Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
:The bottom line on the above is that while this has spilled on to other articles, it's not a case of putting Polish names in Lithuanian places to make a POINT. If anything it's the opposite - Dr. Dan putting in alternative names in Polish cities to make a POINT (as in, if you do this to me, I'll get you back!), without bothering to do the work to show that the relevant Wiki guideline actually applies (his silly and irrelevant example of Etats-Unis is another case in point). What is required here is quite simple - a consistent application of the relevant Wikipedia guideline. The one that says that an alternative name should be added if at least 10% of English sources use it or if a significant number of people of another nationality/ethnicity/language used to live there. This is what I've been saying from the beginning, this is what I'm saying now, and this is why I've asked for third opinion on this matter twice already. If the objecting users have a problem with the guideline then they should lobby or attempt in some way to get it changed. Otherwise the guideline should be applied. We don't ignore guidelines simply because in some cases they rub somebody's nationalistic feelings the wrong way.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC) |
:The bottom line on the above is that while this has spilled on to other articles, it's not a case of putting Polish names in Lithuanian places to make a POINT. If anything it's the opposite - Dr. Dan putting in alternative names in Polish cities to make a POINT (as in, if you do this to me, I'll get you back!), without bothering to do the work to show that the relevant Wiki guideline actually applies (his silly and irrelevant example of Etats-Unis is another case in point). What is required here is quite simple - a consistent application of the relevant Wikipedia guideline. The one that says that an alternative name should be added if at least 10% of English sources use it or if a significant number of people of another nationality/ethnicity/language used to live there. This is what I've been saying from the beginning, this is what I'm saying now, and this is why I've asked for third opinion on this matter twice already. If the objecting users have a problem with the guideline then they should lobby or attempt in some way to get it changed. Otherwise the guideline should be applied. We don't ignore guidelines simply because in some cases they rub somebody's nationalistic feelings the wrong way.[[User:Radeksz|radek]] ([[User talk:Radeksz|talk]]) 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
=== A symptom, not the problem === |
==== A symptom, not the problem ==== |
||
This might be a good time to discuss representation of historical names in the Baltic States. Even now, for example, English language writings on WWII in Latvia refer to Libau, Goldingen, and all. Anything in English on Vilnius before independence (that is, common usage at the time) refers to Wilno, less often to Vilna, and, again, such names have continued to be used in scholarly works. |
This might be a good time to discuss representation of historical names in the Baltic States. Even now, for example, English language writings on WWII in Latvia refer to Libau, Goldingen, and all. Anything in English on Vilnius before independence (that is, common usage at the time) refers to Wilno, less often to Vilna, and, again, such names have continued to be used in scholarly works. |
||
<br> Personally I am for sticking to current usage because every non-current place-name in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia usually signifies some conquering power and I have no desire to enshrine any one of those in WP. That said, it's not that simple. Polish->Lithuania, German->Latvia, German/Danish-> Estonia... most non-native place names have been common English usage at some time and have had a way of surviving to the present particularly in scholarship--and it may be better to opt for inclusion of some historical names than to leave out. |
<br> Personally I am for sticking to current usage because every non-current place-name in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia usually signifies some conquering power and I have no desire to enshrine any one of those in WP. That said, it's not that simple. Polish->Lithuania, German->Latvia, German/Danish-> Estonia... most non-native place names have been common English usage at some time and have had a way of surviving to the present particularly in scholarship--and it may be better to opt for inclusion of some historical names than to leave out. |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
: I certainly welcome a wider standard regarding alternate names in an article lead, however, the proverbial elephant is best eaten and digested one bite at a time. If we can come up with a standard for Baltic place names, then perhaps that can work elsewhere. [[User:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #a12830; font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]] [[User_talk:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #ffffff;background-color:#a12830;"> ♪ </font>]]</font> 02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC) |
: I certainly welcome a wider standard regarding alternate names in an article lead, however, the proverbial elephant is best eaten and digested one bite at a time. If we can come up with a standard for Baltic place names, then perhaps that can work elsewhere. [[User:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #a12830; font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">V<small>ЄСRUМВА</small>]] [[User_talk:Vecrumba|<font style="color: #ffffff;background-color:#a12830;"> ♪ </font>]]</font> 02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
