Talk:Tyre, Lebanon

Tyre, Lebanon was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 2, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Phoenicia High‑importance

	Phoenicia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lebanon Mid‑importance

	Lebanon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Sidon

Sidon was the oldest Phoenician city, but Tyre had a longer and more illustrious history. The modern city is named Sur.

If Sidon is older, how does Tyre have a longer history?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.132.18.1 (talk • contribs)

[comment on the anon. note above] Indeed. Furthermore it is nonesense. Sidon and Tyre go back to the Neolithic, along with Byblos, Beirut, and other cities. No one of them can claim to be older than the others. Politically Sidon was, during the Iron Age, more powerful than Tyre at first, but this power later shifted to Tyre (and this was all after Byblos had lost any claim to power). Nefertum17 07:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of kings

Why aren't the dates of some kings listed? If they aren't known, question marks or guesses should be added. --Simetrical 02:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tyre

I was looking for a wheel part a tyre(Tire for Americans)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudtz (talk • contribs)

Hi there, Did you try the "other uses" link at the top of the page?"

Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 23:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the name

The article claims that the current name, Sur (aṣ-Ṣūr) means "rock". Can anyone site a source or provide some information that I don't know? As far as I know, the name does not mean "rock" (or "wall", for that matter). - Cybjorg 10:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic, well, at least in modern Lebanese, Sour means 'city walls' or 'rampart'. The word probably have an older origin than that though.

The word Tzur in Hebrew (also the Hebrew name of the city) means Rock. Hebrew is Southern Phoenician so the Bible is a good source. Of course Tyre comes from the Latin Tyrus which ultimately comes from the Greek and latin Bibles. So look to the source materials. "Lexicon Results for Tsor (Strong's 06865) Hebrew for 06865 Pronunciation Guide Tsor {tsore} or Tsowr {tsore} TWOT Reference Root Word TWOT - 1965 the same as 06864 Part of Speech n pr loc Outline of Biblical Usage Tyre or Tyrus = "a rock" 1) the Phoenician city on the Mediterranean coast" http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/6/1148047790-8473.html Take Care!--Will314159 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Occult nonsense. WHOLE article about Tyre is based on some "Bible". The origin of the term Tyr is "Etruscan".

I'm guessing this discussion is the reason the article doesn't have an etymology section, My two cents are that the name today means 'flint' in hebrew. I hope you can clear it up since this discussion has been going for 10 years by the looks of it.212.179.111.210 (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Would it be possible for someone who is familiar with Wikipedia's mapping system to provide one for this city (in a similar manner to the location map provided for most other cities e.g. on the London or Paris articles). The lattitude and longitude co-ordinates are already provided so this should not be difficult. I would try myself but I am not sure how the mapping system works. Canderra 13:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a map of Lebanon on the Lebanon page that has Tyre on it. I'll go ahead and add it. --Transfinite 22:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Sources

Can anyone provide some useful external sources or books regarding the history of Tyre, expecially its ancient history? Thanks. --Cdbavg400 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, Tyre and Freud

In 'The Interpretation of Dreams' Sigmund Freud tells a story according to which Alexander became confident of his victory over Tyre after having dreamed about a satire, in Greek 'Satyros', which actually meant 'sa tyros', 'tyre is yours'. I don't know if this concerns this article, but it's quite interesting. A.Z. 03:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Page

Shouldn't this page be moved, so as to avoid confusion when Australians, Britons, the Irish, etc are searching for information on a wheel tyre. I suggest a new page title of "Tyre (Phoenician city)" or something similar. -- AxSkov 12:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. Nearly all the incoming links were for the city, and I just fixed those that weren't. The disambiguation header should be sufficient. —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be moved. Possibly the lead page for "tyre" should be a disambiguation page. Just because americans spell it "tire" doesnt make it definitive. The more common usage of "tyre" day-to-day is as a wheel tyre, and this should be reflected in the definitions, regardless of what has the most incoming links.

The article for the Lebanese city will be moved, tyre is a major English word (US English speakers consider how it would be if tire linked through to an article about a Lebanese city), and despite claims of incoming link counts (even more justified given that Tyre is currently in the news), this just doesn't balance the fact that the main article is under the US English spelling, so a redirect page to the US article is needed for balance. Widefox 10:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My argument would be this. Moving this city to Tyre, Lebanon leaves it with a perfectly good title name that fits with many other ambiguous place name articles - including (to pick and excellent example) Tyre, New York. But what would you move the wheel thing to? You can't use Tyre (automotive) because the article talks about railroad, bicycle and aircraft tires. You can't even go with Tyre (transportation) because there are non-transportation applications too. You'd have to descend to something horrible like Tyre (mechanism) or some such. There just isn't a nice alternative for the wheel version - where there is a perfectly valid (arguably better) title for the article about the city. SteveBaker 19:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was move to Tyre, Lebanon and make Tyre a disambiguation page. —Mets501 (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Tyre → Tyre, Lebanon – move solves 1. already backed by 3:1 opinion on Tyre talk page 2. WP:NC "majority of English speakers would most easily recognize part of wheel over Lebanese city" (Current redirection of tyre to Tyre (the Lebanese city) is a major confusion) 3. resolution of article spelling dispute US English article tire vs majority of English speakers spelling of tyre (proposed solution is ~~redirect~~ disambiguation page from tyre to tire) 4. WP:NC "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists" - tyre is general English word, Tyre (Lebanon) although of huge historical and current affairs importance, is a specialist history article, which as the guide states is of more importance than numbers of Wikipedia links. 5. the primary name tyre should have parity with tire, otherwise large US spelling bias is introduced into Wikipedia. Agreed, this is a bold move (not done by other encyclopaedias), but by avoiding a possible bias of US-spelling - keeps onboard non-US readers - so is at the core very Wikipedia (general audience), while still following Wikipedia convention. Widefox 16:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts

Please edit to get consensus on - updated Widefox 17:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tyre (wheel) >300% more popular than Tyre (city) online (google.com)
- tyre car 6,000,000 hits (this is lower bound, as tyre auto, tyre automobile, tyre (context of automobile, bike, etc) etc not counted)
- tyre * 2,012,000 hits (= tyre lebanon 1,600,000 tyre phoenician 288,000 tyre phoenicia 124,000) and remember this counts hits multiple times to be generous!
In terms of speakers learning English word tyre (wheel) vs. exposure to Tyre (city):
- rest-of-world English 90,000,000-1900,000,000 (assumption is all native English, due to common word, native English lower boundary is 60,000,000(UK) 21,000,000(AU) 4,000,000(IRE) 4,000,000(NZ) 1,000,000(SA), upper boundary is 1900,000,000 English as second language - note that Indians appear to use both tyre and tire, so haven't counted in lower bound. Weak backing for that assumption being usage of tyre on ISO site, huge number of google hits, - see English_language, Global_language#Non-U.S. English)
- total English exposed ?-1900,000,000 - have no data on exposure to Tyre (city), but big challenge to get above >90,000,000 who see wheels almost every day!

