Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 This talk page 2 East Sea/Sea of Japan 3 Most common use 4 Manual of Style 5 Examples 6 Common usage (2) 7 Framing the Proper Cultural Context of Common Use 7.1 Related proposal 8 Such Disputes Are Part of a Wider WAR 9 Names in articles 10 Disclaimer: Wikipedia has no official position 11 From proposal to official policy? 12 Common usage and google tests 13 my talkpage... 13.1 Questions to dab 14 Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs 14.1 1 14.2 2 14.3 3 14.4 4 14.5 5 14.6 6 14.7 7 14.8 8 14.9 some thoughts 14.9.1 about the table 14.10 Sources 15 Hot to find self-identifying names 16 Dover Strait or Strait of Dover 17 Disambiguation of personal names 18 A clarification 19 Falkland Islands 20 What is an "English Speaker"? 21 Common names versus scientific names 22 Conflicts between the "prevalent term" and "descriptive name" policies 22.1 Proposal for articles on events and activities 23 Imjin War 24 Inconsistent policy 25 proposed chage in chart

[edit] This talk page

Can we use this page to discuss the suggested policy, not specific cases? Kokiri 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

[edit] East Sea/Sea of Japan

This is a good start, but unfortunately it misses a key point. The article says:

The body of ocean water between Korea and Japan is called the East Sea by Koreans and the Sea of Japan by Japanese. Which is right? Wikipedia refuses to say.

We do quite rightly refuse to say which is right - but note that the article is located at Sea of Japan, not East Sea. In other words we don't say which is right but we do select one name to take priority. There's no way around this, as MediaWiki won't allow one article to have two equal names (rather than one priority name and multiple redirections). So the question then becomes, which name should take priority?

I've already suggested that we should set objective criteria for deciding on naming priorities. The following is adapted from User:ChrisO/Naming disputes:

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, apply three key principles to determine what term should be used as the title for an article in the Wikipedia namespace:

* 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.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

* Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)

* Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)

* Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

* If an historic name is mentioned in the article, is it in an accurate context? (check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France to describe Roman Gaul)

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

* 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?

If a dispute over naming rights exists, it should be described in the article, but it should not be the deciding factor in determining where the article exists in the namespace. Locating the article at an obscure or little-used name makes it considerably harder to find, and if it is done for subjective reasons (e.g. because someone does not like the common term for moral or political reasons), it is clearly not consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Note that these principles and criteria support the current placing of the Sea of Japan article:

• "Sea of Japan" is clearly the most commonly used name in English;
• the official name is disputed, so no judgment can be reached there;
• the subject is an inanimate object, so has no self-identifying term (obviously);
• we don't take a position on whether the name is morally or politically correct, so that factor can't be used to judge where to place the article.

The only factor that survives is common usage, so the article is correctly placed at Sea of Japan on this basis. The advantage of having a set of criteria is that we can reach these decisions without getting into POV fights over moral rights to a name. It also creates a level playing field for resolving all such disputes. -- ChrisO 11:44, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are we having an argument? I didn't read all that word-for-word, but I think we're in agreement. And I appreciate your staunch and well-reasoned defense of NPOV. I think the article remain at "Sea of Japan" simply because it got the most Google hits.

I don't think this is an objective criterion but more a practical one. We put articles where people can find them, but we don't use article names as endorsements of entity names.

I'm grappling for a way to resolve Japan Sea / East Sea, as well as the Macedonia and Macedonian Slav issues as well. I think between you and me, we have enough brain power to settle this in a way that all contributors will be content. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:35, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think we have the brain power! Unfortunately I don't think we can ever ensure that everyone will be content given that place and ethnic names are so tied up with nationalist feelings. But I do think we can at least reduce the impression of unfairness in naming articles by ruling particular criteria in or out at the start.

Here's how I'd tackle the two questions you raise, East Sea/Sea of Japan and Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs. I've transferred the criteria mentioned above into a table so that we can assign scores to the outcome of each, as follows:

Criterion	Option 1 Sea of Japan	Option 2 East Sea
1. Most commonly used name in English	1	0
2. Current official name of entity †	0	0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity †	0	0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. † Use English translation of name, where available

"Sea of Japan" comes out with a score of 1 while "East Sea" scores 0. "Sea of Japan" wins due to its widespread conventional usage. The article name should thus be "Sea of Japan".

Criterion	Option 1 Macedonians (people) ‡	Option 2 Macedonian Slavs
1. Most commonly used name in English	1	0
2. Current official name of entity †	1	0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity †	1	0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. † Use English translation of name, where available ‡ Disambiguation is required to distinguish between the multiple meanings of this term.

"Macedonians (people)" is the clear winner, with a score of 3 versus 0 for "Macedonian Slavs". "Macedonians (people)" should be the article name in this case.

How would you feel about using this kind of mechanistic approach to deciding article names? -- ChrisO 28 June 2005 20:18 (UTC)

The latter example suggests to me that this version, at any rate, doesn't work, as it gives a counter-intuitive result. Part of the probelm, though, might be the data; it's not at all clear that there is a most common way of referring to this group in English (and in many other cases this will be the subject of much dispute, as different conventtions are used in different places and among different groups).

I'd also want to add a reference to the use of the options to name other things. So, for example, if "Macedonians" is commonly used to refer to a different, largely unrelated group (such as the people ruled by Philip and Alexander), that's a significant factor.

Note that there's a tension between including: Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) and Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term) while excluding: Is the use of the name politically unacceptable? This surely impinges on Wikipedia's need to stay neutral; if a group or nation uses a term to describe itself, but that self-description is disputed by another group or nation, isn't choosing one or the other likely to indicate that we've taken a position on the matter? I'm not saying that this prevents us from choosing one or the other, only that it should be taken into account.

As with other areas (in the philosophy of science, for example — the raven paradox, etc.), sticking to a mechanical, formal approach is likely to lead to serious problems. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 29 June 2005 11:19 (UTC)

I do believe that, there is a most common way of referring to this group in English - Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Poll#Resources. As for other things named "Macedonians", there are plenty of disambiguating options: Ancient Macedonians (for the people of Alexander the Great), Macedonian Greeks, Macedonian Bulgarians (for the inhabitants of the wider region), Macedonians (nation), Macedonians (people) for people X. I think that the Is the use of the name politically unacceptable? criteria is properly excluded, because it is a subjective criteria. What is politically unacceptable? Subject X might find to be politically unnaceptable to call subject Y some name, even if Subject A,B,C find that name perfectly acceptable. Actually, only Greece finds it politically unacceptable to call people X "Macedonians". Even if we include that criteria, the use of "Macedonian Slavs" is also politically unacceptable by the Republic of Macedonia. In fact, the use of "Macedonian Slavs" has aroused more political tensions than the use of "Macedonians". International organizations and governments commonly use the term "Macedonians". The only attempt to somehow officialize the term "Macedonian Slavs" happened in the Council of Europe, a mass NGO action and an official political reaction from RoM followed, and the whole thing ended as a somewhat shameful attempt to impose a Greek POV to a credible institution such as CoE. (Walter Schwimmer ended up denying that such a document even existed). I think that this mechanical approach works perfectly when it comes to sensitive political and religious issues, (which constitute the majority of the naming disputes. I don't know about other fields, perhaps it will work well there, also. --FlavrSavr 29 June 2005 13:41 (UTC)

Coming up with a more detailed policy for resolving naming disputes is probably worthwhile. Though flexibility is needed - hard cases make bad law as they say. But isn't it missing the point? The problem on Macedonian Slavs (and no doubt elsewhere) is people voting nationalistically and without reference to the sensible guidelines already there at the top of the page. Refining the guidelines won’t help. If more detailed guidelines were in place (or indeed if some cunning compromise was on the table) there are so many people interested that a vote would surely still have happened, and it would still have had the same inconclusive (and arguably unfair) result. What will it be like when Wikipedia is bigger, and there are serious organised voting campaigns on each side? I know it's radical thinking - but some kind of panel just has to be the way of the future in cases like this – just as you proposed at User:ChrisO/Naming disputes. How does one make it happen? I am new to Wikipedia so I'd be glad to hear. --Cjnm 29 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)

[edit] Most common use

Two things here: (1) in the case of Sea of Japan/East Sea (as an example), we agreed last year or so, that the most common English use is context dependent. We're still struggling over this, but I think the possibility of context dependency needs to be addressed. To give an example (disputed): We could argue that in the context of Korea-related articles, the most common English name is East Sea, whereas in other contexts it is Sea of Japan. (2) I wish to include the statement that the Google test is a bad test (it excludes everything outside Google's index, including most published books), that it needs to be set on English results only (and that this is imperfect); but for practical reasons it is one of the few checks we can easily verify. Kokiri 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Strange...Kokiri, in a post just above you requested that we not discuss specific cases and here you are discussing specific cases. Anyways, that is moot point and i am not bashing or flaming you for that. I just wanted to point it out. Anyways, you said that "we agreed last year or so, that the most common English use is context dependent" I have searched high and low for that agreement and I haven't found it. Maybe i am missing it (probably as there are a lot of pages to sift through). As you are so fond of pointing out, it is in Korean contexts written in Korean-English, not English English, that uses East Sea over Sea of Japan. We are looking for the most common name in English and by far the most common name in English (and other languages) around the world is Sea of Japan. As I have pointed out here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)/Disputed names, Koreans are using false propaganda to promote the name East Sea. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't propaganda extremely POV? I see no problem using East Sea in cultural and historical references that are context dependent, but I fail to see how geography in English is context dependent. Geographic names in English are pretty cut and dry and geographically speaking, in the English language, the most common name is in fact, "Sea of Japan". I wish, just once that you would give a reason other than "East Sea is the most common name in Korea" to support your arguments because that one argument doesn't hold water here on Wikipedia. In Italy, the most common name for Rome is Roma, but the English name is Rome. Wikipedia seems to have no problems using Rome instead of Roma for the name of the city, even though both Rome and Roma are found in English writings everywhere.

