Misplaced Pages

talk:Naming conflict: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:41, 29 August 2005 editDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 edits →Common usage and google tests← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:31, 6 February 2010 edit undoUnitedStatesian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors245,425 edits fix dbl rdr 
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
==This talk page==
Can we use this page to discuss the suggested policy, ''not'' specific cases? ] 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

==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? Misplaced Pages refuses to say.''

We do quite rightly refuse to say which is right - but note that the article is located at ], not ]. 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 ]:

:''Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] to describe Roman ])''

:'''''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 Misplaced Pages's ] policy.''

Note that these principles and criteria support the current placing of the ] 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 ] 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. -- ] 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 "]" 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. ] ] 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:

::{| border=1
|-
| width=60% | '''Criterion'''
| width=20% | '''Option 1'''<br>Sea of Japan
| width=20% | '''Option 2'''<br>East Sea</br>
|-
| 1. Most commonly used name in English
| 1
| 0
|-
| 2. Current official name of entity&nbsp;&dagger;
| 0
| 0
|-
| 3. Current self-identifying name of entity&nbsp;&dagger;
| 0
| 0
|-
| colspan=3 | ''1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.''<br>&dagger; 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".

::{| border=1
|-
| width=60% | '''Criterion'''
| width=20% | '''Option 1'''<br>Macedonians (people) &Dagger;
| width=20% | '''Option 2'''<br>Macedonian Slavs</br>
|-
| 1. Most commonly used name in English
| 1
| 0
|-
| 2. Current official name of entity &dagger;
| 1
| 0
|-
| 3. Current self-identifying name of entity &dagger;
| 1
| 0
|-
| colspan=3 | ''1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.''<br>&dagger; Use English translation of name, where available<br>&Dagger; 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? -- ] 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 Misplaced Pages'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 &mdash; the raven paradox, etc.), sticking to a mechanical, formal approach is likely to lead to serious problems. ] (] 29 June 2005 11:19 (UTC)

:I do believe that, there ''is'' a most common way of referring to this group in English - ]. 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. --] 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 ]s (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 Misplaced Pages 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 ]. How does one make it happen? I am new to Misplaced Pages so I'd be glad to hear. --] 29 June 2005 15:15 (UTC)

==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 ] 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. ] 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 ], 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 Misplaced Pages. In Italy, the most common name for Rome is ''Roma'', but the English name is ''Rome''. Misplaced Pages 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.] july 2nd, 2005

*] -
*] -

==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 Misplaced Pages manual of style. Most said here is also (already) written there. ] 1 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

== 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. -- ] July 2, 2005 15:31 (UTC)

==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. ] 2 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

==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 ] 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. ] || ] 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" . 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&mdash; 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'):

===Related proposal===

My proposal on ] 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. --] 02:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

==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 ]'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 ], ], ''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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] and ] have each had four or five 'official' names adopted as '''the latest new 'fashion'''' during the past century. (or less changable ] and ] 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 ] with ], 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 Misplaced Pages 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 (]) and widely referenced as its widespread multi-decades-long impact is culturally important for both East and West as an indirect ] of ]. Similarly,that and the ] is still reverberating within Misplaced Pages, 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&mdash; 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&mdash; 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 ]ish.)
*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 ]), 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 Misplaced Pages; 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&mdash; 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 ], not '''Bejing''' (or instead of '''Peping''' or '''Peking''') or to use ] instead of ''Fusan'' or ''Pusan'', then and only then should our article alter have it's name changed to the new ] 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, '''Misplaced Pages 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'''''.
::] || ] 5 July 2005 22:19 (UTC) (Slight typo fixes here) ] || ] 5 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)

== 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 ], or Prussia-related articles to the city of ]). 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! -- ] 6 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)

== Disclaimer: Misplaced Pages has no official position ==

Apparently some users (Greek nationalists) got to the conclusion that everywhere the term Macedonia (such as ]) 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 ] and ]. See ], ] and

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 ? ] | ] 20:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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

== From proposal to official policy? ==

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

== 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, ] 05:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

==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 ], 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 ]. The RoM, which has gained nationhood 14 years ago, cannot claim exclusive rights to such a historical term. They can ''use'' it, and Misplaced Pages will report that they use it, but they cannot impose "common use". ] <small>]</small> 19:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:31, 6 February 2010

Redirect to: