| Revision as of 21:23, 19 August 2009 editPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →Example section: explain← 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 ] | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conflict/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| Archives: ] | |||
| == "pro-life" == | |||
| :''See also the discussion on ] above.'' | |||
| The term "pro-life" is propaganda. Who is "anti-life," besides pro-global-nuclear-war-ists? Even the homicidal and suicidal are not necessarily "anti-life," they simply want to end one or more individual lives. The debate is over "abortion," not "life." There are activists on both sides of the abortion rights debate, but I can't even think of any genuine "anti-life" activists. Even those who advocate the eradication of ''Homo sapiens'' generally do so for what they perceive to be the benefit of other species. Again, "pro-life" is pure propaganda and has no place in an encyclopedia except to reference its usage. When referencing the debates between those who call themselves "pro-life" and their opponents, an encyclopedia ought to avoid propaganda terms and use properly descriptive ones. The policy of calling groups by the names preferred by their members can be rather easily reduced to the absurd and is therefore impossible to maintain consistently. Better to call things what they are. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :This is another situation which shows that the section of the guidance on self-identifying names removed by one person at the end of April needs restoring - which I have done. One can argue endlessly on whether a group "ought" to be called by any particular name - pro-choice or pro-life. The fact is that they use these names. The guidance makes the solution clear. ]] 23:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::But Misplaced Pages's solution is the reverse, surely? We ''don't'' automatically use self-identifying names. That's why I consider this passage misleading.--] (]) 09:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's the agreed policy of the guideline. In other words, it's what should be done. To change that guidance needs a lot more than one person's opinion. As far as I know the guidance is generally followed, except in the case of English Language names for foreign places, where another policy applies: eg Poland not Polska. An example of the use of this policy is ] which directs to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". ]] 12:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So if it isn't applicable to places, surely it shouldn't start off by trying to make a distinction between different types of places? Can't the whole section be reduced to a statement something like "If it is not clear what is the most common name for something in English, prefer the name that it uses to identify itself" (and then give some real-life examples)?--] (]) 12:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No. I was talking about the special case of English language names for foreign places. But it is basic to English Misplaced Pages that the''' English Language name''' of the body institution or place be used. But if that body has a preferred English Language name, that should be used. For example: ] redirects to ], and ] to ]. I do not think it will be a benefit to anyone to shorten the guidance, since the purpose of guidance is to provide a comprehensive aid to dispute resolution. ]] 23:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That oversimplifies why we use ]. It's not simply a matter of local preference; it has also become English usage, at least in Indian English and probably further. See ]. ] <small>]</small> 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| So if I call myself "the literal supernatural creator of the universe" and do something to become notable enough to warrant an article here, then Misplaced Pages will accept that I am the literal supernatural creator of the universe and refer to me as such, without questioning the absurdity of doing so? I hardly think so. More likely, my article would be named according to my birth name, with a note in the lede that I refer to myself as the literal supernatural creator of the universe. Then there would be a section dedicated to the controversy surrounding my self-given name, which would consist of an ever-increasing list of "on-the-other-hands," going back-and-forth endlessly and generating the bulk of the talk page discussion. Yet all of this absurdity would be preferable to simply accepting my self-appointed designation as the literal supernatural creator of the universe. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Well, no. If you really become notable under that name, then that will be the title of your Misplaced Pages article. See ] for an example. ] | ] 17:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note to self: 1) change name to "the literal supernatural creator of the universe"; 2) become notable enough to warrant a WP article; 3) prove sephia karta wrong. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::Consider the article on ]. Obviously, he was not an emperor but he became notable because of his claim to be an emperor. Misplaced Pages isn't saying that he was an emperor and isn't just titling the article ] because he called himself as such but because he was called that by everyone else. --] (]) 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *But we ''don't'' use ]; because it's not common usage - Roman Catholics use it, and not all of them; some of them prefer to communicate with the rest of the English-speaking world. So it's a bad example. | |||
| *''Cabinda'' is a strikingly bad example; if we preserve this, we should use Fooland and Barland, not a potential, if now quiescent, naming conflict. | |||
| *Nevertheless, can both of you agree that self-identification ''is'' one of the claims that naming discussions ''do'' in fact take under consideration? | |||
| **For one thing, self-identifications often do become common usage; I like the inversion of "anti-choice" and "anti-life", but those aren't suitable terms to explain the conflict in an encyclopedia - yet. ] <small>]</small> 15:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Above remark is now out of date. Article name now ''is'' ]. Likewise ]. ] (]) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Improper moves, which violated the ''only'' part of this page which is policy. ] <small>]</small> 00:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Those weren't improper moves. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 02:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Altering guideline without Community-Wide Consensus == | |||
| {{rfctag|policy}} | |||
| Does this long passage on self-identifying names belong in a naming guideline? | |||
| The passage concerned being the one which was restored in .--] (]) 12:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Kontiski and one other seem to be determined to drastically cut a major section of this guideline on self-identifying names without any consensus whatsoever. This is an agreed Misplaced Pages POLICY GUIDELINE. As such it needs not only a good reason and a very wide consensus to change, it needs a consensus that reflects feeling across the community. I can see no good reason to cut this long-established guideline, and no good reason has been presented here. We can't have people just altering guidance to suit themselves. So can these people stop taking it upon themselves to alter policy guidance without proper Wiki-wide consultation. ]] 10:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, all this could be said the other way round - Xandar and ''no'' other are determined to keep reinserting a section that seems (on the basis of practice and other guidelines) not to enjoy community consensus, or even to make much sense. You seem to be mainly interested in it because you think it supports your arguments about what to call the (Roman) Catholic Church article, so you're hardly in a position to accuse others of altering it to suit themselves. Anyway, what matters is whether it clearly and accurately states how we do things - what evidence do you have for that? Evidence has been given above on this page that it doesn't.--] (]) 12:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::My principal point is that this guidance was written in Summer 2005, and the part Kotniski wants to remove has been in the guidance since July that year. It has been there for the whole lifetime of the guidance and enjoyed community support for all that time. It should not be significantly altered or removed on the whim of one or two people. I believe it has a very useful purpose in specifying how naming guidance works in practice - with a clear theoretical example. Of course I was interested in it because the policy is relevant to a recent dispute. I'm not saying this is set in stone, but any significant change has to be carefully negotiated and approved by the wider WP community, certainly more than a couple of people who just happen to be here. I don't think there is a good reason for cutting this so drastically. It might also be useful to involve more of the original authors in any proposed changes. ]] 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' Why do those who want to remove the section want to do so? On the face of it it looks useful. ] (]) 15:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, to me: (a) it doesn't have a clear relation to this page (it talks about using names "in" articles when this page should be about naming articles, and it isn't clear if any of this relates to that topic); (b) it is based on premises that don't have any following on WP (that local names for populated places somehow have a different status than local names for geographical features; and that we always call things by their local/self-adopted names rather than by their common English names). In other words, it doesn't reflect accepted WP editorial practice, and therefore has no place on a page which is marked as a guideline. (It could be made into an essay.)