Talk:Tamara (given name)

Sources?

Can we get some sources on this? this site said that it also means date palm www.family.sg/editorial/article.aspx?Id=94&sc=9 --Davidkazuhiro 21:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Tamara means date (the fruit) not palm tree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.78.102 (talk • contribs) 09:35 22 July 2012‎ UTC

Pronunciation?

Could anybody make at least a partial overview how this name is pronounced in the non-english speaking countries? Here I mean especially where the accent is placed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.161.230.145 (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In Israel the pronunciation is like Tah-mah-rah, it's a bitch to pronounce if you don't try it a couple dozen times. Hpelgrift (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In North America Tamara is pronounced Tam-uh-ruh

Not necessarily. I've known several Tu-MA-ras (and no "Tam-uh-ruhs"). Kostaki mou (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies and contradictions in the etymology

The lead opens with:

Tamara is a feminine given name with origins in Hebrew, Arabic, Spanish, Hindi, Sanskrit, and Russian. The name means date, date palm, or palm tree and is derived from the biblical name Tamar (Hebrew: תמר tamar). In Arabic, it comes from the singular form Tamra (Arabic: تَمْرَة tamrah) and the plural form Tamar (Arabic: تَمْر tamr).

The first and second sentences are immediately contradictory. I can understand if this name is used in multiple languages, but how could it possibly have origins in all of these languages: Hebrew, Arabic, Spanish, Hindi, Sanskrit, and Russian. Either "Tamara" is an English transliteration of multiple names from a wide variety of languages, each with its own etymology, in which case the page should reflect that, or this sentence is confusing "use" with "origin", or it is just flatly wrong. The second and third sentences also give it Hebrew and Arabic etymologies. The Arabic and Hebrew names have the same meaning, roughly, date. But, again, are these separate names that were used independently that happen to have similar etymologies and forms because Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages? Did one language borrow it from the other? The lead leaves this unclear. Was the name Tamara even used in the non-Jewish Arabic-speaking world before modern times? If not, just because it can be retroactively assigned an Arabic meaning does not mean it has an Arabic origin.

As for the etymology section, there is an attempt made to give the name etymologies in several of the languages mentioned in the lead. But again, just because a name happens to mean something in a language does not mean it originated from that language. Is there, for example, an independent history of the use of the name in Sanskrit sources, or is this just a later/modern attempt to assign a Sanskrit meaning to the word now that Indians may also name their children Tamara? This is without going into the general unreliability of many of the sources, or the fact that I find some of the etymologies suspect in languages I know. For example, I have never heard तामर to mean "spice" in Hindi or any Indian language, nor could I find it in any of several Hindi dictionaries I checked. The sources for that particular claim are from name dictionaries, both quite dated, the authors of which cannot be believed to be particularly reliable sources of knowledge on Hindi. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

From reading the dictionary sources (refs 4, 6-8, 10-11) during my GA review of this article (this is based on recollection since the internet Archive is down), I believe that "Tamara" is an English transliteration of multiple names from a wide variety of languages, each with its own etymology, is correct. I didn't get into that in my review because I thought that copy-editing would fix those issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Brusquedandelion thank you for your comments. I will take them into consideration and improve the article. The Blue Rider 19:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

List of names removal

@User:The Blue Rider please discuss large amounts of content removal on the talk page to establish consensus instead of continuously just removing it such as what you're doing with the removal of people with the name "Tamara". RachelTensions (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:UNSOURCED "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" so you are the one who needs to stablish consensus instead of restoring an unsourced, indiscriminative, irrelevant disambiguation list on a feminine given name article. The Blue Rider 21:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you say why Tamara should have special treatment? Disambiguation lists are found in most of the 22,000 articles in the 'Given names' category. Examples are the previous and next names in alphabetic order, Tamar and Tamás. -- Wire723 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Wire723 Most articles about names have little to no content and just serve as a disambiguation page. However, I've expanded Tamara to include detailed information on its etymology and popularity, making a disambiguation list unnecessary for an article focused on the given name. Additionally, the article was quick-failed as a GA partially due to the disambiguation list being unsourced. Thank you. The Blue Rider 19:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Including a list of notable people with that given name is a de facto standard for WP:APO articles. It would be helpful if you could refer us to examples similar articles that don't include the list of notable people with the name (other than in cases like William where the list was was split off into its own article because it's so huge it overwhelms the main article).