:: ''Don't misunderstand me to mean that a shtetl is an invading power'' - It's not only about that - in some cases, especially in Lithuania - the majotrity of the populatuin as not Lithuanian (and it's not until this very day). And even if it is a majority, the ones who built Riga were the German, Swedish and Russian. Should we erase that history - definitely not. Shpuld we erase Jewish history - abruptly murdered by an invading power (with collaboration of the locals in many cases) - definitely not. This is the case not only with the Baltics, but with all other areas that I mentioned. Thus - 10% + minority (present/past).--[[User:Mikej007|Mikej007]] ([[User talk:Mikej007|talk]]) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC) |
:: ''Don't misunderstand me to mean that a shtetl is an invading power'' - It's not only about that - in some cases, especially in Lithuania - the majotrity of the populatuin as not Lithuanian (and it's not until this very day). And even if it is a majority, the ones who built Riga were the German, Swedish and Russian. Should we erase that history - definitely not. Shpuld we erase Jewish history - abruptly murdered by an invading power (with collaboration of the locals in many cases) - definitely not. This is the case not only with the Baltics, but with all other areas that I mentioned. Thus - 10% + minority (present/past).--[[User:Mikej007|Mikej007]] ([[User talk:Mikej007|talk]]) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
I'd like to point out that a mediation on this issue was attempted and failed in the past: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution]]. Bottom line: the region has a history that is shared by many countries, yet a notable faction of Lithuanian editors has adopted a course that differs from Belorusian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish editors, by attempting to remove all non-Lithuanian names from some articles. I consider such attempt at rewriting history damaging to this project; as many works in English use (not very consistently) different spellings, those spelling should be present in the affected articles, ''particularly'' when those articles deal with history of more than one country. In other words: nobody is saying that Paneriai is not Lithuanian, but in the past, this wasn't so, and other names were used (and that usage, rightfully, survived in modern English literature and shouldn't be censored from Wikipedia). --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 07:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== A question == |
== A question == |
Revision as of 07:46, 23 August 2009
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Paneriai |
Status | open |
Request date | 01:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | User:Dr._Dan User:Radeksz User:Jacurek User:Mikej007 User:Lokyz User:84.240.27.89 |
Mediator(s) | -- Raziel teatime 17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
Comment | Case open, currently investigating, waiting for a response from all parties. |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
The issue is at the article for Paneriai, a suburb of Vilnius, specifically in the lead paragraph.
Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:
And some anon IPs
What is the dispute?
There is a lot of discussion and spirited debate about whether to include the Polish name for this suburb in the lead. Lots of edit warring and so forth, and accusations of POV flying from all sides. I am not familiar enough with the history to know all the details, but this reaching the level of a "you can't include the German name for this town, it insults my grandfather who died in WWI" debate. Unfortunately, there were historical atrocities committed at this location, and this history is coloring the conversation. I know these kinds of conflicts happen all the time on wikipedia. The edit conflicts have begun to reach other articles too, as various people are trying to make a WP:POINT about their positions by adding in Polish names for other Lithuanian towns for which no one has any rationale of doing so, etc. I gather there is some kind of rationale for doing it here.
What would you like to change about this?
The participants are not engaging with one another at all but are instead restating and restating the same arguments without much hope at consensus that I can see.
How do you think we can help?
I came to the article via a request for 3rd opinion, and I asked the various sides to explain their cases without resorting to calling each other fascists or propagandists, but the tone immediately turned aggressive and negative, which I will only react negatively to myself so I want to stay away.
Mediator response
First off, I would like to make clear to Radeksz and everyone else that I was not the one who wrote the opening sections on what the dispute was, those sections was created by user:Dmz5 (the one who created this page) and that is his perspective of the events that have taken place, not mine. Secondly, after looking at the talk page and revision history of the article in question (as well as several related pages), here's what the situation seems to be. There was a disagreement between users Radeksz, Jacurek, and Mikej007 and users Dr. Dan and Lokyz about whether to include the Polish name for the suburb of a now Lithuanian city. Radeksz and co. said that the name should be added because it is a commonly used name for the town in 10% of English sources (per WP:NCGN) and Dr. Dan and Lokyz argued that it was undue wight and that it should not be included. They also questioned the reason for placing it in the lead of the article. There was a good amount of edit warring, as well as personal attacks coming from both sides. A 3O request was made, and the user who accepted the request (Dmz5) later requested that MedCab handle the dispute.
