Talk:Waldemar Matuška

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

The result of the debate was Move.--Húsönd 03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Waldemar Matuska → Waldemar Matuška — Topic's name does not match the article's name. Incorrect spelling, correct name is Waldemar Matuška ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

1. Support I think us-ascii redirect is enough to fulfil naming conventions and removing diacritics is a loss of the information required for the encyclopedia. It is a pitty to remove it. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies) While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known and I recall François Mitterrand as a precedent and example in the wikipedia manual of style. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

   I don't understand. Yes, it is quite possible that you could show that the Waldemar Matuška spelling variant does deserve to be included in the opening paragraph. But that isn't determinative of the issue at hand in a requested move, the determination of which of them should occupy the one slot available for the articles name. That is the part determined by the name by which the subject is most commonly known part of what you quoted above. Gene Nygaard 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   Check google - Waldemar Matuška (148 000 hits), Waldemar Matuska (825 hits) For second search use "Waldemar Matuska -Matuška" to avoid doubles. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   First of all, that's not a Wikipedia:reliable source; but the bigger problem is that even this was not in evidence at any time before you posted that here. And, more importantly, it was not in evidence when you, User:Tulkolahten, falsely accused me of VANDALISM and improperly slapped a vandalism template on my talk page in this edit for reverting the totally and completely unreferenced, undiscussed, unsourced move to that name.

   Then, it helps to be more competent in using a search engine, to get more accurate and reliable information out of it:

Google	English language hits
"Waldemar Matuška" -Matuska -Wikipedia	57
"Waldemar Matuska" -Matuška -Wikipedia	102

1. So it looks like you do indeed have enough evidence to be able to include that variant spelling in the introduction. But it isn't where the article name belongs. Gene Nygaard 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   I would like to see your search string that found only 57 pages, according to wikipedia manual of style person's article should be named with the most common name he is known - so it is Matuška. I provide mine [1] with 146 000 hits.

   I don't give you vandalism warning falsely, because you are a vandal, you are destroying constantly names of the articles and you behave very uncivil to other editors, your comments in the edit reviews are insulting and show you assume bad faith. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   I told you what I used; it's only 56 now, and only 39 of them are displayed,[2] because "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 39 already displayed.

   • Furthermore, many of those 39 are not actually in English (the language limitation doesn't work all that well), and some of them are traceable to Wikipedia.
   • Note alsoo that if I do it on google.cz as you did, I also get 56 results, displaying 39.[3]
   • Note further that your search includes any article containing both Waldemar and Matuška, not requiring them to be together
   • Your search isn't like mine, for one spelling and not the other, but for both speligns. It doesn't distinguish between those using Matuska and those using Matuška.
   • If you limit your search to the English language you get only 175 hits.

   The additional factor in this case, of course, is the change of residence, with him now being a Floridean. Current usage is more relevant than old usage. Gene Nygaard 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Support. First of all, imdb isn't a reliable source (WP:RS); second, they do not keep names with diacritics. Third, he is Czech and Matuška is his surname, that's all. - Darwinek 00:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   "That's all"? Case prove, eh?—because Darwinek says so! You seem confused. User:Darwinek is not a reliable source. No original reserch. Gene Nygaard 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   WTF is ya talkin' about? Oh, maybe I inserted Š into his surname and this is all a giant fraud? No OR here, his name is Matuška, mr. Nygård. - Darwinek 09:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Support I do believe that the spelling of foreign language words should be respected at Wikipedia's articles and that if someone searches for the term using us-ascii, they should be redirected to the article that has the original language's spelling... I mean, that's part of what an encyclopaedia should be, isn't it? Furthering knowledge on things one doesn't normally know about, like foreign cultures and how they manifest themselves differently to our own.Rosa 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support per Tulkolahten. Jan.Kamenicek 12:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Support per Tulkolahten and Rosa. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong Support per Tulkolahten and Rosa. This is entirely consistent with WP:MOS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support for moving. His surname simply is Matuška, not Matuska. --Ragimiri 16:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Petr K 17:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Diactrics are part of the real world.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   Sure, they are. That does not mean that they are the proper choice for us to use in picking among the variant spellings for the one to occupy the article name of someone who lives in Florida, USA. Nor does it mean that there is any "error" by anyone who does choose to use the English alphabet when writing in English, here or in any other case. Gene Nygaard 14:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