as aside, note that number tire spellers in range N.America 333,000,000-1900,000,000 (lower boundary is 300,000,000(US) 33,000,000(Can) = overestimate due to French, Spanish, etc native speakers)

wheel-part invented in N.Ireland & Scotland
N.Ireland & Scotland both British English regions
wheel-part should be named tyre according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English) (my interpretation, as only people listed)
the article tire first non-stub name is tire (so according to rules it should stay at tire)
this is not about moving the article tire to tyre
tire spelling is N.America only:
- US English
- Canadian English
tyre spelling is Rest of the World:
- British English
- Hiberno-English (aka Irish English)
- Australian English
- New Zealand English
- Indian English (and the English spoken in adjoining countries)
- Hong Kong English (unverified)
- Caribbean English (unverified)
- International English (evidence = ISO website)
- formal Malaysian English (unverified)
- formal Singapore English (but not colloquial Singlish) (unverified)
- South African English (google search found both tyre and tire)
- etc
readers from N.America vs rest of world get different experience tire vs tyre
large differences for basic English words is alienating for readers and writers (please rewrite this point!)
precedents (exactingly - noun vs. non-English speaking region city/town):
- Acre vs. Acre, Israel (major noun, major city in similar region = similar namespace issue)
- Bullet vs. Bullet, Switzerland (major noun, minor village (sorry Bullet, Switzerland - I did check your history website))
- Muscat (is disambiguation) vs. Muscat, Oman (major noun, major city - Muscat started as redirect to city, now disambiguation)
counter examples (exactingly - as above)
- none
notable examples
- Turkey vs. Turkey (bird) (best example of major nameclash, although because Turkey is a country, move to Turkey (country) is not same as commonly done city, country)
both articles are of major importance for readers (Widefox admits point 1. above is slightly rash - please ignore)
other encyclopaedias have Tyre being the city (Webster)
A user comments above Talk:Tyre#Tyre about not finding the wheel-part
We also have Tyre, New York to consider.
Wikipedia common practice: In an informal survey of 1000 placenames, fifteen were ambiguous: six had the root word as the disambiguation page, eight had the root word as the 'major noun' and only one had the root word pointing to the place name.
According to MOS: Under Wikipedia:disambiguation#Specific topic the first item is When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used.: There is no "other word" for 'tyre' (unless you happen to be a US/Canadian speaker) and there is no "more complete name" for the thing that goes around a wheel "that is equally clear". However, there is a more complete name for Tyre (the city) however ("Tyre, Lebanon") that is - if anything, more clear than just 'Tyre'. Hence, according to this rule, that is the alternative that we should prefer.
Usage within Wikipedia: There are 533 wikilinks to the article about the thing that wraps a wheel and 412 to the article about the city in Lebanon (plus 7 to the town in New York). But if we consider only links from article-space, we have 385 links to the thing that wraps the wheel and only 54 to the city in Lebanon (with just three to the town in New York).
- The figures provided above by SteveBaker are not very accurate. As of approximately 18:00 UTC 2006-10-11 there were 416 linked pages of any sort either directly or through a redirect to Tyre. Of these, 60 were from the Wikipedia namespace, talk pages, user pages, image pages, or portals. Seven pages were redirects or disambiguation pages. Of the remaining 340 linked pages, nearly all were for the ancient city in Lebanon. To compare, there were 532 total pages that link to Tire. Of these, 59 were not from articles and 18 were from redirects or disambiguation pages. That leaves 455 links from articles. older ≠ wiser 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are including links to Tyre, Lebanon - I am only talking about links to Tyre. SteveBaker 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, of course. Widefox (and perhaps others) recently went through and "fixed" the links in many of these articles that had previously been to simply Tyre. All of the links to Tyre, Lebanon most of which had previously been to simply Tyre. Without examining the history for every one, there is no way to tell. I just made a random sampling of a dozen and every single one had until recently (first week of October) linked to simply Tyre. older ≠ wiser 20:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bkonrad - as you say, I've been to all those links, and fixed all incorrect ones (and there were many!). I've already said I wouldn't count them as there's ambiguity. Widefox 20:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Oppose Tyre is the ancient city in Lebanon. The assertions that WP:NC "majority of English speakers would most easily recognize part of wheel over Lebanese city" and (Current redirection of tyre to Tyre (the Lebanese city) is a major confusion) do not appear to be supported by much verifiable evidence. The proposal to redirect tyre to tire is unacceptable -- because the Lebanese city is commonly known as Tyre, at best the only acceptable compromise would be to move Tyre (disambiguation) to Tyre. I think point number 4 above is a misreading of WP:NC -- what is the basis for assuming that a reader is more likely to look for an article on a tire rather than the Lebanese city? In what way is the article about the Lebanese city a "specialist" article? I completely disagree. older ≠ wiser 17:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the verifiable evidence you asked for is above. Just using webhits as a measure, car tyre is >300% more popular than Tyre the city. Widefox 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ...and also that there are about seven times as many wikilinks (in article space) to the wheel article than to the city article. Plus one actual posting on this very page from a real person who was actually confused. SteveBaker 18:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Steve, as I noted above, your "facts" are in question. There are not seven times as many links to the wheel-thing as to the city. The actual ratio is 455 to 340, or about 1.34.

To Widefox, I think the horse you're flogging expired some time ago. I agree that disambiguation is appropriate. Although I'd caution against using raw Google hits as proof certain of anything -- there is inherent bias in the Google test, not the least that the wheel-thing usage is an ongoing commercial interest, whereas there are relatively few entities expending resources to advertise or promote the city in Lebanon. older ≠ wiser 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM is live, majority for move here...the only thing dead is the idea that it doesn't need disambiguating! so you agree that disambiguation is appropriate ...at tyre? Widefox 20:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support move so that Tyre goes to the present Tyre (disambiguation) which is fair to both endpoint subjects. The number of incoming links is largely irrelevant, especially when compared with the number of incoming hits – what matters is providing readers with a clear, efficient route to the information they seek. A disambiguation page does this much better than a "For subject x, see article y..." sentence. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Moving this city to Tyre, Lebanon leaves it with a perfectly good title name that fits with many other ambiguous place name articles - including (to pick and excellent example) Tyre, New York. But what would you move the wheel thing to? You can't use Tyre (automotive) because the article talks about railroad, bicycle and aircraft tires. You can't even go with Tyre (transportation) because there are non-transportation applications too. You'd have to descend to something horrible like Tyre (mechanism) or some such. There just isn't a nice alternative for the wheel version - where there is a perfectly valid (arguably better) title for the article about the city. The Acre/Acre, Israel example (see below) is a good precedent. SteveBaker 19:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Opppose Tyre, the ancient city should be primary. And "tire" is how the rubber things on cars is spelt in North America, so it is *not* how English speakers around the world call that rubber thing. Canadians spell the rubber thing "tire". 132.205.93.195 21:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please could I ask you to signin, so that a consensus may be reached. Widefox 18:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. Bath goes to the city, Cork goes to the city, Flagstaff redirects to the city. Tyre is an ancient, very well known city, and even if it's a redirect to 'Tyre, Lebanon', that's where 'Tyre' should go. The part of the wheel is a spelling variant that shouldn't obscure a major part of history, and the standard 'For other meanings of the word Tyre...' can be put on the top. For the record, I'm English. --Mnem e son 23:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Also, I just pulled out my English Hutchinson's Encyclopaedia, who have Tyre the city as the first entry for the word. --Mnem e son 00:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Changed comment to support a disambig, see below. --Mnem e son 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as Bkonrad noted, the assertions that "majority of English speakers would most easily recognize part of wheel over Lebanese city" is far from obvious, and highly doubtful.--Aldux 23:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since your comment, I have now provided evidence for your concern (see above). In the spirit of consensus, I have modified the proposal to compromise, and so ask you to consider the changed situation. Widefox 18:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support-Like Turkey,Tyre is the name of two or more completely different things.