Wikipedia guidelines say that as long as 10% of all English sources use the alternate name, it can and should be added to the article. As for placing it in the lead, WP:NCGN states that it can be placed in the lead as long as 10% of all english sources use it. I haven't seen any real argument for not including it except for the undue weight argument.
I believe that the article should include the alternate name since it's used by 10% of English sources (as Radeksz shows in Talk:Paneriai). I also agree with Dr. Dan that if this is done, it should be done to all geographical entities equally, however I think it should only be done to those geographical entities if 10% of English sources use the alternate name of that specific place. It seems like this is already being done, so mediation is probably no longer needed at this point, but if not then I think that is the best solution to this issue.
By the way, as you may know, some of the editors involved are currently absent. I know Radeksz will be back in about 2 weeks, but I'm not sure when Jacurek will be available again, so we should wait to reach an agreement (if an agreement needs to be made) until they return. -- Raziel teatime 22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Mediator notes
I have taken this case and am currently investigating the dispute. -- Raziel teatime 18:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
I think in this dispute, as well as for all the Lithuanian places, especially in Wilno region ,we should add hte Polish names, as well as maybe Yiddish, Russian and Belarusian names. This country has a unique and divere history and the official languages varied in different periods of time. Ruthenian in medieval times, Polish in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russian in the Russian Empire, Polish in Poland Wilno Region and Lithuanian in Lithania. Also, many of the cities have rich Jewish heritage, with some of them having Jewish majority in different times. You can see linguistic diversity in List of Lithuanian Places in other languages. I think that regardless of the political point of view to what lead to different things in Lithuanian history, we can't just delete it's past by saying it offends current Lithuanian fellings. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people, and official past names of places, that reflect their heritage, past, and sometimes ethnic composition are needed. This is also the common rule for Hungarian names in Transilvania, German names in Western Poland, German names in Czech Republic, German names in Kaliningrad oblast and ext. Moreover, the polish cities, that have some Lithuanian heritage, have their Lithuanian names shown in the heading of the article - see Bialystok and Suwalki.--Mikej007 (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I've already indicated to Raziel, tomorrow morning I am going away and will not have reliable access to the internet again until mid September. For what it's worth, here's my piece before that happens, and I might as well make it long and exhaustive.
- First, I want to endorse everything that Mikej007 says above. The reason this is a recurrent problematic dispute is because editors like Dr. Dan and Lokyz claim (implicitly - they never really come out and admit it) some kind of exception for Lithuanian places from standard Wikipedia guidelines. According to these guidelines alternative names (in parentheses) can be included in articles on places if at least 10% of English language sources use these names, or if a substantial population of speakers of another language/ethnicity have lived in the place. This is why we have "Breslau" in Wroclaw, "Stettin" in Szczecin or, more directly, "Suvalkai" in Suwałki. These criteria are well satisfied for Paneriai, as I've shown on the talk page, so that the Polish and Yiddish name "Ponary" should be included as an alternative name - this is particularly true since this was a site of a major massacre of Jews and Poles by the Nazis (additionally I'd like to note that even the Polish village of the same name, Ponary, includes the German name "Ponarien", bot-added. Let me underline that - bot-added).
- Since the objecting users (Dr. Dan and Lokyz) cannot argue with the guideline, nor with the evidence presented to support the application of this guideline, they (Dr. Dan in particular) resort to diversionary tactics - changing the subject, asking pointless and endless questions, irrelevant comments as well as the standard personal attacks and questioning of motives (and even quoting Lynard Skynard lyrics for no apparent reason) (in the interest of trying to retain a shred of good faith towards these users I'm not gonna say anything about the strange anon IP that all of sudden appeared on these articles). They do not address the issue. And because of this the discussions on the talk page end up being fruitless and get bogged down. We already had this discussion at another Lithuanian city's article Biržai and only after I asked for a Third Opinion was the situation finally resolved (and there I was dealing with a much more constructive and reasonable user, Novickas). I was hoping that asking for third opinion on this issue - Paneriai/Ponary - would likewise help to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.
- As to the recent development, I think I detect a bit of initial bias in Raziel's description of the matter, particularly this part: The edit conflicts have begun to reach other articles too, as various people are trying to make a WP:POINT about their positions by adding in Polish names for other Lithuanian towns for which no one has any rationale of doing so, etc.. What actually happened here is this:
- As part of my argument, I pointed out that most Polish cities had alternative names in their ledes.