On a side note, I agree that the google test is not a great one. It can help, but it isn't a great test. Why? Because propaganda can spread pretty quick on the net and if enough people got together, they can spread any name on the net that they like tipping the balance of the scales away from reputable sources.Masterhatch july 2nd, 2005

• East Sea - (links to it)
• Sea of Japan - (links to it)

[edit] Manual of Style

I think this page might be useful (as a summary), but it really needs links to all the relevant sections in the Wikipedia manual of style. Most said here is also (already) written there. Kokiri 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

I am very excitied with this new proposal. This can be very effective tool in dealing with naming disputes, some of which have been around for years. I think it is best to let the page talks about what we should not what we have been doing. So I made some revision with a hope to strengthen its potential. For example, I removed

Names may be disputed for nationalist, political or religious reasons. Common causes of naming disputes include: ...

While I agree this is true, I don't think it is a good idea to include this, as to me it sounds like accusing contributors. Saying what you are doing is wrong, so instead do this, isn't a good idea to let people help themselves. I also removed some controversial examples like sea of Japan. There is no need for us to be in agreement on this issue in writing this proposal. Finally, it is needless to repeat that we have to be objective in naming. Also, this sounded negative; we should not treat each of us as if he doesn't know he has to be objective.

As you should see from you edits, I also add why this procedure is so important as to explain why we need this and why traditional, consensus-based practices fail.

I tried to be very careful but if there is a problem, please correct me, especially if sentences I added are confusing. -- Taku July 2, 2005 15:31 (UTC)

[edit] Common usage (2)

How do we define "common usage" here ? Specifically, how is it determined which usage is more common ? A simple google search ? Some more complex research ? This needs to be more specifically explained. Lysy 2 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

[edit] Framing the Proper Cultural Context of Common Use

• On the above point, simplestic google searches are certainly contraindicated. Someone needs to get off their butts and survey printed textual references, in addition. Some cases will simply prove that other editors have faced the same delema, and come down on both sides of the issue. The real problem, then becomes the criteria by which people weight such references, and whether or not there is some common ground. In the Tsushima Islands naming issue, there is/was no give on either side, but at least the locals had a POV, and that is proper I think for such a case. User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 5 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)

• Following Below is 'A Duplicate' of what I posted earlier on the "Sea of Japan/East Sea" controversy on todays "Village Pump" Link. I think it germane for obvious reasons (I hope! <G>) so copy it here. The 'lead in' refers to the subpage Division (TOC) immediately above in that post where one party introduced the novel idea that the past has no impact on today!
• To me, the general arguements are something that are going to occur over and over unless a clear guideline gives a way out; my solution is to consider the majority of users by recognizing the correct cultural context is not local, but the world wide body of English speaking readers, most of whom are mainly ignorant of another language and the use then of what they most expect. That's a fair definition of 'Common Usage'; Note that 'Official Changes' sans important POV disputes, are quickly available in Atlases, which have the paid editorial staffs to follow such matters. (i.e. When Ceylon became Sri Lanka, or Peking became Beijing, such happened virtually overnight, and appeared in new works immediately.

• In otherwords, 'The Principle of Least Surprise' needs be considered as an appropriate contextual anchor; in the 'overnight' cases, there was a consensus to follow the wishes of the people in question; that can't apply when there are squabbles between two or more. In such cases, we need to consider our own cultural context, not that of one of the disputants, and that should be policy; That doesn't require Wiki to take sides, but merely shortstop such as unproductive, and note they are arguements for another forum— not this one. As an aside, it would of course help if we had some binding arbitration or mediation committees, but that rants is beyond the scope of this discussion.

I began by duplicating my effort on a bottom post, though wrote addressing a point midway in that discussion on the Village Pump (Heading 'The Past is Irrelevant'):

[edit] Related proposal

My proposal on Wikipedia:Homophora deals with cultural usage in not just article names, but also within articles although I see the conflict mainly occuring in article names. The conventions I proposed might be of some help here, or at least provide some additional ideas in dealing with the problem. --Ben 02:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Such Disputes Are Part of a Wider WAR

Have to strongly disagree that past references are irrelavant. Wiki must be made compatible with extant hundreds of thousands of volumes of published English language source materials. If someone is reading 'CMH' Winner Richard Dick O'Kane's 'Clear the Bridge (rereleased in 1996) or any book with a historical basis whether for entertainment or study and wants more information on a term like Sea of Japan, or Yellow Sea, the article title must usually be the most common name in the corpus of extant literature, until such a time as there is an official world wide switch over to something more locally palatable as noted following.

• Moreover, There CLEARLY seems to be a concerted Nationalist rooted series of edit wars where it's Korea Vs Japan, with we who have English as our only language caught in the middle: See Tsushima Islands, Tsushima Strait, history pages as well as move and merge tags and talk pages for arguements, I've seen a few others with at least some of the same players. This is nasty ethnic stuff with strong grounds of cultural clash deep seated in historic events. And the reader is cautioned these same editors are appearing in these and other disputes.) These are not issues unique to the tensions of the Far East either, but span much of Africa and Asia, and as such need a systematic and widespread solution, not case by case treatment sans sufficient guidelines.
• The first paragraph of all articles with alternate names should eventually contain equivilent 'terms in dispute' out of respect to the diverse cultures that may access Wikipedia since English is an internationally studied language, just as those same introductory sentences must contain older and historic names that once applied. In the later case, those historic handles once widely applied should be in the first sentence, not just the first paragraph, but working in a reference to explain a disputed name, would be complicated at best in grammer most of the time were both alternate types needfully be present, where the first sentence or two or three has the primary purpose of introducing the topic, not splitting fine hairs. A clever editor may be able to do so in the first sentence, especially if there is only one or two historical names (not even counting foreign names and their various alternatives in the locally relavant languages), but I would urge clarity and readability over 'cultural nods' for the sake of nicety.
• Wiki MUST contain appropriate redirects to said articles from any and all such names embodied in Western literature (Which test references like East Sea may not pass at all.), regardless of any new fashion or term that has now become common or defacto international standard, or our search engine will miss the equivilence. Consider for example that the 'official place names' of Port Arthur and Dalian have each had four or five 'official' names adopted as the latest new 'fashion' during the past century. (or less changable Ceylon and Sri Lanka among hundreds of others now 'In Fashion'.). The enclycopedia links must allow someone to use the old fashioned name to get to the correct article. Using East Sea when it's not a common useage, is POV, not practical as the article name. Having it redirect so that a literal translation of the appropriate Korean phrase makes culturally sensitive sense, as changing the whole article name does not when there is a dispute. Same with assertions to merge the Korea Strait with Tsushima Strait, where the latter is a famous and much used reference, even if common practice of the UN or other 'official body' has allowed a 'Korea Strait' into the lexicon to satisfy some nationalistic pride. It may be equally likely that Korea Strait is the older term, but that publishing history has marginalized it in English text. It makes no matter, so long as Wikipedia gives fair coverage to both (provided both terms are in widespread non-local use). When the terms use is a wish of a single minority of the worlds population, one outnumbered by English native speakers, precedence must be given to the wider and more commonly used term. For example, some Western publications do not aknowledge 'Korea Strait' at all, whereas 'Tsushima Strait' is famous as the site of one of history's most important modern battles (Battle of Tsushima) and widely referenced as its widespread multi-decades-long impact is culturally important for both East and West as an indirect casus belli of WW-II. Similarly,that and the First Sino-Japanese War is still reverberating within Wikipedia, as these latest Korean attempts to rename a Western article attest. Other examples abound round the world in their own emotionally laden cotexts, and these need be recognized as more of the same cloth.
• The Nationalistic or cultural POV in these matters AND 'the inevititable' cultural bias needs to remain Anglo-centric in an English reference work, and these cultural issues (Islam vs. Hindu, The Balkans, Greater Anatolia, issues to name a few others) must eventually be addressed by a policy yet to be written) that is fair to all national or cultural sensibilities as much as possible, (IMHO, that ideal is not at all possible literally— some of these cultures don't view freedoms at all like we do, so I don't want to be the one making a draft attempt! <G>). But in the main, the article itself should be named to what the English speaking world traditionally uses or used, as English is central to our culture, not an abstraction off to the side somewhere. In the case over whether Tsushima is an Island or Island's' (very silly, albeit both sides have thier points), the extant literature divides close enough to be called a tie. In such cases, the inhabitants prefered name should be used, even if we at Wiki then may break with say Brittanica or Columbia Encyclopedias— for there are others using the same tense, however we come down, and our discussions are on the record and open to theirs for consideration in their future editions.
• OTOH, Seas do not have towns of inhabitants, so traditional English useage should apply. (At least until one learns to read and write Cetaceaish.)
• If Korean groups want to alter English publishing practices, the historical references still outweigh any new name until a preponderence of publishers (X>90%) of Atlases, and nautical charts start using such a name (e.g. the noveau term BoHai Sea), at which time Wiki would be correct to follow suite, or even lead many in the changeover, but not before, and not because some other ethnic group opposes the alternative like Japanese nationalists; but solely because it's become or is becomming common useage in the English speaking nations.
• In sum, we shouldn't culturally demand they change their own practices within their language, but they they are asking us to change ours, inappropriately, IMHO. The proper attitude is that the English name maps onto the object of the same name and must be figured to be an incorrect translation, not a cultural insult. We are sensative to and sympatheic with their viewpoint, but have our own culture as a guide, and that must be a bellweather in picking such names. Having them ask us to alter our cultural term to suite their bias is as nonsensical and selfish as it would be for us to ask them to change their term in their language to match ours. It's not their history, nor their language we are trying to change, which cannot be said for their efforts here in Wikipedia; they want to force us to use their prefered name, to score points in the long Japanese-Korea feud, and to toss aside hundreds of volumes of references to our long established cultural name in the same breath. When their Korean or Japanese becomes our language, then we can kowtow to such an unreasonably narrow viewpoint as well, but before that, our culture needs to be aknowledged as the one linked to English, not theirs— which translations usually heavily depend on whatever alliterative scheme the translator favors. (e.g. One Russian Admiral's name in the Battle of Tsushima can be translated correctly to six different and widely varying spellings in English; See that Talk for elaboration.) We can and should include their cultural bias when possible, for it costs little to be sensitive and courteous, but we must equally insist that they accept reasonable compromises in the same spirit of civility and cross-cultural compromise. These hardline wars with little significance directly in English culture are clearly harming Wiki just because they consume so many manhours when there is not any right answer universal to all cultures.
• As an English language publication the key for us must be historical relevance assuming it (the name) still has current occurences and use in the practices of other reputable publishers (Not Web Pages) not based on one groups cultrual wishes otherwise (albeit with an understandable POV axe to grind); in the end, we are merely using one of several alternate handles, not one of which means much outside it's own cultural context. In sum, if and when common practice among english Publications is to conform to widespread practices like the change in my life to Beijing, not Bejing (or instead of Peping or Peking) or to use Busan instead of Fusan or Pusan, then and only then should our article alter have it's name changed to the new de facto standard. Our edge in such is that we can conform nearly instantly with such widespread and disconnective changes by writing a redirect and adding a note in the article itself that the new preferred name is _______. But moving the article to __________ should at least wait until permanently published references, periodicals and newspapers are showing the new term half the time or more.
  • Moreover, as an added caution, Wikipedia methods of dispute handling break down in these ethnico-nationalist-cultural clashes, because they assume that all parties are exercising both 'mature judgement' and 'good faith'; whereas in reality, these disputants are instead voicing intensely internalized POV, albeit well intended from within their own cultural outlook; but within ours are at best misapplications of our rules and guidelines to further the underlying and even unconscious cultural bias and resentments underneath. It must be kept in mind that this is an English Language and cultural oriented publication, no matter how nice it may be to give such non-inuse terms a nod, that they are not in use, should be the final word.

User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 5 July 2005 22:19 (UTC) (Slight typo fixes here) User:Fabartus || Talkto_FrankB 5 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)

[edit] Names in articles

As it stands, this page doesn't really address the particular issues affecting use of names in other articles (for example, how Korea-related articles refer to the Sea of Japan, or Prussia-related articles to the city of Gdansk). In my mind, that is the area that really needs a policy. A number of hot disputes have arisen recently -- Gdansk/Danzig, Sea of Japan/East Sea, BC/BCE. All are primarily concerned not with article names but with usage in specific contexts.

The omission makes it seem that usage in articles should be governed by the same rules that govern article naming. I think that is very problematic. Dealing with naming disputes in specific contexts, we can no longer afford to follow the convenient fallacy of equating questions of naming to questions of fact.

That said, this is a good start. Let's keep working on these issues! -- Visviva 6 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimer: Wikipedia has no official position

Apparently some users (Greek nationalists) got to the conclusion that everywhere the term Macedonia (such as Macedonian dinar) is used with the meaning of "Republic of Macedonia", it must be included a disclaimer such as this:

Note

¤ The use of the terms Republic of Macedonia and Macedonian(s) throughout this article is not meant to imply an official position on the naming dispute between Athens and Skopje. See Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia#Naming_dispute_with_Greece, Republic_of_Macedonia#Naming_Dispute and United Nations Resolution 817 (1993)

I found that idea preposterous. You won't find such a thing in Britannica. This is not a way of solving a naming conflict. I couldn't convince any of the people that support this to give up. Anyone willing to help to solve this problem ? bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 20:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well you won't find "Macedonian Slavs" in Britannica either, however that didn't stop Wikipedia naming them so, because of avoiding "confunsion". --FlavrSavr 00:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From proposal to official policy?

Can anyone explain to me how much time should pass until this policy becomes official? BTW, considering ChrisO's proposals on the Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs debate I was under the impression that a Naming Commitee would be established? Was I wrong? --FlavrSavr 03:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common usage and google tests

The preference here for "common usage", which can be determined by google tests needs to be modified. As written in practice it will be synonymous with "use American usage", which isn't the approach WP takes. We allow all standard forms of English language. If such a term as "common usage" is to be used, it needs to be modified to say "a common usage" and to note that we are looking for widespread global usage, and with a strong warning that google is not always a good guide to what this is, jguk 05:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] my talkpage...

I'm sorry, but I thought I had answered your questions? yes, WP is supposed to be descriptive, and as such, we'll certainly say that the RoMians refer to themselves as Macedonians, while the Greeks refuse to accept this. However, what counts in cases where this is not the issue, i.e. in cases where the naming dispute is not being discussed, but WP prose is simply referring to the RoM, what is decicive is common use in English. This common use is to use "Macedonian" when the context is clear (as in Macedonian denar), but to disambiguate when the context is not clear (as in "Macedonian culture" or "Macedonian territory"). I am afraid that the term "Macedonian" doesn't refer to a contemporary nation any more than the term "Scandinavian". It used to refer to the nation of Macedon, which is no longer in existence. It is now a historical term, and a term applied geographically to the region of the former nation of Macedon. The RoM, which has gained nationhood 14 years ago, cannot claim exclusive rights to such a historical term. They can use it, and Wikipedia will report that they use it, but they cannot impose "common use". dab (ᛏ) 19:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head on all counts. Unfortunately, imposition of common use is exactly what FlavrSavr is anxious to do: "The English Wikipedia, and its mirror sites are the most important generators of the Macedonian Slavs term on the net". Chronographos 08:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions to dab

Well, in fact you didn't answer my questions :). Your sole answer was: ambiguity. However ambiguity must not interfere with the NPOV policy. I never argued that the current "Macedonian Slavs" article should be merged to the Macedonians article. I never argued that Culture of Macedonia should only reflect the culture of the Republic of Macedonia, nor that there isn't a need to clarify the use of the Macedonian adjective. I never argued that modern Macedonians should be referred to without any qualifier - I specifically stressed the qualifiers that IMHO, should be used: Macedonians (nationality), Macedonians (nation), Macedonians (people), and if you are not pleased you can even use Macedonians (modern nation).

Dab has answered your questions, and so have I. You didn't like our answers, so you are just asking the questions again. Greek Macedonia has a 3000-year-long history. If 14 or 60 years are meant to impress anyone, you are clearly outclassed. 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

See POV. It is a POV that Greek Macedonians are the true "Macedonians". No one scientifically proved that. Even if they do, the existence of a modern nation called "Macedonians" is a fact. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

(BTW, the RoM has gained statehood 14 years ago, the nation was officially recognized 60 years ago) --FlavrSavr 14:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is first and foremost about accuracy and clarity of meaning. Popularity is measured by opinion polls and hit parades, not encyclopedias. 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Read the NPOV policy: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. Besides, comparing Britannica to Top of the Pops is rather dumb. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The main point behind my argumentation is that the "Macedonian Slav" disambiguation term, is a POV term. It is a point of view that they should be named "Macedonian Slavs", and it is a point of view held by the minority view. Of course "Macedonians" is a POV term, as well, but that't the POV that is accepted by the majority view, and therefore, with the proper disambiguation, it should be accepted as a term that should be used for reference to Macedonians. I provided with you with these resources (please check them, they are not invented by me), just to give credibility to the claim. I am fully aware that I am a partisan in this debate, but that does not mean that I don't know what the NPOV policy states (I am the second best in contributions on the Macedonian Wikipedia). Also, the author of this policy proposal ChrisO happens to agree with me on this matter, and as far as I know there are many of the neutral editors that do support me on this matter, regardless of how boring and annoying I might seem. Despite the flamboyant style of Chronographos, who chooses rather not to substantiante his arguments, frequently engages in appeal to motive type of statements, as well as personal attacks (against me) - I tend to cite my sources, no matter how "nationalistic" my approach is (also, I tend to condemn nationalism, if you carefully read my posts).--FlavrSavr 14:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be using "majority" and "minority" as it suits your purposes. You are a majority in your country, but you are not the majority in the geographical area of Macedonia. There is another ethnic group living there: there are the majority both populationwise and landwise, they are the cultural and linguistic successors of Macedon, and they will not have anyone else monopolize a name they have continuously held for millennia. How more "descriptive" can this get?