Dudtz 10/6/06 7:50 PM EST

Oppose redirecting Tyre to tire. Disambiguation page at Tyre would be acceptable to me. Eugène van der Pijll 14:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (requested by Widefox): The article Tyre can be about the city, about the part of the wheel, or a disambiguation page. The second of these options is unacceptable to me. As the creation of a redirect to tire at this location is proposed in point 3 of the rationale above, I think this would be a likely result of a succeeded move request, and therefore I have to oppose this proposal. This oppose vote also means a vote against a dab page at this location; but as the first and third options are both equally acceptable to me, I don't see that as a problem. Eugène van der Pijll 01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(repeat request) I understand your adherence to the initial proposal, and your strong feeling against the redirect. Considering that the issue can be broken into two separate ones (1. move, disambiguation) or (2. move, redirect) (or 3. nothing), and given that it is not automatic that either 1. or 2. is chosen (my humble reading of the discussion so far no way indicates a preference for 1. or 2. due to the focus on (1. and 2.) vs (3.) which is the spirit of my proposal, even though the letter of it is flawed), please can I ask you to vote for both, so avoiding any "Throw out the baby with the bath water" (please remove baby and bathwater when done) Widefox 11:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opttions can be broken down in two ways: one way is to look at the final situation: 1. move, dab; 2. move, redir tire; 3. nothing, Tyre is about city; and the other way is to loke at this immediate vote: A. move; B. don't move. Option A may lead to option 1 and 2; and B corresponds to option 3. The current vote is between A and B. Option A has one possible unacceptable consequence, option B has none, so of those two options, I prefer B: no move. That is why I vote oppose only. Eugène van der Pijll 13:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a danger here in confusing 'what is right' with 'what is easy'. I have fixed articles with far worse problems than this one. When I split MINI (BMW) from Mini I had to hand edit over 600 articles to be sure I had it all right - but the encyclopedia is better as a result. If can agree that 'what is right' is to change the status quo, then the work to fix it will get done. Remember, there are only 57 main article space links to Tyre (the city in Lebanon) - all of the others are in disambiguation pages, user space or in these discussions and their offspring where automated editing is more acceptable. As between changing Tyre to point at Tire or to point to Tyre (disambiguation) or to leave it where it is, I'm advocating pointing it to Tire - although pointing it to Tyre (disambiguation) would be preferable to the status quo. The peripheral suggestion of renaming Tire to Tyre with Tire being a redirect (on the grounds that tyres were invented in Britain) is not acceptable to me. SteveBaker 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for consensus now. The original proposal has been modified to remove the redirect part, so in the spirit of consensus, what is your final word? Widefox 18:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support but conditional on disambiguation page at tyre .<==== Please read this statement as the proposal (just say and I'll change the proposal wording, Just to clarify, the proposal involves no redirect. Widefox 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the move and proposed redirect to Tire. Peter O. (Talk) 03:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving the lesser known article to a new name. Since a vast majority of people actually own Tyres, it is unlikely that the city is better know. Even poor countries run on tires on theie bikes! Dab at Tyre article at Tire. Vegaswikian 06:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no firm statistics on knowledge of tyre (city), but 90 million native English should learn the word tyre, plus Indians use the spelling, so to take a guess I'd say not only a majority, but a factor 10 or 100x. And as you say, with it being an everyday object for millions, I know which of the two is likely to be remembered! Widefox 13:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the new proposal disambiguating at Tyre. (Actually, I don't mind if Tyre is a disambig itself, or if it redirects to Tyre (disambiguation)) --Mnem e son 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

One proviso - before voting above, US and Canadian English spellers - please consider your sentiment if tire redirected to Tyre, Lebanon, or even a disambiguation page. Also, considering this is a UK invention, I propose parity on the namespace, with the article in US spelling as the compromise! Widefox 17:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC) added to Widefox 22:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one has yet insisted we move the city to Sur or something... Adam Bishop 17:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the language issue; if Tyre were a disambiguation page, with a link to Tire, I think it would be clear where the information is, and that clarity is probably (although I hate to say so) more important than the choice of which national flavour of English. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Imperfect) analogy Acre and Acre, Israel. Widefox 17:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd prefer Bullet and Bullet, Switzerland? Tombstone and Tombstone, Arizona? Eagle and Eagle, Alaska (and about 40 other places called 'Eagle')? There are dozens and dozens of them. In fact, I can't find any counter-examples where the common noun is used for the city and the object is disambiguated. You can't even argue for the fact that we already have 'Tire' and that 'Tyre' is merely a redirect - because Tombstone is a redirect for Headstone for a similar reason. SteveBaker 19:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is Cork, Bath, Derby, and Limerick. older ≠ wiser 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An example from a non-English speaking country, like Tyre, and Acre? (both of which have long-standing histories, hence their undisputed importance in an encyclopaedia) Widefox 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet, Switzerland - not English speaking. But I fail to see the relevence of that. SteveBaker 02:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-English narrows it down a bit, plus is more similar, plus no derivatives like Badminton vs. Badminton, Gloucestershire, Rugby etc (which is disambiguation BTW)

To be honest, I had never heard of Acre, Israel before this. Not that that signifies anything other than my ignorance. I'm sure there is a whole lot of history to the place, but I don't think it is nearly as recognizable as Tyre. Anyone with a passing familiarity with Old Testament stories will recognize Tyre, whereas, according to the article, Acre gets one brief mention. And Tyre is (or was, until recently) one of the larger cities in Lebanon -- and there does seem to have been just a few words in the press about events in the area recently. older ≠ wiser 01:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there's Cayenne, Split, Nice, and Manila. (There's also Bordeaux, which for many is a type of wine first that happens to be from someplace or other in France.) Somewhat surprisingly, Muscat, Oman, the capital and largest city in Oman doesn't merit primary topic. older ≠ wiser 01:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cayenne vs ? - Cayenne pepper (no name clash), Split vs ? - what noun? (naturally disambiguation or dictionary), Nice vs ? - ? ditto, Manila vs ? - what word? Not counting any for summary above, but curious if you find one! Widefox 02:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Bordeaux vs. ?, Bordeaux wine (no name clash), Muscat is interesting...it started as redirect to Muscat, Oman, then became disambiguation...adding to summaryWidefox 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian English uses "tire" as the rubber treading on cars. 132.205.93.195 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as I understand it, this is a US and Canadian English vs rest of world English - British, Australian, Commonwealth, International(?) (please correct this if wrong, I am British/Canadian). Widefox 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No takers for the UK invention yet? hmmm.... Widefox 22:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (national varieties of English). – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That implies the wheel-part article should be tyre (N.Irish & Scottish = British English), I'm trying to avoid that, by compromise. Widefox 23:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, which seems reasonable of you, but since you did ask... ;-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming round to that thinking too, after all "In for a penny, in for a pound" ref . Widefox 09:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make any difference to the 'Tyre, Lebanon' problem...but FWIW, the WP:MOS guidelines on UK vs US english are as follows:

If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
Where varieties of English differ over a certain word or phrase, try to find an alternative that is common to both.
If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.

