your own invention. Nowhere in Wikipedia guidelines does it say "the most informed experts in the field".
I have shown academic sources of repute to use a variety of terms. By the way,and I repeat, not to show a preferred term, just to make the point that a variety of terms is used. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
In controversial topics, you check the experts. Everyone knows that. Opinions are tuppence a ton, and no editor is reliable unless he respects evidence. Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Nishidani, specially for you , from WP:TITLE.

Editors should also consider the criteria outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered;

These lines from Wikipedia:Article titles are precisely the reason for this proposal, and say that even a name frequently used in reliable sources makes way for WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONNAME considerations.
On a deeper level, the essential point of this part of the guideline is that Wikipedia is more than an agglomerate of its sources; it strives to be an encyclopedia. But let's not get all philosophical about this. It's all there, black on white. Plain and simple (if not pur et simple). :)
I call on you to set aside your POV-inspired editing for once, and yield to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and say "Yes, Dovid, you're right, and I support your proposal." I mean, we have reached compromises before. I remember yielding to your arguments, when they were based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
'I call on you to set aside your POV-inspired editing for once.'I won't give a diff history of our editing, in which I worked hard to find compromises with you, and found several. As late as the other day, I changed my 'vote' on Jewish nose, where I originally disagreed with you, after substantive arguments from several editors showed me their view, and yours, was probably better. Everyone has a POV, you are no exception, but the difference is, some, like I believe myself, never let it get in the way of 'evidence' and refuse to wikilawyer their way around the imposing indications set forth by competent experts in the field. Here you have zero evidence, and a lot of policy hair-splitting. That we are now into the fourth discussion and it is clear there is no consensus, all I see is proof that some editors refuse to accept the only result - no consensus, and will persist until the cows come home in trying to find a way, not to get a consensus, but to get their inner certainties, ungrammatical as they may be, recognized. In the past, in arbitration or in articles, if one consensus or non -consensus emerges, I have automatically stopped pushing for my view. I accept what the community resolves, or the status quo of non-resolution, as an indication that drum-banging or harping is pointless. And here, I am unremovable, as elsewhere, on correct unambiguous English usage, something you do not care for, unfortunately.Nishidani (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although this title would be better than some that have been proposed, the existing title matches the usage of modern scholars by a very large margin. Zerotalk 22:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Which, as you can see in my post right above yours, is not the sole point of consideration according to Wikipedia guidelines, and others outweigh it in this case, "by a very large margin", to use your words. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The existing title is unambiguous, accurate and neutral, as well as used more frequently by reliable sources. And the frequency increases as the source quality increases. So you failed to make your point. Zerotalk 04:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
It most certainly is ambiguous – although perhaps not to an expert. So if you were to be browsing an index of titles, and you came across this title, "Ancient synagogues in Palestine", you would immediately know that the thus far unseen article is about Palestine the region? If you are an expert, then perhaps; however, if you are a general reader who is looking to educate him- or herself, then how would you know whether the article was about ancient synagogues in the region of Palestine or in the state of Palestine? How would you discern it?  What's in your palette? Paine  09:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
if you are a general reader, you are expected to get at least as far as the first sentence in the article, which makes it clear beyond any ambiguity. 'In the region commonly referred to as Palestine' is without a shade of ambiguity whereas 'Palestine (region)', 'Palestinian region', 'Palestine region' and 'in the Palestine region' are, in English, imprecise, vague and simply avoided by those who write on the subject, since they all suggest, by the order of the words, that Palestine is larger than than 'the region commonly referred to as Palestine'. This has been demonstrated several times with GIT evidence.

in the region commonly referred to as Palestine, built by the Jewish community from antiquity to the early Middle Ages

If 'ambiguity' is what concerns you, please address the point made above, i.e., that the proposed title 'Ancient synagogues in the Palestine region' is highly ambiguous, apart from having almost no evidence to support that usage.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
if you are a general reader, you are expected to get at least as far as the first sentence in the article,
Unless the general reader is scanning an index of article titles, in which case there is no first sentence to explain that "Palestine" refers to the region.
which makes it clear beyond any ambiguity.
Thank you for conceding that the first sentence is needed to make the title clear. Yet if a reader is just looking at the title in an index of titles, then that first sentence is not there to dispel their confusion.
'Palestine (region)', 'Palestinian region', 'Palestine region' and 'in the Palestine region' are, in English, imprecise, vague
As imprecise and vague as those phrases may be, they are more clear than just the word "Palestine" alone.
and simply avoided by those who write on the subject, since they all suggest, by the order of the words, that Palestine is larger than than 'the region commonly referred to as Palestine'. This has been demonstrated several times with GIT evidence.
Wikipedia guidelines trump the sources no matter how many, no matter how scholarly. And the fact that Palestine is larger than 'the region commonly referred to as Palestine' clearly shows that you agree that the larger entity requires more precision in the title.
If 'ambiguity' is what concerns you, please address the point made above, i.e., that the proposed title 'Ancient synagogues in the Palestine region' is highly ambiguous, apart from having almost no evidence to support that usage.
As you have noted yourself above that "Palestine" is more than just the "region of Palestine", and while the point you make might very well be correct, if the proposed title is still ambiguous, then it is at least less so than the present title. You seem to agree with this, and if that is true, then please register your support for this title so we can make it more clear and precise for now. You can always garner support for an even better, even less ambiguous page title in the future.  What's in your palette? Paine  22:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for conceding that the first sentence is needed to make the title clear No, nobody conceded that. That was done to satisfy an objection, not because I thought it necessary (I made that edit). I dont see anywhere where Nishidani agreed that the current title is ambiguous, and it would be nice of you, or less uncivil rather, not to put words in somebody's mouth. Nishidani expressed his view that adding "region" makes it imprecise, because the term 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. So, in his view, and mine for that matter, adding "region" to this title makes it less precise, not more. nableezy - 23:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
No, nobody conceded that. That was done to satisfy an objection, not because I thought it necessary (I made that edit). I dont see anywhere where Nishidani agreed that the current title is ambiguous,
Perhaps "concede" was a bit imprecise; however, Nishidani did say that Pakistan is "more" than the region of Palestine. To me that implies that the more general and ambiguous "Palestine" requires more explanation than the less general, less ambiguous "region of Palestine".
and it would be nice of you, or less uncivil rather, not to put words in somebody's mouth.
Had no intention of doing so, and it would be so nice of you to stop violating WP:CIV yourself, as well as WP:AGF. I specifically used the {{gi}} quotation format so it would be clear that I was not putting words in Nishidani's mouth!
Please then explain to me precisely how including the natural qualifier "region", which then describes the more general and larger idea of "Palestine" using a more specific term, can possibly make things more imprecise? That is just the type of argument that, if I were to close this debate myself, I'd say to myself, 'How ironic that seems!' It's like saying that using "rubber" to describe "ball" would be a more imprecise phrase. You can do better than the vague "England/France/Turkey" argument, I just know you can. What's in your palette? Paine  23:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC).
Do you read the comments you respond to? Are you aware that when you say things like the supporters of the proposal are trying to improve the article that the implication is that those opposed are not trying to improve the article, and that can be taken as uncivil and a lack of AGF? And that the you can do better ... I just know you can comment can also come across as incredibly condescending? And that Im left here scratching my head as to why it is that you think you should condescend to me on this topic. I get you have a lot of edits on Wikipedia, and that you think of yourself as an expert on Wikipedia as a result. Lets just leave it at I am unimpressed with those edits and I also have quite a bit of experience here, as does Nishidani, as does Zero, hell as does Debresser. So kindly drop the condescension. The quote from Nishidani on region carrying an implication of geographical indefiniteness has been copied and pasted several times now, and if you think that saying [y]ou can do better than the vague "England/France/Turkey" argument answers that great. I however fail to see any counterpoint to it that I need to respond to. nableezy - 23:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Fighting fire with fire is too easy here on Wikipedia. It is obvious that when you are losing an argument you like to resort to asking questions like, "Do you read the comments you respond to?" and clouding issues with other personal information that has nothing to do with improving this article. So we are obviously not getting on too well here in this discussion, and I for one will take my leave of it before it escalates into even worse possible scenarios. Ta, and Best of Everything to You and Yours!  What's in your palette? Paine  00:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