--] (]) 16:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::So basically you seem to be quarrelling with the policy that the names chosen by self-identifying entities to identify themselves should be followed by Misplaced Pages. The alternative would be for Misplaced Pages to decide what these entities names SHOULD be, even if they dislike or reject those names. That is a lot more than just the trimming, or shortening of the guidance that was initially claimed by those wanting the change. It would be a major change of policy that would re-start a hundred now-dormant naming conflicts across Misplaced Pages. Mormom-Latter Day Saints, Macedonia-Greece, Clay-Ali, Catholic-Roman Catholic, Orthodox-Eastern Orthodox, Coptic-Ethiopian Orthodox etc. etc. Basically I think the established guidance adopts the correct principle of WP editors not overruling people, cities or organisations as to what their name is. As far as the other point goes, the guidance is "Misplaced Pages naming conflicts" It doesn't just say "titling conflicts". ]] 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, the principle (as stated in other better-known and better-followed policies and guidelines) is that we use the names by which things/people are best known in English. In the great majority of cases that's also the self-identifying name, but that doesn't mean that self-identification is the principle that we follow. I'm certainly not saying that we decide what the name SHOULD be, just what it IS - but based primarily on third-party sources rather than the subject's own preference. And I don't mind the self-identifying name being taken into account as ''one'' of the factors considered when it's not clear what the common name is - but the way this passage is written, it makes it sound like the self-name should automatically trump all others. --] (]) 08:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's your opinion, however it would be a major change of Misplaced Pages policy to do as you suggest - and a change that would have many ramifications in re-igniting conflict. At the moment the guidance is clear and easily followed, making it more obscure for no good reason, would cause endless disputes. One name that Kotniski's proposed new policy would almost certainly alter would be the Church which most people would find by typing ]. ]] 22:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No new policy is being proposed; I just want to get rid of a passage that misstates existing policy. (Look at ], for example - we don't go with the self-identifying name.) Given the lack of interest in this discussion, it seems that no-one is interested in this page anyway, hence any changes made here almost certainly won't have any effect on the way things are actually done, they will just prevent anyone who chances on this page by accident from being misled.--] (]) 07:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It appears to be your view alone, that the clearly-stated guidance, that has been here for rfour years, unchallenged, and used in many disputes is "MISSTATING POLICY"! This is an amazing conclusion! The policy is quite clear about self-identifying names. And there is no mandate to change it. You seem to be confusing the ] policy with the one on self-identifying names. In cases where a country or person has a self-identifying name that has significantly BETTER usage in English, then the English form of the self-identifying name should be used. That is the general rule. '''Naples''' for '''Napoli''' for example. Sometimes, when the English name is so well used that to use another would cause confusion there are special issues, such as Burma. The change of name by the military government to Myanmar is also opposed by many Burmese democrats. ] however has changed its name with popular agreement. However these are not reasons for changing the rule - which is what you are really proposing. ]] 15:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Can the two parties please provide a clear summary of the issue? Examples and all that aside, what is the specific statement that is in question? The current wording certainly goes against the fresh ] rules on 'theorizing', which is certainly what a statement like the following is: | |||
| :"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." | |||
| This is inappropriate and unclear, but I'd like to know what the real issue here is. The amount of time that something has existed as policy is irrelevant, if some prior broad consensus discussion for its inclusion does not exist. ] 02:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It's hard to point to a specific statement when the whole thing is unclear. Certainly this theorizing about differences between populated and inanimate places needs to go - I've never seen this distinction play a role in discussions about place naming. If there are areas of WP where self-identifying names are prioritized (Xandar suggests this is the case with names of church organizations) then this should be stated, but whatever it is that we ''are'' trying to state here needs to be set out clearly and concisely.--] (]) 07:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ok, well the entire thing should be either removed, or rephrased to not require a long speculative account, filled with examples, of what it means for a thing to be "self-identifying". Most of this, especially the stuff about inanimate objects, can be replaced with "Some persons and organizations have stated preferred names for themselves. In such cases where a thing cares what it's called, we..." ] 08:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| For reference, there are only 4 non-reverting editors having over 5 edits on this page: | |||
| (total edits, chars sum: added minus removed, chars added, chars removed, content moves) | |||
| ChrisO (29, 14566, 3250, 17816, 22) | |||
| Francis Schonken (13, 2409, 1324, 3733, 16) | |||
| Wolfkeeper (11, 0, 0, 0, 0) | |||
| Kotniski (6, -2371, 2942, 571, 6) | |||
| Which doesn't look too good, in terms of diversity. This should mean that the person claiming that widespread community support for some specific wording exists should provide evidence. ] 09:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know what is allegedly "unclear" about a self-identifying name. Either a body has a name for itself or it doesn't. A mountain doesn't name itself. A country DOES. It's not too hard to understand. The length and the examples ADD to the clarity - which is needed in contentious naming disputes. This policy has stood for many years and is quite clear. The statement of konitski that it isn't used is just supposition on his part, with no proof whatsoever. Similarly the lack of changes to the policy show its stability and usefulness rather than vice-versa. So far I have seen no rationale for a change other than ]. It would certainly need a lot more than Kotniski and a couple of his friends to change such a basic policy. ]] 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Look at it this way: If it's clear, you don't need to go on and on about rocks and trees and birds. It's entirely irrelevant that this specific wording has stood for many years, as long as nothing ''substantive'' changes. So, what do you see as the substantive (important, crucial, unchangeable) parts of this section? ] | |||
| :::Believe it or not, it has come up. Otherwise the community wouldn't have seen fit to put it in the guideline. People argue over all sorts of names, I don't see how more examples and more clarity could be a bad thing. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 20:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Strongly against Kotniski proposals to cut the section. It would be a violation of the ] policy to cut out a section on what entities self-descibe their own name as. The section is very useful and should remain within the article. There doesn't really seem to be a good reason to remove it, other than, as Xandar pointed out ]. If it isn't broke don't fix it. - ] (]) 20:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The line Kotniski objects to certainly is needed. There are plenty of disputes over the names of inanimate objects - the ] (or Arabian Gulf) and the ] (or East Sea) are just two examples. In those cases there's no "definitive" name for such things - we go with what is most frequently used in English. Countries, cities and other geopolitical bodies are a different matter because they ''do'' have a self-selected name. That's why we make that distinction in the guideline. It's an important distinction to make, because disputes over geopolitical names and geographical names need to be treated somewhat differently. As the original author of the guideline, I suggest that the line should stay. -- ] (]) 20:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the current guideline could use some review, rethinking and possibly rewriting. I'm not prepared to lay out a coherent discussion of the issues at this time. However, pending a thorough review of the guideline, I think we should keep the text that Kotniski wishes to delete. Using the Self-identifying name is a good guideline. --] (]) 21:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: A major part of the issue here is the objection to the wording and the theorizing, not to the actual substantive parts of the policy. The weird ''terminology'' needs to be removed in favor of something coherent. I read that section and my mind goes numb; there's a much easier way to state things. ] 22:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break=== | |||
| Ok, I cleaned up a bunch of this as per ]. Nothing substantive was removed, but the weird and confusing theorizing was mostly cut. By the way, a self-identifying name, much like a self-identifying homosexual or wikipedian, is someone who identifies themselves as that label. In this context, it basically means a name that identifies itself as a name, which is nonsense. The term we want to use here is "preferred name", as in that little box, on forms, where you list the name that you prefer to be addressed by. ] 23:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the policy is getting watered down a bit. The entity under the old wording doesn't have to state that they prefer one term, they could also simply use one name most the time without explicitly stating that they prefer the name; I don't get the feeling that the current wording captures that idea. | |||
| :As for the first sentence of the self-identifying section, ''does this mean we should mention it, or that we should title the article this way?"'' Yes, this guideline is designed to select a single title for an article. It is stating (and is commonly interpreted to mean) that articles should be titled by the name that an animate entity chooses to use for itself, whether or not others think they have the right to use that name; this policy helps us avoid taking sides in political disputes and helps wikipedia remain neutral. Here's what I think its trying to say: ''Where <s>self-identifying names</s> '''self-selected names''' are available, they should be used within articles. Misplaced Pages does not take any position on whether a'''n''' <s>self-identifying</s> entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they ''do'' use that name.'' --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 02:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ok, I've changed it to reflect this. I've also removed some of the wording: | |||
| ::* These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. -- we don't care how important a person's key identity is to them, we just want to avoid conflict | |||
| ::* This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names. -- we don't officially advise our editors to take a more cautious stance towards 'self-identifying' entities specifically. All entities, including the ones that think that, say, "creation scientists" shouldn't be called scientists, are worthy of respect. | |||
| ::* this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they ''do'' use that name. -- no, it's not like we're titling articles "the artist who calls himself the artist formally known as prince" | |||
| :: and so on. I've also excluded the verbose examples as per ], if someone wants to start an essay using those examples, that would be fine. If I've missed anything, please let me know and I'll change it again. ] 03:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's certainly a great improvement in terms of presentation - at least we can see what it's trying to say now. I think, though, that you've actually ''strengthened'' it in terms of substance - where previously it talked about using names within articles, it now says that the self-identifying name "should be used" as the article title. Clearly there are exceptions to this (otherwise it would conflict with ]) - perhaps this should be reflected in the wording? For example, we could delete "even if they do not have a right to use that name" (as redundant), and replace it with "subject to other Misplaced Pages ]."--] (]) 07:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The lack of clarity in the previous wording means that we can't figure out what the consensus was actually for. I began my rewrite by basically copying Kraftlos's statement, "that articles should be titled by the name that an animate entity chooses to use for itself, whether or not others think they have the right to use that name". My guess is that people explained things somewhat clearly somewhere in this talk page history, got consensus, and then wrote something that was extremely difficult to understand without this context. I think that the intent was actually to talk about the naming, not the title of the article. The NC policy is huge (tldr) - which parts would this conflict with? (If it doesn't explicitly conflict, then we can just let them point to POL, which says policies win out over guidelines.) ] 08:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, it seems to conflict with the overriding "use common name" principle, as well as many other specific naming conventions, such as those for monarchs. Generally the naming conventions pages are all mixed up, with different things being stated as rules in different places, and no clarity about what takes precedence over what (there was an idea some time ago to reorganize it all as a list of ''factors to be taken into account'' in naming decisions, which would have been more logical, but didn't happen).--] (]) 09:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't know if we should mention this. It might imply that this can just be ignored because there's a policy. On the other hand, if someone actually identifies a conflict between, say, royal names and this page, the status of guideline and policy will soon be noted anyway. Provisos, and all that. ] 23:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I think too much was removed. I have restored some of the sentences including the rationale for the policy and the briefer examples. With no rationale, the guidance simply looks arbitrary. I also think the long example regarding the Cabindans-Maputans is useful in explaining the reasoning, and if it is too long to go in the main text, it should be retained as a note. ]] 23:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The rule is now sufficiently-clearly worded that examples are not needed. For the two insertions, can you think of a case where they would actually be needed? If not then we exclude them. The last sentence, before your revert, already justified things (to remain neutral). The insertions are actually rather controversial and conflict with established policy: | |||
| ::* Misplaced Pages is '''descriptive''', not '''prescriptive'''. We cannot declare what a name ''should be'', only what it ''is''. -- No, if I say 'bombay' is the correct name of bombay, you can't tell me that, no, "mumbai" is actually the correct name. It isn't. It's merely one of many names, but the only type out of all of them that we can choose consistently. | |||
| ::* not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. -- hell no. We don't take any position on what is or isn't a key statement of one's own identity. That's not the reason we have this rule, the reason is simply to avoid conflict. | |||
| ::* This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names. -- no, we are not going to instruct our editors to give these entities special treatment or consideration | |||
| ::* Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. -- I have no idea what this means, but | |||
| ::Your revert makes me somewhat impatient, since I've explained in detail above why these statements not only are bad, but violate the ] policy and the ] policy. I'll be taking them out shortly. Please, read the discussion carefully before reinserting these points. ] 00:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with M that these reinserted statements are best left out. But I still think we must state explicitly that there are other naming conventions that may modify or take precedence over this "rule". We don't want to mislead the people reading this page - it's not enough that ''we know'' (or other parties to disputes will know) that other policies exist; we must mention this key information so that all readers understand.--] (]) 08:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hmm, I now think that you may be right - I'd support something like "This does not override standards, such as _ and _". Since nobody is opposing it, you should probably just add it. ] 09:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::All right, let's try. (I also made a slight rewording to the clause about rights).--] (]) 09:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : " Note that this does not override ] standards, such as the use of common names." | |||
| I now realize that this specific choice of example might be, uh, problematic. The point of this section is to settle disputes on this issue, and it looks like ] pretty much hands off judgement to this guideline. Looks like "use common names, if that fails, see naming conflict". So it looks like we don't really need the clause, since namecon asserts no conflicts. It really needs to be worded better though. This may need broader discussion. ] 11:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I've restored the original wordings you have deleted. you do not have the right to alter these policies on your own. There is an attempt being made here to subvert the established policy, confusing the issue of self-identifying names with that of common usage of English forms of those names, and usage of terms for non self-identifying bodies. It is denial of use of self-identifying names that is POV, as the guideline states. What we are seeing here seems to be less brevity and cutting out excess wording, but a misjudged attempt to change the policy. ]] 00:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I do have that right, anyone can edit policy. Incidentally, this page isn't policy. Anyway, read the above discussion. I stated that I think this very clearly overrides common names, and removed the wording that would have changed that. I understand what your general feeling on this issue is, and I'm pretty sure that I ''agree'' with you. Let's move on to discussing the specifics - why is "These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity", something that you think belongs as a guideline? Read my objections to it above. ] 00:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agree with you on that sentence, but I don't follow your reasoning about this "clearly overriding common names". Surely the fact that Naming Conventions says "if that fails" means that we apply the common name criterion first, and if it isn't clear how to apply that, we look to Naming Conflict for further guidance. In other words, it's common names that override self-identifying names - and as I said before, we should say so here to avoid misleading people. Or if that isn't the case, we should bring it up at the main naming conventions talk page (in fact, I think I will).