As for the note on quick failure of the GA, I would challenge whoever assessed the article to reconsider that; according to WP:WHENNOTCITE the information included in the list is to be cited in its target articles, not the list itself. You'll be hard pressed to find another name article where every entry in the list of notable people has a citation. RachelTensions (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is the standard, but as I’ve already explained multiple times, the vast majority of these articles have little to no content on the actual name, so a disambiguation list—even if not as extensive as William’s—would still overshadow the content on the name itself. The nominator for Fiona’s article opened a discussion on whether such lists require citations, and so far, there is no consensus. Thank you. The Blue Rider 04:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Also the current list has no criteria for which Tamaras to include, it is completely arbitrary. Just take a look at the ammount of Tamaras there is. The Blue Rider 04:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation is that you don't dispute the general presence of lists of notable people, but after improving the description of the name Tamara you feel the list overshadows that content. The completeness of the list is a separate topic, and the usual action is to improve the list not delete it. -- Wire723 (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I won't generally dispute but Fiona and Tamara (name) are special cases since they do include information on the name. For instance, The Very Short Introductions series have hundreds of books and they don't list every single one of them or MotoGP doesn't list every single rider that competed for it. The Blue Rider 12:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want create a separate list for people with the given name Tamara but that list shouldn't be in the main article, the two above examples do exactly that: List of Very Short Introductions books and List of Grand Prix motorcycle racers. The Blue Rider 12:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Other users agree with me: I'm of the opinion that such lists should be spun off into their own disambiguation page if they aren't already; there will be hundreds of articles on people with the first name Fiona, and it makes no sense to lump them into an article about the name so that everything else is conpletely overshadowed.. The Blue Rider 12:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic of I've expanded Tamara to include detailed information on its etymology and popularity, making a disambiguation list unnecessary for an article focused on the given name. Many given name or surname articles consist only of a list of notable people (approximated by: people with en.wiki articles) with that name. Some given or surname articles also include information about the etymology, distribution, etc of the name. Some only include such information and do not have a list of name-holders: there is often a separate "List of people named xxxx". All these are valid. Pamela (name) is a reasonable-sized article with both info on the name and a list of name-holders. Paul (given name) has an immense list of name-holders, split only into real and fictional, while Peter (given name) does not have a list of name-holders, this being in List of people named Peter, split by field of notability. By all means split the list of names into a List of people named Tamara, linked from the name page (and also directly from the Tamara dab page), but don't just delete the list: it is believed that some readers find these lists useful. There's no reason why the list would be less useful, ie "unnecessary", just because there is a substantial amount of other information available about the name. And there can be no reason to demand citations for the inclusion of "Jane Brown" in a "List of people named Jane" or "List of people named Brown": that comes within common sense. PamD 20:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: You said "The notable people and fictional character sections require citations for each of the entries.": are you sure? Do you disagree with my "Jane Brown" logic above? PamD 21:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy lists no FAs related to individual names, and 3 GAs. Of these, Femke has a list of name-holders with no citations; Spencer (surname) directs us to List of people with surname Spencer, where they have no citations; Waering's list of name-holders is thoroughly cited... but they are all red links, so not a typical name page. PamD 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that the citations for the name list of Femke were missing and have added them. – Editør (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Editør I think that's unnecessary, and against the established practice for name articles, as shown in the Anthroponymy project's guidelines. PamD PamD 19:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems required by the good article criteria (#2b) that I reckon take precedence; without, the list of names is dependent on the quality of all those other articles. – Editør (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I hope that we don't see a ridiculous amount of editor effort spent on referencing all entries in all lists of name-holders: effort which could be more usefully spent in resolving real problems. PamD 12:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

For people, particularly living people, verfiability is a core policy on Wikipedia. In this case the sources are to verify the combination of name, year(s), and profession. For Femke, I was able to use databases of a specific field for multiple persons, like the one of the UCI for cyclists. You may be also able to reuse the sources from the linked articles. Both seem like mininal amount of effort for sourcing. Only for a small number of persons I had to look a little further. – Editør (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Editør The anthroponymy wikproject standards essay explicitly says "References are not required since the article that the entry is linked to should include citations.", so there is clearly a disagreement here. Perhaps the answer is that editors who work on name articles should concentrate on producing good, useful, well-written, articles/lists, and ignore the trophy-hunting of seeking "Good" status. PamD 13:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want to achieve here. I have improved a given name article to good article level and hope it may serve as an example. But if you don't see the value of that and/or if you don't want to improve given name articles so that they are passing the GA criteria, that's fine with me. – Editør (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that my primary concern here was with the GA standards. I don't think names of people need citations, but when you start listing birth/death dates and professions, cites are needed per the GA criteria and WP:SIA, which states: List items do not require citations if they only give information provided by the source(s) cited in the introduction to the list. If an item gives more information, that should be backed up by citations.

There have now been a couple of discussions on this topic and it appears that no consensus has been reached, so perhaps it makes sense to start an RfC or broader discussion somewhere about what's required. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards, although it is an essay rather than a policy or guideline, includes examples of list entries which include nationality, occupation and dates and do not have sources, reinforcing my view that this is the standard way to list nameholders. PamD 05:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

A list of people with the name is by no means irrelevant to the article named so - we've organized navigation for many years in this kind of a way, and we know that there is a contingent of readers who like to use names to look up biographies. Perhaps moving the list to a separate list of people named Tamara would be warranted if the list is so long that it detracts from the rest of the article, but then that should be done first, and that list article should be linked from Tamara. --Joy (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the list should not have been removed without consensus, in that it followed the structure of the great majority of such articles; and those that do not follow that structure are exceptions because the name lists are unwieldy as part of the article and so have been split off, not deleted. That could have been done here, if necessary—though it's not obvious that it was necessary, just because more information about the name itself was added. Lack of citations in a list of linked items—for which there are citations in the linked articles—isn't a problem, though citations should probably be provided for any items in the list that don't or probably won't have their own articles at some point. However, that would be a matter of finding sources, not deleting items just because they currently lack citations. P Aculeius (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

citations should probably be provided for any items in the list that don't or probably won't have their own articles at some point. However, that would be a matter of finding sources, not deleting items just because they currently lack citations.
Not sure if this is an issue given the list is specifically notable people. If they were notable (by the standards of Wikipedia) they should already (or soon will) have an article :) RachelTensions (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Not all such lists will necessarily have that distinction, and what's decided here will likely set a precedent for other articles in this WikiProject, so it seemed like a good idea to address potential concerns raised or implied by the person who initially deleted the list. P Aculeius (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

in this WikiProject - are you talking about WP Anthroponymy? --Altenmann >talk 00:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I support moving very long lists of names into separate page, such as Smith (surname) and List of people with surname Smith. And I think at this point the issue must be decided by RfC. We do have kind of listmania and it is pointless to fight against it. I made a quick peek and immediately found that the article Island spawns a HUMONGOUS number of lists, such as list of islands with names starting with F. --Altenmann >talk 00:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I think such lists are valuable. Alphabetical indexing is a common and intuitive method of sorting texts. The less user-friendly alternative would be to make all categories non-diffuse, which would mean that the category "Islands" would become an alphabetical list of all islands on the site. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not objecting to listings of islands. I merely suggesting that we do have a tradition of listing things and merely removing all Tamaras is not an option. Cherry-picking 2-3 Tamaras is also not an option. So the only solution in my mind is a standalone list. --Altenmann >talk 01:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

From reading the comments the consensus seems to create a new page just for the listings. I am going ahead and do that. The Blue Rider 02:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider This isn't the consensus at all. Please let this discussion run its course before yet again reintroduce the edits you got banned for before. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It isn't about how long the list is, it is about how long the prose content before the list starts is. Listmania is exacerbated by standalone lists with no context. I don't see a consensus here, I don't agree with the split, and will revert the split. Then, The Blue Rider you will be able to start a WP:PROSPLIT. However, if multiple editors tell me not to revert in the next few hours, I will not do it, as I can not do it right now, because I must log off. —Alalch E. 18:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I will oppose the revert. The article without list look nice an clean, cf. Smith (surname). The objections above were related to simple removal of names. Splitting off lists is a common practice. --Altenmann >talk 18:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus, most people who partook in the discussion supported the split. You are in the minority so reverting would be inappropriate. The Blue Rider 21:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing like a clear consensus. As I said, I'm against this split, and think this content worked better together, but as multiple editors have opposed my announcing that I would revert, I will not revert. I don't think that the article looks "nice and clean" without the list, and as the prose is short, it is a perfectly suitable introduction to the list. That's all from me on this topic for the time being. —Alalch E. 21:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

the prose is short - you must be kidding. The text is longer than maybe for half of Wikipedia articles. --Altenmann >talk 22:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

So what, most Wikipedia articles are short. It's a short article in absolute terms. For this type of page, which was a list prior to the removal of the list, the length of prose is not too much. The prose was introductory prose that served as context for the list. You said "listmania". This is listmania. The page was consistent with WP:APO/S and was better before the split. —Alalch E. 23:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the contested determination of consensus it'd be best to revert this article to the state it was in prior to content removal and continue the discussion until a more clear determination can be made or an uninvolved third party is brought in to evaluate the discussion and determine consensus. RachelTensions (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Disagreed. There was no content removal: all content is within wikipedia a single mouse click away. Two persons suggested RFC, which suggestion is ignored. Now another thing we need is revert war. We do not bring random "uninvolved parties". We have a procedure and it is called WP:RFC. But before that we can do a quick headcount --Altenmann >talk 01:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Part of the ongoing dispute over the last week or so is to split the content. WP:STATUSQUO states
Do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion
The article should be returned to its status quo (that is, the split un-done) until such a point that a consensus on the dispute is determined.

And yes, we absolutely do bring in "random uninvolved parties" to assess and close discussions where consensus remains unclear or in dispute. The process is called a WP:Closure request. RachelTensions (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Closure requests are for RFC and other discussions of broad participation. Do I need to explain you why? --Altenmann >talk 02:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing, colleague. WP:STATUSQUO say "Avoid reverting during discussion", no? And you are suggesting exactly this. --Altenmann >talk 02:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I dont see your position in Quick poll below. There I see a "clear" 1:0 consensus so far :-) --Altenmann >talk 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm suggesting returning the article to the status quo until the discussion has reached a conclusion, as is best practice.

And closure requests are for any discussion that might require closure, not necessarily a formal RFC. RachelTensions (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The procedure is called WP:PROSPLIT. Merge/split RfCs are WP:RFCNOT. I'm not against radical bold actions, I perform them myself, and this split isn't some terrible action that I vehemently oppose, but it just isn't better than the status quo, and considering everything, I think that reverting and starting a formal split proposal would be the best. —Alalch E. 12:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@The Blue Rider There is nothing even remotely approaching a clear consensus, you are merely engaging in the same sort of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior that got you banned last time. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I suspect in reality the main reason readers look at these kinds of pages is to find the article on someone they know to be called Tamara but whose precise surname they can't recall. Making this more difficult because someone wants to run this through GA seems counterproductive. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  So you don't think given names and names can be GAs? There's already a precedent which I reviewed, Femke. The Blue Rider 02:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  I think there is a conflict between the GA requirements and the reader requirements. The two probably sit best together for a relatively uncommon name such as Femke, where it is easier to present a complete list of examples. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Femke includes just the sort of list of nameholders, with dates, nationality and occupation listed but unsourced (as seen in most name articles), to which Tamara's GA assessor objected, leading us to this whole discussion! PamD 05:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Quick poll

Pro split

1. --Altenmann >talk 02:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
2. The Blue Rider 02:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Contra split

1. —Alalch E. 08:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
2. RachelTensions (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Wire723 (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
4. PamD 21:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If no consensus detected then a broarer RFC discussion is due. --Altenmann >talk 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why can't we just count the people who commented above that they would be okay with the splitting? What's the need for a formal vote? The Blue Rider 02:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Because the discussion above was chaotic. Some people objected to simple deletion of names and did to say that they are OK with splitting. --Altenmann >talk 03:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  People were commenting on 3 options:

  1. cut the list of nameholders and lose it
  2. cut the list and create a standalone list
  3. leave the list in the main article (status quo).

