Obiwankenobi (talk | contribs) |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) →Non-English titles: replies |
||
Line 252: | Line 252: | ||
::::::::::Observation. Look at the credits of most movies these days - names include diacritics more often than not. I'm seeing it more often with athlete names - especially on ESPN and TSN's on-screen tickers (and in a couple cases, [http://www.csnphilly.com/sites/csnphilly/files/briere-canadiens-slide-usa.jpg uniforms]). The IIHF began adding diacritics to several of its publications a couple years ago. The ''Metro'' newspapers in Canada have begun using them. The City of Calgary is starting to add diacritics to place names (e.g. [http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Pages/Road-projects/M%C3%A9tis-Trail-Extension-80-Avenue-NE-to-96-Avenue-NE.aspx Métis Trail] - and I should correct that on some related articles). Certainly Vietnamese accent marks are on an extreme end of this debate, but for French, Spanish/Latin American, Swedish and Finish names at the very, very least, it is growing increasingly common in my experience. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 23:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
::::::::::Observation. Look at the credits of most movies these days - names include diacritics more often than not. I'm seeing it more often with athlete names - especially on ESPN and TSN's on-screen tickers (and in a couple cases, [http://www.csnphilly.com/sites/csnphilly/files/briere-canadiens-slide-usa.jpg uniforms]). The IIHF began adding diacritics to several of its publications a couple years ago. The ''Metro'' newspapers in Canada have begun using them. The City of Calgary is starting to add diacritics to place names (e.g. [http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Pages/Road-projects/M%C3%A9tis-Trail-Extension-80-Avenue-NE-to-96-Avenue-NE.aspx Métis Trail] - and I should correct that on some related articles). Certainly Vietnamese accent marks are on an extreme end of this debate, but for French, Spanish/Latin American, Swedish and Finish names at the very, very least, it is growing increasingly common in my experience. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 23:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::(EC) {{ping|Fyunck(click)}} "Not taught in English schools?" Why do we care what schools in England in particular are doing? Diacritics are taught in schools in mostly English-language areas where there are also substantial minority languages in the area that require them (as is the case with Spanish in the American Southwest, for example). I learned how to properly use Spanish diacritics right around puberty for this reason, and I'm in my 40s. Today, given how easy diacritics are to produce in computer-produced papers and such, they're even more frequently taught as normal. Resistance to them is highly correlated with age and with multi-cultural experience. You, Blueboar, etc., are advacing what you think is some well-accepted principle of English language writing that {{em|simply does not exist}} outside your heads. Even the ''Chicago Manual of Style'' in recent editions, and other actually quite conservative style guides advocating usage of diacritics where they belong. Vietnamese is not magically different from Spanish or whatever; it simply happens to use more diacritics than Spanish or French, but that's a difference of degree, nothing more. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 01:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
::::::::::(EC) {{ping|Fyunck(click)}} "Not taught in English schools?" Why do we care what schools in England in particular are doing? Diacritics are taught in schools in mostly English-language areas where there are also substantial minority languages in the area that require them (as is the case with Spanish in the American Southwest, for example). I learned how to properly use Spanish diacritics right around puberty for this reason, and I'm in my 40s. Today, given how easy diacritics are to produce in computer-produced papers and such, they're even more frequently taught as normal. Resistance to them is highly correlated with age and with multi-cultural experience. You, Blueboar, etc., are advacing what you think is some well-accepted principle of English language writing that {{em|simply does not exist}} outside your heads. Even the ''Chicago Manual of Style'' in recent editions, and other actually quite conservative style guides advocating usage of diacritics where they belong. Vietnamese is not magically different from Spanish or whatever; it simply happens to use more diacritics than Spanish or French, but that's a difference of degree, nothing more. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 01:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::Southern California schools do not teach them. They are not more frequently taught here at all. There is more mention of a few Spanish marks but the words are taught in the English alphabet. I see the school books and I know the teachers. But I don't really care and it doesn't really matter what any of us think as I keep saying. I came here to explain to B2C that it is a done deal here at wikipedia and that he should move on. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 01:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::::::Southern California schools do not teach them. They are not more frequently taught here at all. There is more mention of a few Spanish marks but the words are taught in the English alphabet. I see the school books and I know the teachers. But I don't really care and it doesn't really matter what any of us think as I keep saying. I came here to explain to B2C that it is a done deal here at wikipedia and that he should move on. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 01:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::Four passive-aggressive posts in one thread in two days (that I see so far, and I'm not even looking closely) about how oppressed and hopeless you feel about the evil bad Manual of Style is getting to be a bit much. PS: If "there is more mention of a few Spanish marks" in the schools, then you've falsified your own claim that diacritics are not being taught in them. Next. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
The issue for me is this... with modern computer technology and publishing, English language sources are increasingly ''capable'' of using diacritics to present a non-western name. As this capability grows, more and more English language sources actually do use diacritics. Indeed we are quickly getting to the point where this is the norm. HOWEVER... there is a flip side to that... when a modern English Language source does '''not''' use diacritics, we have to assume that it ''intentionally'' chose not to do so. And when a significant number of sources all intentionally choose to present a name in a certain way, we are venturing into COMMONNAME territory. I suppose you could say that the OFFICIALNAME might well include diacritics, but the COMMONNAME does not. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 23:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
The issue for me is this... with modern computer technology and publishing, English language sources are increasingly ''capable'' of using diacritics to present a non-western name. As this capability grows, more and more English language sources actually do use diacritics. Indeed we are quickly getting to the point where this is the norm. HOWEVER... there is a flip side to that... when a modern English Language source does '''not''' use diacritics, we have to assume that it ''intentionally'' chose not to do so. And when a significant number of sources all intentionally choose to present a name in a certain way, we are venturing into COMMONNAME territory. I suppose you could say that the OFFICIALNAME might well include diacritics, but the COMMONNAME does not. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 23:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
Line 275: | Line 275: | ||
::::[[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] and [[User:Peter coxhead]], there are many ways to phrase the question ultimately at issue here, but isn't this one of them? ''Do we use diacritics as they are commonly used in reliable English sources, or do we use diacritics as they are used in specialist sources?'' --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
::::[[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] and [[User:Peter coxhead]], there are many ways to phrase the question ultimately at issue here, but isn't this one of them? ''Do we use diacritics as they are commonly used in reliable English sources, or do we use diacritics as they are used in specialist sources?'' --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::We use diacritics as they are used in non-English and specialist sources, unless it can be shown that an individual does not use it themselves. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 19:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
:::::We use diacritics as they are used in non-English and specialist sources, unless it can be shown that an individual does not use it themselves. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 19:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{Ping|Fyunck(click)|Peter coxhead}} Right. There is no war between specialist and non-specialist sources, only between camps who believe that specialist sources saying that [style rule X] is required are law and non-specialist sources that don't use [style rule X] are crap, which is what happened in the bird capitalization debate, and most SSF debates. In the diacritics debate, there is no question that the diacritics are somehow {{em|incorrect}}; we know they're not. The main anti-diacritic position is that only specialist and no generalist reliable sources ever use them, which isn't true, and that they "thus" should not be used on en.wiki; this is a completely different sort of argument than that against capitalizing the common names of species or or job titles. It's much closer to the dashes and hyphens debates. There's a huge gulf between "our publication doesn't capitalize common names of species or capitalize job titles, because virtually all style guides agree on this point" and "our publication can't be bothered to use en-dashes or diacritics because we're in a hurry, they're not on the keyboards, and most of our readers don't care", which is what's going on with both lack of diacritics and lack of proper en-dash usage in many common, mainstream publications. The second anti-diacritics argument is that they're somehow a [[WP:ASTONISH]] problem, but English has been using diacritics in borrowed material for very long time (and even internally - the umlaut used to be somewhat commonly used in words like "coöperation", and poetry and music writing have long used acute or macron marks to indicate stress and full pronunciation of otherwise often elided syllables, and so on). There is no even vaguely literate reader of English who does not understand what diacritics are and that they can be safely ignored when they do not convey anything to you personally. Vietnamese is simply different by degree; it uses more diacritics than most languages, but there's nothing [[WP:ASTONISH]]ing about their use. Being astonished by the fact of how Vietnamese names and words are properly written is an astonishment about facts about the real world, like how big ''Megalodon'' teeth are or how fast sound waves travel. Approaching this from another angle entirely: Every style rule (well, every rule, really) has consequences. Permissiveness of ''José'' requires permissiveness of ''Ngọc'', too. I'm certainly not going to sign up to tell Vietnamese we're going to censor it because Americans and Brits are more familiar with French and Spanish, so this other language can just go screw off, because some under-educated English speakers are somehow "astonished" when we treat it's Latin-script orthography like that of any other Latin-script language. And see Obiwankenobi's comment below about sources incapable of rendering diacritics not being reliable sources for whether diacritics should be used; that rules out an enormous proportion of the non-diacritics sources. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I think you need to modulate that - it should be "Do we use diacritics as they are used in reliable english sources which themselves are capable of using diacritics". It is pointless to use a black and white book to argue about the color of Picasso's paintings, and in the same way it is pointless to use a source that never uses diacritics whether Francois should be spelled François. A [[WP:RS]] must be judged as reliable for the claim it is making; if the source itself is incapable of rendering diacritics - especially more complex ones, like Vietnamese, then we should not use it as a source for how to spell a title.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 18:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
:::::I think you need to modulate that - it should be "Do we use diacritics as they are used in reliable english sources which themselves are capable of using diacritics". It is pointless to use a black and white book to argue about the color of Picasso's paintings, and in the same way it is pointless to use a source that never uses diacritics whether Francois should be spelled François. A [[WP:RS]] must be judged as reliable for the claim it is making; if the source itself is incapable of rendering diacritics - especially more complex ones, like Vietnamese, then we should not use it as a source for how to spell a title.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 18:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
Line 286: | Line 287: | ||
::::::I won't dispute that. I think we have an understanding. The "wide open" acceptance of diacritics in titles does not necessarily open the door to the use of nonlatin titles, though much of the argument used to defend broad diacritic would also apply to use of nonlatin titles. I suggest diacritic proponents stress the use of latin alphabets along with diacritics and the recognizability aspect when defending broad diacritic use. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 20:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
::::::I won't dispute that. I think we have an understanding. The "wide open" acceptance of diacritics in titles does not necessarily open the door to the use of nonlatin titles, though much of the argument used to defend broad diacritic would also apply to use of nonlatin titles. I suggest diacritic proponents stress the use of latin alphabets along with diacritics and the recognizability aspect when defending broad diacritic use. --[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 20:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::::exactly, and except in very special cases I would oppose the use of non-Latin characters in titles - even the Icelandic ones are pushing it a bit but I'm not riled up enough to go after them, is 'eth' is a Latin character? As for the example I gave above re:sources that use diacritics but decline to for certain names, I remember in one of the VN move discussions we found exactly that - books which used full VN diacritics for some lesser known names but declined to use those same diacritics for much more famous names which had therefore achieved English-language exonym status more or less. In that instance we can infer an editorial decision, as they clearly had the capacity to use diacritics but declined to for some common words like Saigon and Vietnam. If the sources uses no diacritics at all it's impossible to determine any editorial choice for a specific name however.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 21:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::exactly, and except in very special cases I would oppose the use of non-Latin characters in titles - even the Icelandic ones are pushing it a bit but I'm not riled up enough to go after them, is 'eth' is a Latin character? As for the example I gave above re:sources that use diacritics but decline to for certain names, I remember in one of the VN move discussions we found exactly that - books which used full VN diacritics for some lesser known names but declined to use those same diacritics for much more famous names which had therefore achieved English-language exonym status more or less. In that instance we can infer an editorial decision, as they clearly had the capacity to use diacritics but declined to for some common words like Saigon and Vietnam. If the sources uses no diacritics at all it's impossible to determine any editorial choice for a specific name however.--[[User:Obiwankenobi|Obi-Wan Kenobi]] ([[User talk:Obiwankenobi|talk]]) 21:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::Re: {{tq|'Is "Đặng Hữu Phúc" significantly more legible than "Владимир Ильич Ленин"?'}} Yes, of course it is. Any other pointless questions? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:08, 7 May 2014
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61 |
Archives by topic: |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Creation story/myth/narrative
A few articles about creation myths are titled "xxx creation narrative" (with xxx being the culture or religion from which it originates, like Genesis creation narrative). Others are titled "xxx creation myth" (like Japanese creation myth. Still others are titled "xxx creation story". The problem I see here is that by referring to some articles as narratives and others as myths, we are giving greater credibility to some religions than others, something that we obviously want to avoid per Wikipedia:NPOV. In my opinion, all articles of this type should be titled either "myth", "narrative" or "story", for consistency and equal credibility. What do others think? Rwenonah (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. The current scheme seems rather biased, and a more uniform scheme would likely be an improvement. Probably "narrative" is neutral and descriptive enough. Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't mind trying to come up with a consistent word to use for these articles... the fly in the ointment is coming up with one that is seen as being neutral. Editors get very touchy about what term should be used when it comes to articles on their religious beliefs... I strongly suggest that this also be discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree also. Let us suppose that there are two versions of an event. (This might be an issue in a newsroom or in a courtroom.) Let us suppose that I strongly agree with one version, and that I strongly disagree with the other version. I can easily accept a decision to use "narrative" or "story" to apply to each of them simultaneously. If I want to provide evidence for or against one or the other, then that is a separate matter. In an organization which, by its nature, supports one version or the other, words supporting or refuting a version can be expected. However, Wikipedia does not, by its nature, support or refute any version of the accounts in question.
- —Wavelength (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree. We should follow the sources, the mostly reliable independent secondary sources, should there be conflict on the question amongst the sources. It is not for Wikipedia, or its editors, to ascribe levels of credibility to myths/narratives/stories, nor to rank them, nor to declare them of equivalent credibility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- These are creation stories, not alternatives to the Big bang theory (which we could maybe also call a narrative, but let's don't go there). It would make no sense to suggest that any of them are more fictional than others, even if different sized groups of English speakers might want to treat them as such. But looking at sources may still be useful. It looks like "story" may be most common for many of them; see [1], [2], [3]; though Japanese and Greek and Hindu and some others are more often referred to as "myth" in English, because they're more foreign to us English speakers. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Dealing with hard cases, such as near religious adherence to the Big Bang theory, or the overt symbolism devoid of implied authority in the Dreamtime, and new fangled Scientology creationism is worthy, and it shows that editorial judgement is best shied away from. The is room for argument, but arguments should reference independent reliable sources, not assertions of Truth. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry Dicklyon (talk · contribs), I'm with SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) on this one. The whole point of following usage in reliable sources is so we don't make these judgements — they make them for us. If RS are not consistent in how they refer to creation myths/narratives/stories/whatevers, that's not our fault, nor is it a problem that is ours to fix. We just reflect their usage in our titles, whether it's consistent or not. -B2C 19:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- These are creation stories, not alternatives to the Big bang theory (which we could maybe also call a narrative, but let's don't go there). It would make no sense to suggest that any of them are more fictional than others, even if different sized groups of English speakers might want to treat them as such. But looking at sources may still be useful. It looks like "story" may be most common for many of them; see [1], [2], [3]; though Japanese and Greek and Hindu and some others are more often referred to as "myth" in English, because they're more foreign to us English speakers. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Myth is the neutral and objective scientific term for narratives that are part of systems of religious worship, particularly of those that describe the creation of the world, the technical term is a cosmogonic myth. The technical term should of course be applied to all such narratives. We cannot use the sources blindly in this case because certain religions tend to be described by their followers and others tend to be described by outsiders or even detractors, which creates a bias in the literature if we consider the bulk rather than focus on the specific field of scholarship that focuses on this, namely comparative religion. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly; I'd be happy with myth, but large numbers of English speakers that adhere to Genesis-derived religions might object to calling the Genesis story "myth", which is why we are where we are. How shall we fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Narrative or story is probably the best option, to avoid unnecessarily offending a lot of people. Rwenonah (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that narrative or story are accurate, neutral and less likely to offend. older ≠ wiser 11:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for calling attention to this situation, Rwenonah. It's clear there has been WP:systemic bias at work here. The article List of creation myths lists several dozen creation stories, but pointedly does NOT list the Judeo-Christian/Genesis stories such as Genesis creation narrative (although those stories are categorized under Category:Creation myths and in some cases under Category:Myth of origins, and are referred to in some places as "Abrahamic myths").
So what to call them? Most such articles are currently called "Foo creation myth". I didn't find any called "Foo creation story", although I may have missed them. "Creation story" and "Creation narrative" redirect to "Creation myth".
Although "myth" may be the appropriate technical term for such stories, it is generally taken in English to mean "a traditional story that is not true" or "a widely held but false belief".[4] Clearly that's why "myth" is not used for the Genesis version - many readers of this encyclopedia subscribe to that version to a greater or lesser degree - but that is cultural bias. On the other hand, any attempt to change the Genesis version to "Genesis creation myth" would be highly controversial. We should probably change all the "Foo creation myth" articles to "Foo creation narrative," which is neutral and appears to be the more common term in a quick Google search. "Foo creation story" would also be acceptable.
This would be a major change affecting dozens of articles and should probably be subject to a formal and widely-advertised proposal. I don't think we can "follow the sources" in this case, calling some of them "story" and others "myth", since the sources themselves may be subject to cultural bias. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's not Wikipedia's mission to correct cultural biases. That would be advocacy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is Wikipedia's policy to be neutral. Now if there were universal agreement in English-language sources that the Genesis creation myth is known as the Genesis creation narrative, it would be out of place to rename. However, that is not the case here. older ≠ wiser 23:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure if you're responding to my comment, but this essentially is the point I was trying to make. If reliable sources show mixed usage, then using the same neutral term for similar things per naming convention is just fine. But if one form is demonstrably preferred by reliable sources, then that would take precedence. older ≠ wiser 20:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This probably also applies to flood myths (Genesis flood narrative]). Rwenonah (talk)
- Yes, it does. I agree with you that this needs to be straightened out; the current situation reflects a systemic bias. Apparently en-wiki editors have been reluctant to call the Genesis versions "myths" even though all other such traditional/religious stories are labeled "myths'. I don't think this can be settled in a discussion among a few people on a policy talk page. Where should we take it? --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Support I think the problem here regards NPOV and its meaning. It seems some of us (including myself) think that maintaining NPOV means that we should take information from RS's and paraphrase/word them to be fully neutral in terminology. Others, such as Born2cycle believe that neutrality is maintained by strictly adhering to the wording of the RS's. Let's talk about this and get some other input from admins and come to a consensus regarding which definition of NPOV and its implementation we are going to use. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 21:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- We don't normally turn the neutrality question over to outsiders to decide. We should be internally neutral; if English language sources treat these equivalent myths differently due to western bias, we do not need to import that bias into wikipedia. If we find a reliable source that says one culture's or religion's myth are more realistic than another, we can discuss that, but to just count primary non-neutral sources would not be the way to go. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Should this go to Wikipedia:NPOV? Rwenonah (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Neutrality in article content should not be conflated with neutrality in titles. Titles are just titles. Judgements about what references to topics are or are not offensive, neutral, problematic or anything else are inherently subjective, and are made by every RS that references that topic. We rely on those RS in aggregate to make these judgements. If the preponderance of RS are using a particular reference to a topic, then we do too. We follow the lead set by RS; we are not the leader. --B2C 15:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:NPOV might be the way to go. NPOV is one of the Five Pillars and NPOV applies to titles just as it does to everything else. In this case, it's clear that Genesis religious narratives have been titled differently from all other religious narratives, and that smells like a violation of NPOV. IMO this came about for two reasons: the English-language "reliable sources" we are using may not be religiously neutral (if tallied by Google hits they almost certainly are not); and many en-Wiki editors, possibly a majority, come from a Christian or Jewish tradition and consciously or unconsciously think "my religion is narrative, everybody else's religion is myth." Certainly any attempt to change "Genesis creation narrative" to "Genesis creation myth" would touch off a storm of protest from en-Wiki editors. Part of the problem is that the word "myth", while neutral in scholarly use, is a highly charged/judgmental word in everyday use. I do think the NPOV page, not the titling page, is the place to sort this out. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- In this case reliable sources show a mixture of different terms in reference to the same subject. Thus, we need one neutral term in order to be Consistent. In this case, we're probably seeing a manifestation of systemic bias ; if this were a different language/culturally based wiki we probably wouldn't be having this problem. If, however, you read NPOV guidelines, it clearly states that titles (Naming) fall under NPOV just like everything else on wikipedia. So yes, neutrality in titles should be conflated with neutrality in article content. Rwenonah (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:NPOV might be the way to go. NPOV is one of the Five Pillars and NPOV applies to titles just as it does to everything else. In this case, it's clear that Genesis religious narratives have been titled differently from all other religious narratives, and that smells like a violation of NPOV. IMO this came about for two reasons: the English-language "reliable sources" we are using may not be religiously neutral (if tallied by Google hits they almost certainly are not); and many en-Wiki editors, possibly a majority, come from a Christian or Jewish tradition and consciously or unconsciously think "my religion is narrative, everybody else's religion is myth." Certainly any attempt to change "Genesis creation narrative" to "Genesis creation myth" would touch off a storm of protest from en-Wiki editors. Part of the problem is that the word "myth", while neutral in scholarly use, is a highly charged/judgmental word in everyday use. I do think the NPOV page, not the titling page, is the place to sort this out. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Neutrality in article content should not be conflated with neutrality in titles. Titles are just titles. Judgements about what references to topics are or are not offensive, neutral, problematic or anything else are inherently subjective, and are made by every RS that references that topic. We rely on those RS in aggregate to make these judgements. If the preponderance of RS are using a particular reference to a topic, then we do too. We follow the lead set by RS; we are not the leader. --B2C 15:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Should this go to Wikipedia:NPOV? Rwenonah (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- We don't normally turn the neutrality question over to outsiders to decide. We should be internally neutral; if English language sources treat these equivalent myths differently due to western bias, we do not need to import that bias into wikipedia. If we find a reliable source that says one culture's or religion's myth are more realistic than another, we can discuss that, but to just count primary non-neutral sources would not be the way to go. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I support consistency across all of these; as a Deist (and especially as an Agnostic Pandeist) my conviction is not that any of these accounts are false, but that they are all equally true and ought to be treated accordingly. I suggest dispensing with "myth," "story," and "narrative" altogether and simply going with "account." DeistCosmos (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, "account" suggests they're historical, that an eye-witness made a record.
- We've been debating this for years. The problem, of course, is that my myths are true while yours are fables. The argument over following the wording of sources that reinforce my myths is an outgrowth of that. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be glad to have them all titled "myth" but isn't objection to that what engendered this controversy? I do not perceive "account" as being especially more authority-imbuing than "story." DeistCosmos (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agree. I don't see any advantage to "account", and it doesn't seem to have been used anywhere in this context that I can find. "Narrative" and "story" have the advantage of being neutral; they are terms that could apply to both fact and fiction. But again, I don't think we can decide this issue at this page; I think it needs broader participation. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be glad to have them all titled "myth" but isn't objection to that what engendered this controversy? I do not perceive "account" as being especially more authority-imbuing than "story." DeistCosmos (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I have an anecdote I think it worth sharing related to this discussion. When I was in high school in the mid-1990s, I took a senior-level college preparatory English and Humanities course. The teacher was also an adjunct professor at the local university in addition to his full-time secondary education duties in the high school. He graded our papers along the same expectations as any of the university's faculty would have, and his lectures were college-style as well. As a case in point, one day he starts off the class with, "your Bible is nothing but a myth. If that shocks you, you will need to get over it because this is how academics in college or at a university will discuss the subject." Personally, I think we should follow the scholarly style with "myth", but since this is a generalist publication, using "narrative" consistently may be the best alternative. (I do not support using "story" though; it just doesn't sound as professional.) Imzadi 1979 → 19:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- I brought it up at Wikipedia talk:NPOV
- Support. I don't know whether it should be myth or narrative (story seems too imprecise and colloquial), but I do think we need a consistent rule here. Normally, common use trumps consistency (that's why we have transportation in the United States and transport in the United Kingdom), but in this case we clearly have neutrality and systemic bias to worry about as well. The principle I'd recommend: pick the neutral title (or consistently neutral series of titles) unless reliable sources lean heavily towards the non-neutral title (for example, I'd oppose titling Iraq War "Operation Iraqi Freedom" unless reliable sources were heavily in favor).—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. We're here to report facts as laid out in reliable sources. Our mission isn't to fix perceived biases. Calidum 01:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Moved my comment from the NPOV Talk, since I think that's the wrong place to discuss it. My personal thoughts would be to consider the title's use in reliable sources and follow WP:COMMONNAME. If most sources refer to it as Genesis or Japanese creation narrative or story, then that tile might be appropriate, if they largely reference the Genesis or Japanese creation as a myth, then perhaps that. Personally, I'd probably try to avoid the entire myth / narrative / story from the titles if possible and just go with Genesis creation, Japanese creation, or some parenthetical alternative if it's not conflicting with other article titles. I expect using the term myth to describe currently held religious views is causing (and just asking for) contention and that one of the other terms would help keep the peace and is less judgmental (considering it a viewpoint described in Wikivoice). Morphh (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I see that we put that discussion in the wrong place. We put it at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, when it should have gone to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Should we try again? --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- On second thought, I see that people mainly use that board to call attention to discussions elsewhere about NPOV. So I posted an invitation there for people to come here and weigh in. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think that this must be decided on a case-by-case basis without reference to the validity of religious beliefs. A myth is a story, which can be told in many ways by many tellers. Cf. OED: "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon." A narrative is a specific text relating a story. Cf. OED: "An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account." If the article is about the story without being tied to a version in one specific text, the word "myth" should be used in the title. If the article is about a particular textual instantiation of a myth, the word "narrative" should be used in the title. In some cases there is only one textual instantiation of the myth, such as Genesis creation narrative. In such cases the subject of the article should determine the title, and it may be desirable to have two different articles, one on the myth and one on the narrative, if they'd be supportable by reliable sources. Of all the XXX creation myth articles we have, only Sumerian creation myth is comparable to Genesis creation narrative in that there's only a single textual source for it. The others are all about either straight-up myths out of oral traditions, so there are no canonical narratives or else, as in Japanese creation myth or Egyptian creation myths there are multiple textual sources either recounting a single myth (Japanese) or multiple myths (Egyptian). The Sumerian creation myth article is, in my opinion, misnamed because it's about a specific text that recounts what's one of many different Sumerian creation myths both extant and presumed lost that are discussed in the literature. The articles on those other Sumerian creation myths, when they exist, are (properly) named more specifically after the actual texts in which they're found. The question of whether our choice between "narrative," "myth," or "story" in the titles of all these articles connotes an endorsement of either their truth or their falsity is a red herring.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Does anybody really, really doubt that reliable sources can be found describing any and every theological theory of Creation as a "myth"? And though the degree to which such sources may so describe one proposition or the other may vary, if one goes back far enough one may find sources deemed reliable for their time decreeing heliocentric theory to be false, contradictory to scripture, and blasphemous. And yet who would fault modern scientists for hewing to an almost-religious certainty that heliocentrism is true? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is this meant to be a reply to my comment?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- By that definition of narrative, literally any story, be it oral or a canonical text, is one. Therefore any culture's myth is also a narrative or a collection of narratives and could be titled accordingly. Rwenonah (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's almost right but doesn't go quite far enough. Is it meant to be a reductio ad absurdum? Some cultures' myths are only transmitted orally. Then it would be possible to (a) write an article on the myth or (b) on individual oral traditions of the myth if there are more than one or (c) individual oral narrations of the myth if any of them were fixed enough to have been the subject of discussion in sources (this is a genuine possibility, see for instance Lord's The Singer of Tales for work on fixed oral versions of folklore) or (d) individual unique oral narrative recountings of the myth if they were preserved in audio form and met the GNG. Also note that I skipped some of the possibilities that would arise if a culture has more than one creation myth, but you can certainly generate them for yourself. If a culture's myth or myths have been written down and an individual written version is notable enough for an article then certainly there could be articles on (a) the myth in general and also (b) any of the individual narratives of the myth that meet the GNG. Then presumably we'd have articles titled XXX creation myth, XXX creation narrative 1, ... , XXX creation narrative n (or whatever names the individual narratives went by). Why is this a problem?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have to say that Alf's reasoning makes the most sense to me on this subject that I have seen so far. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Alf, and was about to make this point as well. A "narrative" is a specific text, which is only one exemplification of a multi-formed myth. So, we can have Genesis creation narrative for the actual text in that book, but something like Abrahamic creation myth for the general mythology in this family of religions.--Pharos (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have to say that Alf's reasoning makes the most sense to me on this subject that I have seen so far. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's almost right but doesn't go quite far enough. Is it meant to be a reductio ad absurdum? Some cultures' myths are only transmitted orally. Then it would be possible to (a) write an article on the myth or (b) on individual oral traditions of the myth if there are more than one or (c) individual oral narrations of the myth if any of them were fixed enough to have been the subject of discussion in sources (this is a genuine possibility, see for instance Lord's The Singer of Tales for work on fixed oral versions of folklore) or (d) individual unique oral narrative recountings of the myth if they were preserved in audio form and met the GNG. Also note that I skipped some of the possibilities that would arise if a culture has more than one creation myth, but you can certainly generate them for yourself. If a culture's myth or myths have been written down and an individual written version is notable enough for an article then certainly there could be articles on (a) the myth in general and also (b) any of the individual narratives of the myth that meet the GNG. Then presumably we'd have articles titled XXX creation myth, XXX creation narrative 1, ... , XXX creation narrative n (or whatever names the individual narratives went by). Why is this a problem?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- By that definition of narrative, literally any story, be it oral or a canonical text, is one. Therefore any culture's myth is also a narrative or a collection of narratives and could be titled accordingly. Rwenonah (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Is this meant to be a reply to my comment?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Does anybody really, really doubt that reliable sources can be found describing any and every theological theory of Creation as a "myth"? And though the degree to which such sources may so describe one proposition or the other may vary, if one goes back far enough one may find sources deemed reliable for their time decreeing heliocentric theory to be false, contradictory to scripture, and blasphemous. And yet who would fault modern scientists for hewing to an almost-religious certainty that heliocentrism is true? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@Alf, that reply was at the whole discussion, but the heliocentrism part was really directed to the notion of the Big Bang as eliciting a religious level of belief. But speaking of reliable sources, thousands of google books hits have the exact term, "Genesis creation myth," so it really ought not be at all controversial to deem it a title supported by reliable sources. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for clarifying. As you can see, I don't deny that there could be an article plausibly called "Genesis creation myth" based on reliable sources. I just deny that our Genesis creation narrative is that article. Are you sure that all those gbook hits are talking about the narrative, or are they talking about the myth?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- The narrative in this instance is the myth. Look at Catcher in the Rye. There is a 'narrative' which is not a 'myth.' Or a first person account of the Battle of Bunker Hill, again a 'narrative' which is not a 'myth.' But this narrative, like a narrative of the earth being born from a giant cow, is a myth. Even if it were to be discovered to be true, it is still a myth. See the difference? DeistCosmos (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, you're wrong. This narrative is a distinct and notable narrative of the myth. It is not the myth itself. There are earlier narratives of (parts of) the myth, J and P, which have their own articles. There are later narratives of the myth based on this narrative. Probably every translation of the Genesis narrative is a new narrative of the myth. Some are undoubtedly notable enough to support articles, e.g. the Septuagint version, Jerome's vulgate, the Vulgata Clementina version, Luther's translation, the KJ translation, Douay-Rheims, other languages. I have no doubt that the narratives in all of these versions could support articles. Even the wikipedia article we're talking about is a distinct narrative of the myth, although not notable (yet?). Arguendo, assume that the life of Jesus is a myth. Then we have at least four narratives of that myth, each with its own article. See the difference?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, what you have revealed is a category error, which has become the basis for my vote to support moving this title -- a Creation myth is a kind of thing, and everything which is one is a something-"Creation myth" whether it is a narrative or other form. This is a whole concept, like "hot dog" being different from either a "hot" or a "dog" -- if one had a recipe for a certain kind of hot dog, one could not correctly title it a "hot recipe," instead of a "hot dog recipe." For that is what titling the narrative of a certain Creation myth a "Creation ____ narrative" instead of a " Creation myth narrative" does!! DeistCosmos (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're quite confused. See my comment on the other page. You're right that "hot dog" is a kind of a thing. In fact, "hot dog" is a single word in the English language. That's not the case with "Creation myth." "Creation myth" is not a single word, it's a determiner+noun construction.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Alf, you say that the Vulgate and KJ are different narratives of the same myth. But our article is not about a specific version, so either it is the myth, or we need to remove the English examples and narrow the focus to the Hebrew narrative, in which case "Hebrew narrative of the Genesis creation myth" might be a better title. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I actually said "probably." When we write articles on books in non-English languages we often quote some of the text translated into English. There's nothing different here. Articles on specific translations are probably all doable, but the fact that they're doable isn't an argument against having an article on the narrative free from reference to the language its in. Our article is about the canonical Hebrew text and some of the issues that arise in general in translating it into English. It makes quite specific reference to the Hebrew text. Since the Hebrew text is the original it would be silly to qualify it as you propose. It would be like moving Don Quixote to Don Quixote in Spanish.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Alf, you say that the Vulgate and KJ are different narratives of the same myth. But our article is not about a specific version, so either it is the myth, or we need to remove the English examples and narrow the focus to the Hebrew narrative, in which case "Hebrew narrative of the Genesis creation myth" might be a better title. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're quite confused. See my comment on the other page. You're right that "hot dog" is a kind of a thing. In fact, "hot dog" is a single word in the English language. That's not the case with "Creation myth." "Creation myth" is not a single word, it's a determiner+noun construction.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, what you have revealed is a category error, which has become the basis for my vote to support moving this title -- a Creation myth is a kind of thing, and everything which is one is a something-"Creation myth" whether it is a narrative or other form. This is a whole concept, like "hot dog" being different from either a "hot" or a "dog" -- if one had a recipe for a certain kind of hot dog, one could not correctly title it a "hot recipe," instead of a "hot dog recipe." For that is what titling the narrative of a certain Creation myth a "Creation ____ narrative" instead of a " Creation myth narrative" does!! DeistCosmos (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, you're wrong. This narrative is a distinct and notable narrative of the myth. It is not the myth itself. There are earlier narratives of (parts of) the myth, J and P, which have their own articles. There are later narratives of the myth based on this narrative. Probably every translation of the Genesis narrative is a new narrative of the myth. Some are undoubtedly notable enough to support articles, e.g. the Septuagint version, Jerome's vulgate, the Vulgata Clementina version, Luther's translation, the KJ translation, Douay-Rheims, other languages. I have no doubt that the narratives in all of these versions could support articles. Even the wikipedia article we're talking about is a distinct narrative of the myth, although not notable (yet?). Arguendo, assume that the life of Jesus is a myth. Then we have at least four narratives of that myth, each with its own article. See the difference?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- The narrative in this instance is the myth. Look at Catcher in the Rye. There is a 'narrative' which is not a 'myth.' Or a first person account of the Battle of Bunker Hill, again a 'narrative' which is not a 'myth.' But this narrative, like a narrative of the earth being born from a giant cow, is a myth. Even if it were to be discovered to be true, it is still a myth. See the difference? DeistCosmos (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd go with myth, since it is more specific. Wikipedia has taken the position that Creationism is pseudoscience, so the work of finding sources is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia neutrality means presenting views in reliable sources according to their prevalence. It does not mean correcting the bias that exists in reliable sources. Since rs do not normally call the Genesis story a myth, neither should be.
- If there is a bias in rs, I would say it is that the term myth is used to denigrate non-Abrahamic creation stories. That happened historically because Western scholars could not see heathen religions as having equal validity.
- TFD (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- And that is ultimately the issue here. It's not so much which word we use, but the unequal application of words based on our own (or our references') biases. This is no different than calling 'primitive' nations 'tribes', their kings 'chiefs', their languages 'dialects', and their religions 'fetishes' – there's nothing wrong with using those words for actual tribes, chiefs, dialects, and fetishes, the problem is in unequal application. This is to be avoided per WP:WORLDVIEW. — kwami (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Google books and Google scholar (both of which have problems if not used carefully, show a far number of this for "creation myths" then "creation narratives". In addition, myth and narrative are not synonymous. In some cases there is a clear narrative - there is a narrative in Genesis and there is also a Genesis creation myth, but for many myths there is no single narrative, story, account, etc. The fact that Abrahamic theologians write about Christian and Jewish myths is often ignored in these debates which get turned into "If you use myth you are anti-religious" arguments. Are we really not going to have articles that use the term "Greek mythology"? :TFD, we have articles on Christian mythology and Jewish mythology - what do you want to call them? Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- There are various Jewish and Christian Midrashs that have the Creation as their setting (The idea that Satan/Lucifer was a "Fallen Angel" for example). Midrashs are stories that do not appear in the bible... and I don't think anyone would object to classifying them as "Myths". The question is whether that word should be used to describe the scriptural account told in Genesis? In the interest of NPOV, I would avoid it. The fact is, The word myth is seen as a pejorative... it is almost always used in the context of discussing the stories of religions other than one's own. Greek Mythology is called "mythology" because it isn't part of the Judeo-Christian religious belief. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- True, "narrative" and "mythology" are not synonymous. However, "narrative" and "myth", if used in reference to a specific myth, can be. Narrative is defined as "a spoken or written account of connected events; a story." Myth is defined as "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." The two definitions overlap significantly; every myth is also a narrative. Therefore, by calling a myth a narrative, we are simply using a vaguer definition which does not imply falseness. We need to consistently call all creation myths narratives, or consistently call them all myths, or we are treating them partially and with bias. Rwenonah (talk)
- Support standardising the titles. "Myth" would be my preference, as it seems to be the term favoured in scholarly usage, but if that is too controversial "narrative" would be an acceptable alternative. Seeking consistency in article titles is not a case of impermissible activism on Wikipedia's part: it is supported by WP:Article Titles. Neljack (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Specifically, I support "myth", because they are creation myths. There's no reason to use euphemisms. To insinuate that Christian mythology is not mythology is plain silly, and such favoritism does our readers a disservice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK... Let's analyze this with our WP:Article titles policy firmly in mind...
- First, we need to determine whether the title is a NAME title or a DESCRIPTIVE title. If it is a NAME title, we then have the follow up question of whether WP:COMMONNAME applies. To answer the question we need to determine whether reliable sources use the exact string of words "Genesis Creation Myth" as a name for the story. Simply referring to Genesis as being a myth is not enough. (This is similar to how we deal with article titles about mass killings. While we can describe the event as being a massacre in the body of the text, we don't include the potentially POV word "massacre" in the title unless the event is routinely NAMED "The X Massacre" in sources).
- Looking at the sources... there certainly are reliable sources that refer to Genesis as being a myth... but there are few (if any) that use the string "Genesis Creation Myth" as a NAME for that story. Therefor, I must conclude that our article title is a DESCRIPTIVE one. (and the follow up question of WP:COMMONNAME is moot).
- Since this is a DECRIPTIVE title, it does not really matter whether Genesis is or is not a myth. The issue becomes whether including the word "myth" in the title is WP:NEUTRAL or not. That is a more complex issue. Certainly using that word will be offensive to fundamentalist Christians who believe in the literal truth of the story. It will also give pause (if not offend) those who see Genesis in a more allegorical light (believing that it contains spiritual/allegorical truth, if not factually "accuracy"). Others, of course, will have no problem with the use of the word. Being dispassionate, and considering all the differing viewpoints, I have to conclude that the word is NOT a neutral one.
- That leads to yet a further question... is there some other word that is neutral? Story? Narrative? Account? I think they are all problematic. Someone will object no matter which word we use to describe Genesis.
- So... let's think outside the box... can we come up with a title that will NEUTRALLY describe the topic. One that will not use any of the potentially POV words. I think we can... and (as an initial offering) would suggest something along the lines of Creation according to the Bible. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- The issue isn't with that article, but with calling it "narrative" and virtually everything else "myth" (Genesis certainly is a myth in the academic sense of the word). If myth isn't neutral in reference to Genesis, how can we use it to describe Shinto? Or Ainu traditions? Rwenonah (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- My opinion... describing Shinto or Ainu traditions as "Myths" is equally Non-Neutral... and so we probably shouldn't use "myth" in such contexts either. I would go with Creation according to Shinto tradition, Creation according to Ainu tradition... (or generically: Creation according to X. Such a title would be completely neutral, and completely accurate. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Rwennonah. Myth is perfectly neutral. Abrahamic religions are not a special case merely because they are popular in the West. Academic sources refer to these stories as creation myths, and these are the kinds of reliable sources that I would trust. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be in favour of consistency, so what term is the best? Personally, I feel it doesn't matter so long as the terms are consistent. Rwenonah (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Myth isn't neutral at all, because it is interpreted (and frequently explicitly intended) as an anti-religious/agnostic/atheist point, even when applied to all religions. While, yes, Abrahamic religions are not magically special, there is no point in adopting a convention guaranteed to piss people off for no reason. "creation story" or "creation narrative" (and similar constructions - "origin narrative", etc.) are perfectly fine. I don't know if we necessarily want to impose one particular form of the other as a matter of article title policy, though. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- And those opposing 'myth' sometimes deliberately interpret it as being anti-religious, etc., despite the fact that it isn't. 'Story'? Like in fairy stories? I always think of stories as fiction, and that isn't what 'myth' means. The fact of the matter is that there is something described by even theologians as a Genesis myth, eg [5] which does call Genesis a narrative but discusses its mythical aspect. See also[6] and many others if you search. Note that may creation myths are not actually narratives as there is no on written source. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Do you automatically think of "news stories" and "life stories" as fiction? "Why are you so upset? C'mon, tell me the story." No, of course not, and neither does anyone else—"stories" are fiction when qualified as such ("fairy stories"). The default interpretation of "myth" is as fiction ("People say that XX is YY, but that's a myth"), therefore "myth" is inherently controversial a choice. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- And those opposing 'myth' sometimes deliberately interpret it as being anti-religious, etc., despite the fact that it isn't. 'Story'? Like in fairy stories? I always think of stories as fiction, and that isn't what 'myth' means. The fact of the matter is that there is something described by even theologians as a Genesis myth, eg [5] which does call Genesis a narrative but discusses its mythical aspect. See also[6] and many others if you search. Note that may creation myths are not actually narratives as there is no on written source. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Redirection of titles missing periods
Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 161#URLs ending in period cause issues when copied to clients such as email (version of 15:25, 21 April 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC) and 18:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Seems a very good reason to create a redirect without the period for every article URL ending in a period. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- A bot could do this quickly and automatically. I have put in the request. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Revised proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation at the WikiProject Comics Manual of Style
A revised Request for Comment has been made regarding the policy compliance of title disambiguation for articles under WikiProject Comics. Please join the discussion here (original here). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
NATURALDIS and company names
You may be interested in a discussion at Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) on whether having company names as part of article titles constitute advertising. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- The question of "advertizing" is a bit of a red herring, in my opinion... WP:COMMONNAME is what should govern the debate. Some of our articles on spacecraft include the company name (Example: Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar)... others don't (example: Orion (spacecraft)). It really depends on whether the sources use the company name when referring to the craft. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's not the only consideration, though. Unless Boeing's name is prepended almost always when referring to that vehicle, there's really no reason to have Boeing in that article title when X-20 Dyna-Soar would work. Something even shorter than that might; how many X-20s are there? How many Dyna-Soars? People in favor of one name or another can sometimes be good a digging up sources that favor their version of a name and ignoring sources that don't, on the hopes that no one will bother to do counter-research to contradict them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, concision is a factor, but it does not trump commonname. The relevant standard here is not "almost always". The relevant standard is "most common". If the longer name is used more commonly than shorter name, in reliable sources, then we go with the longer name. Only if it's a wash per Common Name do we apply the WP:Concision razor (an essay written by Yours Truly that reflects policy-based reasoning that applies here) to settle the issue. --B2C 22:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- The 'most commonly usedname' for virtually all aircraft is "Manufacturer+Designation (when appropriate)+Name (when appropriate)". This is one of the reasons M-D-N was determined by WP:AIR to be the preferred naming format reccomended by the project for aircraft article titles (the other being consistency, as before there were aircraft without names using naming formats like Martin XB-51, while those with were at formats like B-57 Canberra). And regardless, the contention that the company name is somehow "advertising" is the WP:BATTLEGROUND of one solitary editor who refuses to stop beating the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not citing B2C's in-progress and frequently criticized essay at all (though I need to read it again and see if it's improved in response to the criticisms). We've had the principle to prefer a short name over a long one when both will suffice for years; there's nothing new about the idea at all. WP:COMMONNAME does not exist in a vacuum, and is always balanced against other factors when they arise, verbosity being one of them.
Avoiding the unnecessary addition of manufacturer/publisher names to article titles is not at all just one random editor's tendentious fight; it's normal WP practice. Very, very few articles are at such names, for two reasons: It's rarely helpful, and it looks like (and encourages) use of WP for promotional activities. I doubt I have to observe, especially at this page, that the number of wikiprojects making "we do it this way, and you can just go soak your head if you disagree" pronouncements, as if they were their own sovereign entities, is getting really, really tiresome. While it's quite likely that article names that begin with the manufacturer name followed by more details are sometimes, maybe even often, useful for aircraft (among some other things), it's certainly not always helpful. No wikiproject has a special right to force all other editors to use a naming scheme some people at the wikiproject prefer; this is a matter of clear policy, under WT:AT, WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (WP:NPOV is also frequently implicated in these "do it our way" campaigns, based usually upon some specialist usage that has jack to do with encyclopedia writing; see WP:SSF for a better-accepted essay covering that problem in detail). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- SMC, this isn't a LOCALCONSENSUS issue... it is not a case of one WikiProject making up its own rules contrary to "standard WP practice". In fact, when it comes to vehicle related topic areas, including the manufacturers name seems to be the standard practice. For example, Look through Category:automobiles and Category:Motorcycles... the inclusion of the manufacturer's name is actually routine.
- What is making the Lynx article problematic is that it isn't a aircraft... it is a spacecraft... and most of our articles on other spacecraft have not included the manufacturers name. However, that omission is due to the fact that, until recently, there hasn't really been a single manufacturer for spacecraft. Until recently, spacecraft were built by governments, not corporations. That is beginning to change. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not citing B2C's in-progress and frequently criticized essay at all (though I need to read it again and see if it's improved in response to the criticisms). We've had the principle to prefer a short name over a long one when both will suffice for years; there's nothing new about the idea at all. WP:COMMONNAME does not exist in a vacuum, and is always balanced against other factors when they arise, verbosity being one of them.
- That's not the only consideration, though. Unless Boeing's name is prepended almost always when referring to that vehicle, there's really no reason to have Boeing in that article title when X-20 Dyna-Soar would work. Something even shorter than that might; how many X-20s are there? How many Dyna-Soars? People in favor of one name or another can sometimes be good a digging up sources that favor their version of a name and ignoring sources that don't, on the hopes that no one will bother to do counter-research to contradict them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Is local consensus at MOS:COMIC overriding policy?
MOS:COMIC at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics)#Disambiguation states:
- the agreed general disambiguation phrase used for articles related to comics, including creators, publications, and content, is "(comics)" ... In general, when naming an article, use the name itself ... unless that leads to ambiguity, in which case, follow with "(comics)" (e.g. Robin (comics)).
This is being interpreted this to mean that all articles under the {{WikiProject Comics}}
banner, regardless of scope, should use (comics) by default when disambiguation is needed.
- The Requested Move for media franchise character Wolverine from Wolverine (character) to Wolverine (comics) was: "The standard is to have (comics) in the title, not (character)."
- ""(comics)" is a sufficient disambiguation for all comic book-related content; characters, groups, locations, objects, etc."
- "the agreed general disambiguation phrase used for articles related to comics, including creators, publications, and content, is "(comics)"."
- "The guideline specifically states "When disambiguation is needed use (comics), or (company) where that is not appropriate.""
It is also stated that articles for characters that began life in comics must focus on the comics aspect of that character, segregating appearances in other media to separate articles:
- "If a particular incarnation of a comic book-based character becomes notable in its own right then it should have its own article such as Batman in film or Superman in film"
Is this within the boundaries of what a WikiProject can mandate? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see what the conflict or override is, or what you mean by mandate. WikiProjects do normally work on title guidelines to make their titles more consistently structured, so unless you see a conflict with a more widely agree titling guideline, it's probably OK. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon: It's not a consistency issue—WikiProject Comics is saying that articles listed until multiple Projects (say,
{{WikiProject Comics}}
and{{WikiProject Fictional characters}}
) should use (comics) as disambiguation by default, and is using that as a move rationale for articles disambiguated with (character) or something else. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon: It's not a consistency issue—WikiProject Comics is saying that articles listed until multiple Projects (say,
- Normally I'm the first to jump on the collective a[ss|rse] of wikiprojects getting WP:OWNy, but I'm not sure I see a real problem here. Characters and whatnot that start as comics-based are almost invariably most notable still in that context, no matter how popular movies or TV shows about them are. Take the character Rick Grimes from The Walking Dead. It's a different but similar and same-named character in the comics vs. the TV series, so if the characters need articles apart from the comic series and TV series (doubtful) it would not make sense to have the TV character covered in the comics article or vice versa. I.e., separate articles with their own disambiguation makes sense. I don't personally agree with using " (comics)" as a disambiguator, but I've given up on that (it's more objectionable with something like " (baseball)", e.g. Mike Smith (baseball), since Mike Smith is not a baseball and is not a brand of baseballs. The wretchedness of that sort of parenthetical disambiguation (vs., say, " (baseball player)") isn't as overwhelming with " (comics)". Anyway, Is there a specific example where the comics project is doing something objectionable?? A general objection to a wikiproject having a fair amount of influence over the shape of articles they consider in-scope doesn't seem sustainable here. What's the particular bad thing happening, and where? Demonstrate the problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's come up a couple of times: the "Wolverine" article was moved to Wolverine (character) per a consensus, and then moved back to Wolverine (comics) per another consensus, where objections that "Fictional characters use "(character)"" and that "WP:LOCALCONSENSUS used by comic articles should be changed to the standardized version used by fictional characters" were trumped with "The standard is to have (comics) in the title, not (character)" per MOS:COMIC (I wasn't involved in either of these discussions). There's an ongoing debate over at Talk:Hydra (Marvel Comics) as well. The issue isn't over (character) per se (all parites have rejected (character) in the Hydra discussion), but it has been acknowledged that (character) is the standard disambiguator for characters from other media (books, film, TV, plays)—everywhere but WP:CMC.
- (As for the use of "comics", the word is an uncountable noun that refers to the medium. You can't refer to "a comics", but you can refer to the "comics medium" or "an expert in comics"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Worth looking into,
but I decline to get into this any further here, since there's already an RfC ongoing about thisbut it might be better to let the ongoing RfC conclude first, so discussion isn't fragmented. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Updated: 06:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Worth looking into,
Redundant with RfC?
- There's no reason to fork the discussion. There's an active poll/RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Comics#rfc2 about this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not a fork—that discussion is about a proposed rewording; this about levels of consensus. Either could fail and have no effect on the other. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Converted by SMcCandlish from edit summary to comment
- Hair-splitting. The entire purpose of the RfC is to determine whether WikiProject Comics's preferred way of naming and disambiguating topics has consensus or should be altered. You reasonably can't then side-swipe that discussion by coming to another forum to challenge the consensus on the wikiproject's naming "guideline" on a tiny bit broader basis. It's like doing a RM on something and engaging in a big debate about that, but also taking it to AfD at the same time in an attempt to have the article merged into something else, as if the RM were moot already. Even if it's not blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping, it's still an unhelpful and potentially confusing fragmenting of discussion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not a fork—that discussion is about a proposed rewording; this about levels of consensus. Either could fail and have no effect on the other. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Converted by SMcCandlish from edit summary to comment
- Thanks for pointing out the other discussion. That should be an OK place to work this out. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- WikiProject Comics is agreed on the "preferred way of naming and disambiguating topics"—the proposal was not to change, add, or delete any of the agreed-on disambiguation terms—it's long since ceased to be debated.
- The intention of the proposed rewording was to discourage those unaware with policy from thinking that an article that falls under
{{WikiProject Comics}}
should be disambiguated by default as (comics). Little did I know that members of the Project actually do believe that—an entirely separate question, concerning global policy, which is why I brought it here for clarification. The issues have little hope of being solved if the participants in the discussion are talking at cross purposes. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)- Agreed, and I think we actually both agree on both of the problems raised by the wikiproject's expectations. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the other discussion. That should be an OK place to work this out. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Proposed wording for the Subject preference RfC at the WP:NCP talk page
Over a month ago an RfC on subject preference was initiated at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RfC: Subject preference.
In one of the subsections of that RfC a new wording to be included in the guideline is proposed: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Approach.
It was suggested to avoid mere local consensus, so this proposal has been listed at Template:Centralized discussion.
Feel free to chime in! --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Weighting of sources in determining WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
When we look at usage in reliable sources to determine WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, should we be weighting the sources? Is usage in some reliable sources, like books, more influential than usage in other reliable sources, like newspapers?
My view is that we're trying to determine the name most users would expect to be used to refer to the topic at issue. So in that context I don't see why some reliable sources should be weighted more than others... I mean, as long as it's a reliable source, it should count the same. No?
This is relevant in situations like what appears to be happening at Talk:Oh Baby, where a relatively obscure topic happens to have more coverage in (archived, low-circulation) books than the more-likely-to-be-sought (based on page-view counts) article. --B2C 16:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- To my mind, source quality should be a factor in determining a COMMONNAME ... its just not necessarily the deciding factor. I have no problem giving a bit of extra weight to high end sources... but that extra weight would not necessarily out weigh raw numbers. Essentially, source quality makes for a good tie-breaker, when the source usage is somewhat mixed.
- Here is how I think it works: First look through all reliable sources (regardless of where they fall on the quality scale of reliable sources). If one name stand out as being used significantly more often... use that. If there several names that are common... take a second look at the source usage, factoring in the quality of the sources... if one of the choices is clearly favored by sources on the high end of the quality scale... use that. and if even the high end sources are mixed... then we have to say that there is no COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk)-
- As for determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC... I am not sure how source quality would be an issue. It's more a question of whether one topic is significantly more WP:NOTABLE than another. Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would contend that books are highly overrated as a source. It is much easier for the average individual to get a book published than it is to get published in a peer-reviewed journal, or to get a regular job as a journalist with a reputable newspaper or other media outlet. There are plenty of books in print that are filled with outrageous, incorrect, and completely unsupported claims and usages. bd2412 T 23:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have not necessarily been talking about books. What constitutes a "quality" source really depends on the subject matter. For example, in an article relating to pop music, a magazine like Rolling Stone would be a high end "quality" source. A magazine like Teen Beat would be at the other end of the spectrum. Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure that we should be in the business of making those judgments. Obviously, there are sources like the supermarket tabloids for which objective evidence of their absence of reliability exists, but short of that kind of unreliability, I wouldn't consider a Rolling Stone to be more authoritative a source for the common name of a band, song, or other music topic than Teen Beat. bd2412 T 01:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have not necessarily been talking about books. What constitutes a "quality" source really depends on the subject matter. For example, in an article relating to pop music, a magazine like Rolling Stone would be a high end "quality" source. A magazine like Teen Beat would be at the other end of the spectrum. Blueboar (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's well covered at WP:RS. There are many factors, and being a "book" isn't much. Whether it's a primary source or secondary source is also very important. Much as it says at WP:NOR, primary sources, whether a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal, or a ballot paper, are easily misused. Independent, reliable, reputable secondary sources, and specifically the ones actually, explicitly, supporting the article content, should be weighted most highly. The parallels with Wikipedia-notability are not co-incidental. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- WP:RS is about evaluating reliability of sources for the purpose of establishing veracity of information in deciding what to include in article context. In that context it makes sense to weight different types of sources differently, and WP:RS does cover that well.
But in title-decision making we just look at usage in sources to help us figure out what is going to be natural and recognizable to our readers (when it's not obvious). In that context, what is the point of distinguishing sources based on quality? How is that going to help us determine which is more natural or recognizable? --B2C 04:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've found that not to be true at wikipedia. We do not look at source usage as the "determining" factor in titling articles. Maybe it's written that way in policy and guidelines, but in practice titles are based on a majority of editors preferences, regardless of sourcing. Whether that's good or bad doesn't really matter... it's the way it works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, just maybe, "we" should do things a little more consistently with the rest of the project. Maybe article titling should not be a separate "expertise", but something natural to content-writers. Distinguishing sources by quality is a base skill that should be applied to all questions relating to content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Again, why? Distinguishing sources by quality makes sense for content veracity determination. It makes no sense for determining what term is natural and recognizable. Are the higher quality reliable sources, like scholarly journals, going to use names that are more likely to be natural and recognizable than the names used by lower quality sources, like newspapers? If so, how? If not, why distinguish by source quality in the context of title determination? --B2C 06:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Because Wikipedia should be guided by its sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Why should WP be guided by its sources? I suggest there are two different answers, depending on whether you're talking about content or title determination.
For content determination WP should be guided by its sources to make sure the material is accurate and verifiable. For this higher quality sources are even better.
But for title determination, WP should be guided by the sources because we presume our readers also read the sources, or at least the usage they are familiar with is likely to be reflected in the sources, and so terminology usage in the sources is going to be natural and recognizable to them. Distinguishing among sources qualities simply makes no sense in this context. --B2C 07:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Why should WP be guided by its sources? I suggest there are two different answers, depending on whether you're talking about content or title determination.
- I get to the same basic result through different reasoning. If Wikipedia distinguished which were the most "high level" sources relative to a topic for purposes of determining a name, we would probably have an article on Equus ferus caballus rather than horse. We seem to go in the opposite direction from that. I completely agree that Wikipedia is guided by its sources, but I don't think it is within our power as neutral arbiters to be assigning "high" and "low" level rankings to sources for purposes of determining a common name. bd2412 T 13:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Poor example... we don't have a significant majority of high end sources that use "Equus Ferus caballus" over "Horse" (in fact the majority of high end sources use "horse"), so that isn't a case where source quality would be a factor (and even if a significant majority of high end sources did use "Equus Ferus caballus" instead of "hourse" the sheer volume of sources that use "horse" would out weigh the issue of source quality). Again, commonness in high quality sources (call it QUALITYCOMMONNAME) simply makes for a good tie breaker when the over-all usage is somewhat mixed.
- B2C, You seem to be looking at this issue as an "always" or "never" thing. It isn't. No one is saying that source quality is always the determining factor. We are simply saying that source quality is a factor to be looked at, and can sometimes be a determining factor (in a few rare cases).
- Choosing the best title for an article is not an exact science with firm rules... instead it is a very inexact art. We intentionally don't take a formulaic approach to choosing article titles. We intentionally don't say "factor X always out weighs factor Y"... because while X may often (even usually) out weigh Y... there are always going to be situations where Y should out weigh X. I know that some people want this policy to settle every dispute... it never will... because this policy intentionally makes having disputes part of the process. We do list several factors that should be considered when holding a dispute (and it is an incomplete list)... but we intentionally don't say which factor is the most important. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Choosing titles is hardly a science at all, so of course it's inexact. But we have some control over where it falls on the exact-inexact spectrum, and the closer we are to the exact endpoint the fewer conflicts we should have. The problem with saying sometimes we consider source quality and sometimes we don't is that it moves us towards the inexact end of the spectrum, a cost, for no benefit, so far as I can tell. It means people can favor A over B because A is more common in "high quality" sources, while B is more common in reliable sources overall, and then the argument is about whether to go with usage in "higher quality" sources or with usage in RS overall... and can that ever really matter? Either way the result is a title commonly used in RS. Why not just pick the rule easier to follow (don't discern among sources), and go with that?
Yes, the process is inexact, but why make it even more inexact than it has to be? --B2C 16:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Because sometimes picking the easiest thing does not result in consensus. "Titles are chosen by consensus" is the only real "rule" here... Everything else in the policy is essentially advice... a list of factors that usually (but not always) help us reach a consensus. We are free to give more weight to one of factors, and less weight to others if that will help us to reach a consensus... We can even totally ignore a factor if it blocks reaching a consensus. And... We are also free to consider factors that are not mentioned in the policy if such factors will help us to reach a consensus. The rule is: discuss all of these factors (and any others that you can think of) and reach a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Choosing titles is hardly a science at all, so of course it's inexact. But we have some control over where it falls on the exact-inexact spectrum, and the closer we are to the exact endpoint the fewer conflicts we should have. The problem with saying sometimes we consider source quality and sometimes we don't is that it moves us towards the inexact end of the spectrum, a cost, for no benefit, so far as I can tell. It means people can favor A over B because A is more common in "high quality" sources, while B is more common in reliable sources overall, and then the argument is about whether to go with usage in "higher quality" sources or with usage in RS overall... and can that ever really matter? Either way the result is a title commonly used in RS. Why not just pick the rule easier to follow (don't discern among sources), and go with that?