--] (]) 03:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok. I think the general principle here is that we want to be fair - that is, almost ignorantly equal. A common name having, say, 80% more google hits should not be preferred to a preferred name. Someone can argue that google misrepresents. But nobody can argue that it's not a preferred name. ] 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| After reading some of the discussion from around July 1, 2005 when this wording was first introduced, it seems very clear to me that use of common names was very important to this policy; this section actually used to be a subsection of ''How to make a choice among controversial names''; which in the states: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| 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. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Anyway, I think that this subsection was intended to flesh out the third point, but it ended up being really muddied. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 06:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :That looks a much more logical setup (though I'm not sure what "official name" is supposed to mean, or how the second point relates to naming conventions actually used for science articles these days, which have changed since 2005).--] (]) 08:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Note that shortly after those points in that revision, there's a table that implies that the three have equal weight, and that it's best 2/3. ] | |||
| Kraftlos, the 2005 version of the policy you refer to ALSO contains this text, which people are now trying to delete | |||
| Types of entities | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| A distinction should be drawn between a self-identifying entity and an inanimate entity. An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain does not have its own name for itself (obviously). 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 Misplaced Pages is simply a matter of convenience, as the mountain is far more widely known by the English name than by its native Tibetan one. | |||
| '''A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself.''' The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. The country formerly called Burma now calls itself Myanmar. The people formerly called Eskimos now call themselves Inuit. 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. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| These statements are important because Kotniski, in particular, seems to be losing track of the important difference between self-identifying and inanimate entities in naming conflicts, and seem to want to apply rules meant for inanimate entities to self-identifying ones. ]] 10:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, rather than losing track of the difference, I just don't believe this difference is particularly important. Which rules do you think can't be applied to self-identifying entities? (And all this discussion about 2005 texts is rather moot - we should be discussing what best describes current practice, not what a few people came up with four years ago.)--] (]) 10:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Kotniski, your response came while I was writing the response below. But the difference in the two types of name is referred to below. If we are going by rules applied to inanimate objects then the article currently at ] should be at ] and the article currently at ] should be at ]. This would cause unending conflict, therefore these rules have been set out, giving us a simple, clean method of short-circuiting that conflict. Having just been involved in 12 months of such conflict, changing this guidance is NOT a good idea. ]] 10:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::But the point is that these rules are not followed in all cases. Sometimes the self-identifying name is chosen, sometimes not (as with Burma, and probably Macedonia and Ireland). There are many factors to be considered in choosing titles for articles, and the passage as it stood (and stands) seems to place far too much emphasis on just one.--] (]) 11:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::M, (why the sinister name?), I cannot see the objection to the passages you highlight and want to remove. | |||
| ::*Misplaced Pages is '''descriptive''', not '''prescriptive'''. We cannot declare what a name ''should'' be, only what it ''is''. | |||
| ::::Just saying that the guidance exists to remain neutral, is a claim, not a full rationale. The fact that you argue with the guidance using the example of Bombay, actually shows how useful it is. You say "you can't tell me that, no, "mumbai" is actually the correct name. It isn't". This is precisely why this sentence exists. We can argue which is the correct name for months. The sentence makes the principle clear that we use the name actually used by the entity, and short-circuit that fruitless discussion. The change as proposed would reopen the ], ] and ] naming conflicts - all of which would probably come up on a google search far more under the names I have just listed than by their self-identifying names. | |||
| ::*not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. | |||
| ::::Again this sentence is not asking us to take any position on what is or isn't a key statement of one's own identity. It is saying that we cut through this argument by using the SI name - so avoiding conflict. | |||
| ::*This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names. | |||
| ::::This is the basis of the guidance, giving entities with self-identifying names special consideration. I may prefer to call ], Danzig, (it's more historical, and a lot easier to pronounce) but to avoid conflict we use Gdansk because that is what the entity currently names itself (for whatever reason) | |||
| ::*Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles | |||
| ::::Again this seems quite clear to me. What is the problem? ]] 10:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Xandar's statement about Gdansk is completely false. First of all, we do call it Danzig when referring to the long period when it was a German city; after much and acrimonious discussion, we have agreed (see the mentions of it in ]) to do so '''because''' that's what our sources do. ] <small>]</small> 20:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitrary break 2=== | |||
| Is "These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity." - is this going a bit too far here? I'm under the impression that as far as we're concerned, names are arbitrary, and it doesn't matter one bit whether or not they are "key statements of identity". Other groups make "key statements of non-identity", too. Am I missing something here? What do other editors think about this? ] 12:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with your impression. Well, I wouldn't say names are arbitrary, but we certainly don't choose them because they are statements of anything. This sort of irrelevant philosophizing has to stay out of the guideline - it just blurs whatever concrete advice we're actually giving.--] (]) 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I still don't see the harm in that sentence. Muhammad Ali is in part a statement of identity, as are Mumbai and Gdansk. But I don't see irreparable harm in removing that particular rheoretical justification. ]] 21:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Ok, I'll take it out. Consider this: should we include the sentence "Objections to a group calling themselves Palestinians are key statements of the opposing side's identity"? It's as true as the statement we have. The statement takes the moral side of the self-namers, all we do is arbitrarily choose them for entirely practical reasons. ] 00:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The argument that an OBJECTION to someone else using a name has as much validity in identity as the actual USE of a name by a person, is dealt with in the Cabindan-Maputan example. In other words, since the Israelis choose '''not''' to primarily self-identify as Palestinians, their objection to Palestinian Arabs using the title is a POV, while the Arabs' use of the title is a Fact. If both Jews and Arabs primarily identified themselves as "Palestinians", then Misplaced Pages would have to use the name for both, and disambiguate. ]] 01:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Uh, their objection is also Fact. If I choose to sanely self-identify as God, the Prophet Mohammed, or the Blessed Virgin Mary, and you don't choose to identify yourself by any of these terms, is my self-identification somehow superior to your refusal to accept me as such? No. <br> Now, for another part: "Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is." -- our article titles don't actually declare what the correct name is. Even if one side was right, morally, that a name should not be used, we wouldn't care. ] 02:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I must agree with M. That a group calls itself something is a fact; that another group objects to it calling itself that is also a fact. That it has/hasn't the right to call itself that is a POV; that the other group is right/wrong to object is also a POV. At Misplaced Pages we should report all the facts (and POVs as attributed opinions); and when choosing names, be as neutral as we can - by choosing the names most commonly used in (good) English. In most cases it will be the self-chosen name anyway, but not always.