So what we have here is a conflict between rule 3 (this article has historically been in US English) and rule 1 (tyres are a British invention and therefore one might argue for a tie to British English). Personally, I wouldn't say it was a strong tie - tyres are made and used all over the world and 'the place where they were invented' is a weak tie at best. It's not as if British people self identify with tyres as some kind of strong cultural matter! It follows (IMHO) that in this case, a strong (3) trumps a weak (1). Sadly, rule 2 does not apply here since there is no other reasonable word for a tyre/tire. SteveBaker 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Steve says here, however, I have always believed rule 3 to be absolutely stupid and unjustified, given that it's about editors and not subject matter, and we editors are supposed to be invisible in the supposedly impartial Wikipedia. Therefore in this precise situation I usually go with Wikipedia rule "ignore all rules" – which states that if ignoring a rule makes the encyclopædia better, one should go ahead and ignore it. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Steve too, but Rule 3 does go against Wikipedia being for the readers, not the writers! The central issue for me is common sense - N.American Wikipedia vs Rest of World Wikipedia. If this was the other way round, with American invention and spelling there'd be no vote needed. This is POV, when rest of world spells this tyre (leaking American English aside). It is bold, but I stick with it! Look at precedents - Acre is almost identical to Tyre, Muscat, displaced capital city Muscat, Oman, Bullet is minor town. Widefox 15:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is Acre "almost identical" to Tyre? They seem to be on completely different levels of notability.

it's not as famous, no, but Unesco is good enough for me. Getting a bit semantic to prove what's "almost identical"...going along with you...one of only 3 precedents, and ironic that geographically a neighbour, both Unesco, both Biblical. There are no counter examples so far, which means tyre is a one-off. Widefox 18:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus on readers - there are already complaints from UK, and Australia. Widefox 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)

Whilst one may not agree with rule 3, it is actually the current rule - and this is not the right place to dispute it. I think the intention here is to say: In the event that there is no other justification to rationally choose one spelling over the other, choose the one that is least likely to cause a revert war (ie leave well alone). Whilst this is in some regards an editor-oriented rule rather than a reader-oriented rule, I think it's intended as an ultimate 'tie breaker' in the event that no strong rational reason can be found. It's not in the readerships interests for there to be continually reverted text - so in that respect, it's still a rule to help the reader. SteveBaker 04:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put, and I esentially agree (though still disliking the rule). But in this case, in discussing the confusion over the disambiguation, we are in part discussing whether there is in fact an "other justification to rationally choose one spelling over the other", and so defaulting to "rule 3", if we did, would be premature. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from WP:RM. Peter O. (Talk) 03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I would add that Tyre. Lebanon is a reasonable and appropriate article title, (Note that we already have Tyre, New York) but contrarywise, we can't use Tyre (automotive) because the article also covers railroad tires, bicycle tires, aircraft tires and so forth. You'd have to go with with Tyre (mechanism) or something ugly like that. By comparison, Tyre, Lebanon ought to be the more resonable choice. Also, precent is well established: Bullet and Bullet, Switzerland, Tombstone and Tombstone, Arizona, Eagle and Eagle, Alaska, Acre and Acre, Israel. SteveBaker 19:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the ancient city is better as Tyre. I also dispute the claim that only US English uses "tire" as the rubber material used on car wheels. 132.205.93.195 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence for that dispute to the claim? I am a native UK English speaker and the only meaning of 'tire' that I would recognise is something relating to exhaustion. I use 'tyre' and would never even consider the US English spelling (except when required to by Wikipedia for example). As evidence that there is a strong US/UK English difference, I offer American_and_British_English_spelling_differences - which explictly mentions tyre/tire and explains in some detail where the linguistic divergence happened. SteveBaker 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original statement was that only US English used "Tire" instead of "Tyre". Canadian Tire is a well known Canadian business that shows that Canadians use "tire". I am in Canada at the moment. I have never seen anyone spell it "tyre" in any part of Canada. 132.205.44.134 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are quite right. I text of the original proposal still has that omission, but I have corrected that in the Facts section below it. I am partly Canadian. Widefox 23:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - I think that's understood. USA & Canada use 'Tire'. UK, New Zealand and Australia (and allegedly most others) use 'Tyre'. Of course, if you're French/Canadian, you get to use 'pneu' which is one of my favorite French words! SteveBaker 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some relevent facts:

I studied the linking patterns of 1000 place names (taken from List of places in England - which was convenient for studying). Of those, just 15 were ambiguous (listed in Talk:Tyre). Six pointed at the disambiguation page, eight pointed to the non-placename article and only one (Cheddar) pointed at the place. That last case is not a great example of 'prefer to point to placename' because "cheddar cheese" is actually the correct name for cheese made in Cheddar. So by 'common usage' it seems that the vast majority of Wikipedians tend to add words to disambiguate cities and leave the object name alone or point the ambiguous name at the disambiguation page. We hardly ever point to the place name.
There are 533 links to the article about the thing that wraps a wheel and 412 to the article about the city in Lebanon (plus 7 to the town in New York). But this disguises the truth. If we eliminate links from outside the article-space, eliminate disambiguation links and other clutter and look at the actual core, important linkages, we have 385 links to the thing that wraps the wheel and only 54 to the city in Lebanon (with just three to the town in New York). So if the matter has to be decided by the majority of links - then tyre (the wheel wrapper) wins hands-down.
The only relevent guidance we can find (Wikipedia:disambiguation#Specific topic) says: "When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used." - sadly this is not of much help because in this case we have both an alternative spelling (Tire versus Tyre is like Cheque versus Check) that would sway our opinions one way and a situation where there is an easy way to make a more complete name for one meaning than the other (Tyre, Lebanon versus Tyre (object that wraps a wheel)). So this rule pulls us in opposite directions and does not cleanly resolve the issue. Of course if you are a British/Australian/whatever speaker then the rule DOES offer a clear resolution because those speakers never use the 'Tire' spelling so there is no other word that is equally clear ("tire" means "to become exhausted" for British English speakers). For US speakers, there is no ambiguity - so they tend to lean strongly towards Tyre being only the city.
Note also Tyre, New York.

I submit that if we are to decide this on the basis of common practice and not US/UK english bias then (1) and (2) are completely conclusive and (4) provides strong support for the need to move Tyre to Tyre, Lebanon. SteveBaker 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Point to place name or point to noun? - A semi-scientific study

I have put forward some cases (Bullet, Tombstone, Eagle) where the place name is the one that is extended in order to avoid ambiguity (Eagle is the bird, Eagle, Alaska is the place). Others have come up with counter-examples (Cork is the place, Cork (material) is the stuff they make wine bottle stoppers out of). There are actually yet a third class (such as Liege) where the name points to the disambiguation page and both the city of Leige and the class of feudal leader are extended to disambiguate them.

So how are we to choose which of these three approaches is "correct"? Ideally, there should be some WP:MOS guideline - but there isn't. Another approach to deciding this would be by the majority precedent. If we found that an overwhelming majority of these cases were resolved in favor of one approach over the others - then that would provide a strong precedece that it would be illogical to ignore. But it's hard to measure the relative statistics of the three ways to do this because we are reliant on people just thinking of place names that have synonyms - and that's hard to do.

For the sake of doing SOMETHING, I decided to look at a thousand or so placenames and count how many of each type there were. From familiarity, I picked place names in England for all of the counties beginning with the letter 'S' (No particular reason). For each of the place names listed in 'List of place names in XXX', I clicked the link to see where it went or was redirected. As expected, I saw all three ways of resolving it represented.

RESULTS:

Out of about 1,000 place names I found, just fifteen were potentially ambiguous (and for which articles had been written). Of those fifteen:

Six names pointed at disambiguation pages (Reading, Ash, Send, Snape, Stone, Flash).
Eight names pointed at the article that was NOT about the place name OR the disambiguation page (Bentley, Eye, Wall, Hare, Street, Ford, Leek, Oath) - incidentally, the last two have neither disambiguation pages nor cross-links from the 'real' article!
Just one pointed at the article relating to the place name (Cheddar).

So these numbers suggest that whilst there are examples where the place name is kept as-is and the other noun is extended, these are a lot less common than the opposite case.

Yes, this may not be a scientifically valid statistical sample - feel free to mindlessly click through a thousand place names from some other set and perhaps you can prove me wrong!

The one and only example point-to-placename example in that set of 15 ambiguous names was a bit 'iffy'. Cheddar is a place - and it's a cheese made in that place. So the term 'cheddar' as applied to cheese is really short-hand for "Cheese from Cheddar" and as such, the article on it should never have been called 'Cheddar' in the first place.

Of the remainder, it's hard to come up with any reason why some names point to disambiguation pages and others point to the non-place-name meaning.

SteveBaker 05:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, this is great reading (I mean Reading (activity)) - sorry, couldn't resist! Proper nouns with capitals, hmmm, wikipedia! anyhow, suppose we've past that point now where case-sensitivity can be introduced into wikipedia, thus doubling the namespace (just a remark, not a suggestion). Have you found more non-English towns/cities, like in my Fact section above? Widefox 12:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why the fact that the place in question is English has any bearing on whether it should be disambiguated in one way versus the other - you keep insisting on non-English examples - but I think that's only because that's the last reason you have to cling to that makes my examples different from the Tyre issue. I chose English place names because they were all neatly listed together in one category so I could scan through them quickly. Just try clicking on a thousand links sometime and you'll realise that convenience counts! But I doubt that a statistically significant sample from elsewhere in the world would produce significantly different answers because the reason Wikipedia is indexed this way is about the way the minds of the authors work rather than about whether the place names are English or non-English. SteveBaker 13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, it doesn't in itself of course, I personally was just wanting to weigh up two bags with a few things in, not many, as well as the clarity of smaller lists. Your way is more thorough, mine more 1. lazy and 2. wanting to avoid derivatives (Cheddar/Cheddar cheese) and 3. more picky wanting foreign proper nouns. Aren't you at least curious about the idea that a proper noun translated from another language gets higher priority than a major English noun (in this case that was invented in UK, a reinvention of the wheel, as were)? Widefox 13:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There already is guidance on this matter at Wikipedia:disambiguation#Page naming conventions. There is no need to create yet another special case rule (see Wikipedia:avoid instruction creep). The question to be addressed in each case is whether a primary topic exists:

When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

OK - so there are 533 links to the article about the thing that wraps a wheel and 412 to the article about the city in Lebanon. But this disguises the truth. If we eliminate links from outside the article-space, eliminate disambiguation links and other clutter and look at the actual core, important linkages, we have 385 links to the thing that wraps the wheel and only 54 to the city in Lebanon. So if the matter has to be decided by the majority of links - then tyre (the wheel wrapper) wins hands-down. SteveBaker 13:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interesting numbers Steve. For fareness, I have to say though, I've fixed many links pointing the wrong way (Lebanon or wheel, as well as Tyrian). Widefox 14:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under Wikipedia:disambiguation#Specific topic, the first item is When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used. The check/cheque situation is analogous with Tire and Tyre (reversing the British/N.Amer spelling preference).

So the question at hand is really whether either any article merits primary topic status for "Tyre". And secondarily, whatever the the disposition of "Tyre", how to handle the various hatnotes, redirects, and disambiguation pages? older ≠ wiser 12:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the Titan versus Titan rocket example is exactly like Tyre and Tyre, Lebanon - the instruction they are giving us is that if there is one meaning that can conveniently have a word tacked onto it's name (Titan rocket) and another that can't (Titan - monsterous creature from Greek mythology) then we should add rocket to Titan and not make the other Titan have a messy title.

There is no convenient second word - or even simple phrase - that we can tack onto Tyre (meaning a part of a wheel) that will do that - if you can come up with one, it would change my mind in a heartbeat. News reports on events about Tyre very often say "In Tyre, Lebanon today XXX happened." - I have never heard someone say "I got a new set of Tyres, (part of wheel) today". There is a perfectly clear and natural way to add a single word to Tyre to clearly indicate that you mean a place in Lebanon...there is no similarly succinct way to talk about the general class of car/railroad/aircraft/whatever tyres. You only imagine another word for Tyre is Tire because you are not thinking about the vast majority of UK/Australian/... people who NEVER use the 'Tire' spelling and in fact consider that to be a completely different word (relating to a state of exhaustion). For the great majority of them, there is absolutely no other word or phrase that describes the rubber thing that wraps around the wheels of their cars. older wiser claims to live and work in the USA - and so will likely have zero understanding of the way British/Australians/etc use the word - Widefox claims on the User:Widefox page to be a near-native speaker of american english - I submit that neither of these people see the problem that the majority of our non-American/Canadian speakers will have. SteveBaker 13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me Steve, checkout the language section and the bottom of User:Widefox - I am English, (native British English speaker), British passport, born/raised in Britain. Why do you think I called for move? Like you, I understand importance all too well, and am personally quite impressed by the resistance (it is a bold move), but also shocked that we have to resort to nailing colours to flags! I am also quarter Canadian, and live and work in international area, in CET timezone (also on userpage), meaning I have a high exposure to American/Canadian/Australian/"Euro-English", hence claiming US English level 4.Widefox 14:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and maybe, like you, I wish there was a wider understanding from natives of other natives, and of the bigger picture - wikipedia is on the world stage, not just N.America. Widefox 14:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I know you are also a Brit. I'm a Brit living in the US (Texas - 13 years) too - so I too could probably claim to be a reasonable speaker of US English (although the meaning of Rubber - a condom versus a pencil eraser - still causes occasional embarassment when I ask to borrow one from a co-worker - promising to return it when I'm done!) What I'm trying to say is that neither you nor I are qualified to argue "All UK english speakers are perfectly happy with the 'tire' spelling". We are fairly comfortable with that - but that's because we have absorbed so much US culture. We just aren't qualified to argue in that direction anymore. Both you and I have to try to remember back to how it was before we were soaked in US english - so we are not in a position to argue in favor of 'tire' being "good enough". For you and me, it's good enough - but for my mother? I don't think so. SteveBaker 15:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. yes, that's my whole point about how acceptable as a world encyclopaedia this sort of N.American bias is! If it were the other way around US invention, us spelling in question there'd be no discussion (I'm repeating myself here). It's only by collaborating, that these regional assumptions can be sorted. On a personal note, yeah, I saw you've escaped too, 'bout as long as me, too. BTW, I scribbled a bit on your userpage. (amusing aside - to be read with Major from Faulty Towers type voice: "Rubbers, abstinence my deer chap, that's the answer!" Widefox 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we avoid degrading into anti-American cant? Just as with Cheque/check, there is an alternate spelling that is mostly unambiguous. The question is what do we do with the ambiguous term. I admit I would never think of calling the black rubber thing a "tyre", but though this discussion, I can appreciate that it is indeed the common term for that use in a large part of the English-speaking world. But, I don't think we could ever get agreement that that usage should be the primary topic. Since there is no consensus as to what the primary usage of "tyre" is, it should be a disambiguation page. The way the move was proposed and the argument in favor of the move presented, the suggestion that tyre should redirect to tire became an issue. If this requested move is recast as moving the present article to Tyre, Lebanon and Tyre (disambiguation) to Tyre, the vote and discussion would have likely followed a very different course. older ≠ wiser 15:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is most DEFINITELY not an anti-American thing - but you are saying "there is an alternate spelling that is mostly unambiguous" - this is simply not true if you are not American (or maybe Canadian - I'm not sure). For British and Australian (and many other) peoples, "Tire" isn't ambiguous, it's just plain wrong' - it's not an alternative spelling - British kids learning to spell in school would get a red X and lose a point if they spelled the word that way. That's neither anti-american nor pro-british - it's a simple statement of what is true.

Now, if this debate were about whether the article about the wheel thing should be called 'Tire' or 'Tyre' - then we'd have to resolve the whole issue over which dialect to use. But that's not what we're talking about here. The question is that for non-American speakers, does the word 'Tyre' relate mainly to the object or mainly to the city? This is not a question that US English speakers are qualified to answer. For you to argue that "the British usage of tyre is irrelevent" would be flat out insulting to a very large fraction of English speakers - so please don't do that. For you to argue that "because it makes it easier for Americans, we should point Tyre to the city" - implies that you don't give a damn about a vast number of non-US speakers - and I'm pretty sure you don't mean that either.

As a Brit, I would never consider the word tyre to relate primarily to the city. It's just like if I yell "Eagle" - what pops into your head is a big bird - you don't immediately (if at all) consider any of the 30 or so towns and cities that bear that name. That is precisely what happens when you use the word 'Tyre' outside of the USA/Canada. You say that you don't think we'll ever get agreement that the wheel thing is the primary use - but that's because you aren't a UK english speaker and you don't seem to be able to place yourself into our heads. I'm prettu sure you'd be on the other side of the fence if we were arguing about some city called 'Tire'.

SteveBaker 17:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to Steve - my reply to you is above.

to wiser the compromise on the ambiguous term would be a disambiguation page. We've spent much time, and I think we can say that tyre is ambiguous! Remember I've never called for the tire article to be renamed. OK. Just for the record - when you say "large part" you mean "majority" or "rest of the world" right, just checking? (world usage of US English aside) Also "common term" means "correct term" plus "common term" . Don't you see, from the regions of the world spelling it tyre, your regional spelling tire is only as valid as tyre in N.America - they'd never think of spelling it that way (again, spread of US English aside). The spelling are mutually exclusive (US spread aside). So, it's POV. Widefox 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

example - see confused reader above "I was looking for a wheel part a tyre" .... I 'aint making this stuff up! Widefox 17:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Brit. Born and raised in Somerset, schooled in Bristol, universitied in Lancaster currently at home among the apples. So above, when you ask "for non-American speakers, does the word 'Tyre' relate mainly to the object or mainly to the city? This is not a question that US English speakers are qualified to answer", I answer without hesitation that it means the city. It also has that as its primary meaning in my English Hutchinson's Encyclopaedia. To be honest, when I first saw the move had been done in my watchlist on the 4th, my immediate reaction was 'Wow - well, that's possibly the most creative vandalism I'll have reverted so far' (and as such I'm glad it was moved back, and a discussion created). The current situation, with the tag on top to tell people where to look for the wheel thing is by far the best situation, although a disambig would also be usable. For keeping things simple, it's the easiest way - in the English language (not any particular dialect, the language as a whole), 'Tire' is a valid spelling. To push the city out to Tyre, Lebanon, is to confuse things unnecessarily. Keep the city where it is, and tell people if they want the wheel thing where they can find it. Note the spelling differences in the article, and everything is good. --Mnem e son 17:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

creative yes, vandalism, no! I've added quite some value to Tyre, and fixed incoming links to both that and tire. Oh, how about any precedents for icon disambiguation at the top of an article - nice rubber wheel thing. Creative new suggestion...any opinions? Widefox 20:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker wrote: "The question is that for non-American speakers, does the word 'Tyre' relate mainly to the object or mainly to the city?"

Sorry, but no, that is most definately not what the question is. AFAICT, there is relatively little disagreement on that point. The determination of primary topic cannot be determined solely because non-American speakers favor one usage over another. older ≠ wiser 23:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBakerwrote: "For you to argue that "the British usage of tyre is irrelevent" would be flat out insulting to a very large fraction of English speakers - so please don't do that."

Where exactly did I argue that? I don't recall EVER saying that the British usage was "irrelevent" or even irrelevant. It is, however, merely one factor to consider. I voted to oppose the move BECAUSE of the heavy-handed arguments with the stated goal of making Tyre into a redirect to Tire. I acknowledged in my vote that a disambiguation may be appropriate. older ≠ wiser 23:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also to Steve, while you may claim that "tire" is "just plain wrong'" to non-American speakers -- the analogy to cheque is appropos -- to most American speakers the "correct" British spelling is simply wrong. Simply arguing that "tire" is wrong for some group of users doesn't get us very far, because the other term is also just as wrong for another group of users. older ≠ wiser 23:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an information point: tire is actually the old British English term for a metal tyre (wheel covering). The pneumatic invention appears to have created a new word tyre that was adopted worldwide apart from US and Canada. That in no way means that your spelling is wrong, it just puts things into historical context. We used to spell the metal version tire, but that changed due to a great UK invention - only made possible by a US invention I add! Widefox 14:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enough disagreement. I want to set this straight, once. Better balancing the namespace for tire vs. tyre readers is my original aim, not necessarily a redirect. I am pragmatic - if a disambiguation page at tyre is the only way to get consensus, then I want everyone to decide on that. It is my proposal, and I'll clarify it if I want to. Just tell me if you want to see that written elsewhere other than this comment.Widefox 00:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be prepared to compromise on Tyre redirecting to Tyre(disambiguation) - although my #1 choice is Tyre redirecting to Tire. SteveBaker 14:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean tyre being the disambiguation page right? A redirect to a disambiguation seems like extra stuff to me. Widefox 14:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - I meant what I wrote. Personally, I like to see '(disambiguation)' in the title of disambiguation pages. It makes it very clear that I havn't yet found the article I'm looking for. For that reason, I always add '(disambiguation)' to the title of those pages and use a redirect if necessary (although I still think it's better for the simplest title to point to the most frequently intended article - which I still maintain is Tire for all of the carefully researched reasons above). Also, there are times when I specifically want a disambiguation page because I'm researching the different uses of a particular word and I'd be frustrated if Tyre (disambiguation) didn't exist. However, for the sake of getting this stupid issue out of the way...your way will work too. SteveBaker 13:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either Tyre being a disambiguation page, or redirecting to the disambiguation page is acceptable. Although at the beginning of this, I couldn't see why it should go anywhere but the city, the number of people prepared to argue either way shows enough ambiguity for a disambig page. --Mnem e son 13:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...you feel strongly enough to reflect that in your vote above? Widefox 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under current practice, redirects from Term X to Term X (disambiguation) are moved so that the disambiguation page is at the simple form. See Malplaced disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support a disambigutation --Mnem e son 00:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irony Cabot

now that's made me laugh... Cabot The discover of America - a disambiguation page! Widefox 20:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tired Tyres

As an Australian, tyres are on wheels and hard work makes you tire, but I've read enough comics and websites to know how North Americans spell things. If you look at media quantity, then the Queen's english is already effectively an older fading version of North American, and ancient Tyre was here before pneumatic tyres. I became briefly perturbed by ft.lbf, but tyre.tire, as long as it can be found. Seasalt 12:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree, but the spread of American English is not the issue. Disambiguating for readers in Australia, NZ, UK, Ireland, India, EU, Internationally etc is. (Ironically, in this case, the N.American spelling version is the older version -think horse drawn carriages with metal wheel coverings-, and the rest of the world has changed due to the introduction of the pneumatic version, which may have used the term tyre in the patent). Widefox 14:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben-Hur's chariot race

I've placed this commented text here, and replaced it with a small note to discourage new insertion.

The film Ben-Hur's chariot race did not use the hippodrome as its setting. It was filmed on a set constructed on 18 acres of backlot at Cinecitta Studios outside Rome. The silent Ben-Hur also did not use it. Note that a real stadium would not have a big 'island' in the middle blocking the view the race. Reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052618/trivia Widefox 16:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sour

If the city is sometimes referred to as "Sour" I think that it should be noted in the article. Someone thought it was important enough to add a disambiguation link to basic taste, which sour redirects to. Note: later someone else erased part of the disambiguation notice and I fixed it. I did not add it myself. If the city is not referred to by this name, the disambiguation link should be removed from basic taste. There is a good chance that I will not come back to this talk page, as my time on Wikipedia is currently sporadic and I'll forget about it. Therefore, I suggest that someone who is knowledgeable about the subject take care of it. -- Kjkolb 05:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sour is a common misspelling of Sur (in the French, ou is always pronounced oo). Sour is not pronounced like "sour" as in "sour taste". The misspelling might be common enough to merit a link in the disambiguation page, but I'm not so sure about that. —LestatdeLioncour t 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a misspelling, it is just the French spelling, which may be relevant considering Lebanon's Francophone heritage. Of course, the standard French for Tyre is Tyr, but as in English many choose to call the place Sur using the Arabic name, it is not infrequently referred to as Sour (pronounced /su:ʀ/) in French. I think it deserves a mention as a common transliteration of the Arabic name.--84.190.59.66 (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tyre to tire with tyre disambig

To put this in context...On the disambig we have:

1) A regional-specific spelling of an extremely common word 2) A large city in Lebanon 3) A town with a population of less than 1,000 people 4) Another town with a population of less than 1,000 people

I do not believe that anybody can seriously argue that 3 and 4 are comparable alongside 1 and 2.

I see, therefore, that we have 2 viable options:

1) 'tyre' goes directly to tire and the disambig at the top remains 2) 'tyre' goes directly to tyre (Lebanon) and a disambig is added to the page

Wikipedia looks terrible when a very common word is linking to (basically) nothing. It should go to one of the 2 and have a disambig within, there is nothing to be gained by having an extra step for EVERY SINGLE user regardless of which type they are looking for when you could only affect the searches of (presuming 50/50 split of what users are searching for) 50%. In reality this could well be 75% are looking for Tyre (tire) and only 25% the city in Lebanon (with an extremely small amount looking for the other version).

This talk page is already full of debate about the organisational structure of wikipedia, lets come to an agreement and link this to one or the other, because as it stands we have the worst of both worlds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ny156uk (talk • contribs)

An extended debate, with both sides wanting 'Tyre' to point exclusively to their definition of the word decided that 'Tyre' itself should disambiguate - we did come to an agreement. Even if meanings 3 and 4 are uncommon, the top two are very common. If nothing else, in order to stop from re-opening a fruitless debate, the disambig should remain. --Mnem e son 14:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the agreement doesn't benefit the end-user. It doesn't matter what you or I think about which is more important, at present the end user must go through 2 steps to get to whichever one they want. We could improve the users experiene by letting them go directly to one and having a 'maybe you mean ...' on the other. I understand it is questionable to revisit this (having skim-read the main arguments for/against) but i think the resolution has resulted in a worse experience for users, not better. ny156uk 17:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Reference

Please excuse me if the formatting for my message is poor.

I just had a question about how to post a "cultural reference" for Tyre/Sidon. Amie Cesaire uses the images of "Tyre" and "Sidon" in his book "Notebook on a Return to the Native Land," and I think it is worthy of mention in the article. I have read copyright information before, but it's still kind of confusing. I am curious to know if my posting something like

"Amie Cesaire mentions Tyre and Sidon in his book, 'Notebook on a Return to the Native Land.'"

would be a violation of copyright, or perhaps too simplistic? I am reluctant to try to interpret what Cesaire means by using the cities in his poetry, because I feel like that is outside of the scope of listing it as a cultural "reference."

I can provide all publishing information and page numbers regarding MY source for the citation.

Thanks in advance --Bohemoth 19:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is tyria inGuild Wars a referance? Tyria and tyrians and ascalon looks quite like it--Slogankid 20:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

how do you pronounce the name Tyre in English?--Sonjaaa 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the round rubber thing on your car, "tire" (or "tyre"). Adam Bishop 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Island?

What's the name of the Island that Tyre is on? Tyre Island? --Armanalp (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two references I found had lower caps island - Tyre island or island of Tyre. Student7 (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --Armanalp (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrian games

I see a few tantalizing bits about the Tyrian games, which seem to be closely related to the Olympics. As much as I can make out (I can't access the best looking reference at [1]) the Tyrians held quintennial games dedicated to the Tyrian Baal, Melqart. From the various Wikipedia articles, apparently Melqart was accepted as synonymous with the Olympian Heracles (one of the Twelve Olympians and possibly distinct from the heroic Heracles). Apparently there were major revisions at the Tyrian temple (to "Zeus Olympius" or "Ba'al Shamayim") around the tenth century BC which established it in the Greek cultural orbit. However I'm finding claims that a stadium in Amrit, Syria actually predated the Greek Olympics and that the Phoenicians actually started the Olympics idea. [2] Apparently Israeli participation in the Tyrian games under Jason the High Priest was the source of a major conflict in 186 BC.[3] I haven't figured out yet whether Alexander the Great's stated desire to worship in the temple to Zeus Olympius was related to these games directly. Ruins of the stadium persist to this day.[4]

I think it would be very interesting for someone familiar with the archaeological literature to look into this and clarify what is known about the origin of the Tyrian games and whether they are cause or effect of the Greek Olympics.

It is ironic to imagine that such a flamboyantly Christian country as the U.S. has avoided laws against blasphemy but has passed an act of Congress to protect the symbol of the games founded ? in worship of Baal... Wnt (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Tyre does not exist!

I'm engaged in an edit-war on Bible prophecy (I've already sent a WP:3RR report) with a user who insists that Tyre has been destroyed and no longer exists. The problem is that Ezekiel prophesied its destruction: therefore of course it can't exist, right? Here's the paragraph that I deleted as inaccurate, and he keeps reinstating:

"The island city was destroyed by Alexander the Great during the Siege of Tyre and its residents were enslaved. Alexander used the debris from the destroyed mainland city to build a causeway to the island city. The Phoenicians never rebuilt Tyre. Numerous other empires and countries have rebuilt the city at or near the site of the original only to have them destroyed. The fishing village of Sur is now located at the original site of Tyre."

I can no longer correct this without violating 3RR. --Robert Stevens (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Tyre WAS destroyed but it was rebuilt by other empires. I never stated that Tyre did not exist. You're using a straw-man. 64.231.99.114 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does say that the Phoenician city of Tyre was never rebuilt. I just linked Sur, which of course, links here. Readers can draw their own conclusion. I'd just let it go at this point. It really is called Sur today, but so what? Student7 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A city with a population in excess of 100,000 people is not a "fishing village". Furthermore, note that in this parallel-Universe history, Alexander pretty much finishes Tyre: all subsequent attempts to rebuild it fail (so I guess Tyre has no significant history after Alexander, and much of this article makes no sense whatsoever)... and that explains why Tyre is just a tiny fishing village nowadays... --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only a small portion of the city is located on the original site. The buildings on the original site of Tyre cover an area of a few hundred meters by a few hundred meters, hardly a city.64.231.99.114 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It covers half of the former island (go to Google Earth and look), including the entire northern harbour region. The rest of the "fishing village" won't fit, because Tyre is now far too big to fit. --Robert Stevens (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've had to clear up more of this user's nonsense. Apparently Tyre was the capital of the "Phoenician empire" when Alex conquered it, destroying the empire (presumably there is no Persian empire at this time in the parallel Universe), then the post-Alexander reconstruction was under the direction of time-travelling Romans (imperial Rome did not yet exist in our Universe at this point) before they handed it over to the Seleucids. Perhaps someone who knows Tyre's history could keep an eye on the situation? I'm off to bed. --Robert Stevens (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Biblical prophecy of Tyre's destruction makes no reference to Alexander whatsoever. It very explicitly claims Nebuchadnezzar will do it (and it turns out Nebuchadnezzar was unsuccessful). This guy's claim that Tyre was destroyed and never rebuilt may indeed be wrong, but his argument not necessarily based on Biblical literalism. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally these stories were either retained after the fact or written down after the fact. When Nebudhadnezzar finally walked into Tyre, unrestricted, there appears to be no reference as to what, if anything, the soldiers did. But it is hard to believe, in those days, that they did not take anything that wasn't nailed down, and destroy what was left. This may not be what the Ancient Jews would have wanted in the way of destruction, but it would certainly be a fairly close approximation to the real thing. Student7 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The reference [19] links to a wrong event.

"Tyre was often attacked by Egypt, besieged by Shalmaneser V, who was assisted by the Phoenicians of the mainland, for five years. From 586 until 573 BC, the city was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar II[18] until Tyre agreed to pay a tribute.[19]"

The reference [19] links to: http://www.attalus.org/bc4/year315.html#20 But it does not deal with 586-573 BC, but with 315 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.89.230.136 (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With a slight of hand, I have moved the next to last citation to the end of the earlier attack. I have no access to this reference and don't know whether it it true or not. Then moved the 315 full citation to the correct spot. While this clears up obvious anomalies, it may have introduced a more subtle one! Student7 (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-2006 or Tyre Today

This article would really benefit from more information on what the city is like today in terms of infrastructure, rebuilding etc. at the present time, particularly considering damage in the Israeli invasion etc. Caspar esq. (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King of Cyprus 370 BC

A line reads "A king of Cyprus had taken Tyre with his fleet in the 370s BC, "a remarkable success about which little is known," Robin Lane Fox remarked." It would appear from http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/cyprus/kition/i.html that The king of Kition, Cyprus, BC 392-361 BC. was Melekiathon. He has no article. Not trying for WP:OR here, just puzzled why we can not at least put a name to the attacker. Student7 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bible as a historical source?

Shouldn't the reference to Jesus visiting the area really come under "cultural references" since there does not appear to be any corroborating evidence from a contemporary historical source? --Archstanton (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does seem to rely on the Bible as a WP:RS, and I too think the article should be re-worked to make it clear that while the Bible does speak of Tyre there isn't corroborating evidence in many cases. JJL (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It probably got changed since the original comment was made. The "list of trading partners" should be made a bit clearer, but the rest seems objectively attributed IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boosterism?

Some material reads: "Common leisure activities can be enjoyed throughout the year. Cycling, camping, wildlife photography, snorkeling and scuba diving are best enjoyed during spring and summer, and bird watching is best during spring and autumn."

It was listed under a section, "Tyre Coast Natural Reserve", which does not follow standard nomenclature for a city page. Perhaps should be under "Geography."

Wikipedia is not WikiVoyage nor WikiTravel. Nor is it WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of all information. It is an encyclopedia. This is "chatty" and frivolous in nature. It attempts to inform the reader when to plan her/his trip to Tyre (violating WP:NOTHOW). It is WP:BOOSTER-ism. A bit self-conscious WP:PEACOCK-ism. Neither is it cited by a WP:RS. To try to justify it's existence, I moved it to an "Economy-Tourism" subsection. It was reverted.

I also tried to shorten another sentence under the umbrella of Keep it simple. It was reverted at the same time. Student7 (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tyre, Lebanon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090311024355/http://www.lcps-lebanon.org:80/pub/breview/br5/seedenbr5.html to http://www.lcps-lebanon.org/pub/breview/br5/seedenbr5.html#cases

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel

What is the use of including any of the prophecy stuff? Wikipedia is not here to prove or disprove Bible prophecies. The entire section is pointless. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

150 ft high walls

The history-section includes defensive walls 150 feet (46 m) high (with ref to Lorenzi, Rossella (May 21, 2007). Sandbar Aided Alexander the Great. Discovery News). Could someone confirm; 46 m sounds like an awful lot to me. Poul G (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the claim to be removed unless someone justifies the claim. Could we say deadline by xmas (one month)? Poul G (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And xmas came without objections, so I'll remove the claim. Poul G (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More mention of the Phoenicians?

Shouldn't there be more mention of the Phoenicians, since many of them came from Tyre and established colonies all over the Mediterranean, plus Carthage? I'm no expert so not sure how to start, but I came here to read more and didn't find much. From this article it just seems like the city was captured a few times and that's it. --AW (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added some from the Phoenicia article. --AW (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

TyreHotel JalAlBahar YasserArafat 19112019RomanDeckert.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

Greetings and felicitations. I just finished extensive edits on the article, largely to cleanup image placement, as in wide browser windows the appendices were very badly overrun, and to add a Too many photos template. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns about this. I would appreciate it if you do, that you please notify me. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DocWatson42, thank you very much indeed. Umm, err, well, I suppose in my enthusiasm of expanding what was back then a total stub I actually did overillustrate. Now with more experience I realise that less may be more.. Cheerio! RomanDeckert (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RomanDeckert: You're welcome. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article is overly long - needs splitting

The readable prose-size is currently 125kB. This is overly long based on WP:SIZERULE. The existing suggestion to split out the historical content into a new article is sensible. I see the article is currently a Good Article nominee. My view is that it should be split, before either of the resultant articles are assessed against the GA criteria.Marshelec (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split on 2 January by Buidhe: History of Tyre, Lebanon. It still needs a proper lead section, and this article needs a summary in its History section. Lennart97 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

CoatOfArms MunicipaliteDeTyr 23122019.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Population density

60,000 people in 4 km^2 (city) = 15,000 people per km^2.

174,000 people in 17 km^2 (metro) = more than 10,000 people per km^2.

If the numbers are true, I think this is the densest place on Earth. Aminabzz (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the fourth largest?

The current version of the article says: "Today, Tyre is the fourth largest city in Lebanon after Beirut, Tripoli, Sidon, and Baalbek."

How can anything be the fourth largest element in a set being listed after four other elements? Shouldn't that be the FIFTH largest element? 91.64.174.22 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Languages in the opening statement

In what way are the Phoenician, Hebrew, Greek placenames for this city warranted in the opening brackets? User:Sinclairian claims that "multicultural significance warrants it", as if this city were multicultural at levels other cities are not. To begin with I hardly see the justification for a placename in a dead language such as Phoenician (in the opening brackets, it is obviously warranted in the 'Etymology' subsection). As for the modern hebrew, it should be deal as an (unwarranted) exonym vis-à-vis the opening brackets. And regarding the Greek placename, I ignore if it has any current liturgical significance to the current Melkite Greek Catholic local community, and but I also very much doubt such significance would warrant an opening statement mention.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this article is not limited to the modern era of Tyre, there is no reason not to include the historical names used by the peoples that have inhabited it since its establishment - it’s one of the oldest inhabited places on the planet. By analogy, Nieuw Amsterdam has no business being in the lede of New York City, but there’s absolutely reason for including both the ancient cuneiform and the modern Arabic names in the lede of Ur - which is why they are. Sinclairian (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no imperative for including historical names (let's assume for a moment that all those placenames are "historical", which is not a given) in contexts other than the historical ones. The opening statement of the article about a current city ("is a city in Lebanon") is not a historical context. The same way that the mention to سلانیك (Selânik) has no business in the opening statement of the article Thessaloniki, even if, paraphrasing you, the article Thessaloniki is not only about the modern era of Thessaloniki.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no equivalency there - Thessaloniki is an Ancient Greek city (whose Ancient Greek name is literally included in the lede already), located in Greece, whose 480 years of non-Greek history is a footnote against its literal thousands of years as a center of the Greek world. Why would the Ottoman Turkish name for the city be in the lede? Sinclairian (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is there no equivalence with? With the Phoenician, modern Hebrew, modern Greek placename of Tyre? How so? Wikipedia does not generally add exonyms, nor names with a mere historical value as alternative placenames in the opening brackets of the introduction of articles of current cities. At most, they are sometimes included within a note. This is without prejudice to the possibility that these factoids may be dealt with in other parts of the article. --Asqueladd (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]