lol, ok. I asked that question because you seemingly do not read the comments you respond to. The rest of my comment was caused by the curiousness of asking people to remain civil while being condescending, and asking people to AGF when saying only people that agree with you are trying to improve the article. Im fairly certain Im not losing this argument, if I was there might actually be a response to the points made and not a restating that X guideline applies without being able to back that up. Take care. nableezy - 00:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Nice to see you smile, Nableezy! Before I go, and now that we both share better dispositions, I wonder if you would be kind enough to clear up two things for me?
  • How is it that the phrase "rubber ball" is less precise than simply "ball", or aptly, how is "Palestine region" less precise than simply "Palestine"? There is no need to further explain that "Palestine region" is imprecise – that I understand. What I don't understand is how the concept of "Palestine" is more precise than that of "region of Palestine".
Okay, never mind that first question, as I just read above where you are of the opinion that "region of Palestine" and "Palestine region" are phrases that are actually "overly precise", so in one breath you say that to qualify "Palestine" with "region" is "overly precise", and in another breath you say it lacks precision. You also say that you don't consider the present title at all ambiguous. Yet if one links to and clicks on "Palestine", where does one land?
After all that, the second thing totally escapes me. If I think of it I'll bring it back up. Now, to be fair, I found your questions after going back through this maze of words, and I shall now answer them:
Why is it necessary?
Already answered and discussed – please see my response to your third question for elaboration.
Does it say "State of Palestine" in the title?
An obvious "no" to this one. Neither "state of Palestine" nor "Palestine region" are, as yet, in the present title. Again, please see my response to your third question for elaboration.
Could Ancient X in Palestine possibly refer to a state declared in 1988?
Yes, if one realizes that "Palestine" is not the ancient entity in the title. The ancient entity in the title is "X" – in this case, "synagogues". "Ancient ruins in England" shows that the "ruins" are ancient and speak to their whereabouts in modern "England". Remember this is not really about what you and I understand about Palestine, the state of Palestine or the Palestine region; this is about how an article title may be perceived by our readers, people with varying degrees of understanding and preconceptions. What helps them most is and should be our foremost concern, as I'm sure you'd agree.  What's in your palette? Paine  08:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
My view is this. That WP:PRECISE says not to be overly precise with our titles, and that making "the Palestine region" tries to do this. However, "the Palestine region" is ill-defined and as such does not make the title more precise. And to the point, of the 50 things liked to at Palestine, only two of those could fit this title, and shocker, State of Palestine is not one of them. The two that could possibly fit, as a physical place that ancient synagogues are "in", are Palestine (region) and Palestinian territories. And if Palestine is used without qualification then Palestinian territories would very obviously not be the target. Once more, the state of Palestine is not a country, it is not a physical place. It is a political construct that has laid claim to territory. Despite being declared prior to the Palestinian National Authority, it can make sense to think of it as the successor to it. Just like the state of Palestine, the PNA is not a country, it doesnt hold territory, things are not "in" it. So state of Palestine cannot be the target of an article that "X in Palestine", which makes the supposed need to disambiguate "Palestine" because somebody could think that means "state of Palestine" vanish. As far as what helps our readers, well I dont see how having an oddly worded title that doesnt serve any purpose besides to make it oddly worded helps our readers. nableezy - 18:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
This point was addressed above: "the Palestine region" is not overly precise. "the region commonly called Palestine" would have been overly precise. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and this: WP:CONCISE: The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area.

The official name of Rhode Island, used in various state publications, is State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Both titles are precise and unambiguous, but Rhode Island is the most concise title to fully identify the subject.

The most concise title to fully identify the identity of this subject is Ancient synagogues in Palestine. That or Synagogues in ancient Palestine. nableezy - 18:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And yet, Rhode Island does not compare with Palestine in that, as you say, Palestine is not a place that anything can be "in". Where we seem to separate is in the fact that what you and I know about Palestine is not at issue here. It does not matter that you and I know that the "state of Palestine" is not a place where we can go and bask in the ancient synagogues. Most political states are aligned with geographical areas, and our readers don't always know to make the distinction between Rhode Island-like states and Palestine-like states. While technically, then, "Palestine" needs no qualifier, for the sake of those readers who are still learning about all this, the qualifier needs to be there.  What's in your palette? Paine  03:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
For those readers, the very first sentence makes clear what Palestine is referring to. I dont think the title needs to cater to the lowest common denominator. And while there are a few sources that use the formulation "the Palestine region" to me that still looks very awkward. It just does not look right, Im not sure how else to explain that objection, but to somebody who reads about Palestine in any number of meaning of Palestine, I rarely see that formulation and it still looks weird to me when I do see it. nableezy - 07:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
There may come a time in the future when this title becomes ambiguous in practice, but that time hasn't yet come. I'd be amazed if more than, say, 5 percent of readers see this title and think "State of Palestine". I think that is true across many similar article titles. Against that, "in the Palestine region" is ambiguous now, as the most common meaning of the phrase "Palestine region" is not "the region known as Palestine" but "Palestine and surrounds". Zerotalk 11:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You may be amazed, but I would be amazed if it were less than 50%. Debresser (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per the reasons already provided in discussions and and what looks to me, so far, mostly like "I like it" support only. + Re. "ambiguous": There is no physical "State of Palestine", no country, and they hardly could fit on paper (this is not Disney Land). Those who know about the state won't be confused (like us here, I would like to think?!) and those who don't (know) can't think "state" in the first place (and if curious about this "obvious physical" area can learn more about it with just a few more clicks).--TMCk (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
    Still open to "Synagogues in ancient Palestine" of course.--TMCk (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
How does your argument hold in view of State of Palestine? Debresser (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
My post is in direct response to the discussion so please don't move my comment out of it. As for your question, it makes no sense.--TMCk (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, that your opinion makes no sense. If you want your comment to stay here, so be it, but it has no connection to the discussion above. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
LOL. You keep making random assertions, obviously using the lottery drawing principle. Too funny. But thank you for "allowing" my comment to stay.--TMCk (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose the present name is the most common one, I could also live with "Synagogues in ancient Palestine" (which is also quite common). (And seriously: when a talk from the Conference program, named: “The Synagogue in Ancient Palestine” is used as an argument for changing the name away from "Ancient synagogues in Palestine"?? ...it must be the weakest argument for change I have heard!) Huldra (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You are WP:PALESTINE #4. Thank you for expressing your opinion, which didn't surprise anybody. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
How incredibly disrespectful. You think it would be appropriate to say oh you edit in WP:JEW or WP:ISRAEL so your opinion is not surprising on this? nableezy - 16:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that would be less offensive than what you wrote. How about: you are WP:JEW. Thank you for expressing your opinion, which didnt surprise anybody. That seem like an acceptable comment to make to you? nableezy - 18:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I´m not even sure what he means by WP:PALESTINE #4. Debresser; whatever you think: I searched around on books.google.....(In English) and there was quite overwhelming number of WP:RS-sources which supported the long-standing title. I simply do not understand why you refuse to see that? Does not what people have written, say the last 50 years, count? (Oh, and its waste of time like this, which, as I said here, will ensure that most of Israeli or Jewish -related articles will remain absolutely totally shitty), Now, back to my villages, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Second arbitrary break

  • Comment. It is safe to say that editors in this discussion have not yet had a "meeting of the minds" on a suitable title for this article. The bottom line for me, and I would hope for all involved, is to make the title precise, concise and with as little ambiguity as possible. So it doesn't really matter what I know about Palestine, the state or the region, nor does it matter what the scholars know. This article is not for me or for them, it is for general readers of Encyclopedia Wikipedia. Some of those readers may already know that the state of Palestine is not like other states, in that the state of Palestine is not an entity that ancient synagogues can be "in". For them, no further disambiguation is needed. Many other readers, however, especially those browsing an index that has only titles and no ready article to provide further info about the title, do not know that there is a difference between the state of Palestine and other more well-defined states. So the title does need a little something more to provide for those readers who are less well-versed in the details of the differences between the state of Palestine, the territories of Palestine, the region of Palestine.  What's in your palette? Paine  03:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to say one more thing about article titles. For me, it is customary to design a title to pique a reader's interest and to make a reader want to read more. That's how titles are designed and created for the chapters of novels, the articles in a newspaper or magazine and the like. An encyclopedia article title is different. It should be designed and created to inform and to fulfill the interest a reader already has about a subject, to point them in the direction of their already existing interest, not to try to be mysterious and to pique the reader's interest as with novels and such. Any thoughts?  What's in your palette? Paine  04:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Only that I agree with you completely. Debresser (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_synagogues_in_Palestine/Archive_1&oldid=1088272650"