It is you who is using "majority" and "minority" as it suits your interests. I'm referring to the majority of encyclopedias, news agencies, governments, and international organizations, (ALL of them, including the United Nations), that is, all that constitutes the majority view. You'd rather take it back to your ethnic majority, because that is a more comfortable place to you, but that's not going to work this time. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it was the very first President of your own country who put it best: "For the ultimate logic of a regime of group rights inevitably fractures political communities into ever-smaller — and ever-more antagonistic — sub-units, as individuals seek out the company and protection of their own kind. It leads, in other words, to situations like the violent disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, a disaster with which we both have much unhappy experience at first hand. As the former president of Macedonia (Todor Kiro Gligorov), summed it up in this chilling aside: "Why should I be a minority in your country when you can be a minority in mine?" 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, we're evil communists and there for shouldn't be named "Macedonians". Your entire argumentation is not only baseless, but it appears to be racist as well. You frequent appeal to motive is not working, lets face it. However, here's what others think [1]:

Whether you are "evil" and/or communist is a matter for you to decide, through some frank and thorough introspection. When I see a hammer-and-sickle behavior, however, I will call it such, and that's my free-speech prerogative. Since you seem to be so interested in what the ... BBC has to say about Alexander, maybe you could take some interest in what he said about himself: "Αλέξανδρος Φιλίππου και οι Έλληνες, πλην Λακεδαιμονίων, από των βαρβάρων των την Ασίαν κατοικούντων". Chronographos 09:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The reasons for Greek sensitivity are many and various. In the first place, they see in claims to Alexander a threat to their territorial integrity. Beyond that, Greece was invaded by Slavic peoples in the first millennium, and the question of the impact of these invasions and, more generally, of the relationship between modern and ancient Greeks has long been a burning issue in Greek politics. This sensitivity was not eased by the condescension of German and English classicists in the nineteenth century, who, in the words of Bernard Knox, 'created a vision of the ancient Greeks that had more to do with their ideal of themselves than with reality.' (The Oldest Dead White European Males (New York, 1993), p.122). A distant reflection of this attitude can still be found in some of the white racist web-pages on Alexander listed at Alexander the Great on the Web. Alexanderama. sv. 'Nationalists'

There's plenty of that here - [2], namely the Greek Helsinki watch (those damn reds!) who are not only deconstructing Greek brutal policy on Macedonians, but also are referring to them as ethnic Macedonians. Now, I'm not planning to engage in further appeal to motive arguments (that'd be your style), that's for the record only. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Dissent in Greece is handled the same way as in any Western democracy: with tolerance, even if it concerns fringe groups of out-of-work lawyers. It does not involve descent into civil war and the deployment of international peacekeepers to protect minorities, a situation you must be all too familiar with. Chronographos 09:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So please, lets assume that I might be right, on this matter, no matter how annoying I may be (I am a pain in the butt, I know that). Also, bear in mind that Greeks are far more numerous than Macedonians on Wikipedia, so I think that it is reasonable to assume that they have had more influence on the texts (don't you agree) Therefore, could you please point specific answers to the each of the following questions (read them all first):

[edit] Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs

Please see this list of resources provided by Zocky, who is not a partisan in this debate. Also, according to this policy:

Criterion	Option 1 Macedonians (people) ‡	Option 2 Macedonian Slavs
1. Most commonly used name in English	1	0
2. Current official name of entity †	1	0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity †	1	0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores. † Use English translation of name, where available ‡ Disambiguation is required to distinguish between the multiple meanings of this term.

Also, please take into consideration that the use of "Macedonian Slavs" as an ethnic designation is mostly considered offensive by the ethnic group in question. On the other hand, the Greeks fin d the use of the plain "Macedonians" name for this ethnic group offensive.

[edit] 1

• Isn't Macedonian Slavs is also ambiguous, as it can refer to other Slavs living in the wider region of Macedonia, e.g. Bulgarians.? --FlavrSavr 14:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Because those other Slavs do not call themselves plain "Macedonians". 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes they do. They use plain "Macedonians" as a regional identifier. Greeks use it in the same way, the only difference is that Greeks believe that they are the only true Macedonians. Isn't Wikipedia suppose to stand for clarity of information, as you put it? No, mister, Macedonian Slavs, are Slavs living in Macedonia, and those include the Bulgarians, as well. However, there is only one nation that's calling itself "Macedonians", and that is the most precise Wikipedia can get. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "Macedonian Slav" is also ambiguous. In addition to other Slavs who live in the region of Macedonia, there are, as I understand it, other Slavic ethnic groups that are represented in the Republic of Macedonia. "Macedonian Slav" could refer to any of those. - Nat Krause 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you offer some numbers, so we can get some perspective? Because it seems to me that 1,400,000 "Macedonians" (as FlavrSavr refers to them) are anxious to protect the identity of 100,000 other Macedonian Slavs from confusion, whereas 2,500,000 Macedonian Greeks just don't count. What's wrong with this picture? Chronographos 09:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Greek Macedonians are not a separate ethnic group, they use "Macedonians" as a regional identifier, unlike the Macedonians of RoM that use it as an ethnic identifier. If Macedonians of RoM use it as an ethnic identifier, that wouldn't deprive Greeks of using it as an regional identifier. --FlavrSavr 14:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not see how and why an "ethnic identifier" should take automatic precedence over a "regional" one. Especially since the "regionals" are more numerous than the "ethnics", and possess the oldest and closest ties to the region's millennia-old history and culture, as dab correctly pointed out. The terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonians" did not just fall out of the big blue sky just the other day, you know. 14 years ago your country achieved statehood. For 80 years before that it was just a part (a "region") of Serbia and then of Yugoslavia. Before then it was referred to as inhabited by "Bulgarians", and before that it was not referred to at all. You cannot hijack those terms just because they recently tickled your fancy. Chronographos 23:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2

• Why the following encylcopedias/works of reference:
  • Britannica
  • CIA - The World Factbook
  • The Columbia Encyclopedia
  • The Harvard Dictionary of Music
  • Philip's Encyclopedia
  • The Macmillan Encyclopedia
  • Crystal Reference Encyclopedia
  • Penguin Encyclopedia of Places
  • The Companion to British History
  • Encyclopedia of Chicago (my addition) [www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/773.html]

refer to "people X" as "Macedonians" , and not as "Macedonian Slavs", if as you claim, the "Macedonians" term is ambigious? (the MSN ENcarta is the only exception) Or to paraprhase the question: How come Wikipedia needs the "Slav" add-on to disambiguate, while most encyclopedias, don't found that add-on not necessary? (they also have references to the Ancient Macedonians) --FlavrSavr 14:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Mostly convenience. Just like most people say "America" when they refer to the US, or "Britain" when referring to the UK. Yet noone mistakes "America" or "Britain" for anything even remotely official. Not even Wikipedia! 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia necessarily comply with what other encyclopedias say, however prestigious or obscure they might be? Wikipedia was founded as, and is thriving on, an entirely novel concept. Otherwise it would just be a glorified redirect to the ... Crystal Reference Encyclopedia. 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"Mostly convenience"? Why shouldn't that convienence be applied to Wikipedia, as well? I agree that Wikipedia is a entirely novel concept, that however, doesn't mean that it's should be it's only reference (that'd be plain dumb), and it isn't suppose to invent new realities, just to describe present disputes. It's called "citing sources". To paraphrase your reasoning Why should Wikipedia necessarily comply with what other encyclopedias, international organizations, governments, media outlets say, however prestigious or obscure they might be? (because Chronographos doesn't like it) --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, because Wikipedia should strive for an ever-higher standard of clarity of meaning? Dab answered this rather succinctly. Chronographos 09:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, a quote from the NPOV policy: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. The majority view (encyclopedias, international organizations, news outlets) is that this ethnic group should be named "Macedonians". Blame the NPOV policy, not me. --FlavrSavr 14:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3

• Why most international media outlets (which are also very important generators of what you call the common use in English refer to people X as "Macedonians"? (see the comparison in Talk:Macedonian_Slavs/Poll#Media|the appropriate section). In addition to this question, why does the BBC, the biggest English broadcasting network send an official appology, and a specific directive not to use the term "Macedonian Slavs", to cite [3]: we would like to suggest that as BBC we should seek to avoid wherever possible referring to ethnic Macedonians in Macedonia as "Slav Macedonians" or "Macedonian Slavs" or e.g. "the majority Slav population of Macedonia."? Why do all these major media outlets tend to reduce the "Macedonians Slavs" term, and not to increase it? --FlavrSavr 14:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess this happened after a "spontaneous" protest campaign, and BBC responded as they usually do: with courtesy. 2,500,000 Macedonian Greeks could have put together a much more impressive "spontaneous" protest. Except they, like most people, have other things to do. 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Macedonians don't have other things to do, that's why everybody's calling them "Macedonians". An impressive argument, I might say! BTW, there wasn't a protest on the streets, BBC's apology was after the reaction of Macedonian journalists. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The majority of Macedonian journalists live in Thessaloniki. Admittedly most are sports journalists, as this town is obsessed with football. Do you mean to say that they protested to the BBC? Chronographos 09:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4

• Why does Zocky's Google test show a result that is in favor of the opossite opinion, namely, that Macedonians (without the Slav add-on) is, de facto, the common English use of the term? --FlavrSavr 14:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

See America-USA and Britain-UK above. 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

See strawman. BTW, does that mean that referring to Republic of China as such, is wrong? --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The matter of the naming of the article "Republic of Macedonia" was settled by a poll in 2003. Much as I disagree with this decision, I respect it and do not intend to disrupt Wikipedia procedure by challenging it, either by edit wars, or by other means. Your Republic of China example is doubly unfortunate. Your insistence about use of the term "Macedonian/s" is similar to using the term Chinese when one actually means Taiwanese. Such monopolization is obviously ridiculous in this case, and would be more so if you had it your way, because The Taiwanese are a subset of the Chinese whom history has brought into a tricky position. This is not the case in modern Macedonia, where ethnic, linguistic and cultural demarcation is rather clear. What you really need do is study Venn diagrams. Chronographos 09:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• • If we do a similar test only typing "Macedonians" (excluding wikipedia) [4] - 8 of the first 10 results refer to the modern people X and not to the Ancient Macedonians? Ok, you'll say, they are mostly sites made by members of people X. (However, they are reflecting the English usage, too). But I managed to exclude those sites as well those sites that are evidently made by Greeks (macedonia.com, etc.) of the first 50 results (please check my judgement If you like, it is possible that I've made some mistakes) - that is, 14 remaining sites - only 5 refer to the people of Macedon, (3 of them are using the term Ancient Macedonians simultaneosly) while the other 9 sites are explicitely referring to the modern Macedonians, even some of them claiming direct ancestry from the Ancient Macedonians? --FlavrSavr 14:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia should dissolve itself into Google then, and vanish. After all, Google is the source of all knowledge, good and evil. Sort of like the apple that Eve gave to Adam. 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Google test. Besides, I haven't pointed it as the only source of information. It's only a good guide to see how common a term is. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"Macedonian" is indeed the common English name for these people (it also, of course, the common English name for the ancient Macedonians). - Nat Krause 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 5

• Following you logic - there isn't another denar except the Macedonian denar, what do you say about this same pattern applied this way - there is only one contemporary nation called Macedonian (you said that), if I may add there is only one nation called Macedonians - because the people of Macedon weren't a nation - the concept is linked with the nation-state in the 18th century, and if we follow the Greek POV, they weren't even a separate ethnic group/people. So how can Macedonians (nation), Macedonian (nationality), Macedonian (modern nation) etc. be a problem? --FlavrSavr 14:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you seriouly propose that every single instance of the adjective "Macedonian", when referring to your country only, should be followed by a disambiguation term in brackets? Because if you do, then you just proved all these numerous Google returns and encyclopedias you are so enthusiastically invoking to be hopelessly misguided and confusing. 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think than in the Macedonians (nation) article we should clearly specify what are we talking about. Other meanings of the Macedonian adjective could be easily understood by the context. It is understood that the Macedonian prime minister is Vlado Buckovski (despite the other meanings of that adjective), as it is understood that the American president is George Bush (despite the other meanings of that adjective). In those (rare) cases such as the History of Macedonia article, when the meaning of the adjective "Macedonian" and "Macedonians" actually needs claryfing, disambiguation can be easily applied within the text, in the same way all other encyclopedias easily disambiguate. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest that "nation" or "nationality" is ambiguous and should therefore be avoided. These words can refer either to an ethnic group or to a state; therefore "Macedonian nationality" could be construed as referring to anyone who is a citizen of RoM. Using "people" as a disambiguator is even worse. I suggest using "ethnicity" instead, as in "Macedonian (ethnicity)"; or, if it is deemed that additional disambiguation with the ancient Macedonians is required, it could be "Macedonian (Slavic ethnicity)" or "Macedonian (modern ethnicity)". As far as "Do you seriouly propose that every single instance of the adjective "Macedonian", when referring to your country only, should be followed by a disambiguation term in brackets?" goes, this is not a serious problem. The obvious thing to do is to flip the disambiguator around into an adjective, i.e. "ethnic Macedonians", or, in cases where there might be confusion with the ancients (if that ever happens), "modern ethnic Macedonians". As FlavrSavr indicates, however, there will be some situations where the context is clear and no disambiguator is really needed. - Nat Krause 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 6

• Why isn't it possible to dissambiguate between the modern Macedonians and the Ancient Macedonians (whoever they were) the same way we dissambiguate between the modern Macedonian language, and the Ancient Macedonian language, namely with the Ancient add-on? --FlavrSavr 14:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the Ancient Macedonians didn't just vanish in thin air: they have descendants, and their culture and language survives with these descendants. 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That being the Macedonian language? --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want to participate in the Ancient Macedonian language and the Pella katadesmos discussions, feel free to do so. Much merriment will thus be occasioned. Chronographos 09:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 7

• Even if we actually assume that the people of Macedon were a nation, and even if we assume that the use of Macedonians can only be applied to them - how come Wikipedia refers to modern Egyptians as Egyptians even if that term can apply to the Ancient Egyptians? Why isn't Wikipedia calling them Egyptian Arabs (their language is officially Arabic, unlike the Macedonian which is not Slavic, nor Slavic Macedonian) to make a difference between them and the regional meaning of the word and the builders of the Pyramids (which are most probably to be found among the Copts)? --FlavrSavr 14:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

For the millionth time: because modern Egyptians live in the entirety of the land of Egypt, and no other people call themselves Egyptians besides them. This is not the case here: The Macedonian Greeks are the majority of people in Macedonia and they hold the majority of the land. Therefore they have the right to protect their identity. They do not forbid you the use of the term "Macedonian". They oppose the usage of the term on its own, without qualifications on your behalf, because this in effect identifies the whole of Macedonia and the Macedonians with you (plural). 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Egyptians identify themselves as Egyptians but they also identify themselves as Arabs (their language is officially known as "Arabic"). Copts seem to be descendants of the Ancient Egyptians (even according to Egyptian historians) and they by no means hide their identity - [[5]] - "The Coptic people are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians". However, they don't find that the common references as Egyptians when used to describe an Arabic speaking Egyptian, is a threat to their identity, and I don't understand how Greek Macedonians are going to lose their identity if Macedonians of RoM identify themselves as Macedonians. Greek Macedonians would keep their regional identification term "Macedonian", and keep calling themselves Greek (in terms of nationality). However using the "Macedonian Slav" term effectively denies the right of Macedonians to identify themselves as such, (in terms of nationality) guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Similarly, these American and Canadian cities named Athens don't deprive the citizens of Athens to feel as the true Athenians. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it would make more sense to refer to Egyptians as "Egyptian Arabs", because, as far as I know, there are no other Arab groups living in Egypt. - Nat Krause 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr confuses things: the Copts are not the sole genetic descendants of the Ancient Egyptians: they are their linguistic descendants, as they maintained their language by resisting Islamization and clinging to their Christian faith. The Muslim majority in Egypt are equally the genetic and cultural descendants of the "Pyramid builders" as the Copts are. There was no population explosion in the Arabian deserts that produced an inundation of ... depopulated Egypt by Muslims in the Middle Ages! The Islamization and Arabization of Egypt was a cultural event, not a population transfer event. Chronographos 09:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 8

• You say that people X cannot claim exclusive rights to such a historical term, but that's a POV par excellence, because, citing Wikipedia:Naming conflict policy:

It is exactly the opposite: it is you who strive for exclusivity: the height of POV. 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't strive for exclusivity, I have already stated that I don't support the idea that the current Macedonians article should be exclusively referring to the modern Macedonian nation. I do not support the idea that the modern Macedonian nation are the only true descendants of the Ancient Macedonians. I do support the idea, when appropriate and necessary, the distinction between Macedonians (nation), Greek Macedonians, and Ancient Macedonians should be made. I stand for a NPOV dissambiguation term, in accordance to the relevant Wikipedia policies.

As ChrisO put it: The reason why we don't use that terminology at the moment is because the Greek nationalist POV is that only Greeks have a right to call themselves Macedonians. This is a controversial position, to put it mildly! -- ChrisO 30 June 2005 17:17 (UTC)--FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

No, we Greeks do not hold that position. What we will not have you do is use the term "Macedonian" alone, without qualifications. Chronographos 09:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. Suppose that the people of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. In this instance, the Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach to the term, arguing that it should not be used.

Irrelevant. In this case the Maputans have been the Maputans since forever, and the Cabindans have all of a sudden decided that they are the Maputans. 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Relevant. In this case the Maputans refer to themselves as Maputans (in terms of nationality), and they believe that they are they have been Cabindans (cough) forever. (A claim disputed by science, however) Cabindans however, refer to themselves (in terms of nationality) as Cabindans, and read below:

Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen – whereas the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective and is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy, as it would be an objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. However, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV. The moral of the story is: describe, not prescribe.

Excuse me, but how does this 11th Commandment apply to this issue? 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

See the table at the top of the page. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, the application of the policy explicitely states that the name should be "Macedonians (people)" How can you explain this? --FlavrSavr 14:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

User Mel Etitis voiced his objection to the blanket application of such criteria. "Macedonians (people)" will thus include the ethic Albanians in your country, who comprise at least 25% of the population if not more: they so violently objected to the treatment they receive(d), that international peacekeepers are still stationed there to protect them. Obviously "self-determination" only matters where it suits you. Chronographos 09:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about Chronographos? There aren't any peacekeepers in RoM. If you are referring to PROXIMA, that is a police mission, not a peacekeeping one. PROXIMA is composed of about 200 policemen (from different countries), and they mostly are only observers. --FlavrSavr 15:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

No one should exclusively claim "Macedonians" in any one sense, and I don't really see where anybody is proposing this. This doesn't mean that we can use "Macedonians", unadorned, in situations where the context is clear. - Nat Krause 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for you answers in advance.

As I said above, Dab has already answered you. Instead of answering him back, you just reasked him the questions on a different page. 62.1.228.15 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

He didn't, unfortunately. I'll be off for at least a week (exams), so attribute your future bragging to your arrogance, not to my unabillity to reply promptly. Meanwhile, I hope, neutral admins would engage in this debate. --FlavrSavr 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Also bear in mind, that any potential (real) ambiguity of "Macedonians" can be easily avoided in prose. Ambiguity in article names can be avoided by following standard naming conventions. I think that there should be a separate article concerning the naming dispute. (RoM/FYRoM - Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs) --FlavrSavr 14:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

(Apologies to all: my computer auto-logged out. Therefore where "62.1.228.15" please read: Chronographos 16:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC) )

I'm wondering if this is a place for my thoughts or not. I do believe though that the poll two months ago for moving Macedonian Slavs and the various talk pages about articles related to Macedonia have many comments for the issue. MATIA 08:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

No matter for FlavrSavr: he keeps the polls he likes and attacks the ones he doesn't like. Chronographos 09:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] some thoughts

• FlavrSavr just removed the phrase "the term "Macedonian Slavs" has been used in several occasions by Macedonian Slav politicians as self-identifying", from Macedonian Slavs. Did some politicians of that country used that term, or not? (Gligorov, who had survived an assasination attempt, is one of them). The term "Macedonian Slavs" is also used in sites on the .mk domain.
• I keep reading that the terms FYROM and Macedonian Slavs are offensive. I can't understand why these terms are considered offensive and I would like someone to explain it to me. If the word Slava indeed means glory, I find it even more difficult to understand how can something like glorious macedonians be offensive and FYROM is an acronym. I'm afraid these term are labeled as offensive for pov-pushing purposes.
• This country is a modern country. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The terms Macedonia, Macedonian, Macedon and all related terms have a historical context and have been used continually (and not with interrupts) by Greeks during the last 2500 years. Even the greek prefecture of Macedonia is officialy named this way since it's independency from Ottoman's around 1912, and Greek people who live there (about 2 and a half millions) are self-identified as Macedonians. Even when the political negotiations reach the end (and I do wish, this to happen soon) an encyclopedia should stay focused on facts, and I've just mentioned few of them.

That's all for now. MATIA 15:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, IMHO, Miskin took the statements out of the context. Gligorov is one of the politicians that has fought vehemently for the recognition of the constitutional name of the country, so if you ask him "Mr. Gligorov, are you Macedonian or Macedonian Slav", the answer would, of course, be, "Macedonian". The term "Macedonian Slavs" is also used in sites on the .mk domain, but, it is mostly used in a clearly ancient context, that is Slavs that inhabited Macedonia in the medieval period. And for the thousand time, there is nothing wrong in "Slavs" in itself, it is offensive because it is used as an ethnic designation, and it is an anachronism, as such. That is why no one, of the Slavic speaking nation does not use it as an add-on. --FlavrSavr 14:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Has any other Slavic-speaking nation been using a name that also belongs to another, larger, non-Slavic ethnic group? You know the answer is :no", and you also know that this makes your statements specious. Deliberately so. Chronographos 22:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yet, the term is not offending. MATIA 14:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"elf-identifying"? Maybe we can make everyone happy with a compromise to move the page in question to Macedonian Elves and be done with it! - Nat Krause 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In that case we are the Calaquendi and they are the Moriquendi, the Avari, the servants of Morgoth!  :-PPPPPP Chronographos 09:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then, I guess it's settled: we move Macedonian Slavs to Macedonian Dark Elves. I'm certain this ought to satisfy all sides. I'm glad we settled this "FYROM" issue. What controversial matter shall we tackle next? - Nat Krause 09:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

How about whether to redirect FYROM to either Angband or Barad Dur?  :-PPP Chronographos 11:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks :) I've just corrected my typo. MATIA 09:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I must be the only person who hasn't watched the LOTR trilogy (I have the book, though, I'll read it when I have the time). Maybe a different mythology can be applied as well, how about Syth Macedonians - I mean, everybody knows how evil runs through our veins. --FlavrSavr 14:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer something like Jedi Knights. MATIA 14:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

FlavrSavr probably referred to the Sith, but a delightful Freudian slip made him think Scyth, hence the spelling "error". Chronographos 22:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about the table

• Having read all these discussions, I have to point out that the three zeros on Macedonian Slavs column are inaccurate.
• What about applying the same table for Greek Macedonians? Are their english name Macedonians?
  • Do their usage of the term Macedonians have historical continuity? MATIA 14:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

As we know, Britannica, the Columbia Encyclopaedia, Philip’s Encyclopaedia, the Macmillan Encyclopaedia, Crystal Reference Encyclopaedia, Webster’s World Encyclopaedia and the Huchinson Encyclopaedia as well as Ethnologue, refer to this ethnic group as Macedonians. All these sources are obviously influenced by the richest, most powerful and influental of countries, the Republic of Macedonia, and they are all wrong, lol! Wikipedia should be neutral, it shouldn’t be the way the Greeks want. The addition Slavs is mearly to differentiate from the other inhabitants of the wider region Macedonia. I believe that Macedonian Slavs is quite inaccurate, because there are other Slavic peoples who live in the wider region Macedonia such as the Bulgarians. If you say Macedonian Slavs, who are you refering to? The Bulgarians who live in Macedonia or the ethnic group X (who like the Bulgarians are also Slavs)? Therefore the name Macedonian Slavs is totally inaccurate and cannot be used. The possibilty that nation X can be confused with the Ancient Macedonians is not a problem, because in this case the name Macedonians refer to a specific modern nation. The Ancient Macedonians no longer exist. Their descendants belong to another specific modern nation, the Greeks so there is no risk of confusion. Anyway, the HELSINKI REPORTS refer to these people as Macedonians, not Macedonian Slavs, the Helsinki Report must be neutral, therefore if they can use it, Wikipedia can use it (I love those Helsinki Reports)! REX 21:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The risk of confusion is very real, and it is of great concern to more than 2,000,000 Macedonian Greeks. The 3,000 Macedonian Bulgarians in Pirin Macedonia comprise a minor population group in a region of 4 million people, in which Macedonian Greeks are the majority. Chronographos 22:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Macedonian Greeks belong to an even larger ethnic group, the Greeks. Whereas the Skopyani as they are called in Greece are a separate ethnic group. The Greek Macedonians hold Greek citizenship and on their passport it says: Ελληνική Ιθαγένεια Eliniki Ithayenia Greek Nationality. The citizens of the Republic of Macedonia have passports on which it says Macedonian Nationality. Is this wrong? Should it say Macedonian Slav Nationality. Anyway, more neutral sources (the ones above: Britannica, Ethnologue, Hutchinson etc) refer to these people as Macedonians. Are they wrong and you right? REX 08:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You are conflating the issues. What FYROM claims for itself and its citizens is one thing. How its neighbors and the international institutions refer to them is another. How Wikipedia should describe the geographical region of Macedonia and the peoples, languages and cultures that have existed there from antiquity till now is quite another. The adoption of the terms "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" without qualifications on FYROM's behalf is tantamount to monopolizing these terms at the expense of its neighbors' identity and cultural heritage. We have been through all that before. You are not doing anyone any favor by autistically revisiting the same issues just because you have a feud with MATIA over an almost extinct and totally insignificant linguistic matter. Chronographos 08:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What is important is that we cannot use the term Macedonian Slavs because it is misleading. Who is that term referring to? There are at least two Slavic nations in the wider region of Macedonia. is it referring to the Bulgarian Macedonians or the nationality of the Republic of Macedonia? Also, there are many more credible sources who call this nation Macedonians than the few sources who call them Macedonian Slavs. Anyway, i am proposing calling them Macedonians (ethnicity). This is both accurate and unique. There is no other ethnic group in the Balkans who uses that name. The Greeks of Macedonia are ethnically Greek and the Bulgarians of Macedonia are ethnically Bulgarians. There is no reason whatsoever to dismiss the title Macedonians (ethnicity) with the notable exception of far-right Greek extremism. REX 09:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me remind you what the numbers are: Group A: 2.5 million Macedonian Greeks, Group B; 1.4 million Macedonian citizens of FYROM, Group C: 3 thousand Macedonian Bulgarians. You are proposing the effective monopolization of the term by Group B at the expense of Group A and because the term "Macedonian Slavs" is potentially confusing WRT Group C. I am concerned about the effect on Group A. Chronographos 12:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but Group A is not an ethnicity in its own right. Group A is a subset of Group D (Greeks). Group B however is an ethnicity and can use the term. We cannot use Macedonian Slavs because it is inaccurate, it could be referring to group B and group C. REX 13:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Group C is very small: less than one per thousand Macedonians. Group A is the majority. Chronographos 23:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

And why does that make any difference? Groups A and C are also members of other ethnic groups. Ethnic group B has no other name and the name Macedonian Slavs is inaccurate. REX 14:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It's the best compromise that does not sacrifice clarity of meaning. Chronographos 14:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hot to find self-identifying names

I inserted the following text into the article but commented out. I don't quite like the wording.

1. The place itself Most countries have websites with an English language section, they also have embassies, cultural centers and commerce organizations that would be glad to answer questions.
2. International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, WTO, etc.

SchmuckyTheCat 00:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dover Strait or Strait of Dover

Some suggestions here people please.

Currently WP has Dover Strait as a redirect to Strait of Dover. As an ex-mariner I find the latter unnatural. Google and external references seem to indicate to me that Strait of Dover may be more commonly used by landlubbers whilst mariners use Dover Strait. The UK Coastguard use the latter (if that be officialdom).

I am inclined to propose a swap. Any suggestions ?

Frelke 06:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation of personal names

Is there a guideline on how to apply dismabiguating phrases to articles on peopple with common names? For example, Bill White is a common name. Right now we have three dismabiguated as (baseball), (mayor), and (activist). The last of those is being questioned, but I can't find the guideline for how to proceed. Any suggestions? -Willmcw 22:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

see also the guideline proposal Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between brackets or parentheses and the talk page of that proposal: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) --Francis Schonken 16:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! -Willmcw 19:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A clarification

I've added a clarification to the guidelines, marked below in bold:

This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised. This does not mean that the controversy needs to be discussed in every article using the term; it is sufficient to discuss the controversy in the primary article about the term, not in secondary articles that mention the term in passing.

I believe that this is a common-sense clarification - clearly it's not appropriate to include a discussion of the controversy in every single article that mentions a disputed term; otherwise one would have to have absurdities such as disambiguation pages with lengthy discussions of disputes. The fact that China disputes the legitimacy of the Republic of China (Taiwan), for instance, doesn't mean that we have to rehash the China-Taiwan dispute in every article that mentions Taiwan.

Any thoughts? -- ChrisO 19:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The change being made to the Example is not a clarification, it is a major change in policy. For months, Vergina Sun complied with the policy as stated. ChrisO edited the article to use the disputed name, and has rv'd any attempt to add an explanation of the dispute as dictated by the policy. Faced with the rule he changed them as a "clarification".

The existing policy reads "when an article...". It it was intented to so narrowly limit the scope, it would have been written otherwise. It is the nature of Wikipedia that information is often distributed among many articles; subjects so broad can be approached from a historical perspective, in articles about the poeple involved or (in this case) in an article about a cultural issue very much related to the controversy at hand. To state that one view must be globally adopted and all references to the controversy should be restricted to single article (where it can be easily overlooked) only serves the purposes of those wishing to hide information; WP is about learning and finding information, in an unbiased matter. Pretenting that the controversy does not exist is hiding relevant information from the reader. I am not suggesting that eash such controversy should be analyzed in detail in every article, but a brief, one-sentence footnote at the end of the article with a proper pointer is appropriate.

I have removed your "clarification" (and please don't try to twist logic with spin: Clarifications simply explain the existing rules, they don't change them). Civility dictates that you do not try to change the rules again without prior discussion and consensus from other wikipedians. Thanks. Sysin

The question is whether the controversy should be mentioned at every single instance of a controversial name being used. This is, obviously, not the same thing as "pretending that it does not exist". There is simply nothing in the existing guidelines to suggest that a citation - or even a footnote - is required in every instance, as you seem to be arguing. I understand why you're trying to make that argument, given your POV, but you're reading something into the policy that isn't there. -- ChrisO 19:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is truly "required" in WP; but there are rules as to what is permitted and what is recommended, and the current rules are clear: If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised.. The word "should" clearly indicates that the footnote is permitted and, in fact, preferred, in an article that uses the disputed term (and not only in the article that defines the disputed term, as you suggest).

On the other hand, the top of the Wikipedia:Naming Conflict page clearly states "Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.". Again it doesn't "require" you to use the discussion page, but to anyone who acts in good faith, the procedure is clear. Sysin 20:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. I am not extreme, I don't do around trying to apply this change in every article. This particular article is very relevant to the controversy, and it was in compliance with the rules until you came along. Please don't try to pretend that this will leat to every page in WP being footnoted; you know that this is not the case, and WP has natural mechanisms for dealing with that. Sysin

Hi, Chris, Sysin, I had seen Chris' addition before Sysin removed it, and I liked & understood it without needing additional explanations. Also it is a useful and appropriate addition. I don't want (for example) to explain the scholar/ethnic feud over "Hindu-" and/or "Arabic" numerals, every time I type [[Arabic numerals]]. I don't even understand what artificial "red tape" on working on guidelines Sysin tried to introduce. So, as far as I'm concerned Chris' text can be put back in ASAP. --Francis Schonken 20:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And I'd remove the fictional Maputan/Cabindan example. I have to admit I never read it to the end, otherwise I'd taken out "If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised." long ago. Fictional examples are rarely clarifying anything, I'd avoid them in guidelines. There are enough real examples that can be used if something needs to be clarified.

The whole section Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Types of entities, down to the example, is written in a fuzzy language (that's probably why I never really read it to the end), and might benefit some rewriting in a clearer style. Anyone feeling up to help a hand? --Francis Schonken 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can suggest any improvements, please feel free.

The fictional example was chosen deliberately so that the baggage of real-world examples would not be carried across to discussions of the guidelines. There is a great deal of emotional POV baggage that accompanies real-world disputes such as the Republic of Macedonia's name, or what to call Gdansk. Ed and I felt that it would be better to avoid dragging real-world politics into the guidelines, so that people could focus on the underlying NPOV issue rather than the politics of a particular dispute. -- ChrisO 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not advocating that you should be required to do anything special when you type [[Arabic numerals]]. Just type as little as you see fit. If someone else (or 10,000,000 people as is the case here) later feels strongly enough about this to add a one-sentence footnote on the bottom of the article, pointing to an article that explains the issue, they should be allowed to. This is what the existing policy states, and this is what ChrisO wants to prohibit.

Again, there is no fear of anyone trying to footnote every single disputed word in WP. This is not happening. Taking ChrisO's suggestion to the same absurd extreme, any controversial subject should be discussed in exactly one article, only once, and any second mention should be prohibited.

Discussed in detail, yes. We don't add disclaimers about evolution to every single article that mentions it - we have a detailed article on Creation-evolution controversy which describes that issue. Likewise we don't add footnotes saying "some people think the universe is only 6,000 years old" to every article on geology - we have a separate detailed article on flood geology. Just because a controversy exists, it doesn't follow that there is any value in directing the user to a discussion of it every time a controversial topic is mentioned in passing. -- ChrisO 21:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try to refocus the discussion around a straw issue. The issue here is a nearly 180-degree change in the rules from "give the reader pointers to relevant information" to "hide the information from the reader" Sysin 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing. I did not know there was an controversy regarding the term Arabic Numerals. Now that you mentioned it, I know it. Thanks. That's exactly the distribution of knowledge that WP should encourage. Sysin

ChrisO, Interesting that while you advocate brevity, you edited Vergina by inserting the Slavic name of an tiny village 2km away. Like editing Warsaw, Poland to add the German name for Gdańsk. I did not remove your edit, btw., nor have I removed similar edits in other northern Greek towns. You are actively practicing what you preach against, and no-one is reverting those edits, but you rv the same edits when done by others.Sysin

As for geology or evolution, they are not covered by the Naming Conflict policy, nor will it be covered by your edit, and yet the situations you describe have yet to occur. Sysin 23:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, for the time being I put in:

This does not mean that the controversy needs to be discussed in every article using the term; it is sufficient to discuss the controversy in the primary article about the term, not in secondary articles that mention the term in passing.

And I take out:

If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised.

Further, I still recommend a more fundamental rewrite of Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Types of entities, down to the example, to which I'm prepared to collaborate. Note that I don't consider Ed the nec-plus-ultra of guideline writing. We met here: Wikipedia talk:content forking#Asking for clarification (btw, that passage is also illustrative regarding how working with fictional examples just makes you lose time). --Francis Schonken 09:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Consider the implications of the restriction you want to place in clarifications:

Suppose the article about the Pope were to state "The Pope is Catholic". Fine.

The article about Pat Robertson states "Robertson is a Christian". Again, fine.

The policy as restated would mean that if someone were to type "The Pope is Catholic but Pat Robertson is a Christian", this should be acceptable, and the OP would be able to prevent others from qualifing the word "Christian" so that the sentense is not misleading. Please explain how or why this is desirable. Sysin 11:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Where there's an article fully discussing a controversy, surely other articles can link to it rather than "rehashing" the argument. ..dave souza, talk 20:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falkland Islands

At Talk:Falkland Islands it is being strongly argued that NPOV requires unqualified statement of contentious names in the first line, leaving to a subsequent paragraph (or perhaps footnote) any mention of the fact that these names are considered offensive by the inhabitants of the islands, who self identify with the name Falkland Islands, and particularly associate the name Malvinas with a recent invasion. My reading of this guidance is that such a position is incorrect, but this point would be more explicit if the guidance specifically required that the first mention of such contentious names in an article should be in the context of an explanation of the conflict. It would also be useful if the weighting to be given to self-identifying names applied to consideration of alternative names as well as to the title. ...dave souza, talk 20:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is an "English Speaker"?

This, and WP:NAME, said the name most used by English speakers should be used. However, there is a problem when I tried to edit Case Closed: What is an "English speaker" in the meaning of these articles?

There was a naming conflict in that article (Talk:Case_Closed#Request_for_Comment:_Case_Closed_Naming_Conventions), and the key question was, an "English speaker" is an Anglophone or anyone who happened to know English of any fluency? --Samuel Curtis 14:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common names versus scientific names

What exactly does:

The three key principles are:

• 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.

... mean? Over at Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming this section is being used to justify the renaming of the Pluto article to it's scientific name 134340 Pluto ; which I don't think was the intent of this section. And this seems to fly in the face of what we often do with scientific names in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) which seems to point to the use of common names over scientific names. Nfitz 06:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that second bullet point is beyond my comprehension too. Preferring scientific names over common ones would definitely conflict with the spirit of naming conventions for plants and animals. I'm for rewording the bullet as: "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name." That's two of us in favour - does anyone object? Kla'quot 08:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts between the "prevalent term" and "descriptive name" policies

The page currently says, to use "the most commonly used term in English." It also says to "choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." The page not seem to directly address cases where these guidelines conflict, i.e. when the most prevalent term used to describe a topic happens to carry a POV implication.

A recent example of a conflict between these two guidelines was the debate over the naming of Deir Yassin massacre. In two recent ArbCom cases, the committee indicated (with some dissent) that the commonly used term should take precedence [6],[7]. Arbitrator SimonP noted that, "The project page seems contradictory on this matter." Should the article be clarified to make a preference for common terms explicit? Kla'quot 08:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should attempt to make the guidance contained in Wikipedia:Naming conflict a bit clearer on this point. I've been thinking about this, and was indeed waiting for the outcome of some ArbCom cases (like the Deir Yassin one) to see what way to move.

Note that, tangentially, also the Israeli Apartheid ArbCom case related to this issue (at least in the workshop of that case the "descriptive name" guidance from the Naming conflict guideline was quoted, but did not find its way to the eventual verdict of that case).

Another related guideline section (that I think would be best to treat together with a possible rewrite of the "descriptive name" guidance in the Naming conflict guideline) is Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article title. Particularily the first example: "an article title "Israeli terrorism" inherently implies that Wikipedia takes a view that Israel's actions are considered terrorism [...]" has always seemed a bit odd to me. Contrary to that, I don't think a Wikipedia article title "endorses" anything on behalf of the Wikpedians who write the encyclopedia. We don't "endorse" the existence of Unidentified flying objects, neither do we "endorse" the non-existence of UFO's. The existence of a separate Wikipedia page with that name is exclusively justified through the occurrence of that name in external sources. Wikipedia summarizes what these external sources have to say on the topic (as well the sources defending the existence of UFO's, as those that cast doubt on such existence). I think we should attempt to keep article naming as much as possible out of the moral arena: using a name that does not correspond to the "most common" name for moral reasons, is drawing article naming in the moral arena. Of course I also think we shouldn't use names that are uselessly offensive when there's a less offensive alternative that would be as "recognisable" as a name for the concept. But that follows the same principle, avoid drawing article naming in the moral arena.

In short, we don't "endorse" that something like a benevolent dictator is "possible" or "impossible", by naming a page after that concept. What reliable sources write about that concept (including their considerations about the viability and about the self-contradictory properties of such expression) goes in the body of the article, not in the article name, per Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Article names. --Francis Schonken 09:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't even noticed Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article title. And then there's Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#Naming_conventions. With guidelines all over the place and contradicting each other, no wonder we fight. Kla'quot 09:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, an ongoing pain point is that it is often unclear to the casual reader which of these guidelines is being followed. The casual reader is likely to notice that Wikipedia's article names tend to use neutral and descriptive terms, and may assume that all articles use neutral and descriptive terms unless the article is tagged with Template:POV-title. I don't know how to solve this problem. Kla'quot 09:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the issue has many ramifications...

1. Personally I'd like to see, for *content* pages, that the guidance regarding "descriptive page names" that are not "standing expressions" would move towards the rule that they can only be used for *subpages* of summary style pages, and connected with that "main" article via a navigational template. This idea comes from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Subsidiary articles. As far as I can see only for the page name of such sub-page the "neutralisation of POV implications" should be practiced, and then still only if there is no standing expression that would appropriately cover the content of the page.
   • Note: this supposes that it would be easy to distinguish expressions that are "standing expressions" ("common name") from other descriptive names that are introduced solely as an aid for the organisation of Wikipedia... in practice it won't always be easy to make that distinction, but I suppose that most people would intuitively grasp the difference.
2. There's some other ramification to be found in Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use of "and": "Do not use "and" to bias article names. For example, the article would be Islamic extremist terrorism, rather than Islam and terrorism." – "Islamic extremist terrorism" seems to me a very inappropriate page name for Wikipedia (as if, in connection with Islam, it would be possible to define "non"-extremist terrorism too: the "extremist" seems completely redundant in the expression to me) - but I agree "Islam and terrorism" is far from ideal too. The page name of that page has been discussed widely I suppose (don't want to launch myself in a nest of hornets), but personally I think "Islamic terrorism" (as a subpage of for example Religious extremism and/or Islamism or so) would maybe be better...

Giving some examples of the above:

• "Auschwitz bombing debate" is a descriptive name that is not a "standing expression" in the sense of point 1 above. For me, this article title would only be possible if the Auschwitz concentration camp article has a section on this "bombing debate", and that section in the main Auschwitz concentration camp article summarizes the "Auschwitz bombing debate" article, plus a navigation between these articles by navigational template, per wikipedia:summary style. This is currently not the case, and somehow fractions the structure of Wikipedia's content in a way that could easily be avoided.
  • Update: added a {{details}}-link to Auschwitz bombing debate under the Auschwitz concentration camp#Knowledge of the Allies section title. ([8]) --Francis Schonken 11:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• "Investigation and the arrest of Alfred Dreyfus" is an acceptable page name (even with the "and" contained in it), while the navigational structure that connects it to the Dreyfus affair article is present ("Dreyfus affair" being a standing expression in the sense of point 1 above), although the Dreyfus affair article could still benefit from a clearer "summary style" structure, that follows the several "chapters" or "sub-topics" indicated by the {{DreyfusAffair}} navigational template that is used on all pages of this "series".
• "Islamofascism" is a "standing expression" in the sense of point #1 above. It does not need "neutralisation of POV by the article title" (the POV content "pro" and "against" is explained in the body of the article, per WP:NPOV). There is no implication that the authors of Wikipedia as a whole "endorse" or "reject" the implicit content of the term "islamofascism", by the simple fact that Wikipedia has "Islamofascism" as a page name (nor more or less as all wikpedians reject/accept fascism, or reject/accept a particular belief). "Islamofascism" is an expression that is frequently used in political discourse. Not having an encyclopedia article on it would be more POV (at least: some state of denial), and would reduce the possibilities of a NPOV treatment of the topic, that is: explain all POVs (pro and contra) in the body of the article. If the article name would be changed to "Allegations of Islamofascism" (or something in that vein), that would already give prevalence to one of the POVs, which would make it only more difficult to keep the treatment of the topic more NPOV in the body of the article. --Francis Schonken 11:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for articles on events and activities

I like the concept of "standing expression." Regarding articles on controversial political terms and articles on controversies, debates, mythical creatures, analogies, etc. - I was kind of hoping nobody would bring this up yet because my brain hurts when I think about it. I'll bring in some thoughts later. Here are some more ideas on naming articles about events.

How does this sound as a clarification to the guidelines:

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions Kla'quot 08:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW Francis, are you also saying that main articles should always have common names as titles, and that descriptive names should only be used for subsidiary articles? If that's what you're saying, I disagree. We have lots of huge main articles on topics that have no common name, e.g. two of the above. Kla'quot 18:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imjin War

One of our naming conflicts that frequently reappears, no matter how often you solve it (just like Nessie :P). The current debatte is about Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea or the Japanese invasion of Korea (1592-1598). Other names are the Imjin war or the Seven Year War (which is also used for one of the first European global conflicts). To solve the question of what is used more frequently, google search was used and the numbers compared. But the large numbers of results was not checked for content, so this method can be disputed, as here are different ways to put the search parameters. Perhaps we could find a solution to such cases. I think it is meaningless under what name we list an article, as long as all names direct there. Possibly the least confusable and most descriptive name (no suggestion of order) could be a solution in such thight cases. Wandalstouring 20:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent policy

The table under "To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following" is not consistent with the text above it. According to the "three principles" in the text, common English usage takes precedence; official nomenclature can be used when there's no clear-cut common name; and a self-identifying name can be used when there's no common or official name in English. The table, however, suggests scoring one point for each of these criteria and adding them up. This is not the same thing. By counting one point for an official name and one point for a self-identifying name, it de-weights common English usage. Which of these is the policy? It seems that the table may be an attempt to reflect the policy in the text, but if so, it needs some work. --Reuben 07:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC) I note that the version in the text is consistent with the consensus from Wikipedia:Naming_policy_poll, while the table version would appear to effectively overturn it. --Reuben 07:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed chage in chart

I would like to suggest that

Criterion	Option 1	Option 2
1. Most commonly used name in English	?	?
2. Current undisputed official name of entity	?	?
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	?	?
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

be changed to

Criterion	Option 1	Option 2
1. Most commonly used name in English	?	?
2. Current undisputed official name of entity in English	?	?
3. Current self-identifying name of entity in English	?	?
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

so that articles don't end up with titles like 日本. "Japan" would be the most commonly used name in English, while 日本 would be the official name and the self-identifying name of the entity. This would give 日本 more points than "Japan." You wouldn't want the Japane article moved to 日本, would you? Jecowa 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)