User:ChrisO/Naming disputes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Names and neutrality 3 Achieving neutrality in naming 3.1 Naming principles 4 How to deal with specific types of name conflict issues 4.1 Conflicting historical names 4.2 Conflicting scientific names 4.3 Non-controversial alternative names 4.4 Should names be translated? 4.5 Identifying common names 4.6 Differences between different dialects of English 4.7 Summary of criteria for judging which name to use 4.7.1 Criteria that should be considered 4.7.2 Criteria that should be excluded 5 Resolving persistent naming disputes 5.1 Naming dispute resolution committee

[edit] Introduction

Names can often be a subject of dispute, particularly where conflicting ethnic or historical interests are involved. Wikipedia has experienced many edit wars on the subject of placenames, most notoriously Danzig/Gdansk.

This proposed policy is intended to deal with these disputes in a consistent and rational manner, rather than relying on ad hoc and possibly questionable criteria for each dispute in turn.

[edit] Names and neutrality

Names can often be construed to be statements of a particular point of view. A group or entity may oppose the use of a particular version of a name by another group of entity. Equally, it may use a particular name as a means of obtaining moral standing or asserting a territorial claim. This is particularly the case with regard to territorial and secessionist disputes. For instance:

• The People's Republic of China denies the existence of the Republic of China (Taiwan), instead referring to it as "China's Taiwan province".
• Greece rejects the use of the name Macedonia by the (Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia.
• Georgia does not recognise the existence of South Ossetia as a political or territorial entity.
• Argentina calls the Falkland Islands the Islas Malvinas.

It is impractical for Wikipedia articles to use both names in an article. As a matter of style, using (for instance) "Republic of China/China's Taiwan province" at every instance would be exceedingly clumsy. In addition, Wikipedia's software permits an article to be redirected from one name to another but does not allow two names to have equal value. One name must be the primary, with the alternative redirected to this name. Hence the article on the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is actually located at Republic of Macedonia, with the longer name being a redirection.

Although it is possible to create two articles covering the same subject but under different names, this is regarded as unnecessary duplication or a "POV fork", a shorthand for an article created primarily to present the subject of an existing article from a different point of view. Duplication and forking are discouraged by Wikipedia policy and any such duplicate or forked articles are likely to be deleted or redirected somewhere else.

It is often simply not possible to appease both sides in such a dispute. An article called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus would offend those who regard the TRNC as an illegal entity. Similarly, an article called Turkish Occupied Cyprus would offend supporters of the TRNC. One side will invariably be offended if its preferred name is not used. This is not to say that Wikipedia should shy away from any such controversies, but does require that they be resolved in a fair and transparent fashion.

[edit] Achieving neutrality in naming

Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy can still be satisfied if a fair and consistent policy is fairly and consistently applied. The outcome may not please everyone but, as with the law, if the rules are clear and fairly implemented then the outcome will have a much greater degree of legitimacy than a decision reached through a partisan trial of strength.

A neutral point of view cannot be achieved if purely partisan reasons are used to determine the outcome of a naming decision. These may include reasons such as the name being "illegitimate", the entity so called being "illegal" or having no right to use that name, and so on. Arguments based on assertions of historical or moral rights are inherently POV. Likewise, it is inherently POV for the use of names by certain groups to be "vetoed" by other, opposing, groups.

Wikipedia cannot take a position on whether the use of a name is legal or whether the user of the name is a legal entity. We are not international lawyers, nor are we bound by treaties, laws or any other legal obligations to call something X rather than Y. Nor can we take a position on whether the use of a name is morally right or wrong. Doing either – declaring that a name usage is legal/illegal, or right/wrong – is a violation of the NPOV policy.

We can, however, applying three key principles to determine what to call a disputed thing:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

These are explained in more detail below.

[edit] Naming principles

Where conflicting names are at issue, the following hierarchy of naming should be followed.

• Primacy: What is the most common version of the name in English? Bear in mind that this is the English Wikipedia; therefore the name that is most commonly used in English is to be preferred.

• Example: The capital of Belgium is known as Brussels (Flemish) and Bruxelles (French). The city was historically inhabited by Flemish-speakers, but is now primarily inhabited by French-speakers. It is officially bilingual. Which name should take priority?

• Answer: The city is most commonly known in English as Brussels. It should therefore be referred to by that name in English-language articles.

• Official status: What is the official version of the name? Where there is no clear primary version of a name, the official version should be preferred. Note that the common name can override an official local name. However, this rule should not be used for scientific names - see #Conflicting scientific names.

• Example: The capital of Ukraine is known as Kyiv (Ukrainian) and Kiev (Russian). The official version is Kyiv. Which should be used?

• Answer: The commonest spelling in English is Kiev. Therefore Kiev should be used.

• Self-identification: What is the name by which the subject (assuming that it is a person, group or organisation) refers to itself? Where there is no clear primary or official version of a name, the subject's own form of the name should be used. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), which states that "When naming an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use [for themselves]".

• Example: One of the Native American peoples of the Artic call themselves the Inuit. The historic and slightly more widespread name for these people is Eskimo, which the Inuit deprecate as an insulting term. Which should be used?

