Wikipedia:Naming conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✔ This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss your idea on the talk page.
Shortcut:
WP:NCON

This guideline should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).

A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic or a geopolitical/ethnic entity. These generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

Contents

[edit] Rationale

Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy.

Nevertheless, some degree of standardisation of terms is required for practical and technical reasons. This page suggests an effective and efficient method as to how to resolve naming disputes within the bounds of the NPOV policy. Some may find this method to be unacceptable, but it is beneficial for all of us to stick to a uniform way of choosing an article title. An agreed set of group rules can help to determine naming practices in a consistent and fair fashion.

Equally, the prospects for achieving long-term consensus can be complicated by the fact that contributors change over time. At one point, a certain group of contributors may agree to use one name, but this group only represents the view of the particular sub-community of editors that exists at that time. When new contributors arrive, they are faced with the choice of reopening the discussion (thus diminishing the weight of the opinions of their predecessors), or sticking to the old consensus (which deprives the new contributors of a chance to have their say). In short, no consensus represents the voices of all the contributors to a given article. Following a permanently established objective procedure that does not rely on a fleeting consensus gets around this problem.

[edit] How naming works and how sometimes disputes occur in the process

[edit] Article names

A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. This is required by the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term. Thus the article United States can be reached via redirection pages at US, United States of America, America (US), etc. (See Wikipedia:Redirect for more on redirection pages.)

(Note: Some examples given in the previous paragraph use acronyms; for more information on naming conventions regarding acronyms, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms))

[edit] Names in articles

Within an article, there is no technical constraint on using synonyms. You can freely use "ICTY" (a redirect) as a synonym for the much longer "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" (the definitive name of the article). Or you could use both terms, as in "the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)". It is not necessary to use the definitive or long form on every occasion within an article.

[edit] Overlapping names

A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names. For instance, the term "Macedonians" may refer to the Slavic people who call themselves by that name, the inhabitants of the geographic region of Macedonia, the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, the inhabitants of the ancient kingdom of Macedon or even an obscure early Christian sect.

These overlapping meanings can be resolved by proper disambiguation. See Category:Disambiguation for examples of disambiguation pages.

[edit] How to make a choice among controversial names

[edit] Article names

Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree.

Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute.

The procedure for determining article names differs somewhat between the two principal classes of names – proper nouns (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or descriptive names (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).

[edit] Proper nouns

The key principles in summary are:

  • If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence (e.g. Munich rather than München; China rather than Zhōngguó).
  • If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself.
  • If the name is that of an inanimate or non-human entity, there is no common English equivalent and no dispute over the entity's name, use the official designation (or an English translation thereof) applied by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the entity is predominately found (e.g. Orlické Mountains from the Czech Orlické hory).
  • If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the commonest English-language name.
  • If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:

  • Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
  • 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)

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?

Where a choice exists between native and common English versions of names (e.g. Deutsch/German), the common English version of the name is usually preferred (see also #Ambiguity persists below).

Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

Note that anglicised versions of names are not simply native names with diacritics removed; "Zurich" is still a German name, as it is merely a spelling of Zürich without an umlaut. A name with a substantial difference in spelling (such as Moscow for Moskva, Munich for München) represents a true anglicisation of a native name.

[edit] Descriptive names

Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

For instance, a recent political controversy in the United States was nicknamed "Attorneygate" by critics of the George W. Bush administration. The article discussing the controversy is, however, at the more neutrally worded title Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. A descriptive article title should describe the subject without passing judgment, implicitly or explicitly, on the subject.

See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology.

[edit] Resolving disputed names within articles

Using names within articles can be complicated by historical and local contexts, as well as the difference between the type of entity that is being named. Where two or more names are commonly used in the present day for an entity, the names should be given at the start of an article with the article name listed first, then the alternate names in alphabetical order by name (if they are all from the same language) or in order of the name of the language (if they are from different languages). Hence a name that was most commonly used in English but with alternates in Afrikaans, German and Zulu would be given at the start of the article in the order English - Afrikaans - German - Zulu.

[edit] Dealing with historical contexts

Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo.

Example: The Polish city of Gdańsk was called Danzig for many years. The name "Danzig" is not the definitive term today, but it is correctly used in an historical context (e.g. before its annexation by Poland following the Second World War).

Note that it is not always necessary to use a contemporary name to refer to a historical place. For example, there are two distinct articles Edo and Tokyo, even though the two are essentially the same geographic entity.

[edit] Dealing with geopolitical contexts

In English, it is conventional for states to be referred to by their geographical territory as a short form - thus "Britain" for the United Kingdom, "Hungary" for the Republic of Hungary, and so on. Note that this applies to states even where they do not control the whole of the geographical territory in question; "China" is commonly used as a synonym for the People's Republic of China, even though it does not control the territory (considered by some to be part of China) governed by the Republic of China.

[edit] Other considerations

[edit] Types of entities

A distinction should be drawn between a self-identifying entity and an inanimate or non-human entity. An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain, or a non-human entity such as an animal, does not have a name for itself. Thus the English name Mount Everest is just as arbitrary as the local name, Qomolangma. The use of "Mount Everest" as the definitive term in Wikipedia is simply a matter of convenience, as the mountain is far more widely known by the English name than by its native Tibetan one. Similarly, the English name cobra for a type of snake is just as arbitrary as the Indonesian name "ular tedung", but the English name is used in the English Wikipedia because it is the standard name in the English language.

A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.

[edit] Dealing with self-identifying terms

Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.

Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. For example: "Japanese" and not Nihon-jin.

Where a name includes geographical directions such as North, East, South or West (in a local language), the full name should be translated into English: hence East Timor, not Timor-Leste; South Ossetia, not Yuzhnaya Osetiya; West Java, not Jawa Barat.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

[edit] Example

Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term.

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. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It 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. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV.

In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.

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.

[edit] Identification of common names using external references

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

  • The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
  • International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
  • Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
  • Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
  • Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .
  • Scientific nomenclature. Check usage by international bodies like CIPM, IUPAP, IUPAC, and other scientific bodies concerned with nomenclature; consider also the national standards agencies NIST and NPL. Consult style guides of scientific journals.

[edit] Ambiguity persists

When trying to solve a naming conflict according to the recommendations of this guideline, the outcome sometimes remains ambiguous. This happens for instance when:

  • The "official" name is not unambiguous;
  • Sources of comparable importance use different names;
  • etc...

A frequently occurring scheme is when two names are compared, of which the one is the English translation of the other: for example, "Princess Viktoria of Prussia" or "Princess Victoria of Prussia"? Applying the table above would indicate "Princess Viktoria of Prussia" should be used, while "official", etc... Then the rule is applied that the "English version" of that name should be applied... resulting in "Princess Victoria of Prussia". So, in such case, the application of this guideline sometimes results in a loop...

To get out of this, consider the following:

  • In those unsolved cases a poll, for example via Wikipedia:Requested moves, can be conducted.
  • Such a poll is on a *case by case* basis: it is better to avoid dogmatics in the discussion: whether in the end this will result in change of the naming conventions guidelines is of no importance as long as the poll is going on. Instead of dogmatics, the poll is rather about recognisability, as in: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize [...]" - so, in the poll every wikipedian just decides for himself/herself which of the choices he/she most easily recognises.
  • Before starting such a procedure, consider that very often (but not always!) the most predictable end result of the poll is the one that results from the Google test conducted with these parameters:
    • When consisting of more than one word, compare alternatives surrounded by quotation marks (fixed order of words);
    • All domains, but only English language;
    • Exclude "Wikipedia" from the search ("-wikipedia" parameter in Google).
    • *check* whether there is bias resulting from multiple meanings of the same (combination of) word(s). If such bias occurs it can *sometimes* be filtered out, but there are more cases where it can't: Google testing has its limits!

So before proposing a name change poll via WP:RM, consider whether the odds are worth it: you'll need to build a strong case if you propose a name change that strongly goes against a *clear* Google test result (but it happens, and also, as said above, the Google test frequently has no *clear* result).

[edit] See also