Talk:Savielly Tartakower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France Portal

Savielly Tartakower is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

I've moved this to Savielly Tartakower from Ksawery Tartakower; I'm guessing he is known as Ksawery in Poland, but in English-lanuage contexts I've never seen him called that; it's always been Savielly or Saviely. Hence, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), one of those is the right place for the article. If Ksawery was his birth name which got changed later, it's probably worth mentioning that specifically in the article (I don't know myself if it was or wasn't, so I've just left it as an "also known as"). --Camembert 12:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This seems a bad idea to me. Perhaps he was referred to as Savielly by Brits, but this doesn't mean that he changed his name. He was most certainly born as Ksawery and upon accepting the Polish citizenship he was referred to Ksawery byhis own documents (that is passport and id documents). Since in pre-war Poland there were no names laws that would prohibit people from chosing any name they wanted, this must've been his own choice. Please provide any backup for your movement of this article. Halibu tt 13:50, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

As I say, in English-language contexts he is virtually always known as "Saviely" or "Savielly", and according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) that is what matters ("If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (as you would find it in other encyclopedias)"); if you disagree with this, you should probably take it up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). To give a few examples of how other sources name him: the Oxford Companion to Chess has his name as "Saviely"; Chessbase databases (which actually tend towards German spellings, but which have wide influence in English-language publications) has him as "Saviely"; the Dover edition of 500 Master Games of Chess has him as "Savielly" on the cover; chessgames.com has him as "Savielly"[1]. On the other hand, I don't know of any English-language sources which have his name as "Ksawery"; if they exist, they're in a small minority.

Of course, if he is known as "Ksawery" in Poland, then the Polish version of the article should be at "Ksawery Tartakower" (as indeed it is), but to have the English version of the article there is going to cause confusion, because few people who are primarily English-speakers will recognise that as his first name. That said, if it's the name he was born with, we must of course mention that in the article--I'll edit appropriately. --Camembert 16:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(A month after I had posted the above, Halibutt quietly moved the page back to Ksawery Tartakower--Camembert)

Tartakover's final citizenship was French, and in that country he's known as Xavier Tartakover.
What's the name as which he is best known in English? David.Monniaux 07:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

We need a proof that he has ever changed his name to Savielly, Xavier, Sarsaparilla or any other name. And whether he is best known in English under some other name or not is not really important. It might be mentioned in the lead as an interesting and common mistake, but naming the whole article with a mistake just because the Brits and Americans frequently misspel the original name seems a step too far. A decent proof would be his signature. Halibu tt 13:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

It seems we disagree over the rationale to be used behind naming articles. My view (and, I believe, the view of many) is that using article titles unfamiliar to most readers is more likely to lead to confusion than enlightenment. This is why the usual approach on the English Wikipedia (as explained at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)) is to place articles under the most common name found in English and explain in the article what the subject's original or native name is. As far as this convention is concerned, whether a name was officially adopted by someone is neither here nor there. Again, if you disagree with that convention, then I urge you to argue over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), since it affects many articles other than this one.

I don't want to get into an edit war over such a petty subject, so I'm not going to move the article back for now. Can I just ask, however, that when you move pages you ensure you don't create any double redirects in doing so (see Wikipedia:How to move a page and Wikipedia:Multiple redirects); in this case, the redirects at Savielly Tartacover and Saviely Tartakower were left broken (I've fixed them now). --Camembert

Camembert is right, and by WP policy this page should be either Saviely Tartakower or Savielly Tartakower. Of course in English his last name is also frequently spelled Tartacover, so with several different spellings common in English and no easy way to choose one as the most common, maybe using the native spelling is best after all. It is difficult for page authors who will tend to create double redirects, but that would probably happen if we chose any of the four other possibilities anyway. Quale 09:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The article by Hans Kmoch linked to in the main page says that Sawielly means "little Saul", and was his original name. I've NEVER seen him called Ksawery. Most likely, Ksawery is a back-formation into Polish from his adopted French name Xavier. Please can we revert the title of the main article to Savielly, since the overwhelming majority of English chessplayers know of him this way, including the late Harry Golombek who was a personal friend and translated his book.58.162.245.111 04:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it as that was the name he had in his papers back in his Polish times (and that was the name he was inscribed under to the chess olympiads). See [2], for instance. As to WP:UE convention, it clearly does not apply to personal names. Otherwise we'd have to translate all names and even surnames to English, whether people were Spanish, Polish, Zulu or Chinese. While this might be a decent idea for monarchs whose names indeed are usually translated, I doubt it is a good idea for other people. Halibu tt 08:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

This is anachronistic. When T was born, the land we call Poland was part of Russia, and in any case, he was born in what is now Ukraine. Kmoch is a reliable source, and he gave Sawielly and the derivation. Seems far more likely that 58.162.245.111 is right—T was living in France when he played for Poland in 1939, and it seems likely that the Polish records used the Polish equivalent of the name he was known by in France at the time, Xavier.

It was very poor form for Halibutt to rename the main page while the debate was still unresolved. 220.245.180.133 03:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it should be Savielly - or at least one of the versions beginning with S. Since this is the English version, the convention is to use the most common one found in English writings. Also, that is what is used at [3] Bubba73 (talk), 05:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

1 moved back to Savielly
2 Rook endings quote
3 Editorial comment
4 References, Notes
5 Article doesn't cite its references

[edit] moved back to Savielly

I moved the page back to Savielly. It has been over a month since any discussion of this on the discussion page, and everyone seemed to be in agreement, except for one person. Also, it seems what is desired by the WP naming convention for the English version. Bubba73 (talk), 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rook endings quote

I have two references for Tartakower for the quote about all rook endings being drawn and two references for Tarasch. Personally I think it sounds more like Tartakower, since his quotes usually have some humor in them. I think that people may have confused this quote with Tarrasch rule about rooks, so at the present I think Tartakower said it. Does anyone have any definitive information? Bubba73 (talk), 18:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial comment

I think "Of course, this is not literally true. He was making a semi-serious comment on the fact that a small advantage in a rook and pawn endgame is less likely to be converted into a win" seems unencyclopedic and WP:OR. I think it should be rewritten as:

"The context of this quote shows it is a comment on the fact that a small advantage in a rook and pawn endgame is less likely to be converted into a win".

--Aminz 04:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I wrote the original, and your rewording is better. Make the change. Bubba73 (talk), 04:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bubba~~1973~~73 --Aminz 05:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References, Notes

I think the references should appear separately in each article. Please have a look at the notes and references section of Dhimmi article. I like its organization. Notes come first and they are followed by references. I suggest applying the same thing here. --Aminz 04:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I was being lazy about see the other article for the references, I'll put them here. Bubba73 (talk), 04:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. I'll then apply the format of the References/notes in Dhimmi article to it (if you don't mind).--Aminz 05:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what format Dhimmi uses, since I can't edit it to look at the text. But I did put these in Harvard Referencing style, the new format. Bubba73 (talk), 05:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bubba, do you mind if I use the new format for other references? --Aminz 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article doesn't cite its references

Would someone please attribute every sentence to a reliable source. I'm sure this article is written based on reliable sources, however the reader should be able to check it easily. Thanks. --Aminz 04:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing every sentence is a pretty tall order! But I've done it for practically everything I've done since December 2005. I put in references for all I added to this article. Bubba73 (talk), 05:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it is not necessary for this article, but in general, I *think* it is better to be done. I couldn't find anything about Savielly Tartakower in Britanica Encyclopedia. I am trying to get access to the sources through books.google.com and fix the references. Let's see --Aminz 05:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of different spellings of his name - first and last. Beware of that. Bubba73 (talk), 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For example ? --Aminz 06:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tey are listed in the article: Ksawery, Savielly, Sawielly, or Xavier and Tartacover or Tartakover

Yes, it is better. When I started with WP, very few references were given, so I usually didn't do so. However, in Dec 2005 I started referencing almost everything. Bubba73 (talk), 06:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You are right and this is not only the case here but almost everywhere. --Aminz 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Several quotes are here. Bubba73 (talk), 06:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm afraid we can not use this website since it is not a peer reviewed published reliable source. But it is fun. Thanks --Aminz 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If we required that, 98% of WP would have to go. Bubba73 (talk), 04:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)