10. Support per Tulkolahten, Rosa, and Ragimiri. Tankred 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I think that spelling without diacritics is not correct. --Snek01 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Neutral, leaning towards Support per Tulkolahten and common sense: the guy is Czech, his name's in Czech, it should be spelled the Czech way. On the other hand there's no w in the Czech alphabet and the name of Waldemar does not appear in Czech Republic tooS often. Is the guy really Czech? //Halibutt 22:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    W is present in the czech alphabet. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    The name Waldemar is of German origin, but can be found in the Czech Republic as well. There are two spelling variants: "Valdemar" and "Waldemar". Its name day in the Czech calendar is on 27 May. Jan.Kamenicek 08:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    Nonetheless, Halibutt raised a quite valid point. How the hell do you know that it is "Waldemar" rather than "Valdemar" in this particular case? The answer is, when you rely on unreferenced, undiscussed moves, you do not know. As a matter of fact, there is still no evidence whatsoever, reliable sources or otherwise, that Waldemar is more common than Valdemar for this particular person. Gene Nygaard 14:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    Furthermore, many of you have already looked at the IMDB where "Waldermar Matuska" is listed as "Sometimes Credited As: Valdemar Matuska / W. Matuska" (no squiggles in any case), so you should have been aware that there is a potential issue there. Gene Nygaard 14:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    IMDB is not a reliable source, they do not store diacritics at all and it is user-maintained There is no doubt he is Waldemar. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    Don't lie, Tulkolahten. IMBD clearly is a Wikipedia:reliable source in the Wikijargon meaning of that word. It is used as such in thousands of Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, it does use diacritics, so you lied about that, too. See, for example, this for a case where IMBD does include diacritics. And in any case, your word about "there is no doubt" is not a proper basis for decisions on Wikipedia as to the spelling of his first name. Gene Nygaard 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    You are mixing spelling and the name together. It looks like you do not understand that W is not the same as V (or V != W, V <> W, V is not W, V not in {W} (maybe more clear)). His birthname is Waldemar and it is what is in his birth certificate, there don't exist any other variants or possibilities. It is the same that you are Gene and not Dene or Bene or something like that. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    WTH is this nonsense about a "birth certificate"? We have absolutely no information about any birth certificate in evidence in this discussion. If you want to make any claims about that, please cite a reliable, published source which includes that information.

    We do have reliable information, however, in a reliable source that was cited in the article before it was improperly removed, that he has appeared in the credits of the movie Der andere neben dir as "Valdemar". Gene Nygaard 17:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    I see you don't have any idea about the names in the Czech Republic, there is no Waldemar/Valdemar, you are Waldemar or Valdemar. It is not like William/Bill like in the USA or Jan/Honza (formal/familiar). Waldemar is not that case - if you are Waldemar you can't be called Valdemar - never ever never. This is reliable source [4], you can ignore it but it means something about you. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    Hot air, Tulkolahten. Nothing but wind. Still no citations to reliable sources.

    Or, rather, we don't even get to the question of whether or not the source you cited is a "reliable" source. The initial problem is that it is totally unclear what in the world you are offering it as a source for. Why are you citing it? Are you offering it as a source for your unsupported claims about what the exact spelling of his name is on his "birth certificate" ? I doubt it. Are you offering it as a source for your claim that he "can't be called Valdemar - never ever never"? Impossible. There is no mention of Valdemar on that page. So just what in the world are you offering it as evidence of, anyway?