- Because Wikipedia should be guided by its sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Again, why? Distinguishing sources by quality makes sense for content veracity determination. It makes no sense for determining what term is natural and recognizable. Are the higher quality reliable sources, like scholarly journals, going to use names that are more likely to be natural and recognizable than the names used by lower quality sources, like newspapers? If so, how? If not, why distinguish by source quality in the context of title determination? --B2C 06:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- WP:RS is about evaluating reliability of sources for the purpose of establishing veracity of information in deciding what to include in article context. In that context it makes sense to weight different types of sources differently, and WP:RS does cover that well.
- I would contend that books are highly overrated as a source. It is much easier for the average individual to get a book published than it is to get published in a peer-reviewed journal, or to get a regular job as a journalist with a reputable newspaper or other media outlet. There are plenty of books in print that are filled with outrageous, incorrect, and completely unsupported claims and usages. bd2412 T 23:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Non-English titles
Talk:Dang_Huu_Phuc#Requested_move_2 is a move proposal to move:
Above that, there is an RM discussion from 2011 where the no-diacritics version was favored, and so it stands today. But now people are saying this type of move is the norm. What ever happened to WP:USEENGLISH? I have no idea how to read, much less pronounce, the symbols on the right. There is no evidence that reliable English sources use these symbols. The argument that we have Unicode and they don't is a poor excuse. We have the whole Cyrillic alphabet available to us in Unicode, but that does not mean we're going to move all Russian names of people and places to Cyrillic titles. We follow usage in reliable English sources, period. What the heck is going on??? --B2C 16:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Wiki policy or guidelines are one thing, while today's wiki usage and rfc's are another. Per RfC, no matter how common a name is spelled using the English alphabet, and no matter if the English sources are 99 to 1 in favor of the non-diacritic spelling, we are banned from using that spelling...not only in the title, but in even mentioning it exists as a common spelling anywhere else in the article. I thought you knew this by now? I've learned to live with this censoring as part of the modern wikipedia so you should probably move on yourself and accept that is the way it's done here now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- The last one I recall was in an RfC on Censorship of the English alphabet. Like I said, the banishment is here to stay so it's best to move on, live with it, and edit other things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- The short story is that some editors began to interpret WP:RELIABLESOURCES (and in particular, the phrase "reliable for the statement being made") to mean that, in the area of diacritics, the only reliable source is one that is proven capable of using diacritics. A non-diacritic-using source is disregarded as unreliable for proving English-language usage or orthography. User:Fyunck(click) is correct that that view has won the day in the trenches, although there still has not been a WP-wide RFC that has settled the issue to my knowledge. For more insight, contact User:In ictu oculi, who has championed the pro-diacritics cause for a few years now. I could also point you to several RMs where this has been at issue. Dohn joe (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Although there may not have been a WP-wide RfC on the specific issue of titles, the RfC Fyunck(click) refers to above seems pretty clear. If the form without diacritics can't be mentioned in the article, then clearly it can't be the title. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- That RFC takes for granted that native diacritics should be used, and only asked if the non-diacritics version of a name should also be used. That's a different question from whether and in what circumstances diacritics should be used in the first instance. Note that the closer of that RFC explicitly punted on the issue of what to do with letters that differ between English and the native language - þ→th, for example. There are informal understandings - that an article on a person who has taken on citizenship or spent a significant amount of time in a country whose language lacks diacritics may drop the diacritics. There was also an RFC that In ictu points to on adopting Vietnamese diacritics usage in particular. I just have not seen a WP-wide RFC that comprehensively addresses diacritics usage. We may not need one (although it would be nice to coordinate real-life usage with WP:DIACRITICS, and my guess is that only an RFC could do that), but I don't think there has been one. Dohn joe (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is true... for that particular RfC. But in the tone of that RfC, in article after article, move request after move request, the majority of editors (including administrators) has been quite clear on what they want. Unless a person lives in the US and/or it can be shown that they personally use the English spelling of their names (i.e. their facebook account, twitter, personal website content, signature) then any form of the English alphabetized spelling is censored on wikipedia. It cannot be used, no matter the sourcing, in titles or in prose. So again we should probably move along to edit other interesting topics. One thing that could stand an update is the section at WP:NOTCENSORED as it is untrue and out of date with the current practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think calling this censorship is ridiculous. Rather, there is a general move to use the appropriate diacritics, even if in some cases the majority of english-language sources do not use said diacritics. I think this is different than other debates around what is a "preferred" name, etc, and is more a rather of correctness and accuracy. If a given source does not use diacritics at all, we cannot use that source to determine if diacritics *would* have been used by them if they could.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes - that is exactly how I described the position in a nutshell. But the point is, that's not the only rational position, and it's not the position of WP:DIACRITICS. It also doesn't take into account some of the nuances I mentioned above. And it doesn't change that, right now, as it has been for a long time, diacritics policy on WP is ad hoc, or at least unwritten.
And yes, censorship is a far cry from just not having things come out the way one would prefer - using terms lke that does nothing to advance any discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Obiwankenobi: The assumption you are making here is that if a source does not use diacritics it is because they can't, not because they choose not to. Anywhere else in Wikipedia, you would have to source that assumption in each and every case. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- We have plenty of examples of this - especially if you're talking about vietnamese diacritics, for which printing presses in some cases would choose not to use either because technically impossible or financially unrealistic. The best way to determine such cases is when they use vietnamese diacritics for some names, but not for others - like if they write Đặng Hữu Phúc was born in Vietnam (and not Việt Nam). There are also problems with using search engine results, which actually can strip off diacritics, as well as OCR. I've participated in some of these debates and claims were made that book X used name Y without diacritics, but on close examination of the book, it DID actually use the diacritics, but the summary by google books was misleading. I don't think we should conflate COMMONNAME issues around diacritics with things like Deadmaus vs Joel Zimmerman, since there isn't a difference in technological capability or editorial style around using one or the other.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is censorship. It is banishment. Many sources don't use diacritics because they choose to follow English language customs. And there are sources that use both diacritics and non-diacritics... they don't count either. It is what the majority of editors want that counts, not sourcing. And you're kidding yourself by saying "some cases" or "the majority of English-language sources." You make it sound like it's close in the sourcing when it's not. Unless it's the "Inquirer" we do not pick out our sources, we use all of them. Now if this happens on only some articles or some spellings you might have a point about censorship. If we are permanently stopped from using the English spelling anywhere in an article, everywhere, it is what it is no matter how candy-coated you'd like to make it. It's not a discussion on changing things. I'm not advocating a change back... I'm simply letting B2C know how and why it works here now so he can move on to better things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you read that RFC, that was specifically about whether there was any use or value to the reader in repeating ascii-titles in the lede, like Đặng Hữu Phúc (Dang Huu Phuc). There was a broad consensus against this, since it was felt the reader didn't need to see the stripped-down version. Again, calling this censorship means you misunderstand what the term censorship means.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are reading that RfC way too narrowly and naively, without the understanding of what went on before or after. And you are 100% wrong about the lead only. The Englsish spelling can't be mentioned anywhere, anytime. It can't be in the title, it can't be in the prose. It is you who aren't comprehending that wikipedia expurgates things based on what editors want. Go ahead and ask the many contributors to that RfC what they intended with it and the 1000s of move requests before and after. English alphabet spellings are banished if it can be shown that a source spells the name differently in their home country, regardless of the number of English language sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- If you read that RFC, that was specifically about whether there was any use or value to the reader in repeating ascii-titles in the lede, like Đặng Hữu Phúc (Dang Huu Phuc). There was a broad consensus against this, since it was felt the reader didn't need to see the stripped-down version. Again, calling this censorship means you misunderstand what the term censorship means.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes - that is exactly how I described the position in a nutshell. But the point is, that's not the only rational position, and it's not the position of WP:DIACRITICS. It also doesn't take into account some of the nuances I mentioned above. And it doesn't change that, right now, as it has been for a long time, diacritics policy on WP is ad hoc, or at least unwritten.
- I think calling this censorship is ridiculous. Rather, there is a general move to use the appropriate diacritics, even if in some cases the majority of english-language sources do not use said diacritics. I think this is different than other debates around what is a "preferred" name, etc, and is more a rather of correctness and accuracy. If a given source does not use diacritics at all, we cannot use that source to determine if diacritics *would* have been used by them if they could.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is true... for that particular RfC. But in the tone of that RfC, in article after article, move request after move request, the majority of editors (including administrators) has been quite clear on what they want. Unless a person lives in the US and/or it can be shown that they personally use the English spelling of their names (i.e. their facebook account, twitter, personal website content, signature) then any form of the English alphabetized spelling is censored on wikipedia. It cannot be used, no matter the sourcing, in titles or in prose. So again we should probably move along to edit other interesting topics. One thing that could stand an update is the section at WP:NOTCENSORED as it is untrue and out of date with the current practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- That RFC takes for granted that native diacritics should be used, and only asked if the non-diacritics version of a name should also be used. That's a different question from whether and in what circumstances diacritics should be used in the first instance. Note that the closer of that RFC explicitly punted on the issue of what to do with letters that differ between English and the native language - þ→th, for example. There are informal understandings - that an article on a person who has taken on citizenship or spent a significant amount of time in a country whose language lacks diacritics may drop the diacritics. There was also an RFC that In ictu points to on adopting Vietnamese diacritics usage in particular. I just have not seen a WP-wide RFC that comprehensively addresses diacritics usage. We may not need one (although it would be nice to coordinate real-life usage with WP:DIACRITICS, and my guess is that only an RFC could do that), but I don't think there has been one. Dohn joe (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Although there may not have been a WP-wide RfC on the specific issue of titles, the RfC Fyunck(click) refers to above seems pretty clear. If the form without diacritics can't be mentioned in the article, then clearly it can't be the title. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of how you read that RfC, it's fucking nuts. Worse. It mocks Wikipedia. Look at this. Hồ Ngọc Hà. What the hell? That's the title in the English Wikipedia. The ENGLISH Wikipedia. I kid you not! What a fucking farce. That is not English. That is not recognizable. It is certainly not natural. When I Google that gobbledygook I get a bunch of Vietnamese sites. But when I search for "Ho Ngoc Ha", I get English websites. It makes no sense to use non-English terms in an English encyclopedia. I've seen plenty of bullshit on WP before, but this has to take the cake. I can't believe people who care about the integrity and reputation of this project are allowing this absurdity to continue. --B2C 21:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- B2C, I understand that you feel very strongly about the situation, but please take it down a notch (or twelve). This is actually an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. There has already been a great deal of invective and histrionics over this issue in its many incarnations over the years - more of its like will not serve to do anything but harden hearts and inhibit open dialogue. If you want to have a discussion, fine - but this is not the tone to start with. Dohn joe (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- And that's cool @Casliber... some will agree with you and some will not. But it doesn't matter anymore if you or I like them or not. It's been resolved. We MUST use them at wikipedia regardless of sourcing, and any English alphabetic form is not allowed to be shown anywhere unless we have it from the person in question's own lips. That is what we follow here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- But that's part of my point, User:Fyunck(click) - that broader point has never been properly discussed and resolved. I know you feel demoralized and picked on, but WP marches on, and feelings and opinions can change - no issue is ever set in stone around here. Dohn joe (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- And that's cool @Casliber... some will agree with you and some will not. But it doesn't matter anymore if you or I like them or not. It's been resolved. We MUST use them at wikipedia regardless of sourcing, and any English alphabetic form is not allowed to be shown anywhere unless we have it from the person in question's own lips. That is what we follow here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- B2C, I understand that you feel very strongly about the situation, but please take it down a notch (or twelve). This is actually an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. There has already been a great deal of invective and histrionics over this issue in its many incarnations over the years - more of its like will not serve to do anything but harden hearts and inhibit open dialogue. If you want to have a discussion, fine - but this is not the tone to start with. Dohn joe (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually I don't feel that way at all. I mean sure, a couple editors will never be forgiven by me, but mostly it's not personal. The wiki editors have spoken on what they want around here. I feel bad for what this means at wikipedia, and for our many readers, but it is what it is. This wikipedia has changed a lot since it's inception...some good and some bad. I may feel this particular issue is really bad for what it does to wikipedia, but there were more editors wanting these restrictions than not so there's nothing I can do but move on and edit within those parameters unless I want to get blocked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Dohn joe, but how do you have a constructive discussion with someone who takes the ridiculous position that he "likes" (I kid you not) Hồ Ngọc Hà because it is "a more accurate portrayal of the names"? Yeah, it's more accurate in Vietnamese, BUT NOT IN ENGLISH!
Since a "more accurate portrayal of the names" now means
WP:USEENGLISHDONTUSEENGLISH, why do it half-assed by limiting ourselves to diacritics? Shall we move Mikhail Gorbachev to Михаи́л Серге́евич Горбачёв because that's "a more accurate portrayal of the names"? Golda Meir to גולדה מאיר? Mao Zedong to 毛泽东? It's complete and utter horseshit. No, reasonable people cannot disagree about this. There is nothing reasonable about the DONTUSEENGLISH position. I'm calling naked Emperor on this one, because apparently nobody else has the balls. --B2C 22:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)- (As an aside: By that reasoning, we should really move Mao Zedong to Mao Tse Tung. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC))
- Of course there's a reasonable position. Just because you don't see it at first glance doesn't mean there isn't one. Dohn joe (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Không có gì hợp lý về việc sử dụng tên mà không phải là bằng tiếng Anh trong các tiêu đề của bài viết trong một tiếng Anh. --В²C ☎ 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Liking accuracy is not JDLI. Strawman arguements are very weak. Obscenity and incivility is not welcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Accuracy in Vietnamese — độ chính xác — is not accuracy in English, whether you like it or not. --В²C ☎ 22:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- As technology advances, the world is generally moving away from the traditional inability (or laziness) in presenting names with diacritics and other accent marks. You can complain about how it "isn't English" all you want, you're just railing against reality. Resolute 22:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Where did that come from? I would have said the opposite. It's not taught in English schools, it's not used in places that have the ability to use diacritics and choose not to. People who move to English speaking countries tend to drop them from their own names. Where are you getting that the English speaking world is on fast-track to using them more and more? Here at wikipedia we use them more and more but that's us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Observation. Look at the credits of most movies these days - names include diacritics more often than not. I'm seeing it more often with athlete names - especially on ESPN and TSN's on-screen tickers (and in a couple cases, uniforms). The IIHF began adding diacritics to several of its publications a couple years ago. The Metro newspapers in Canada have begun using them. The City of Calgary is starting to add diacritics to place names (e.g. Métis Trail - and I should correct that on some related articles). Certainly Vietnamese accent marks are on an extreme end of this debate, but for French, Spanish/Latin American, Swedish and Finish names at the very, very least, it is growing increasingly common in my experience. Resolute 23:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- (EC) @Fyunck(click): "Not taught in English schools?" Why do we care what schools in England in particular are doing? Diacritics are taught in schools in mostly English-language areas where there are also substantial minority languages in the area that require them (as is the case with Spanish in the American Southwest, for example). I learned how to properly use Spanish diacritics right around puberty for this reason, and I'm in my 40s. Today, given how easy diacritics are to produce in computer-produced papers and such, they're even more frequently taught as normal. Resistance to them is highly correlated with age and with multi-cultural experience. You, Blueboar, etc., are advacing what you think is some well-accepted principle of English language writing that simply does not exist outside your heads. Even the Chicago Manual of Style in recent editions, and other actually quite conservative style guides advocating usage of diacritics where they belong. Vietnamese is not magically different from Spanish or whatever; it simply happens to use more diacritics than Spanish or French, but that's a difference of degree, nothing more. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Southern California schools do not teach them. They are not more frequently taught here at all. There is more mention of a few Spanish marks but the words are taught in the English alphabet. I see the school books and I know the teachers. But I don't really care and it doesn't really matter what any of us think as I keep saying. I came here to explain to B2C that it is a done deal here at wikipedia and that he should move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Four passive-aggressive posts in one thread in two days (that I see so far, and I'm not even looking closely) about how oppressed and hopeless you feel about the evil bad Manual of Style is getting to be a bit much. PS: If "there is more mention of a few Spanish marks" in the schools, then you've falsified your own claim that diacritics are not being taught in them. Next. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Southern California schools do not teach them. They are not more frequently taught here at all. There is more mention of a few Spanish marks but the words are taught in the English alphabet. I see the school books and I know the teachers. But I don't really care and it doesn't really matter what any of us think as I keep saying. I came here to explain to B2C that it is a done deal here at wikipedia and that he should move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Where did that come from? I would have said the opposite. It's not taught in English schools, it's not used in places that have the ability to use diacritics and choose not to. People who move to English speaking countries tend to drop them from their own names. Where are you getting that the English speaking world is on fast-track to using them more and more? Here at wikipedia we use them more and more but that's us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- As technology advances, the world is generally moving away from the traditional inability (or laziness) in presenting names with diacritics and other accent marks. You can complain about how it "isn't English" all you want, you're just railing against reality. Resolute 22:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Accuracy in Vietnamese — độ chính xác — is not accuracy in English, whether you like it or not. --В²C ☎ 22:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Liking accuracy is not JDLI. Strawman arguements are very weak. Obscenity and incivility is not welcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Không có gì hợp lý về việc sử dụng tên mà không phải là bằng tiếng Anh trong các tiêu đề của bài viết trong một tiếng Anh. --В²C ☎ 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The issue for me is this... with modern computer technology and publishing, English language sources are increasingly capable of using diacritics to present a non-western name. As this capability grows, more and more English language sources actually do use diacritics. Indeed we are quickly getting to the point where this is the norm. HOWEVER... there is a flip side to that... when a modern English Language source does not use diacritics, we have to assume that it intentionally chose not to do so. And when a significant number of sources all intentionally choose to present a name in a certain way, we are venturing into COMMONNAME territory. I suppose you could say that the OFFICIALNAME might well include diacritics, but the COMMONNAME does not. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. Look, there is nothing new with using diacritics in English. We've been spelling flambé with the diacritic for decades, in English. So, yeah, when foreign words are adopted into English with the diacritics, we use diacritics. But that's not at all the same as opening the flood gates on all use of diacritics without regard to how those names are commonly referenced in English reliable sources, which is what seems to be going on here. --В²C ☎ 23:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Blueboar, that's badly broken logic. You cannot observe a trend in one direction and then claim that every failure to follow the trend is intentional. Even in cases where it is, AT/MOS has no reason to care at all; the "intention" may simply be laziness, or jingoism, or a desire to avoid complication for reason of expedience, or whatever. It does not represent any kind of "proof that English does not use diacritics". English has actually long used diacritics and only stops when a borrowed foreign usage becomes fully assimilated into English without the diacritic (e.g. rôle -> role); sometimes this doesn't happen (e.g. jalapeño, which has not conventionally become jalapeno much less jalapenio or jalapenyo, the way piñon has been sliding toward pinyon). English is using diacritics more, not less. The Blueboar/Born2cycle position also ignores the fact that different types of sources are more likely to use the proper diacritics than others, and even different author or populations of authors are less or more likely to do so, and that the older the source the less likely it is to use them, and so on. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- In principle I'm totally in agreement with you. But here's the thing. Regardless of where this trend is, we don't know where it's going. That's why we follow usage in reliable sources. Give preference to recent ones. Fine. For usage that readers today will find natural and recognizable, that makes sense. But we should not be on the bleeding edge of using diacritics (or anything else). The examples I'm talking about have no basis in English language reliable sources for using diacritics, and yet we use them. That's my problem. --В²C ☎ 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comments - (1) Hello. I was pinged above, but others have said well what I would have said. Thanks to them. I'll keep this brief, and let others continue.
- (2) Born2cycle, I was misled by your use of duplicate signatures in this discussion to think that was a different editor ♚∰☕ supporting you.
- (3) regarding WikiProject Vietnam's article body and title "history", as some of you will know, the editors who created en.wp's Vietnamese article corpus largely created or upgraded almost the entire WikiProject Vietnam article corpus both in body and title to full fonts as Unicode fonts became universal during 2005-2008. This process happened organically with many dozens of article contributors making the upgrades and creations, but was at a lag to the universal presence of the simplest accents (French, German, Spanish), and then the second set of Unicode fonts (Czech, Polish, etc.) found across the rest of the encyclopedia. The corpus was then retitled into basic ASCII during 2011 by one editor, making significant inappropriate use of db uncontroversial move requests. The corpus of geo articles was restored in a bot-advertised and well attended RfC at WP:VIETCON.
- (4) A question: What language is this history book Vietnam - State, War, and Revolution (1945-1946) written in?, then What language is this Historical Dictionary of Vietnam (entry 'Confucianism') written in?. The choice of these two books is not random, David G. Marr is the doyen of modern historians of the Vietnamese independence movement and early communist party. His latest book illustrates his own trajectory from manually adding full Vietnamese to typewriter print, to early word-processors with no accents, to now full proofread Unicode; his trajectory is emblematic because it is an exemplary case of what has happened with other specialist academic's works. The second example, is similar but different: Bruce M. Lockhart, and William J. Duiker's second (2006) edition Historical Dictionary of Vietnam has now been superseded by a third (2010), but it was the 2006 edition which marked the transition from ASCII to full Unicode (or rather Unicode plus proofreader, since it is the proofreader not the software which is the expense). The second article illustrates not same author upgrading in newer books, but same book upgrading in newer editions. The point though is the same, the technical limitations of fonts (less important or not important at all today), and costs/delays for publishers of proofreading (exponentially more important) are reducing, and the gap with Maltese and Lithuanian etc. narrowing or eliminated. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- This should be simply a matter of following reliable sources. And following reliable sources implicitly means weighting the better sources over the worse sources. This does not mean "authoritative" sources win, in fact the most authoritative sources (birth certificates, government records) tend to be rejectable as they are primary sources. The best source is an independently, reputably published secondary source, itself referencing reliable sources. If such sources introduce the subject, in English, using diacritics, then probably Wikipedia should do the same. For an RM dispute, finding these sources should be easy, as they should be already listed in the reference list.
- My observation is that RM questions become most disjointed, difficult to distil, and difficult for non-regulars to join, when they involve arguments based upon original research citing primary sources. And the biggest time wasting occurs when arguing over articles that don't even have any quality sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Use of diacritics in English isn't "nuts". Those editors who assert that it is may be delighted that the bio on former Chinese strongman isn't entitled "Dèng Xiǎopíng", but they miss out on the crucial distinction as to the use of Roman script language which is native versus an adjunct to pronunciation. We do not use "Ио́сиф Виссарио́нович Ста́лин" either. Clearly, the use of pinyin is rubbish except to aid pronunciation because Chinese has a native script, which is unidirectional in its use (you will know if you have ever tried reverse-engineering pinyin into sinograms). So it's quite correct that Chinese names in WP do not employ diacritics; we do not use the Cyrillic alphabet because it isn't Roman (and there have been no end of argument over Novak Djokovic).