  As far as I can see, everyone except The Blue Rider objected to #1, but they did not all express a preference between 2 and 3. PamD 06:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wire723: FYI, the list if complete would be much longer; right now it missing a lot of notable people named Tamara. The Blue Rider 18:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging all participants of the above discussion to gather more precise consensus: Joy, P Aculeius, voorts and PamD. The Blue Rider 20:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the other content about the name is about five paragraphs. In this situation, I would not actually prefer splitting off the list of people, it doesn't seem necessary. --Joy (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC

Yeah, a user unilaterally removed most of the content which is now being disputed in WP:AN3. Maybe we should put this discussion on hold until we achieve consensus on the removed sourced content. The Blue Rider 21:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Hindi origin

I doubt that In the Indian subcontinent there is the name Tamara originating from Hindi or Sanskrit. The sources cited are pop baby naming books which indiscriminately scrap information from everywhere without citing sources of their wisdom. We need solid linguisctic/ethnological sources for such claims. --Altenmann >talk 20:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Altenmann can you please explain why those books are not reliable? Thanks. The Blue Rider 01:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Which books? --Altenmann >talk 01:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The ones where you put a dubious tag on. The Blue Rider 01:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I explained already. There are not scholarly sources. I will write more in a moment. --Altenmann >talk 01:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

They might not be the WP:BESTSOURCE but that doesn't mean they are not reliable. The Blue Rider 01:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I cannot see the text of the book. I do see that there is a spice named "tamara". But it is a serious claim that the origin of the name is "spice". Such claims must come form ethnographers not from name collectors. Much garbage is printed in books copying from each other, i.e., printed does niot automatically means reliable. In particular, is there a pre-European history of this name in Indian sub-continent? --Altenmann >talk 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

First author, Flora Haines Loughead " American writer, farmer, and miner from Wisconsin.", does not strike me as an expert in ethnography. Rabbi Alfred J. Kolatch is equally nonscientific writer. If we will propagate amateurish information, we will be doing a disservice. --Altenmann >talk 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC) The question is, from where these amateurs get this information about Tamara? --Altenmann >talk 02:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, Oxford's Dictionary of First Names seems to contain most of the information except for the Hindi part. The Blue Rider 02:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I am going to remove that part for now. Tomorrow I will do a more throughout research on the etymology of Tamara. Is that okay for you? The Blue Rider 02:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sanskrit origin

For Sanskrit word there is no such claim even in baby books. --Altenmann >talk 20:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The Sanskrit has a source. If you don't think the source is reliable then that's another thing which I welcome you to discuss it. The Blue Rider 20:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The dictionary you cited does not say that this word is used as a name. Therefore while the translation is correct, it has no relevance for this article. --Altenmann >talk 20:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Already added another source. The Blue Rider 20:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources you cite do not speak about the name. I already wrote this: our article is about a name and we need references that speak about this name, not word in foreign language. Let me give you another example. We have an article Kit (given name). I can readily cite dosens of dictionaries that say that "kit" means whale in Russian. But it will be insane to suggest that the name Kit (given name) is derived from the Russian word for whale. --Altenmann >talk 00:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove tags until disagreements are resolved. --Altenmann >talk 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Second warning: Please DO NOT REMOVE TAGS without resolving disagreements first. This is against Wikipedia policies. --Altenmann >talk 01:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I requested third opinion. --Altenmann >talk 01:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree a source explicitly connecting usage as a human name in the language is necessary. older ≠ wiser 01:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You're both in an edit war and have both breached the WP:3RR, specifically:

@Altenmann with this series of edits regarding the removal of Sanskrit origin and re-adding "dubious" tags after another editor has adjusted the source: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

and @The Blue Rider with this series of edits regarding re-adding Sanskrit origins and removing "dubious" tags without discussion: [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]

@TheBlueRider I believe @ToBeFree recommended that you disengage from name articles for a while... I'm not sure this edit war is doing you any favours. RachelTensions (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I specifically did not breach 3RR, I made only three reverts. Diff 7 isn't a revert and diff 11 isn't even mine... The Blue Rider 01:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Rachel's judgement is wrong. --Altenmann >talk 01:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Rachel just wants to see me blocked. I agree with you, I will remove the Sanskrit text but I don't agree that the Hindu books are not reliable. The Blue Rider 01:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just putting it out there that an edit war is occurring. If you disagree then by all means, carry on. RachelTensions (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything is being resolved through the talkpage, no need to stir up things. The Blue Rider 01:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems that The Blue Rider has reverted themselves so I'm going to close the Third Opinion Request as resolved. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Separate fron Tamar, or not?

The relationship between Tamara and Tamar, from this article, is unclear. Tamar is a variant of Tamara, according to the lead. Tamara originates fron Tamar, in the next section. If they are different names, why does this article include so much about Tamar (2nd most popular, Bible story, etc)? If they are the same name, merge the articles. PamD 06:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The Oxford's Dictionary of First names states that Tamara is a variant of Tamar. The Blue Rider 19:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Where in the lead does it say that Tamar is a variant of Tamara though? The Blue Rider 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The lead says "The variant, Tamar," which would imply that Tamar is a variant of Tamara, not the other way around. RachelTensions (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right, going to remove the sentence for now. I will revamp the article taking into consideration all the suggestions in a few hours. Thanks. The Blue Rider 20:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It is so difficult to come by on reliable sources for names in general, but even more for lesser-known names. The Blue Rider 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources, then there is no basis for a Wikipedia article. PamD 10:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm dealing with it, please take a look... —Alalch E. 11:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed instances of WP:SYNTH

1. Special:Diff/1254508639 -- the source does not discuss popularity of Tamara but of Tami, as derived from Tammy, and while Tamara can be shortened to Tammy, not every Tammy is a Tamara, and this Tammy was not a Tamara, she was Tambrey, an invented name -- no relevance to Tamara
2. Special:Diff/1254509980 -- the source is not about the name Tamara, it is about the Spanish generic noun támara derived from the Hispano-Arabic támra derived from the Arabic tamrah, a singulative of the collective noun tamr (wikt:تمر#Arabic), and when Tamara is used in Spain it might as well have entered via Russian -- the source used does not discuss the *name Tamara* as appearing in the Spanish language

—Alalch E. 10:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The Blue Rider's mass revert

@The Blue Rider: Do not repeat the same revert. Please understand that by doing so you are reintroducing thoroughly non-compliant content under Wikipedia core policies onto this page. In general, on this talk page, you have been showing a weak grasp of policies such as WP:NOR and WP:V. Please rethink your approach.—Alalch E. 13:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Brusquedandelion and Voorts: Pinging you with respect to your dilemmas in the above section #Inconsistencies and contradictions in the etymology. The article is now consistent with itself and with the actual sources that actually cover this topic, which I have located, and they clearly state: Biblical name used internationally, entered various languages through Russian, derived from Hebrew. Historical popularity in Russia may be due to the ubiquity of the romanticized queen character Tamara (see Tamara the Great#Modern). This is also briefly touched on in this article and is sourced. Simple as that. The previous content was just a mess.—Alalch E. 14:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you are the one with a weak grasp of WP:BRD. All sentences are cited so there is no WP:OR, if you think some sources are not reliable, please engage in the talk page and seek consensus. The Blue Rider 16:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You are being quite disruptive and are not engaging substantively with serious policy concerns. —Alalch E. 16:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive? You deleted a bunch of sources content and I reverted so the onus is on you to seek consensus. The Blue Rider 16:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to seriously engage in the discussion and "all sentences are cited" does not do it. You can not enforce your desired version of the article and undo en masse incremental improvements while telling me merely to get consensus. Please get a grip. —Alalch E. 16:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Alalch E’s detailed criticisms of the currently cited sources deserve a more thorough response. As it stands, theirs is the more persuasive argument here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That's completely irrelevant, I reverted him so he needs to explain the changes and seek consensus. The Blue Rider 16:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I both explained the changes in my edit summaries, broadly said what I am doing on the talk page, and each of my edits is an incremental improvement for which I have supplied a descriptive edit summary.

The sources which I have added, which had not been cited, and are all pretty obvious sources to look for, paint a single simple picture of this topic. They include:

• Macleod, Iseabail; Freedman, Terry (1995). The Wordsworth Dictionary of First Names. Wordsworth Editions. p. 214. ISBN 978-1-85326-366-8.
• Hanks, Patrick; Hardcastle, Kate; Hodges, Flavia (2006). "Tamara". A Dictionary of First Names (Book via online reference platform). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-861060-1 – via Oxford Reference and the The Wikipedia Library. Tamara ♀. Russian: probably derived from the Hebrew name Tamar, from a vocabulary word meaning 'date palm', with the addition of the feminine suffix -a. ...
• Benson, Morton (1967). Dictionary of Russian Personal Names. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 163, 167. ISBN 978-0-8122-7452-3.
• "Tàmara". Hrvatski jezični portal (Dictionary) (in Croatian). Znanje. Retrieved 31 October 2024. transl. f. personal name of biblical origin (the name spreads through Russian)

To reiterate: I have explained what I am doing on the talk page broadly, addressing some of the concerns in specific, and some of the concerns echo those of other editors, and all my edits are described in edit summaries.—Alalch E. 16:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we not end up in yet another edit war over this article? It seems like there were pretty substantial modifications made to this article over the last few hours that are being contested by some... once again the article should be restored back to its stable version (or as stable as this article can be) pending a discussion over what seems like pretty substantial content removal.

This feels connected to the above list split discussion so maybe we should loop back around to that discussion before moving onto these issues... as the article was before, it was possible (though debatable) that the article could've stood on its own with the list split off. In its present state, this is a list article. The modifications made to the article essentially circumvent and short-circuit the previous ongoing discussion by making one side's stance irrelevant. RachelTensions (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, the edits are purely content edits to make the statements made come into concord with the WP:core content policies. We are not removing the Oxford Dictionary of First Names, the Wordsworth Dictionary of First Names, the Dictionary of Russian Personal Names and HJP to bring back some WP:SPS website and originally synthesized content. Please read my comments on this talk page which I had already left, look at the edit summaries, where all the edits are explained and come up with concrete objections. —Alalch E. 16:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverting to status-quo

There have been a lot of discussions regarding the content of Tamara's article and before we make such drastic changes to the article, like Alalch did, it would be better to first gather consensus on these matters and only then do these type of changes. I welcome people to discuss and make the appropriate, consensus based decision on whether to revert to status-quo or not. The Blue Rider 23:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Only if the status quo is the version before you began your own drastic changes. Otherwise, I find Alach's edits to be reasonable and mostly an improvement. older ≠ wiser 23:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Bkonrad Yes, the status quo would have the list of notable people named Tamara. The Blue Rider 23:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Alalch's incremental edits all seem explained and reasonable, rather than "drastic". If there are elements of their edits you disagree with, make edits to improve those points, step by step and explaining your edits. There is no reason to revert another editor's constructive edits wholesale. PamD 00:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Fully concur with User:PamD and User:Bkonrad. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Behavioral dispute, not for this discussion signed, Rosguill talk 14:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also, I just found out about this discussion after noticing User:The Blue Rider's disruptive edits to History of Arizona State University — namely, erasing 95% of the article without warning and then reverting my deletion by citing to either nonexistent grounds (redlinks) or inapplicable grounds (e.g., claiming the article was unsourced when at least eight paragraphs cited sources). If you look at the user's contributions, there's a pattern of disruptive edits to other articles, such as List of national animals, and this user also sustained a weeklong block on 15 October 2024 for violating the policy against sockpuppets with regard to an ongoing dispute on the Fiona article (in which the blocking admin also noted in passing the user's pattern of uncivil behavior), etc. This was on top of a 24-hour block on 23 July 2023 for a 3RR violation. Frankly, I don't care that much about the history of a third-tier school like ASU (the only reason that article shows up in my watchlist is because of its tangential involvement in the Varsity Blues scandal as a school one of the involved students was trying to avoid), so I'm not going to initiate the notification at WP:ANI. But it looks like there might be enough for WP:ANI. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC) I appreciate that you believe that this isn't necessarily worth the drama of an ANI thread, but in that case none of this needs to be raised here. Keep the discussion on this page focused on content concerns relating to this page. signed, Rosguill talk 14:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)