- Dr. Dan found a few which didn't (well, they sort of did, but anyway)
- Jacurek and Mike said, "fine, go ahead and put alternative names in there"
- Dr. Dan went around and in addition to putting names in, bolded them and put them first (i.e. not as "alternative names" but as "proper names")
- Jacurek and Mike (I think) put Yiddish and Polish names, as alternative names, in the lede of Vilnius (where it actually belonged for awhile) and maybe some other Lithuanian cities. Presumably this was done with Dr. Dan's approval (see his comments about "new consensus").
- (An illustrative fact here is that no Polish editors involved, or Mike, give a fish about whether or not Lithuanian or German or Yiddish alternative names are included in articles on Polish cities, but Dr. Dan and Lokyz insist that no Polish names must appear anywhere near a Lithuanian place's article. And this is a revealing double standard).
- The bottom line on the above is that while this has spilled on to other articles, it's not a case of putting Polish names in Lithuanian places to make a POINT. If anything it's the opposite - Dr. Dan putting in alternative names in Polish cities to make a POINT (as in, if you do this to me, I'll get you back!), without bothering to do the work to show that the relevant Wiki guideline actually applies (his silly and irrelevant example of Etats-Unis is another case in point). What is required here is quite simple - a consistent application of the relevant Wikipedia guideline. The one that says that an alternative name should be added if at least 10% of English sources use it or if a significant number of people of another nationality/ethnicity/language used to live there. This is what I've been saying from the beginning, this is what I'm saying now, and this is why I've asked for third opinion on this matter twice already. If the objecting users have a problem with the guideline then they should lobby or attempt in some way to get it changed. Otherwise the guideline should be applied. We don't ignore guidelines simply because in some cases they rub somebody's nationalistic feelings the wrong way.radek (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A symptom, not the problem
This might be a good time to discuss representation of historical names in the Baltic States. Even now, for example, English language writings on WWII in Latvia refer to Libau, Goldingen, and all. Anything in English on Vilnius before independence (that is, common usage at the time) refers to Wilno, less often to Vilna, and, again, such names have continued to be used in scholarly works.
Personally I am for sticking to current usage because every non-current place-name in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia usually signifies some conquering power and I have no desire to enshrine any one of those in WP. That said, it's not that simple. Polish->Lithuania, German->Latvia, German/Danish-> Estonia... most non-native place names have been common English usage at some time and have had a way of surviving to the present particularly in scholarship--and it may be better to opt for inclusion of some historical names than to leave out.
I've only come to this editorial modification to my own personal position because, as I've mentioned, Libau et al. keep popping up in scholarship--and it's a disservice to our readers to not let them know, for example, that Liepāja = Libau. This would require buy-in on the part of, in particular, Baltic editors, and should be part of an effort to improve usability of Baltic WP content.
As I've indicated, my personal ideal would be current native names only for the reason I've cited, but I'm willing to entertain options if it is done as part of a standard with clear benefits identified. I do not support making it an open season smorgasbord to do, say, Lithuanian, Polish, Ukrainian, Yiddish, Belarussian,... I do (reluctantly) support the primary English language usage name prior to independence—as this is the English Wikipedia. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 03:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Very pithy, very well put, Vecrumba. Part of the conundrum, unless of course the "New Consensus" is to apply that "smorgasbord" wholesale into the leads of articles, will be resolving the problem with lead placement. Should all of this stuff, no matter how undue, be added to satisfy an agenda, wrapped around google hits, bending Wiki Policy to it's limits, be placed in the lead? Or as miscellaneous info? If the former is what we want, and all agree to, fine, and it should be applied to all geographical entities equally. If it is a policy that will be applied selectively here and there with the kind of objections that I just finished dealing with at User talk:Dmz5 (Bаршава), it will be a "tough row to hoe". Dr. Dan (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just to say it out loud - whatever this "new consensus" that Dr. Dan imagines is, I don't think I'm part of it, mostly because it is not a consensus and because it doesn't follow Wikipedia policy. Taking a "smorgasboard" approach to alternative names is silly and will most likely result in an annoying tit-for-tat as in "you put your name in my city, I'm gonna stick the Chinese and Polynesian names into every one of your cities!". Simply, all that is needed is a consistent application of the existing guideline - if more than 10% of English language sources use the name, then we can put it in as an alternative name. If not then not. For example, I seriously doubt that 10% of English language sources use the Hungarian name for Krakow so we don't have to worry about it.radek (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry guys I can't contribute to this discussion at the moment because I had an accident last night ( broken ribs, collarbone etc.) I will try to get back to editing as soon as possible but now I'm in too much pain. Talk to you soon.--Jacurek (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Get better! The discussion will still likely be going on...