I'm not saying I support for use of Vietnamese diacritics without reservation, for I am as intimidated by their use as the next man, but it's quite something else to say or imply their use is trivia or fancruft. Au contraire. It is not a question of like or dislike, but their encyclopaedic value and thus forms part of our mission which includes, IMHO, attempting to impart accuracy of information. Reliable sources may continue to use names without diacritics, and there may be no need/rush to do so where there is no ambiguity, but that expediency (for whatever reason) doesn't prove whether they are right or wrong, and ought to be considered a matter of stylistic preference. However, we must avail ourselves of FL reliable sources to ensure that their diacritics are correctly applied when we do use them, in the same way that we would always elect for more accurate citations if we know the one in the article is materially incorrect. Titles with diacritics remain easy enough to find through the use of redirects. Whether diacritics usage is in a uniform manner across the project is not all that relevant because it seems obvious to me that will happen someday. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- @In ictu oculi: your argument is a classic case of the specialist style fallacy. Of course specialist works on Vietnam or Vietnamese history or the Vietnamese language use diacritics. But that's not relevant. The relevant question is whether a general encyclopedia like the English Wikipedia should do so. Maybe it should; I have an open mind at present. However the arguments need to be based on relevant sources of styles. None of the "quality" newspapers on either side of the Atlantic whose sites I can access use the kind of diacritics necessary for Vietnamese. Quality magazines like National Geographic don't do so either. What is the evidence that this is anything other than a specialist style which, as SMcCandlish has so eloquently argued, is out of place in Wikipedia? "Đặng Hữu Phúc" compared to "Dang Huu Phuc" certainly fails the principle of least astonishment for the great majority of readers. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:Peter coxhead, maybe, but this isn't the question is it. Do you know what the question is? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- In ictu oculi and User:Peter coxhead, there are many ways to phrase the question ultimately at issue here, but isn't this one of them? Do we use diacritics as they are commonly used in reliable English sources, or do we use diacritics as they are used in specialist sources? --В²C ☎ 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- We use diacritics as they are used in non-English and specialist sources, unless it can be shown that an individual does not use it themselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click) and Peter coxhead: Right. There is no war between specialist and non-specialist sources, only between camps who believe that specialist sources saying that [style rule X] is required are law and non-specialist sources that don't use [style rule X] are crap, which is what happened in the bird capitalization debate, and most SSF debates. In the diacritics debate, there is no question that the diacritics are somehow incorrect; we know they're not. The main anti-diacritic position is that only specialist and no generalist reliable sources ever use them, which isn't true, and that they "thus" should not be used on en.wiki; this is a completely different sort of argument than that against capitalizing the common names of species or or job titles. It's much closer to the dashes and hyphens debates. There's a huge gulf between "our publication doesn't capitalize common names of species or capitalize job titles, because virtually all style guides agree on this point" and "our publication can't be bothered to use en-dashes or diacritics because we're in a hurry, they're not on the keyboards, and most of our readers don't care", which is what's going on with both lack of diacritics and lack of proper en-dash usage in many common, mainstream publications. The second anti-diacritics argument is that they're somehow a WP:ASTONISH problem, but English has been using diacritics in borrowed material for very long time (and even internally - the umlaut used to be somewhat commonly used in words like "coöperation", and poetry and music writing have long used acute or macron marks to indicate stress and full pronunciation of otherwise often elided syllables, and so on). There is no even vaguely literate reader of English who does not understand what diacritics are and that they can be safely ignored when they do not convey anything to you personally. Vietnamese is simply different by degree; it uses more diacritics than most languages, but there's nothing WP:ASTONISHing about their use. Being astonished by the fact of how Vietnamese names and words are properly written is an astonishment about facts about the real world, like how big Megalodon teeth are or how fast sound waves travel. Approaching this from another angle entirely: Every style rule (well, every rule, really) has consequences. Permissiveness of José requires permissiveness of Ngọc, too. I'm certainly not going to sign up to tell Vietnamese we're going to censor it because Americans and Brits are more familiar with French and Spanish, so this other language can just go screw off, because some under-educated English speakers are somehow "astonished" when we treat it's Latin-script orthography like that of any other Latin-script language. And see Obiwankenobi's comment below about sources incapable of rendering diacritics not being reliable sources for whether diacritics should be used; that rules out an enormous proportion of the non-diacritics sources. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- We use diacritics as they are used in non-English and specialist sources, unless it can be shown that an individual does not use it themselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- In ictu oculi and User:Peter coxhead, there are many ways to phrase the question ultimately at issue here, but isn't this one of them? Do we use diacritics as they are commonly used in reliable English sources, or do we use diacritics as they are used in specialist sources? --В²C ☎ 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:Peter coxhead, maybe, but this isn't the question is it. Do you know what the question is? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think you need to modulate that - it should be "Do we use diacritics as they are used in reliable english sources which themselves are capable of using diacritics". It is pointless to use a black and white book to argue about the color of Picasso's paintings, and in the same way it is pointless to use a source that never uses diacritics whether Francois should be spelled François. A WP:RS must be judged as reliable for the claim it is making; if the source itself is incapable of rendering diacritics - especially more complex ones, like Vietnamese, then we should not use it as a source for how to spell a title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Obi-Wan Kenobi, why should the reason for the non-use of the diacritics matter? What matters is what the sources that our readers are accustomed to reading actually use; not why. That's how we determine what is recognizable and natural to them.
Besides, isn't the "they would [use the complex diacritics] if they could [render them]" argument a violation of WP:CRYSTAL anyway? I mean, we can't really know if they would use them if they could, and we should not speculate, right? --В²C ☎ 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's a good point; one might argue, if one only read low-MOS newspapers, that Hạ and Hà are actually the same name - but they're not. So on recognizeability, I think that point is granted, and it's possible that if we look at the bulk of sources, they would use Ha Anh and not Hạ Anh. But other WP:CRITERIA come into play as well. And, we also know that some sources - because of technical limitations or editorial cost - decide to NOT reproduce diacritics at all - thus the choice to eliminate diacritics on a single name was not taken, rather diacritics are eliminated globally. As such, I am not making a claim that source X which declines to use diacritics anywhere WOULD use diacritics for Vietnamese names IF IT COULD - rather I'm saying we have no idea, and so can't use that source to determine the correct spelling (in the same way we couldn't use a black and white book to determine the correct color of a Picasso painting). So it's not speculation, it's rather saying per WP:RS, this is not a good source for the correct/common spelling of the name. For me, a good source is one that USES diacritics, but then declines to do so for a particular entity. A simple example is Saint-Étienne - the correct way to spell it is with the accent on top of the 'E' - this diacritical mark changes the pronounciation so is not simply stylistic - but nonetheless you will find the accents on top of capital letters ignored in many sources, especially older ones, as the printing presses didn't have the capacity to do accents on top of the E. But should we move the city name accordingly? No, I don't think so. COMMONNAME was in my view meant to distinguish between different names, not different typographical renderings of the same exact name.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Obi-Wan Kenobi, why should the reason for the non-use of the diacritics matter? What matters is what the sources that our readers are accustomed to reading actually use; not why. That's how we determine what is recognizable and natural to them.
- I think you need to modulate that - it should be "Do we use diacritics as they are used in reliable english sources which themselves are capable of using diacritics". It is pointless to use a black and white book to argue about the color of Picasso's paintings, and in the same way it is pointless to use a source that never uses diacritics whether Francois should be spelled François. A WP:RS must be judged as reliable for the claim it is making; if the source itself is incapable of rendering diacritics - especially more complex ones, like Vietnamese, then we should not use it as a source for how to spell a title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I find it funny that always the old fallacy of quoting nonlatin titles as argument against diacritics resurfaces. Cyrillic or Chinese do not enter the issue at all. We are talking only Latin based scripts here. It has been established that, contrary to what those that want diacritics removed say, even the English language makes regular use of diacritics. Usage in English sources is overcoming the dark ages of technical inability. We being an encyclopedia should strive for correctness not taking people for stupid. The subject of Vietnamese has in particularly been talked to death on the relevant guideline pages and a previous situation where Vietnamese articles had been stripped of their diacritics was due to extensive sockpuppetry, hiding of previous relevant discussions and misrepresentation of sources. Do we really want to follow that lead? Agathoclea (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agathoclea, I find it funny that you try to paint the debate as if it is about using diacritics or not using diacritics. That's a strawman argument obviously won by the side arguing that we use diacritics.
What the debate is about is the extent to which we use diacritics. In particular, do we use them to the full extent technically possible, or do we use them only to the extent that they are commonly used in English reliable sources?
The reason the nonlatin titles examples are used is to stress the absurdity of the "to the full extent technically possible" argument. I mean, if we are not going to draw the line at "commonly used in English reliable sources" for diacritic use on Latin titles, then why draw the line at Latin titles? Why not use nonlatin titles when appropriate? After all, the nonlatin title is often more accurate, and it's technically possible. That's the same argument used for crossing the "commonly used in English reliable sources" line in order to defend full use of diacritics. --В²C ☎ 18:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agathoclea, I find it funny that you try to paint the debate as if it is about using diacritics or not using diacritics. That's a strawman argument obviously won by the side arguing that we use diacritics.
- I think the reason to draw the line there is because latin characters, even with diacritics, are considered nonetheless legible to english speakers, whereas cryllic or arabic would not be. OTOH, even there we have made exceptions, there was a big debate that ended with Li_(surname_李), since it was decided the chinese character was the best way of disambiguating, and that was the method that reliable sources used.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's a valid response, though I suggest the legibility of "Đặng Hữu Phúc" compared to "Dang Huu Phuc", for most English readers, can be legitimately questioned. Is "Đặng Hữu Phúc" really significantly less legible than, say, "Владимир Ильич Ленин"? Anyway, I was simply explaining why nonlatin examples are given.
Li_(surname_李) is quintessential WP:IAR. A truly unusual and special case; that's all. --В²C ☎ 19:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree Li is a great example of IAR, and I supported the use of chinese characters there for IAR reasons for the most part. Ultimately it's Vietnamese that gets the short end of the stick here, as noted before no-one complains about the occasional José or even rôle or coöpt, indeed we have a whole article devoted to the subject of english words which are written with diacritics. Vietnamese, however, with its huge number of diacritics, and multiple diacritics, is sometimes seen as shocking to, shall we say, "western" eyes, and some have pointed out that there are sources which use western european diacritics but NOT vietnamese ones. This is a reasonable argument, and I would not suggest use of VN diacritics for every VN page. I nonetheless think that "Đặng Hữu Phúc" is significantly more legible than "Владимир Ильич Ленин" - I don't need to know vietnamese script to know that is roughly Dang Huu Phuc, whereas I'd need to know cryllic to know that В is actually pronounced like a "V".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I won't dispute that. I think we have an understanding. The "wide open" acceptance of diacritics in titles does not necessarily open the door to the use of nonlatin titles, though much of the argument used to defend broad diacritic would also apply to use of nonlatin titles. I suggest diacritic proponents stress the use of latin alphabets along with diacritics and the recognizability aspect when defending broad diacritic use. --В²C ☎ 20:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- exactly, and except in very special cases I would oppose the use of non-Latin characters in titles - even the Icelandic ones are pushing it a bit but I'm not riled up enough to go after them, is 'eth' is a Latin character? As for the example I gave above re:sources that use diacritics but decline to for certain names, I remember in one of the VN move discussions we found exactly that - books which used full VN diacritics for some lesser known names but declined to use those same diacritics for much more famous names which had therefore achieved English-language exonym status more or less. In that instance we can infer an editorial decision, as they clearly had the capacity to use diacritics but declined to for some common words like Saigon and Vietnam. If the sources uses no diacritics at all it's impossible to determine any editorial choice for a specific name however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I won't dispute that. I think we have an understanding. The "wide open" acceptance of diacritics in titles does not necessarily open the door to the use of nonlatin titles, though much of the argument used to defend broad diacritic would also apply to use of nonlatin titles. I suggest diacritic proponents stress the use of latin alphabets along with diacritics and the recognizability aspect when defending broad diacritic use. --В²C ☎ 20:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Re:
'Is "Đặng Hữu Phúc" significantly more legible than "Владимир Ильич Ленин"?'
Yes, of course it is. Any other pointless questions? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree Li is a great example of IAR, and I supported the use of chinese characters there for IAR reasons for the most part. Ultimately it's Vietnamese that gets the short end of the stick here, as noted before no-one complains about the occasional José or even rôle or coöpt, indeed we have a whole article devoted to the subject of english words which are written with diacritics. Vietnamese, however, with its huge number of diacritics, and multiple diacritics, is sometimes seen as shocking to, shall we say, "western" eyes, and some have pointed out that there are sources which use western european diacritics but NOT vietnamese ones. This is a reasonable argument, and I would not suggest use of VN diacritics for every VN page. I nonetheless think that "Đặng Hữu Phúc" is significantly more legible than "Владимир Ильич Ленин" - I don't need to know vietnamese script to know that is roughly Dang Huu Phuc, whereas I'd need to know cryllic to know that В is actually pronounced like a "V".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's a valid response, though I suggest the legibility of "Đặng Hữu Phúc" compared to "Dang Huu Phuc", for most English readers, can be legitimately questioned. Is "Đặng Hữu Phúc" really significantly less legible than, say, "Владимир Ильич Ленин"? Anyway, I was simply explaining why nonlatin examples are given.
- I think the reason to draw the line there is because latin characters, even with diacritics, are considered nonetheless legible to english speakers, whereas cryllic or arabic would not be. OTOH, even there we have made exceptions, there was a big debate that ended with Li_(surname_李), since it was decided the chinese character was the best way of disambiguating, and that was the method that reliable sources used.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)