--] (]) 09:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not any less neutral to use the name that the self-identifying entity chooses for itself, the guideline does state to cover the naming conflict <u>if it is notable</u> in the article. It would be POV to take sides as to who has the "right" to use that name, but the policy simply gives us a way to avoid discussing subjective arguments of who can/should use a particular name. I don't see what's so hard about that, it's totally neutral. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: This is mostly about the wording that implied this, which I removed and Xandar replaced. The policy should also be used in conjunction with many other naming policies - if everyone knows some mafia hitman as Mike "Fatts" Smith, it doesn't matter that he sincerely prefers to be called "Little Mikey". ] 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've already pointed out important examples of where the most well known name in English is not the self-identifying name. Altering the guideline would revive all those (and many other) disputes. There is no good reason for doing this, since it would be to perversely replace a simple, easily followed and justifiable set of guidance with a confusing overlap of contradictory principles. (self-identified name Vs "Best known name in English). That would be regression not progress, and a recipe for endless disputes. As far as giving yourself a famous name others think you are not entitled to, we have a key example of this in ] and ], who are listed under their self-identified names, even though there are other claimants with the same name. As far as the mafia hitman goes, I'm sure if he wanted to be known as Little Mikey, people would call him Little Mikey. ]] 01:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: This misses the point entirely. Madonna is called Madonna because that's what people call her. Mike, despite self-identifying as 'Little Mikey', is called 'Mike Smith' or 'Fatts' by everyone, and Misplaced Pages would have a nice article for him over at ], not at ]. So sometimes, we just don't care what you want to call yourself. This isn't the only reason or example, but it's a counterexample that proves that the statement 'self-ident names are above common names' is flatly false. As for the actual page: "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles." - what is this supposed to mean, and isn't that already covered? ] 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: ''"I've already pointed out important examples of where the most well known name in English is not the self-identifying name."'' Yes, so have we - and in ''some'' cases the WP article is titled with the self-identifying name, while in others it is titled with the well-known name. There are clearly (at least) two factors at work here - it is simply misleading to imply on this page that the self-identifying name is the one we ''always'' choose, while the main ] page (which also has problems) hardly mentions that criterion at all. --] (]) 08:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This guideline exists to supplement WP:NC. It is to help solve problems - which it does by being CLEAR. Kotniski seems to want to make the guidance less clear and more ambiguous. That will help no-one. If there are a few places where the guidance isn't applied (although in the majority of places it is applied very successfully), that doesn't invalidate the guidance. Using made-up examples is not helpful here since there are no parameters to measure. Self-identifying names are generally clear, unambiguous and carry fewer POV connotations. So-called "well-known" names often have none of these advantages. ]] 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Huh? Well-known names are just as likely to be clearer and less ambiguous ("Roman Catholic Church" is certainly less ambiguous than "Catholic Church", for example), and if there ''is'' a dispute about the "right to use a name", then choosing the commonly used name certainly seems a more NPOV method than choosing the self-chosen name, which by definition is supporting one of the POVs. And there is certainly nothing CLEAR about laying down a principle on one page which is potentially in conflict with another principle on another page, and not admitting on either page that other principles exist and need to be taken into account simultaneously. If you believe that self-chosen names take precedence over common names, why not try to get that principle accepted at ]? It won't be, of course, so why lie to readers of this page that this principle is somehow paramount? There's no advantage to clarity if what you're saying is wrong.--] (]) 10:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The entire naming conventions page needs to be cleaned up. I have no idea why certain sub-pages, like this one, are deferred to when they're just a guideline. All of this needs to be in one place... ] 18:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :That may be, but let's try to make this guideline the best that it can be, given the circumstances. Frankly, this is about a conflict of names; that is, it refers to instances when using the common name doesn't yield a clear distinction between two entities with a claim to the same name, or one entity with more than one apparently viable name. It is not saying "in the case of self-identifying entities, always use the name they call themselves by." rather it is resolving the conflict by bringing in some extra objective criteria to help determine which name is the most common. It doesn't conflict with the common name principle, rather it expands upon and clarifies the idea. The guideline needs work, but I think it is entirely necessary as a support for NPOV and Naming Conventions. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 10:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I think this issue was moved up to ]. ] 16:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The fundamental primary principle of our naming conventions is the use of the most common name - WP:NAME starts with a section "''Use the most easily recognized name''" and the first general convention listed is "''Use common names of persons and things''". | |||
| The sentence "''Where any persons or groups (organizations, cities, political parties, fringe movements) have chosen to refer to themselves by a certain name, the titles of the articles that cover them should use that name''" is not compatible with this general principle. Though these names may coincide with the most common and recognised name, when they do not they must instead defer to the most-common name. Anything saying otherwise (such as this sentence) has no wide consensus, is not supported by our general naming principles, and should be removed unless endorsed by the community in a centralised discussion. ] (]) 22:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :(To clarify: that self-defined names should be mentioned and explained in the ''article text'' is of course natural, and no censorship of this should occur for political reasons. However, use of a self-defining name as the ''article title'' is, however, not endorsed over a more commonly used name). ] (]) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's your opinion. And in defiance of long-standing policy. The standing policy defers to this guideline on self-identifying names. One reason is because it is CLEAR. We use the name a person self-identifies by to avoid conflict. Using the "most easily recognised name" is ambiguous in these cases, since which is most "easily recognised" between Catholic Church and Rioman Catholic Church or between Orthodox and Eastern orthodox, or between Latter Day Saints and Mormon? ]] 23:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Utterly incorrect. | |||
| # it wasn't my opinion - it was direct quotation from the policies. | |||
| # there is no longer standing policy on this matter than ]. | |||
| # ], ], ], ] are united on promotion of common names over self-identification or officialnes; this is the only document out of step | |||
| # ] lists some very good reasons why picking self-identified names does not eradicate all arguments. | |||
| ] (]) 23:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :...and are hardly ] to take part in the debate, are they? Not cool at all. | |||
| :I have asked ] with considerable relevant experience to come and give his own opinion. ] (]) 00:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::And on that cue: | |||
| ::On the procedural point, '''this''' page is not policy, and never has been; it's a guideline. ] says ''The naming conflict '''guideline''' may help resolve disagreements over the right name to use''; the added emphasis should make clear that NAME does not "defer" to this page in any way that would make it more than a guideline. Its ] to this page says that controversial names, once established, should not be changed without discussion, and suggests (correctly) that we have better things to do with Misplaced Pages than engaging in such discussion - which includes changing to "self-identifying" names. | |||
| ::There is no consensus to always use self-identifying names - or we would not be having this discussion. Is anybody but Xandar defending that position? It is one of the criteria we should ''consider'' - and we may vary on how deeply we consider it. | |||
| ::To pick an example apart from current controversies: we use ], ], ]; the first have several self-identifying names, but even seventeenth century specialists might not recognize them - no one else would have a chance. | |||
