User talk:ChrisO/Naming disputes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 What about diacritics? 2 Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs 3 Naming committee 4 Some direct questions

[edit] What about diacritics?

For instance, Sao Paulo versus São Paulo?

(also see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Proposal and straw poll regarding place names with diacritical marks)

--cesarb 23:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting example. There doesn't seem to be a readily identifiable rule for whether or not to use diacritics in names cited in English-language articles, so I think that's one that would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. -- ChrisO 12:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs

Are inhabitants of RoM suitable for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), they definitely prefer to be called Macedonians rather than Macedonian Slavs?

As for the criteria used for the ongoing poll, it appears that people X fulfill every objective criteria to be called Macedonians, except, maybe the last one.

• Is the name in common usage in English? Apparently, yes. (considering the Google test and the major media)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (official in terms of being used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution?) Yes. (in the constitution of RoM, as well as in many international documents)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? Yes.
• If an historic name is mentioned in the article, is it in an accurate context? There is a difference between Ancient Macedonians, people inhabiting the region Macedonia, and people X. This difference can be easily avoided with proper disambiguating such as: Macedonians (nationality), and others. -- FlavrSavr 23:51, 21 Jun 2005

The point about disambiguation is a very important one. In the case of "People X", I certainly think that the objective criteria would support the use of "Macedonians" to refer to them. However, there needs to be a disambiguation, as I said on Talk:Macedonian Slavs. There are at least five separate groups who could be described as Macedonians (i.e. a nationality, ethnic group, geographic group, ancient people, and religious group). So the Slavic people who call themselves Macedonians would thus have to be disambiguated as "Macedonians (people)" or something similar. -- ChrisO 12:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a naming commitee, but proper mechanisms must be applied to ensure its neutrality. -- FlavrSavr 23:51, 21 Jun 2005

Yes, definitely. See also my comments below. -- ChrisO 12:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming committee

The committee approach seems a good one to me - though should be reserved only for intractable bi-partisan disputes (like Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs) where there is good reason to think that voting will be overly dominated by closely-involved parties. Incidentally, the committee needn't necessarily be restricted to naming disputes either.

No, but first things first - if we are going to get into arbitration of content disputes I think it's best to start small. :-) -- ChrisO 12:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed --Cjnm 13:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. I would slightly query "similar to the Arbitration Committee". I’d suggest describing it as a panel of uninvolved neutrals who are available on request to apply agreed principles and common sense to take a decision one way or the other. We would need to ensure that panel decisions are clearly seen as pragmatic responses to particular disputes, rather than it being some kind of authority which determines “naming policy” and sets firm precedents. Otherwise there is a risk of a hierarchy that is unhelpful and resented, and excessive bureaucracy and inflexibility – in an area where hard and fast rules are sure to be counterproductive. Calling it something non-legalistic like the "Panel for naming disputes" or similar might help – as would keeping any procedures very simple and avoiding the type of quasi-judicial language associated with the Arbitration Committee (e.g. words like “case” etc). Ensuring different panel members (from a relatively large panel) deal with different disputes might help too.

I agree. I think this would be a very good way to approach the problem. -- ChrisO 12:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A gap in your proposal is – when and how is the panel given the authority to take a binding decision? The easiest answer is probably that, in any given dispute, a majority have to vote for a proposal that the panel step in. This of course carries the risk that the proposal is outvoted by partisans (especially the side that thinks they are in the majority) - but the system would probably work if the votes were well enough signposted from other places to attract sufficient uninvolved people. --Cjnm 11:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with voting on these issues is that votes can become partisan trials of strength. We should be reaching this sort of decision on the basis of objective tests, not subjective "my tribe is better than your tribe" nonsense of the sort that we're seeing on Talk:Macedonian Slavs at the moment. As for when the panel should step in, I prefer Mel Etitis' suggestion (below).

The panel's authority should probably come from the Arbitration Committee, given that Jimbo has passed most of his responsibility for resolving disputes to the AC. A vote by the AC to delegate responsibility for dealing with naming disputes should provide sufficient authority. -- ChrisO 12:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Although isn't this slightly asking AC to delegate a role it doesn't currently fulfill? (seeing as it wouldn't currently get involved in the Macedonians/Slavs case). I guess this just means there'd have to be wider support too. --Cjnm 13:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of the point about "similar to the Arbitration Committee", but that I think that committee decisions would have to be seen as final (or, at least, not challengeable within a certain, reasonably long period). Their decisions should be backed up by protection of the article against page-moves.

The last point I'm unsure about, though; perhaps the panel shouldn't be able to step in uninvited, but once it has been invited (even if by only one editor), it should be able to assess the need for its intervention, and if it thinks that intervention is in fact necessary, should be able to impose its decision. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and this is, I think, a perfect example of why it shouldn't be. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, on all points. -- ChrisO 12:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Me too. On Mel's last point, on reflection that's a better idea than my idea of majority voting for panel intervention. Though perhaps better to establish an expectation that not just one, but a few editors (e.g. five?) should request help from the panel (who can then accept or decline). This would encourage people to canvass the option of getting the panel to decide - rather than just firing off a request unilaterally. Also means the panel's decision is more likely to be accepted (as much as it can be in the circumstances!) as well as imposed. --Cjnm 13:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your point; what, though, if it's a dispute between fewer than five editors? If one editor asks, the panel can look at the Talk page, and decide not to intervene if, for example, they think that the person who appealed to them did so simply to bypass proper discussion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some direct questions

Ok, guys, you seem to be well involved in the procedure, so please answer me some simple (and somewhat crude) questions and spare me time of research how the Arbitration Committee actually works (as a role model for this new committee):

• Is the committee ad-hoc or a constant group?
• Specifically, for the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav naming debate, does its neutrality imply that neither Greeks, Macedonians, nor Bulgarians will be involved in it?
• What are the criteria for choosing members of the committee? (I would like to lay an example here - I think that is a bad idea to choose a high percentage of historians in the Macedonians/Macedonians Slavs debate, they seem to be ignoring modern international treaties too much)
• When will the committee start working?

--FlavrSavr 16:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. The arbcom is constant; I think that a naming committee should be, too.
2. Yes, it could surely only mean that. There is, of course, a problem concerning how we can determine editor's nationality, but I think that that's a relatively minor detail.
3. That's something that hasn't yet been discussed, I think.
4. Who knows?

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what happens next with this proposal? --Cjnm 28 June 2005 11:35 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict. Ed Poor and I are trying to work out a common approach. -- ChrisO 28 June 2005 21:54 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea (and quite similar to thoughts I've had). Naming disputes are particularly tricky and finding compromises in the way NPOV tries to encourage is often impossible. However, I think the committee's jurisdiction would need to be precisely and tightly specified. Morwen - Talk 15:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)