    Note also that in various naming discussions, there have been some editors who have repeatedly brought up the notion that article titles should be determined by birth certificates, and even if it were possible in more than a handful of cases to find reliable sources for such information, that notion has been resoundingly rejected every time it is brought up. Gene Nygaard 18:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    Reliable source is not this [5] for you ? Or don't you see that link ? Do you know what that site is ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    Reliable source for what, Tulkolahten? What's the relevance? That's the bigger question. What are you trying to show? Gene Nygaard 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

13. Support per Tulkolahten and Rosa. Bendono 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Strong support for full diacritics. --Miaow Miaow 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support moving to the correct name. Prolog 11:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose article was created under most common name in English. I've been working on expanding it, and the English language sources, including a print academic journal, widely use this spelling. Jonathunder 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   This isn't spelling, this is mispelling, same as George W. Büsh. Some Anglo-American folks still haven't realized not all keyboards are with diacritics and as a result of this, on many sites you can find mispelled names. I'm moving back right now, this isn't Arpad Elo, who lived nearly all his life in the USA, thus losing diacritics. This is fuckin' Waldek Matuška, livin' la vida loca but mainly in the Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic. - Darwinek 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   No further comment. There is no doubt that Gerhard Schroeder and Frankie Mitterand are better known in your English world without diacritics, as are known all people from countries with more sophisticated alphabet. Thing is, you don't have diacritics, Wikipedia does. (note both Mitterand and Schröder are in proper names here) This article should be speedily moved. Nomination is maybe also bad faith. - Darwinek 00:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   No, Darwinek. It is not a misspelling to use the English alphabet when writing in English. Period. End of story. It can be acceptable to use diacritics; it is not wrong not to use them.

   Furthermore, you repeatedly show a lack of disrespect for the English language in the way that you accept that names of people and of places and whatever can differ in Polish and in German, or in Czech and in Hungarian, or whatever, and you totally refuse to accept the fact that they can also differ in English. Gene Nigaard 03:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   Hey, Darwinek, aren't you happy that Jin Náigar here (how would you feel if others started to purposefully mispell your nick or name claiming that it's okay in their own language Gene?) finally gave you a compliment? Please, keep repeatedly showing a lack of disrespect for the English language on your edits ;)Rosa 08:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

   Good point Rosa, Džín Nigárd is pretty fine spelling too ;) ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

   I see it now. :)) Well, thank you Eugene, I really haven't expected a compliment from you. That's so sweet. Come on, give me a hug. ;) - Darwinek 16:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose. As I have previously pointed out to the proponent of this move, there was not any CITE to any reliable source for that spelling before the first attempt at that move was made, there was no discussion of it, and there still have been absolutely no reliable sources cited in support of it. He is clearly best known in English, possibly always known in English, as Waldemar Matuska. Gene Nygaard 03:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose The most common spelling in English language publications should be used. It is clear that the most common English spelling does not include diacritics. I am tired of wikipedians going against policies to serve their own agenda. Masterhatch 18:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Strongly oppose per all above. I will add that of the 39 hits for Matuška, most are in fact in Czech, and all of them are written by Czechs. The Czech Wikipedia does, and should, use cs:Waldemar Matuška, as it uses cs:Praha and cs:Londýn. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

   The fact that the same mistake is made about foreign names by the other Wikipedias doesn't make it right (I'm speaking about Londýn, not Praha). Using local names to refer to the articles of people, places etc. which belong to foreign cultures hinders our knowledge on them and can create confussion when names in different languages aren't similar like Hungary=Magyarország.Rosa 04:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

   François Mitterrand is in the wikipedia manual of style as an example, why don't you oppose ç ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 07:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

   hush, hush, hush or maybe someone will come up with the bright idea of changing his name in this Wikipedia to Francis. ;)Rosa 07:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

   It is determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on usage in English. Despite the false claims of some of the participant in this discussion, the Wikipedia standard is not that if any diacritics are ever used in the name of any person, place, thing or whatever, we must cram all of them that are ever used into the article names of our articles. For example, our English Wikipedia article is not at România, but rather at Romania. Our English Wikipedia article is not at Hồ Chí Minh; rather it is at Ho Chi Minh where it belongs. There have, of course, been people who tried and failed to achieve the requisite consensus to change them, because the point of view they were pushing is contrary to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Gene Nygaard 08:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

   Our English Wikipedia ? Wikipedia is yours ? What a surprise, should we withdraw and leave you alone here ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

   Wikipedia's naming conventions are "conventions", not rules carved in stone. Although I do understand that their purpose is to organize this place, this policy in particular is contrary to a much more important objective that all encyclopaedias should strive for, and that is promoting our understanding of foreign cultures. Rosa 15:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Have a look at these policies and guidelines:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use English words Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.

It is clear that anyone who votes "support" is voting based on personal POV and not wikipeida policies, guidelines, and most common use in English. Oh, to those who say English spells his name wrong, i say that English doesn't spell English wrong. Masterhatch 18:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

English doesn't spell English wrong, that's true but we aren't talking about Walter Matthews the English man but about Waldemar Matuška the Czech man.Rosa 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be disrespectful to the opinions of others claiming they break NPOV, it does not conform good faith. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

{Left) If you called yourself Rose Martin, as Matuska does Matuska, why not? This is an imposition of a spelling he doesn't use in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see in the article where does it says that Waldemar Matuška calls himself by that surname without the Czech diacritic. If it's not relevant to the article it's okay that the reference isn't there, but for this argument it is. Could you please cite your source? (as it is to be presumed that nationals write their own names according to the ortography rules of their own mother tongue). On top of that, your presumption that no language imposes a spelling on proper names (even a person's own name) is wrong. About this, you can read what I wrote about the Real Academia Española in Talk:Mario López.Rosa 01:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The second link to this article; an interview in which Radio Praha (of all sources) calls him Matuska in English. They demonstrably have a š.(see the Czech version). (The Journal of Politics article also uses Matuska.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

hmmm...I thought at this instance we were arguing over how he called himself, not on how a radio hostess of a show conducted in English called him.Rosa 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You have presented no evidence whatsoever that he calls himself anything other than "Matuska" in English. So that isn't even in issue. We do, however, have ample evidence that he is called "Matuska" in English.

There are, of course, zillions of people out their who do spell their own names differently in English than they spell their own names in some other language. Gene Nygaard 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And this "ample evidence" for claiming that Matuška calls himself "Matuska" in English is what Gene? where is it? I haven't seen ONE single reference to how Mr.Matuška calls HIMSELF. Please show it to me. I have proven that 1. Waldemar Matuška is Czech, born and raised 2. "Matuška" is a Czech name written with a diacritic. Therefore it follows that Waldemar Matuška, being Czech, having the Czech language as mother tongue writes his name as "Waldemar Matuška".

Of course, there is a minority of people who change their name throughout their lives...is Mr.Matuška one of them? We don't know yet, we need evidence to that and that's what I'm requiring of you two. The burden of proof in this matter doesn't lie with me to demonstrate that Matuška doesn't call himself Matuska, but with you to prove that indeed he does. It's one of the rules of logic and logical debate. What you have just presented is what is called an Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.Rosa 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• As for the Real Academia; This article is in English, which has no Academy; usage is the only test. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I know perfectly well the usage of the English language isn't regulated by an institution, in fact, that's what I begin by saying at Mario Lopez's discussion page. But if you read what I said above carefully, "your presumption that no language imposes a spelling on proper names (even a person's own name) is wrong"... doesn't refer to the English language in particular but to a mistaken presumption on your part, as there are indeed languages in the world (like the Spanish language) that do in fact impose rules over the spelling of proper names.

And once again, we have returned to the starting point of this discussion...this article is in English but Mr. Matuška's name isn't an English name, it's a Czech name.

I'm seriously beginning to think we will need mediation on this as we haven't been able to reach any concensus at all.Rosa 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A failure to reach consensus on a naming conventions issue isn't really something proper for mediation. The proper forum for that question is just this, the Wikipedia:Requested moves procedure. Gene Nygaard 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Or you can try to get the strong consensus required to change policy; I don't think it exists - but convince us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, I can say whatever I want but there is no way of convincing someone who doesn't even believe that consensus can be reached in this matter. You for example, faced with the impossibility to come up with a satisfactory answer to my rebuttal of your claim that Waldemar Matuška calls himself by the Anglicised term, just remained silent on the matter and are trying now another angle of attack so that you don't have to acknowledge anything to me.Rosa 01:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can; you have decided to ignore the policies and guidelines (cited at the top of this section) in order to enforce your own political point of view. But it is still true that nobody has presented anything written in English that calls him Matuška; much less a preponderance of the evidence. Wikipedia encourages those who disagree with its policies to set up forks which do what they want. If such a fork prevails over WP, so be it; but I prefer our present policies. This is the English WP; it should be written in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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