| ::The "Cabinda" example I have spoken of at ]: it's a badly-chosen pseudonym for a Balkan conflict, now settled in a poll approved by ArbCOm, and not under the principle of "self-identification" Therefore this is not descriptive. ] <small>]</small> 01:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::The consensus is the guidance that has existed on this page since 2005, and it has been supported on this page. You suddenly dropped into the argument from nowhere and decided to change a long-standing policy that would cause mayhem on WP if reversed. That consensus policy needs widespread CONSENSUS - not two or three people who show up suddenly on a talk page to reverse - as you seem to want to. The attempt to reverse the polcy without notifying ANYONE, and then to transfer the talk elsewhere because you could not gain consensus here is certainly not cool. I have merely informed interested parties you did not bother to inform. ]] 00:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also ] refers to this guidance for rational and specifics on naming policy with regard to controversial names. ] does as well, and WP:OFFICIALNAMES is not even Guidance, but an essay. ]] 00:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I have no obligation; I'm not Knepferle; I'm his third opinion. | |||
| :::*I have cited, above, '''everything''' from this page that ] endorses. Its mandate on controversial names is ''incompatible'' with the position Xandar defends. ] <small>]</small> 01:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't think Xandar confused you for Knepferle, I think he was replying to his comments above, not just your's. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 02:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I want to make a few comments on today's discussion, above: | |||
| # Let's not attempt to privilege one editor, over others. I refer to Knepflerle's comment that " are hardly ]." Xandar contacted me and some others who have just been involved in a protracted dispute over article naming, which I mediated. I do not regard myself as biased on this topic. But I do have some recent experience in interpretation of the Naming convention policy and the Naming conflict guideline. | |||
| # It appears that some editors have been attempting to change the guideline, absent consensus on the talk page. Let's keep in mind the WP guidance for all policies and guidelines, which appears at the top of each: "...Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." | |||
| # From reading the above discussion, there seems to be some confusion as to whether there is a need to merely ''clean up'' the wording, or ''change'' the guideline. There is a big difference. But at least one editor seems to want to throw out the guidance on naming conflicts. Please, let's all bear in mind that '''the policy specifically refers editors to the guideline for resolution of naming conflicts'''. This is important. It indicates that when the naming convention (most common name) is disputed, one refers to the guideline and its emphasis on self-identification. | |||
| Let's all take it slow. Please stop the reverts. There is no need to rush. Policy decisions are important. ] (]) 03:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Xandar - so much to correct in what you wrote. | |||
| :* "''The attempt to reverse the polcy without notifying ANYONE, and then to transfer the talk elsewhere because you could not gain consensus here is certainly not cool''". I did not move any discussion anywhere. I am not Kotniski, nor am I an "ally" who participated before tonight. I left a short message at ], but contributed here. | |||
| :*"''I have merely informed interested parties you did not bother to inform.''" - read ] about campaigning. It was the obvious bias in your notification that was the issue, and took it beyond "mere informing" | |||
| :*"''You suddenly dropped into the argument from nowhere and decided to change a long-standing policy that would cause mayhem on WP if reversed''" - the wording as it stood when I edited it was not long-standing. For example, with my emphasis added: | |||
| ::* "Where any persons or groups (organizations, cities, political parties, fringe movements) have chosen to refer to themselves by a certain name, '''the titles of the articles that cover them should use that name'''" | |||
| ::* "Where self-identifying names are in use, they '''should be used within articles'''. Misplaced Pages 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" | |||
| ::There is a significant difference between the two: the use ''in titles'' does not have consensus since 2005. This was not included in the text back then, precisely because it is incompatible with ] if it is not also the most common name. At least the version at it stands does not promote this falsehood, but it is not completely clear - hence the quotations I added from the relevant policies and guidelines. My edit took the guidance much closer to the 2005 version than the compromise by removing this new non-consensus insertion. | |||
| :* (from WT:NC) "''It was an attempted compromise with M and Kotniski. Since that compromise has been broken by coming here, and completely reversing the policy unilaterally.''" - I have nothing to do with any compromises between you, those editors or anyone else. Instead of immediate and complete obliteration of my edit using blanket reversion because some "truce" had been broken, examining it would have revealed that my version was much closer to that of the 2005 version (i.e. talking about use in article text), and provided further guidance directly quoted from WP:UE. | |||
| :Sunray. | |||
| :*"''Xandar contacted me and some others...''" - as above; this should have taken the form of a neutral notification. Seeing as you (like the others commenting at ]) appear not to have noticed that my edit took the advice back closer to the 2005 original makes my point about non-neutral campaigning, really. | |||
| Let's keep all the bureaucratic and procedural whinges here. I will comment on Knepferle's position after he restates it. | |||
| From my PoV, this page is '''not''' policy; it is a guideline. ] makes its subpages policy exactly as far as it ''explicitly'' endorses them. It does not mention self-identifying names; it mentions this page exactly twice, once to recommend that this page be consulted for guidance, and once to ''discourage'' editing solely to change names. | |||
| Guideline pages are, '''by policy''', ]; the first question is "what does WP actually do?", always. The reason guideline pages came to be is so we don't have to make the same points over and over again; that's all they are. In this case, I have some familiarity with ]; it is certainly not the regular thing for usage to be overturned for self-identifying names - in fact, I cannot think of an instance. | |||
| ] exists ''only'' for as long as there is general agreement on a point; when there isn't, it doesn't exist - and guidelines should state ''what is consensus'' and no more. ] <small>]</small> 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :In summary - guidance on the article text, as per the 2005 version is fine, and you will find that nothing in my edit contradicted this. Anyone want to actually read and comment on the wording I proposed in my edit, this time? ] (]) 09:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::However we all got into this discussion, we are here. Let's proceed. Knepflerle, I'm not yet clear on what you are proposing. Perhaps that is my own inability or perhaps it is due to all the crosstalk about process. I'm not clear whether your concerns have to do with language (i.e., grammar) or policy. Would you be willing to spell it out? ] (]) 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Though there may or may not be widespread consensus for saying that self-identifying names override common names, the reinstatement of the philosophical talk about rocks and leaves giving themselves names is not appropriate. It should be noted that {{user2|Xandar}} has a clear COI in editing this policy: 489 edits to ], 767 to its talk page (61, 37 are the respective counts for the second most edited article/talk). Xandar is the third-most-common editor of that page. Note that ''forceful'' editing of a policy to support your view in a discussion is very much against ], ''especially'' if such a conflict of interest is not very clearly disclosed. It's ok to bring up issues, and even change policy to address some current problem that you're having ''to prompt discussion'', but a massive revert is entirely unacceptable. ] 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Thank you; utterly fascinating. ] <small>]</small> 19:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps we should consider starting a centralized RfC on this issue. ] 19:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree that the changes proposed to the naming policy will improve it. I would also like to point out that those initiating and supporting the change were the few editors who argued against the consensus in the recent ] mediation on naming the article. This mediation went on for six months and included over 20 Misplaced Pages editors of all faiths and no faith. The conclusion reached irked those few who have now come here to change the policy, a policy that has been serving well for over three years. I don't think that is a good faith reason to change the policy especially since the proposals are not better than the existing policy.] <sup> ]</sup> 19:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry I missed it; but it seems to be those who prevailed in this badly advertised mediation who changed this guideline first. Since it doesn't seem to have actually settled the issue, it should be replaced by an RfC, which would be open to anybody. ] <small>]</small> 20:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Please list these editors, and provide a proper link to where they voiced their opposition. I was uninvolved in that discussion, and initially edited the section to be clearer and therefore stronger. When editing policy, it is ''very'' important to consider the implications on all other disputes, not just the one you were involved with. Given the evidence provided in this discussion, it seems clear that preferred names are not, as a rule, used in favor of common names. ] 20:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The mediation was all legit and the consultation was in keeping with policy and guidelines. And all of that is irrelevant to a change in the policy or guideline, as far as I can tell. Let's stop caviling over people and process and get on with substantive questions. ] (]) 20:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I certainly did not take part in whatever discussion this was. I oppose this policy of preferring self-identifying names in general, as being the imposition of a defensive and apologetic POV; but if I had realized that this was the content dispute which was distorting a policy page, I would have chosen other examples above: the ], for instance. ] <small>]</small> 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nevertheless, the guideline has been changed from its previous stable state. As I understand it, Xandar has merely been trying to put it back to the way it was until we reach a consensus here on changing it. Keep in mind that the editors he notified from Catholic Church (myself included) are not all on the same "side". He was not vote farming, he was just looking for more voices that were familiar with the topic. As I have done with some of the original 2005 editors (albeit unsuccessfully). Let's please stop throwing around accusations (both those in favor if change and those against) and let's get down to actually discussing this issue (without the constant edits to the main page). --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 20:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That raises the perennial question. What happens if something was written into a guideline and is now disputed? I think the argument "we get our way until we are overriden by (what we admit to be) consensus" is ''inherently'' a mark of bad faith. But this deserves a section of its own. ] <small>]</small> 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please, everyone, stick to content rather than ]. The guideline has been stable on this question for over two years. Some editors are proposing a change. Let's hear more about that. Would the proponents please indicate what they want changed and why? ] (]) 20:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::And if you want to have us join you in consensus, it is up to you to give some ''reasons'' why we should support this guidance. As for me, there are clear reasons why it should be struck: | |||
| ::::::::*It's not what Misplaced Pages actually does; I've never seen a "self-identifying name" chosen over usage, and I watch ] routinely. | |||
| ::::::::*It would tend to impose an apologetic and defensive POV. We have a difference only when there is a commonly used name, and it's not what the group uses for itself. When that happens, there's a reason that English ''doesn't'' use the self-identifying name: and it's usually that the name itself is special pleading. | |||
| ::::::::*It is not, by hypothesis, what English calls the subject of the article, which defies the '''policy''' of having our titles optimized ] - and even more so, not for special pleaders. ] <small>]</small> 20:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Agenda == | |||
| I cannot follow this higgledy-piggledy section further. I hope it will be divided into topics; I deplore of subheads. We are discussing at least three or four topics at the same time; three of them procedural. | |||
| I propose, therefore, the following subheads: | |||
| *What is policy? | |||
| *What is consensus? | |||
| *Is there a conflict of interest? | |||
| *What is the proper name of the ]- although that should go elsewhere. | |||
| *And the one topic of real interest to this guideline, ''which should be discussed separately from all the others'': What reasons are there to give or deny weight to self-identifying names? ] <small>]</small> 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :]/] is not directly relevant here. It is an interesting example, but we're not here to have that argument again. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 20:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that it is not relevant. Questions about the nature of policy, what constitutes consensus and whether there a conflict of interest are also irrelevant, IMO. ] (]) 21:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Most certainly not irrelevant. The false claim that a minority can claim to be "consensus" until they are overwhelming outvoted is the root of most of our ] violations in WP space. ] <small>]</small> 22:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ;Subheads: | |||
| # Proposed change(s) | |||
| # Rationale for change(s) | |||
| # Discussion | |||
| Is there more than this to discuss? ] (]) 21:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, there is what this discussion has always lacked: a rationale for the text being defended, that is: for the use of self-identifying names. | |||
| :*For an example of this at another guideline, see ]; I'm sure it's been done better than this, but this was recent and to hand. | |||
| :*To say "it's consensus" is insufficient; if this were consensus, we would not be be having this discussion. Consensus is almost unanimous agreement - and those who defend here are a minority. ] <small>]</small> 22:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **And who knows; if one were presented, it might persuade me. ] <small>]</small> 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you referring to article names or a disputed name within an article? If you are concerned about article names, the principles and procedures for choosing among controversial names is pretty straightforward and can be found . If it is a disputed name within an article, the guidance is . | |||
| :::And neither of those has a shred of justification, nor any evidence that they reflect consensus. No consensus has ever been cited; no discussion has ever been cited. | |||
| ::The process for changes to policies and guidelines is the following: One who proposes a substantive change, must first seek consensus on the talk page. So far, there has been lots of chatter, but I've not seen a clear proposal nor a rationale for change. ] (]) 03:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Misquotation: What {{tl|guideline}} says is that guidelines must ''reflect'' consensus. When consensus ceases to exist, the way to reflect that is for the guideline to '''be silent''' until a new consensus emerges. | |||
| ::*Falsehood: I presented three myself: | |||
| ::*#The former text, which demands the use of self-identifying names, is not what Misplaced Pages actually does; I've never seen a "self-identifying name" chosen over usage, and I watch ] routinely. | |||
| ::*#It would tend to impose an apologetic and defensive POV. We have a difference only when there is a commonly used name, and it's not what the group uses for itself. When that happens, there's a reason that English ''doesn't'' use the self-identifying name: and it's usually that the name itself is special pleading | |||
| ::*#It is not, by hypothesis, what English calls the subject of the article, which defies the '''policy''' of having our titles optimized ] - and even more so, not for special pleaders. (to which I add) | |||
| ::*#(new) No reason has been presented, amidst all the ], noise '''why''' we should use self-identifying names.] <small>]</small> 05:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::No one has claimed ownership, and as far as I know, none of us in this discussion took part in the 2005 discussion. That's a really inaccurate summary of the opposing view. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The text protested, which is not what we do, and which appeals prescriptively to a very dubious metaphysic, is: | |||
| :''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 ]; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself ]. 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.'' | |||
| Sorry, I'm a nominalist; I believe the French Misplaced Pages does well in using ''Londres'' to discuss the city which calls itself ] and that they are not trampling on a "key statement of its identity"; they are communicating with their readership. Since this ends in one of the weakest pieces of guidance I have ever seen, next to "please consider", I advocate doing away with this altogether. ] <small>]</small> 05:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You speak of misquotation. Yet, whenever I have referred to a policy or guideline I have been careful to copy the ''exact'' wording of the policy instrument. I'm afraid that you have wrongly quoted from the Guideline template, above. The actual text reads "'''When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus.'''" | |||
| ::Very well; quoting language against its meaning and intent. Restoring language which ''lacks'' support by consensus fails to reflect consensus, since there is none. ] <small>]</small> 13:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Now, it was you, who said: "I cannot follow this higgledy-piggledy section further." Well put, IMO. So once again, please make your proposal. I would suggest that you not bother with further discussions of process. Instead, in a new section below, use the following format: "'''1. Proposed change'''"; "'''2. Rationale'''". We will then discuss it and, hopefully, come to some agreement. You may say: "but I have proposed this before." And that may well be true, but honestly I have no will to separate the fly shit from the pepper. ] (]) 06:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have to agree, I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what is being proposed now. I just see a lot of accusations and misrepresented arguments. Please, can someone make some sort of proposal. --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 06:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Proposals== | |||
| '''A''': To remove | |||