- Again, I completely support including all historical place names in articles, however, the place name for the title and in the lead should be the current one unless there is clear and compelling 3rd party evidence to the contrary regarding current common English usage (for example, the BGN database). I also have come to support, albeit out of editorial necessity and not personal preference, the inclusion of pre-independence common English language usage for place names despite, for the Baltics, the most common often being the language of a hostile power at some point. Any other solution will render article leads into "list of place names for X" instead of reading like an article lead by just sticking to other English language usage the reader should be aware of. Again, this is not my personal preference, however, I have come to believe it is the editorially responsible action here, and which also serendipitously bridges a good deal of the gap between native versus foreign language smorgasbord without getting into the heated nationalities debate. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 15:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Vercumba, what you suggst is fine, but it should be a common policy to thw whole Wikipedia and that is not the case. In fact, most of the time coomon historical names are presentd in the lead sucj as Hungarian→Romania, German→Poland, German→Czech Republic, Hungarian→Uzhgorod region, Polish→Western Ukraine, Polish→Western Belarus and I can go on and on. In the specific example of Lithuania, the Polish names represented at some time the majority of the population of those places, and until last century the official name of the place. As for the Yiddish, can we deny that in many cases, mojority or plurality of that city's population was Jewish - meaning that the most used name was the Jewish one? I think what Radek proposed is fair - 10% of common current English usage or minority today or in the past (we have to decide how far to go - I think a century is enough).
Btw, I frankly don't think that your comment about "hostile power" is in place. We can debate about it endlessly, but just think about it - is a country that represents the ethnic majority/plurality of the local population is a "hostile power"?--Mikej007 (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Mikej007, you will note I stated "the most common...". Don't misunderstand me to mean that a shtetl is an invading power. Unfortunately, my point and concern are that place names are often used on Wikipedia to open old historical wounds to lord past conquest, suzerainty, and hegemony on the current (and hopefully rightful) inhabitants of a territory. The "10%" solution (that is, creating an ultimately arbitrary formula) opens WP to that abuse. As I have noted, this is the English Wikipedia, and the lead is best served with alternate common English place names prior to current usage and not with all significant language variants from significant periods, whether prior or current.
- I certainly welcome a wider standard regarding alternate names in an article lead, however, the proverbial elephant is best eaten and digested one bite at a time. If we can come up with a standard for Baltic place names, then perhaps that can work elsewhere. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't misunderstand me to mean that a shtetl is an invading power - It's not only about that - in some cases, especially in Lithuania - the majotrity of the populatuin as not Lithuanian (and it's not until this very day). And even if it is a majority, the ones who built Riga were the German, Swedish and Russian. Should we erase that history - definitely not. Shpuld we erase Jewish history - abruptly murdered by an invading power (with collaboration of the locals in many cases) - definitely not. This is the case not only with the Baltics, but with all other areas that I mentioned. Thus - 10% + minority (present/past).--Mikej007 (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that a mediation on this issue was attempted and failed in the past: Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution. Bottom line: the region has a history that is shared by many countries, yet a notable faction of Lithuanian editors has adopted a course that differs from Belorusian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish editors, by attempting to remove all non-Lithuanian names from some articles. I consider such attempt at rewriting history damaging to this project; as many works in English use (not very consistently) different spellings, those spelling should be present in the affected articles, particularly when those articles deal with history of more than one country. In other words: nobody is saying that Paneriai is not Lithuanian, but in the past, this wasn't so, and other names were used (and that usage, rightfully, survived in modern English literature and shouldn't be censored from Wikipedia). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
A question
Since the main initiators of this issue are injured, or away (I did not use word flee), should I present my statement, or should I just skip it? (all WP:AGF assumed.--Lokyz (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)