• Answer: Although the commonest name in English is Eskimo, it does not overwhelmingly predominate, nor is it the preferred term of self-identification. [1] Therefore the preferred term of self-identification should be used. (Note: Inuit also the preferred official term, and therefore comes under the "official status" tier as well.)

[edit] How to deal with specific types of name conflict issues

[edit] Conflicting historical names

Historical names may be the subject of controversies, particular when they are seen to imply a disputed historic continuity or where they overlap with modern meanings:

• The Romans are not exclusively synonymous with the inhabitants of modern Rome.
• Macedonians may mean the inhabitants of ancient Macedon, the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, the Macedonian Slavs who predominately inhabit that country and refer to themselves as Macedonians, the inhabitants of the geographical region of Macedonia or even the adherents of an early Christian sect.
• Danzig was used as the name of the Polish city of Gdansk for centuries, but is no longer the official name of that city.
• The city of Durrës in Albania has had many different names in different languages over the centuries and is still widely known as Durrazzo.

Historical names should take second place to the current primary, official or self-identifying name. For instance, Leghorn is an historical English term for the Italian city of Livorno. Similarly, Pressburg is an historical name for the Slovakian capital of Bratislava. Neither of the old names is in common usage today, but both are worth noting in an historical context. They should be noted in the article text, but not used as the primary name for the city.

Where multiple meanings of a name exist, they should be disambiguated. The disambiguation page on "Romans" provides an excellent example of how to do this. Note that "multiple meanings" does not mean "multiple versions of the same meaning".

[edit] Conflicting scientific names

Scientific names are not always consistent. A classic example is aluminium, called aluminum in American English. Where such inconsistencies exist, the internationally agreed scientific name should be used (the name aluminium, for instance, is established as the standard spelling by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry). In the case of scientific names, common usage should not override internationally agreed standards if the two differ.

[edit] Non-controversial alternative names

Names will often have synonyms and alternative spellings reflecting different languages. These are often not controversial: for instance, London is also known as Landan (Arabic), Llundain (Welsh), Londres (French) and so on. There is no dispute over which version is definitive, hence the article's location at London.

Where alternative names exist, these may be listed in the article after the preferred name. Alternatively, and especially if there are a lot of alternative names, they may be given on a separate list of alternative names. See for instance List of alternative country names or List of European cities with alternative names. An "alternative names" link can be established like the following:

London (see also alternative names)

[edit] Should names be translated?

Many English-language versions of foreign names will be radically different from the foreign originals. Compare, for instance, Germans (Deutsch) or Croatians (Hrvati). Where an English version of a foreign name exists, the English version should be used as the definitive name with the local name noted alongside it in the text (not the article name). If there is no English version of a foreign name (e.g. Hmong, Xhosa) then the foreign name should be used as the definitive name.

[edit] Identifying common names

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

1. The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
2. International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF etc.
3. Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
4. Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.

[edit] Differences between different dialects of English

There are legitimate differences in naming between different dialects of English (notably American English and British English): for instance streetcar versus tram, or gasoline versus petrol. Guidance on dealing with such differences can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).

[edit] Summary of criteria for judging which name to use

[edit] Criteria that should be considered

(Note: these criteria are objective and should be used)

• Is the name in common usage in English?
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (official in terms of being used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution?)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves?
• If an historic name is mentioned in the article, is it in an accurate context?

[edit] Criteria that should be excluded

(Note: these criteria are subjective and should not be used)

• Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
• Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
• Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
• Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

[edit] Resolving persistent naming disputes

In resolving persistent naming disputes, Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure should be followed. This calls for a process of negotiation and, where necessary, mediation between editors. It may involve the calling of a survey or request for comment.

However, such mechanisms not always suitable for resolving naming disputes. Votes may degenerate into partisan trials of strength, with supporters and proponents on each side attempting to impose their own viewpoint by simple weight of numbers rather than with reference to objective arguments. The result may thus be a reflection of the numerical strength and organising ability of the winning side, rather than being reached through an objective review of facts and common usage.

A majority verdict does not automatically imply correctness or any correlation with a NPOV; it merely reflects which side has attracted the most votes. If the majority's decision is factually correct and neutral, there is no problem; but there is no guarantee that this will be the case. A decision can be swung by factors of no relevance to the substance of the dispute, for instance if one ethnic or political group has a bigger representation on Wikipedia than its rival.

[edit] Naming dispute resolution committee

To overcome the impasse that can result from rival partisans fighting over self-proclaimed moral and legal rights to particular names, it is proposed that a naming dispute resolution committee be established. This would operate on a similar basis to the Arbitration Committee but arbitrating only on the narrow point of nomenclature. It would provide a neutral panel of Wikipedia administrators, without a partisan stake in the outcome, who would review proposed names against the criteria set out above. The committee's verdict would be final and binding.

The existence of such a committee would ensure that naming disputes can be resolved through an objective review of the evidence by a panel of neutrals, rather than by up-or-down votes by rival groups of partisans using Wikipedia as a proxy for offline political battles. The outcomes would not please everyone but would at least be reached by an objective and transparent process, reached according to measurable criteria, rather than by a partisan tug-of-war reliant on highly debatable POV arguments.