| ::''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 ]; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself ]. 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.'' | |||
| from this guideline, for the reasons in both sections immediately above. I will take any further cry of "what reasons?" as evidence of bad faith. | |||
| '''B''': to have a ''reason'' why we should use self-identifying names when they are ''not'' common English usage (as they often and reasonably are), followed by a demonstration of consensus that we ''now'' agree on it. I will not agree to any such proposal without a reason. | |||
| There are, of course, intermediate possibilities; but all of them require some reason why we should mention self-identification at all. ] <small>]</small> 13:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You object to the example given in the guideline. It is not clear to my why. I do not understand your objection to the concept of self-identification. Would you be willing to elaborate? ] (]) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*It is ''not the case'' that we use Gdansk (insofar as we do) on the grounds that it self-identifies as Gdansk; we use it on the ground that ''that is what English writing calls the'' ''city''. See ], and its early archives. The motivations of the editors involved in the discussion are another question - although "not beyond conjecture". | |||
| :*I decline to elaborate further on what I have already said, one section up, on self-identification, at much length, until a reason is given why we ''should'' consider it. ] <small>]</small> 15:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*To summarize briefly, however: This paragraph only makes any difference when there is a self-identifying name '''and''' a name common in English, '''and''' they are not the same. In that rare case, the self-identifying name is | |||
| :**Not what Misplaced Pages does in practice | |||
| :**Often tendentious and POV | |||
| :**Potentially obscure enough not to communicate with our readers, contrary to policy. ] <small>]</small> 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :*Unless a reason to retain this paragraph is supplied in, say, a day, I shall remove it. There is no consensus, and no present reason for those who object to join one. ] <small>]</small> 16:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let's not start an edit war. By my count, four editors have argued for a change (though for different reasons). Four have said "don't change it." Of those some, including me, have said let's look at a rationale for changing it. Thus there is no consensus to modify the guideline ''yet.'' Please respect the groundrule for changes in policy: "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." ] (]) 16:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Three editors objected to this ''before'' I was called in; there is no consensus - and any edit which preserves that section fails to reflect consensus. ] <small>]</small> 18:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::O.K., your objection is clear now. However, the elimination of that example would leave a gap in the guideline that would affect its structure. So that begs the question of what we would replace it with. | |||
| ::Your disinclination to repeat yourself creates a problem for me. I do not doubt that you have explained your views, above. Unfortunately for some of us, your rationale about changes to the guideline was interleaved with commentary about consensus and other matters of process. In consequence, I was unable to follow your reasoning. | |||
| ::You ask for a reason why self-identification should be considered. I'm not one of the original drafters of the guideline, but the concept has always struck me as important. Is not self-identification simply the right of an individual or entity to name itself? I've always considered that to be an important principle in naming. ] (]) 16:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. It is not. We do not adjudicate copyrights or trademarks - we describe things and events in English. That is already guidance; see ] for one example: we do not acknowledge the "right" of PR offices to respell names, we use what English uses. ] <small>]</small> 16:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surely the example you want to remove has nothing to do with trademarks. ] (]) 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are two examples proposed to be removed: Clay/Ali and Gdanzig. Do either of them illustrate the principle that they are claimed to illustrate? If a horse had its name changed from CC to MA, would we (WP editors) treat that situation any differently from the case of a human who chose the name himself? If Gdansk had been a mountain rather than a city, would we treat it differently? I suspect not, or if so then only marginally. As I see it, not only are the examples misleading, but the whole passage that precedes them (about the difference between self-identifying and other entities) is misleading and has no place in a guideline.--] (]) 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I certainly agree with you that the guideline is uneven and, in places, could be much more clearly written. We need to have a clear proposal on how to change it and then get consensus on that. ] (]) 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, we should get rid of it. Where we cannot speak with consensus, we should be silent. ] <small>]</small> 18:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This alleged right is incompatible with the rest of this guideline:''Misplaced Pages does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name''. People may have a right to say what they like about themselves, but not to force it on the rest of humanity. ] <small>]</small> 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::In other words, WP merely employs the name of the self-identifying entity, without comment on it. ] (]) 05:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '''C'''. I would, however, be content to point out the obvious: that a self-identifying name is often English usage, and should always be considered when looking for common usage. Comments? Better phrasing? ] <small>]</small> 02:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The phrasing seems o.k. to me. However, I don't think you responded to my question about what you would replace the removed examples with. It seems to me that there needs to be some explanation (or example) of a self-identifying entity and how it might apply. ] (]) 05:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yep, that phrasing sounds fine. And I don't think those examples need replacing, just removing - self-identifying names that are also the common name are so much the norm that virtually any randomly selected person or organization will do, but it's hardly necessary to illustrate what everyone knows already. If there are to be examples, they should be of the more interesting situations: where we ''don't'' use the self-selected name because the common name is different (as with ]); and where we prefer a self-selected name (if indeed we do) as one way of deciding between alternative common names (as is claimed to be the case with these churches).--] (]) 08:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *However, some such example as the ], which we (finally) use because everybody does, might be helpful. | |||
| On the other side, avoiding current controversies, perhaps: | |||
| *The ] (notoriously not a self-identifying name, but so widely used that it is difficult to imagine what to use instead and be remotely English). Lower Roman Empire, from Gibbon? | |||
| *] was certainly a self-identifying name; but how many readers will understand it? ] <small>]</small> 14:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Example section == | |||
| I'm moving a section here for further discussion; it seems to have been added recently: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| 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.<br/> | |||
| Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages can, or should, decide.<br/> | |||
| 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. <br/> | |||
| In other words, Wikipedians should '''describe, not prescribe'''.<br/> | |||
| 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 where the Maputan-Cabindan controversy is relevant, then the use of the term should be explained and clarified, with both sides' case being summarised.</blockquote> | |||
| I'm not sure this is quite right as written, and the writing is additionally unclear (e.g. "would not conform with a NPOV"). Is there any clear benefit to having it on the page? <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 04:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :See ], of which real-world situation this is a translation. Insofar as that dispute is reflected in Misplaced Pages, it has been settled by ], and the polls that led up to it, without the use of the concept "self-identifying name". Therefore, no, no benefit; this is a failed effort to solve the Macedonia disaster, now resolved without it. . ] <small>]</small> 05:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This is an incredibly important part of the policy, and not at all moot as these international problems continue unabated all over Misplaced Pages even if Macedonia solved their problem. This is the NPOV/Undue Weight policy applied as a naming convention. It says an important thing: one group, particularly a minority, cannot deny use of a common name by another group. ] (]) | |||
| ::What other conflict satisfies these conditions: ''the people of the '''' 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''? The parties on either side of the Taiwan Strait don't; for one thing, they aren't two different ethnic groups. ] <small>]</small> 20:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:31, 6 February 2010
Redirect to: