Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-19/Paneriai

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Paneriai
Status	closed
Request date	01:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Dr._Dan User:Radeksz User:Jacurek User:Mikej007 User:Lokyz User:84.240.27.89 User:Novickas pending resolution of Arbcom case
Mediator(s)	-- Raziel  teatime  17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC), Xavexgoem (talk)
Comment	on hold pending an arbcom case

Request details

Where is the dispute?

The issue is at the article for Paneriai, a suburb of Vilnius, specifically in the lead paragraph.

Who is involved?

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

• User:Dr._Dan
• User:Radeksz
• User:Jacurek
• User:Mikej007
• User:Lokyz

And some anon IPs

What is the dispute?

There is a lot of discussion and spirited debate about whether to include the Polish name for this suburb in the lead. Lots of edit warring and so forth, and accusations of POV flying from all sides. I am not familiar enough with the history to know all the details, but this reaching the level of a "you can't include the German name for this town, it insults my grandfather who died in WWI" debate. Unfortunately, there were historical atrocities committed at this location, and this history is coloring the conversation. I know these kinds of conflicts happen all the time on wikipedia. The edit conflicts have begun to reach other articles too, as various people are trying to make a WP:POINT about their positions by adding in Polish names for other Lithuanian towns for which no one has any rationale of doing so, etc. I gather there is some kind of rationale for doing it here.

What would you like to change about this?

The participants are not engaging with one another at all but are instead restating and restating the same arguments without much hope at consensus that I can see.

How do you think we can help?

I came to the article via a request for 3rd opinion, and I asked the various sides to explain their cases without resorting to calling each other fascists or propagandists, but the tone immediately turned aggressive and negative, which I will only react negatively to myself so I want to stay away.

Mediator response

First off, I would like to make clear to Radeksz and everyone else that I was not the one who wrote the opening sections on what the dispute was, those sections was created by user:Dmz5 (the one who created this page) and that is his perspective of the events that have taken place, not mine. Secondly, after looking at the talk page and revision history of the article in question (as well as several related pages), here's what the situation seems to be. There was a disagreement between users Radeksz, Jacurek, and Mikej007 and users Dr. Dan and Lokyz about whether to include the Polish name for the suburb of a now Lithuanian city. Radeksz and co. said that the name should be added because it is a commonly used name for the town in 10% of English sources (per WP:NCGN) and Dr. Dan and Lokyz argued that it was undue wight and that it should not be included. They also questioned the reason for placing it in the lead of the article. There was a good amount of edit warring, as well as personal attacks coming from both sides. A 3O request was made, and the user who accepted the request (Dmz5) later requested that MedCab handle the dispute.

Wikipedia guidelines say that as long as 10% of all English sources use the alternate name, it can and should be added to the article. As for placing it in the lead, WP:NCGN states that it can be placed in the lead as long as 10% of all english sources use it. I haven't seen any real argument for not including it except for the undue weight argument.

I believe that the article should include the alternate name since it's used by 10% of English sources (as Radeksz shows in Talk:Paneriai). I also agree with Dr. Dan that if this is done, it should be done to all geographical entities equally, however I think it should only be done to those geographical entities if 10% of English sources use the alternate name of that specific place. It seems like this is already being done, so mediation is probably no longer needed at this point, but if not then I think that is the best solution to this issue.

By the way, as you may know, some of the editors involved are currently absent. I know Radeksz will be back in about 2 weeks, but I'm not sure when Jacurek will be available again, so we should wait to reach an agreement (if an agreement needs to be made) until they return. -- Raziel  teatime  22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediator notes

I have taken this case and am currently investigating the dispute. -- Raziel  teatime  18:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm heading this case in Raziel's absence. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved a bunch of stuff to the talk page for brevity's sake. If you want anything specific restored, please ask. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Could the Mediator explain what this comment [1] is supposed to mean? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I had an idea; I forgot what it was. I'll change it...

But the gist was that the discussion right now seemed kind of sluggish, so I had another idea. Then I went to bed. Then I woke up having completely forgotten what it was.

If you're expecting a huge amount of seriousness from me, then I am truly the wrong mediator for you ;-) Gotta keep some things light. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that the comment section is primarily for the benefit of other mediators looking at the case list. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm even more confused now than before originally asking the question. Don't get me wrong, about seriousness anyway. I like things light. Also to make sense. That comment was primarily for the benefit of other mediators? O.K. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment is taken by our bot and listed on the casepage. No, it doesn't make sense. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Then it's probably appropriately placed right where it is. Although when I took a peek at the case page, I missed the part..."We are the cabal, mwahaha". Dr. Dan (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Gone

I am deeply sorry about this, but due to some IRL problems I am simply unable to mediate this case any longer. I've requested another mediator to take over for me. He should be able to handle this better than I. -- Raziel  teatime  18:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not worry, you did a very good job. I think you were great and you really tried but this is not easy. No offense, but I think that whoever takes over this job is "nuts". Most administrators don't want to have anything to do with Eastern European disputes. It is a big mess full of editors who are so nationalistic that they can't even see anything beyond their "sick little nationalistic world". Little "bloody" simple thing, such as name of the city in a different language turns into nasty WAR. Problematic nationalistic editors would have to disappear or retire in order to stop this insanity. Thanks again for the effort and I hope to see you again somewhere around.--Jacurek (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Raziel. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, I hope nothing overly serious in real life! VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• NOTE From Mediator: Please do not make any personal attacks while discussing the issue. I really don't want this whole thing to blow up just because someone got mad and decided to get back at someone by insulting them. Thanks! -- Raziel  teatime  19:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think in this dispute, as well as for all the Lithuanian places, especially in Wilno region ,we should add hte Polish names, as well as maybe Yiddish, Russian and Belarusian names. This country has a unique and divere history and the official languages varied in different periods of time. Ruthenian in medieval times, Polish in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russian in the Russian Empire, Polish in Poland Wilno Region and Lithuanian in Lithania. Also, many of the cities have rich Jewish heritage, with some of them having Jewish majority in different times. You can see linguistic diversity in List of Lithuanian Places in other languages. I think that regardless of the political point of view to what lead to different things in Lithuanian history, we can't just delete it's past by saying it offends current Lithuanian fellings. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people, and official past names of places, that reflect their heritage, past, and sometimes ethnic composition are needed. This is also the common rule for Hungarian names in Transilvania, German names in Western Poland, German names in Czech Republic, German names in Kaliningrad oblast and ext. Moreover, the polish cities, that have some Lithuanian heritage, have their Lithuanian names shown in the heading of the article - see Bialystok and Suwalki.--Mikej007 (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• As I've already indicated to Raziel, tomorrow morning I am going away and will not have reliable access to the internet again until mid September. For what it's worth, here's my piece before that happens, and I might as well make it long and exhaustive.

First, I want to endorse everything that Mikej007 says above. The reason this is a recurrent problematic dispute is because editors like Dr. Dan and Lokyz claim (implicitly - they never really come out and admit it) some kind of exception for Lithuanian places from standard Wikipedia guidelines. According to these guidelines alternative names (in parentheses) can be included in articles on places if at least 10% of English language sources use these names, or if a substantial population of speakers of another language/ethnicity have lived in the place. This is why we have "Breslau" in Wroclaw, "Stettin" in Szczecin or, more directly, "Suvalkai" in Suwałki. These criteria are well satisfied for Paneriai, as I've shown on the talk page, so that the Polish and Yiddish name "Ponary" should be included as an alternative name - this is particularly true since this was a site of a major massacre of Jews and Poles by the Nazis (additionally I'd like to note that even the Polish village of the same name, Ponary, includes the German name "Ponarien", bot-added. Let me underline that - bot-added).

Since the objecting users (Dr. Dan and Lokyz) cannot argue with the guideline, nor with the evidence presented to support the application of this guideline, they (Dr. Dan in particular) resort to diversionary tactics - changing the subject, asking pointless and endless questions, irrelevant comments as well as the standard personal attacks and questioning of motives (and even quoting Lynard Skynard lyrics for no apparent reason) (in the interest of trying to retain a shred of good faith towards these users I'm not gonna say anything about the strange anon IP that all of sudden appeared on these articles). They do not address the issue. And because of this the discussions on the talk page end up being fruitless and get bogged down. We already had this discussion at another Lithuanian city's article Biržai and only after I asked for a Third Opinion was the situation finally resolved (and there I was dealing with a much more constructive and reasonable user, Novickas). I was hoping that asking for third opinion on this issue - Paneriai/Ponary - would likewise help to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.

As to the recent development, I think I detect a bit of initial bias in Raziel's description of the matter, particularly this part: The edit conflicts have begun to reach other articles too, as various people are trying to make a WP:POINT about their positions by adding in Polish names for other Lithuanian towns for which no one has any rationale of doing so, etc.. What actually happened here is this:

• As part of my argument, I pointed out that most Polish cities had alternative names in their ledes.
• Dr. Dan found a few which didn't (well, they sort of did, but anyway)
• Jacurek and Mike said, "fine, go ahead and put alternative names in there"
• Dr. Dan went around and in addition to putting names in, bolded them and put them first (i.e. not as "alternative names" but as "proper names")
• Jacurek and Mike (I think) put Yiddish and Polish names, as alternative names, in the lede of Vilnius (where it actually belonged for awhile) and maybe some other Lithuanian cities. Presumably this was done with Dr. Dan's approval (see his comments about "new consensus").

(An illustrative fact here is that no Polish editors involved, or Mike, give a fish about whether or not Lithuanian or German or Yiddish alternative names are included in articles on Polish cities, but Dr. Dan and Lokyz insist that no Polish names must appear anywhere near a Lithuanian place's article. And this is a revealing double standard).

The bottom line on the above is that while this has spilled on to other articles, it's not a case of putting Polish names in Lithuanian places to make a POINT. If anything it's the opposite - Dr. Dan putting in alternative names in Polish cities to make a POINT (as in, if you do this to me, I'll get you back!), without bothering to do the work to show that the relevant Wiki guideline actually applies (his silly and irrelevant example of Etats-Unis is another case in point). What is required here is quite simple - a consistent application of the relevant Wikipedia guideline. The one that says that an alternative name should be added if at least 10% of English sources use it or if a significant number of people of another nationality/ethnicity/language used to live there. This is what I've been saying from the beginning, this is what I'm saying now, and this is why I've asked for third opinion on this matter twice already. If the objecting users have a problem with the guideline then they should lobby or attempt in some way to get it changed. Otherwise the guideline should be applied. We don't ignore guidelines simply because in some cases they rub somebody's nationalistic feelings the wrong way.radek (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A symptom, not the problem

This might be a good time to discuss representation of historical names in the Baltic States. Even now, for example, English language writings on WWII in Latvia refer to Libau, Goldingen, and all. Anything in English on Vilnius before independence (that is, common usage at the time) refers to Wilno, less often to Vilna, and, again, such names have continued to be used in scholarly works.
   Personally I am for sticking to current usage because every non-current place-name in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia usually signifies some conquering power and I have no desire to enshrine any one of those in WP. That said, it's not that simple. Polish->Lithuania, German->Latvia, German/Danish-> Estonia... most non-native place names have been common English usage at some time and have had a way of surviving to the present particularly in scholarship--and it may be better to opt for inclusion of some historical names than to leave out.
   I've only come to this editorial modification to my own personal position because, as I've mentioned, Libau et al. keep popping up in scholarship--and it's a disservice to our readers to not let them know, for example, that Liepāja = Libau. This would require buy-in on the part of, in particular, Baltic editors, and should be part of an effort to improve usability of Baltic WP content.
   As I've indicated, my personal ideal would be current native names only for the reason I've cited, but I'm willing to entertain options if it is done as part of a standard with clear benefits identified. I do not support making it an open season smorgasbord to do, say, Lithuanian, Polish, Ukrainian, Yiddish, Belarussian,... I do (reluctantly) support the primary English language usage name prior to independence—as this is the English Wikipedia. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Very pithy, very well put, Vecrumba. Part of the conundrum, unless of course the "New Consensus" is to apply that "smorgasbord" wholesale into the leads of articles, will be resolving the problem with lead placement. Should all of this stuff, no matter how undue, be added to satisfy an agenda, wrapped around google hits, bending Wiki Policy to it's limits, be placed in the lead? Or as miscellaneous info? If the former is what we want, and all agree to, fine, and it should be applied to all geographical entities equally. If it is a policy that will be applied selectively here and there with the kind of objections that I just finished dealing with at User talk:Dmz5 (Bаршава), it will be a "tough row to hoe". Dr. Dan (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to say it out loud - whatever this "new consensus" that Dr. Dan imagines is, I don't think I'm part of it, mostly because it is not a consensus and because it doesn't follow Wikipedia policy. Taking a "smorgasboard" approach to alternative names is silly and will most likely result in an annoying tit-for-tat as in "you put your name in my city, I'm gonna stick the Chinese and Polynesian names into every one of your cities!". Simply, all that is needed is a consistent application of the existing guideline - if more than 10% of English language sources use the name, then we can put it in as an alternative name. If not then not. For example, I seriously doubt that 10% of English language sources use the Hungarian name for Krakow so we don't have to worry about it.radek (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys I can't contribute to this discussion at the moment because I had an accident last night ( broken ribs, collarbone etc.) I will try to get back to editing as soon as possible but now I'm in too much pain. Talk to you soon.--Jacurek (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Get better! The discussion will still likely be going on...

Again, I completely support including all historical place names in articles, however, the place name for the title and in the lead should be the current one unless there is clear and compelling 3rd party evidence to the contrary regarding current common English usage (for example, the BGN database). I also have come to support, albeit out of editorial necessity and not personal preference, the inclusion of pre-independence common English language usage for place names despite, for the Baltics, the most common often being the language of a hostile power at some point. Any other solution will render article leads into "list of place names for X" instead of reading like an article lead by just sticking to other English language usage the reader should be aware of. Again, this is not my personal preference, however, I have come to believe it is the editorially responsible action here, and which also serendipitously bridges a good deal of the gap between native versus foreign language smorgasbord without getting into the heated nationalities debate. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Vercumba, what you suggst is fine, but it should be a common policy to thw whole Wikipedia and that is not the case. In fact, most of the time coomon historical names are presentd in the lead sucj as Hungarian→Romania, German→Poland, German→Czech Republic, Hungarian→Uzhgorod region, Polish→Western Ukraine, Polish→Western Belarus and I can go on and on. In the specific example of Lithuania, the Polish names represented at some time the majority of the population of those places, and until last century the official name of the place. As for the Yiddish, can we deny that in many cases, mojority or plurality of that city's population was Jewish - meaning that the most used name was the Jewish one? I think what Radek proposed is fair - 10% of common current English usage or minority today or in the past (we have to decide how far to go - I think a century is enough).

Btw, I frankly don't think that your comment about "hostile power" is in place. We can debate about it endlessly, but just think about it - is a country that represents the ethnic majority/plurality of the local population is a "hostile power"?--Mikej007 (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear - the "at least 10%" isn't what I propose. It is what the current Wikipedia policy is. I'm only trying to follow it.radek (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mikej007, you will note I stated "the most common...". Don't misunderstand me to mean that a shtetl is an invading power. Unfortunately, my point and concern are that place names are often used on Wikipedia to open old historical wounds to lord past conquest, suzerainty, and hegemony on the current (and hopefully rightful) inhabitants of a territory. The "10%" solution (that is, creating an ultimately arbitrary formula) opens WP to that abuse. As I have noted, this is the English Wikipedia, and the lead is best served with alternate common English place names prior to current usage and not with all significant language variants from significant periods, whether prior or current.

   I certainly welcome a wider standard regarding alternate names in an article lead, however, the proverbial elephant is best eaten and digested one bite at a time. If we can come up with a standard for Baltic place names, then perhaps that can work elsewhere. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me to mean that a shtetl is an invading power - It's not only about that - in some cases, especially in Lithuania - the majotrity of the populatuin as not Lithuanian (and it's not until this very day). And even if it is a majority, the ones who built Riga were the German, Swedish and Russian. Should we erase that history - definitely not. Shpuld we erase Jewish history - abruptly murdered by an invading power (with collaboration of the locals in many cases) - definitely not. This is the case not only with the Baltics, but with all other areas that I mentioned. Thus - 10% minority (present/past).--Mikej007 (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a mediation on this issue was attempted and failed in the past: Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution. Bottom line: the region has a history that is shared by many countries, yet a notable faction of Lithuanian editors has adopted a course that differs from Belorusian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish editors, by attempting to remove all non-Lithuanian names from some articles. I consider such attempt at rewriting history damaging to this project; as many works in English use (not very consistently) different spellings, those spelling should be present in the affected articles, particularly when those articles deal with history of more than one country. In other words: nobody is saying that Paneriai is not Lithuanian, but in the past, this wasn't so, and other names were used (and that usage, rightfully, survived in modern English literature and shouldn't be censored from Wikipedia). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

..." a notable faction of Lithuanian editors has adopted a course that differs from Belorusian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish editors". P.P., which Estonian editors were you thinking of when you wrote this? Dr. Dan (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

..."nobody is saying that Paneriai is not Lithuanian, but in the past, this wasn't so"...P.P., did you mean between 1922-1939? Or did you have some other time frame in mind? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

..."the region has a history that is shared by many countries, yet a notable faction of Lithuanian editors has adopted a course that differs from Belorusian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish editors".. I find it odd that you, P.P., excluded Germany from the region. Was there any particular reason? And btw, which Jewish editors? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And this is why mediation or discussion never works here - Dr. Dan just tries to change the subject, brings up irrelevancies and thinks that he's a host of a question/answer gameshow, inbetween making various implications and "hints" and who knows what else.radek (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing the subject how, Radeksz? Each of the above queries are directly related to a statement made at this discussion, right on this page. If they were truly irrelevant you should have made your snide comment about game show hosts after they were posted. As to "why mediation or discussion never works here", maybe it's because people pick and choose when and what they will respond to. I'd still like some answers from P.P., perhaps he was busy with matters like this [2]. Like you, he evidently doesn't agree with me that there was a new consensus allowing the placement of alternate names into these articles. Evidently only Mikej007 seemed to agree with me out of the parties involved here. I say evidently because he hasn't protested or changed P.P.'s edit. Due to Jacurek's unfortunate accident I can't determine how sincere he was here [3]. Perhaps he still favors a two way consensus. It seems that once again certain editors are "gung-ho" about placing Polish toponyms into the leads of Lithuanian geographical articles, but not so keen in having other languages placed in theirs. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know..I'm reading all this just can't type, will join asap. Thanks P.S. Yes, I still favor a two way consensus. --Jacurek (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, your comments about Dr. Dan could easily be interpreted as a personal attack, so I will reiterate: Please do not make personal attacks. Do not even make a remark that sounds like, or could be interpreted as, a personal attack. It really is not going to help.

Also, forgive me for asking, but am I correct in assuming that this "new consensus" is to place alternate names in not just the Paneriai article, but other articles regarding geographical places? -- Raziel  teatime  19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct--Jacurek (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain that to P.P. regarding Warsaw and his recent reverting of Mikej007 with this [4]. I believe Radeksz is not in favor of any "new consensus" either. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if Russian is necessary in Warsaw's article but for sure there should be English and Yiddish spellings there. If we start placing Russian names then minus well we should have one in German also. Please be aware that somebody will start placing the Russian names in articles about Lithuanian cities such as Vilnius for example. Hope this will not create any problem. (Sorry can't type anymore...)--Jacurek (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Khmm, and where the consensus was reached? Please provide any diffs where everyone has agreed that it is a consensus?--Lokyz (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "Not sure if Russian is necessary in Warsaw's article but for sure there should be English and Yiddish spellings there." Why not, Jacurek? The Russian people are a great people, the Russian language is a great language. Warsaw was part of Russia for a long time. For someone who is in favor of placing Polish toponyms into Lithuanian geographical toponyms down to the smallest hamlet and now even "neighborhoods" that seems odd to say the least. A few hours ago you made this comment [5] What's up with that? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep it reasonable. English and Yddish name are important for Warsaw singe a) it is English wiki and b) beforw WWII Warsaw (like most cities and towns in Poland) had a large Jewish minority. But Russian? Why? Because of the Russian partition? If yes, we should add the French name too (due to Duchy of Warsaw), as well as Russian name to Berlin and German to Paris :D As far as I am concerned, the important questions are a) is the given name used enough in English literature to justify it and b) is the history of the place connected with a given language (usually due to part of local population speaking the language as primary language. Ask those simple questions about every place, and you'll know which names are important - and which are just POV-pushing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Keeping it reasonable would be fine. Keeping a balanced approach would not only be reasonable but promote knowledge for the "convenience" of the reader as well. Warsaw was part of Russia for a very long time. As for the Duchy of Warsaw, it existed about six years. As for French names, I believe I recently discussed them with Radeksz here [[6]]. I find it very troubling that the argument for placing Polish names in Lithuanian articles would take precedence over placing Russian names in the appropriate Polish articles. Hopefully not everyone in this discussion agrees with this premise. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Warsaw was part of the Russia for a very long time. Really brilliant logic, just a curiousity: when do you plan adding Аляска to Alaska? Loosmark (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Loosmark, I wasn't planning on it at all. What I'll do instead is bring up one of the reasons that some object to placing the Russian toponym in the Warsaw article. Remember this? [7] In that example you seemed upset with the idea of placing the Russian version in English WP. I could be wrong (about you being upset). But when you posted your remarks at User talk:Dmz5 regarding your position ..."i don't support Yiddish or Russian toponyms for Lithuanian geography neither am i against them i simply don't have an opinion about that", you didn't clarify your position on placing Polish toponyms for Lithuanian geography. Could you tell us what it is now? Otherwise you might be accused by someone of changing the subject. Like I was here [8] Dr. Dan (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania was part of the Russia (in its various guises) for much longer - so why are you not adding Russian names to Vilnius, Kaunas or Trakai...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Really, how much longer? Unless of course you think the members of the PZPR (in its various guises) in Katowice who were shouting "Niech Żyje" weren't "really" part of Russia again. If so, you're in good company. Gerald Ford didn't think so either. In his own words....[9] Dr. Dan (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should use Russian spelling in either (Warsaw or Vilnius) but will not object if there is one. English and Yiddish however should be in both. I know Dr.Dan will not like it, but I also know that Vilnius should have Polish spelling as well since the city was held by Poland for so long with majority of the population in the past being Polish. Vilnius is a very specific case. I understand Lithuanian editors who object the inclusion of Polish spelling for historical reasons. Lithuanians view the Polish presence in Vilnius as an occupation of their capital and Poles see Vilnius (Wilno) as city they helped to build and as a city of the Polish heritage. We should agree however that Lithuanian capital Vilnius shares a lot of history with Poland and include the Polish spelling in the lead.--Jacurek (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"English and Yiddish however should be in both". Jacurek, what does English have to do with this mess? Is anyone trying to exclude English from English WP? What are you talking about? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, of course English is already here.--Jacurek (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

My answer to Dr.Dan's question above: i don't have a specific position on Polish toponyms for Lithuanian geography in the sense that there should be some special treatment for them. Simply, I totally agree with what radek wrote somewhere above, we only need apply wikipedia's policy on the subject which is clear enough. Loosmark (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, let me point out that Wikipedia already HAS a policy/guideline to address this very issue and no new "new consensus" or anything like that is required. The already existing policy is a good one as it differentiates between places which are referred to by alternative names in English language sources or have had a significant presence (troops in barracks don't count) of other language people living there, from frivolous insertions of names just to make a point, for revenge (not that any Wiki editor would actually be motivated by things like that) or for no reason what so ever. The policy - that at least 10% of English language sources use the name - is a good one and it just needs to be implemented.

There's no need to develop new policy. Just point out to the editors involved that policy needs to implemented.radek (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz has a point. If alternate names are going to be added to geographical places, Paneriai included, it should be done in accordance with WP:PLACE. Unless someone has a good reason not to follow Wikipedia guidelines? -- Raziel  teatime  17:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that. This should be the end of this discussion and we should follow the policy.--Jacurek (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Amen to what? If you can type now (meaning recovered), and the other editor who has engaged in personal attacks against me (I expect an apology, btw), has returned and will be able to respond with undivided attention, then after I and anyone else planning to respond in this "informal mediation" with a formal statement, "can we consider ending this discussion". Furthermore now that our "unbiased mediator" has for the second time inserted his "opinion" regarding this unresolved matter, the time has come for him to recuse himself from this mediation. Unless of course it's WP policy for a "mediator" to espouse his opinion prior to a decision being reached. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not my opinion, it is a matter fact. Unless someone can come up with a good consensus for ignoring Wikipedia guidelines in this particular matter, then there is no reason to not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. Which is precisely why I asked "Unless someone has a good reason not to follow Wikipedia guidelines?". -- Raziel  teatime  19:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "matter of fact", namely the Wikipedia guidelines. I'd like to ask the mediator, because I think you should know in your capacity as mediator, if you know who the author of this 10% "guideline is, when it came into force, and it's history? Dr. Dan (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

May I also ask a question here Dr. Dan? Do you happen to know, in your capacity as a long time editor of the Wikipedia, who the author of this guideline [10] is? Or the history of its development? Is it possible that whoever the author of the 10% guideline is is completely irrelevant since it is in fact a guideline? Or are you fighting battles from, five, seven, years ago which is why editors like myself and Loosemark don't really know what you're talking about? If not, then could you articulate the reason why Wikipedia policy should not be followed on this particular article? And in your articulation, since it's obvious you're an eloquent guy, can you express yourself without using any question marks?radek (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent)..."can you express yourself without using any question marks?"...No. Especially when I would have to ask someone why they would interject themselves repeatedly into questions directed to someone else? Regarding your question concerning trolls, yes I've read the guidelines. Have you? More importantly have you read the guidelines on WP: PA? Here's another question mark. What was your point [11] here? And another, where's the mediator? That's five question marks. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem, not a symptom

The problem truly rears it's ugly head again. A one way street, not a two way street. When I said fine, let there be a "New Consensus", put in these Polish, and Yiddish names. Go for it. But let's put in the Russian and German names where appropriate too. That now seems to be unacceptable. User: Loosmark pretty much sums it up with ..."Warsaw is specific in that for 50 years Poland was under de-facto Soviet control and many Poles were oppressed so IMO Bаршава would be seen as provocative by most Poles." But despite the possibility that "Wilno" might seem provocative to others, is really of no consequence. So much for the "New Consensus." Please don't be surprised when your heavily POV ridden, and undue edits, are challenged and reverted in the future. And Jacurek, please do not be so presumptious as to assume what Dr. Dan "will like" or "will not like". Hope you're feeling better. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I presumed that because of the long history of our disagreements over this issues. You never liked it, that is all. Thanks, I feel a little better but still can't type for too long.--Jacurek (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr.Dan i wasn't part of any "new consensus" in fact i was even unaware that you guys were working on a consensus. My opinion is there is no need for any new consensus, wikipedia policy is clear: if at least 10% of english sources use the name or there is a significant minority living there then the other name should be included. Wilno for example, fulfills both criterion, Варшава neither. Loosmark (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Do 10% of English sources use Санкт-Петербу́рг​ or Москва? Last time I checked both were included in the leads of those respective articles (Saint Petersburg and Moscow) in English Wikipedia. I think you'll find them in the French, German, Polish, and Spanish versions of WP, too. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What, the hell are you talking about!? Those are the names of the cities in the native language, including those was never questioned by anybody, it goes without saying those are included. Thanks for making me lose 47 seconds of my life for nothing. Loosmark (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the 47 seconds, Loosmark. Please remember all of the previous arguments given about placing "Wilno" into the Vilnius article, and I don't mean just the newly found 10% arguments either. Neither about "English sources" nor "minority populations". And kindly remember that neither "Wilno" nor "Ponary" are names of the localities "in the native language". As for what my point was, Cyrillic has it's place in English Wikipedia, even in articles relating to Poland. Btw, once again this [12]] is not an argument against it's use either. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit of a problem for me to remember all the previous arguments about Wilno because i entered this discussion only very recently (after sb tried to POV push sth into Warsaw lead that is). What exactly do you mean with the "newly found 10% argument" i don't know. Thats wikipedia policy - if you weren't aware of it before, what can i say though luck. Wilno and Ponary are included in the lead per wikipedia policy, it's as simple as that. And finally yes cyrillic can have its place in articles relating to Poland but only when there is a reason to do so: for example there is an Ukrainian minority living in Przemyśl. Loosmark (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, please remember to be civil and keep a cool head before posting. Thank you. -- Raziel  teatime  19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Raziel, the thing is that happens all the time. We try to keep discussion professional and the Dr. Dan asks pointless questions. Bottom line, I think that we should stick to 10% minority rule (except for native language of course, which is obviously should be there). I yhink this is fair and satisfactory for all parties and there is no point to debate about heritage and staff. There are facts - Wilno, Ponary, Troki and ext. had significant polish and Yiddish speaking populations in the past (and maybe today too). Some of them meet the 10% criteria too, that's why Polish and Yiddish should be in the lead. Btw, same thing for Memel (Klaipeda), this time with German population un the past.--Mikej007 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"We try to keep discussion professional and the Dr. Dan asks pointless questions". Ha. Aybody else thinks its high time to start a user conduct RfC on Dr. Dan's "contributions" to discussions? I have at least once, during an arbitration, suggested that his input on talk pages is so non-constructive (constant sniping, baiting, jabs, and yes, sarcasm by a barge load) that a ban from all Poland-related talk pages may be in order; I'd be interested in community input on that proposal, which I think could greatly improve the atmosphere on, well, all pages where Dr. Dan choses to make his comments at. For the record, I'd support a stern warning from the community before such a ban is issued - everybody deserves another chance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. As the mediator above says there doesn't seem to be a particular need for mediation on this particular issue - the policy's already there, it needs to be applied, it's just that some editors insist on violating the policy (which when you get down to it, when done repeatedly, is no different from removing reliable sources from articles or making repeated BLP violations). However, there is a need for some kind of action on Dr. Dan's conduct on talk pages - which has been quite problematic for some time (and note that talk page discussions are Dr. Dan's primary inputs into Wikipedia).radek (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Raseksz, aren't you exactly supposedly away? Let me cite As I've already indicated to Raziel, tomorrow morning I am going away and will not have reliable access to the internet again until mid September [13]--Lokyz (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "not have reliable access" means sometimes better sometimes worse. This weekend I can access the internet a bit more.radek (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Policy is already there: and a question, Would User:Piotrus or User:Radeksz fix this this outrageous policy disregard?--Lokyz (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I already fixed it. Feel free to do it also Lokyz if you see this problem again, there is no need to bring such things here. It looks like you are looking for a fight.--Jacurek (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like another PA. Gosh, where is the mediator. Let me remind you - we're discussing topics and policies, not personalities.--Lokyz (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Chill out Lykoz, It was you who violated the policy with you provocative comment. Next time you see an Anon making an edit against the policies just fix it and don't provoke other editors by typing useless comment which serve no purpose and look like an attempt of "getting back at somebody". Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way...why did you boldly reverted this[[14]] without any explanation????? Perhaps our mediator should look at your behavior? After all this talk you keep doing your usual reverts, I can't believe it... THIS IS THE PROBLEM HERE, plain and simple--Jacurek (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Another W:PA? I did follow the Polish anon attempts to change the "new consensus". It took rather a long time to fix the problem in Warsaw, despite my calls. Also: using caps is shouting, i.e. uncivility. I hope it's because of the injury, and the editor'll get better soon.--Lokyz (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

..and another bold revert[[15]] (removal of Polish name by user Lokyz) without explanation. Why we are wasting our time here if Lokyz keeps doing what he was doing for years?? Which is a bold removal of every Polish name from all Polish-Lithuanian related articles without or with misleading explanation. Can our mediator intervene here and block or warn him at least???? I'm so sick of this nonsense and I'm out of here.!--Jacurek (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Lokys, thanks that at least you wish me to get well. Thank you for that. If you could start to cooperate here my wounds would heal faster. Please do it at least for that reason?? Will you??--Jacurek (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet another WP:PA and a block shopping. And for the last question of your's - one should consider his actions, because one may bring harm to himself. And sorry, I'm not a doctor, to help healing other's wounds. Let us know, when you'll be better, then I'll provide my statement. I do not want to disturb your recovery. TTYL, and best wishes.--Lokyz (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell us why you JUST removed Polish spelling from above article (links above) as you ALWAYS did without any explanation AT ALL, instead of discussing it here?? Focus on the problem please, and the problem here is your behavior, thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell us why you just removed the Name section [16] before reching compromise? -- Lokyz (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And btw I'm not Loosmark], nor Lykoz. Would you please care to appologise me for calling names?-- Lokyz (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Another problem

So, P.P., an adminstrator, brings out his "little black book" with his three year old "evidence" and suggests censoring Dr. Dan again (nothing new about that proposition, by P.P.). Got any newer evidence? P.P., reiterates the fallacy that I ask pointless questions...:"We try to keep discussion (sic) professional and the Dr. Dan (sic) asks pointless questions, Ha." Professional? Did you mean perhaps that Dr. Dan asks pointless questions about pointless and untrue claims made on these pages [17], that remain unanswered? Or when you make comments like that, and they are challenged, do questions about them suddenly become "pointless"? Since you have been following this thread here, and at the Talk:Paneriai page I'm wondering why you didn't comment in your capacity as an unbiased administrator about [18] this? Or several other violations of policy? It reminds me of your behavior regarding the activities of this user. Don't you think this was a little too much [19]? And really, Mikej007, what's up with this [20]? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So apparantly presenting evidence of an editor's misbehavior now constitutes a "little black book" - of course the real problem is not the editor's misbehavior, but somebody having the gall to point it out. And the evidence is not three years old, it stretches three years back - including more recent stuff like your behavior at Zwierzyniec and Bialystok Pogrom. And what does Molobo have to do with any of this? And how many irrelevant questions are there going to be? How many? What's up with that Dr. Dan? And while we're at it, could you explain your edit here [21]? And don't you think that this is a little too much [22]? And why didn't you get involved in this discussion [23]? How many more question marks must suffer? How many? Eighteen? Three hundred? Who knows?radek (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think one of my favorite examples in that list of my "misbehaviors" is this [24] one at user Talk:Durova, though there are some others. That response followed what she admitted was a "controversial block". One that resulted from an off WP request by P.P. asking her to do so. As for your problem with the Battle of Seelow Heights, I fail to understand your objection to copy editing grammatical errors. Please also note that I did not tamper with the contributions of the Polish Armed Forces regarding the battle. It's a well established fact on Wikipedia that Poland's military contributions were extremely important in the defeat of Nazi Germany, including the Battle of Berlin. As for Spanakopita (hey, you're not stalking me, are you?), if you understand English, the edit is pretty obvious. And since Andrzej Kmicic is a "Fictional Character", it doesn't interest me in particular. Although lately, I feel that I'm having to deal with a lot of fantasies and fiction. Btw, I see even though you mentioned to the mediator that you wouldn't have much time to participate here, you're managing just fine. I thought this last edit of yours was one of your better ones. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Okay, I need to clarify a few things. First off, Dr. Dan and Lokyz, you are in favor of adding the alternate name to Paneriai as long as it is done to other geographical places, correct? And Radeksz, Mike007j, and Jacurek, you are in favor of the same thing as long as it is done in accordance with WP:PLACE, right? -- Raziel  teatime  17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with putting in alternative names in paranthases for all places where at least 10% (note that for the place under discussion, it's more like 50%) of English language source use it - whether these places are Polish, Lithuanian, Chinese or Mexican. I anticipate that there might be borderline cases (in which case I think the burden of proof/convincing should be on those wanting to put the alternative name in) and possible exceptions (in which case the burden of proof/convincing should be on those wanting to keep the name out), but if we can agree ... well, agree to actually follow the guideline, then we at least have a framework to start with.radek (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, what borderline cases, and possible exceptions, were you anticipating? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm anticipating that these may arise in general. I'm not anticipating any one in particular.radek (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I did not say that I do aggree to something, I did just suggest, that I would help to put alternative names to the so-called Polish cities leads. I had in mind the Polska Republika Ludowa borders. More when User:Jacurek will recover from his injuries, and when the supposedly absent User:Radeksz will come back, as the arbitrator suggested "in two weeks". Diff will be provided on request.--Lokyz (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How nice of you to suggest adopting a new policy of naming for places in Poland. But if you look at the name of this case, you may see that we are also concerned with naming of places that were once part of Poland (Second Polish Republic and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we also concerned with naming for places (sic), that were once part of the Russian Empire, too, P.P.? Like Варшава? I mean its been opened up as a topic here. It's as good as any place to finish up with it here too. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd add Austria–Hungary and the German Empire to the list, if editors are so eager to find true (i.e 19th century, that are pushed now) historical names. The Cracow for now is the main issue, since there is WP:ENGLISH, that is neglected at the moment.--Lokyz (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A question

Since the main initiators of this issue are injured, or away (I did not use word flee), should I present my statement, or should I just skip it? (all WP:AGF assumed.--Lokyz (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please present it. -- Raziel  teatime  22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a quick answer, I'll do it as soon I'll get to my books.--Lokyz (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be able to occasionally check in, like now, for short periods of time to keep an eye on things. So if you want to you can start and I'll do my best to respond. Just please be understanding, time wise.radek (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lokyz, just to let you know, I do plan to make a statement, unless the matter is somehow resolved earlier, but not until ALL of the involved parties are able to participate with their presence and undivided attention. Not while some might "check in...for short periods of time to keep an eye on things" and others are too incapacitated to type. For now I will limit my participation to commenting on misrepresentations of facts, or positive and helpful comments as well. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: problem not a symptom

On: The problem truly rears it's ugly head again. A one way street, not a two way street. When I said fine, let there be a "New Consensus", put in these Polish, and Yiddish names. Go for it. But let's put in the Russian and German names where appropriate too. That now seems to be unacceptable. User: Loosmark pretty much sums it up with ..."Warsaw is specific in that for 50 years Poland was under de-facto Soviet control and many Poles were oppressed so IMO Bаршава would be seen as provocative by most Poles." But despite the possibility that "Wilno" might seem provocative to others, is really of no consequence. So much for the "New Consensus." Please don't be surprised when your heavily POV ridden, and undue edits, are challenged and reverted in the future. And Jacurek, please do not be so presumptious as to assume what Dr. Dan "will like" or "will not like". Hope you're feeling better. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have observed earlier, this is an English encyclopedia. Therefore the first rule to follow if we are to include any other names is to include other (usually archaic) English language usage, so using Vilnius as an example, and some others:

• Vilnius... (archaic: Vilna, Wilno) ...
• Liepāja ... (archaic: Libau) ... note I am putting in as archaic English usage not as a symbol of 700 years of German hegemony
• Tallinn ... (archaic: Reval) ... similarly regarding the Danes

These are all useful to those that would be doing research on the Baltics and Eastern Europe.

Alternately, as an example, in his seminal work (2nd ed.) Historical Atlas of Central Europe, Magocsi lists in his index:

• Vilnius [LT] (Vil'na [Ru]; Vilne [Y]; Vilnensis [L]; Vil'no [R]; Wilna [G]; Wilno [P])

in alphabetical order of historical/other language names. This is clearly far too much for a lead, and per current WP place name standards, can simply go in a "Names" section.

Arguing over whose alternate name for any place "deserves" to be in the lead or what order they "deserve" to be in is a divisive activity we should all commit to avoid. The only name that we can all agree "deserves" to be in the lead is its current rightful name. Including archaic English addresses a number of historical issues while sticking to English usage and making no judgements regarding "deserving":

1. Lead: name .... (archaic: name1, name2 prior/other English usage, alphabetically)
2. "Name" section: Indicate alternate names, alphabetically, per Magocsi's index example

So, to the mediation here, if we have (archaic, it not being the current place name) English usage other than "Paneriai", we include it as I've illustrated, as archaic English usage, not as whatever language it was derived from, to avoid the "deserving" problem, and indicate foreign language names in a Names section per the WP standard, and in alphabetical (transliterated if need be) name order. I'd suggest this compromise as the convention to use for the three Baltic States. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Vecrumba is offering a reasonable solution. As the other parties have pretty much relegated the "New Consensus" to the waste bin (Tsk, tsk, and I thought both Jacurek and Mikej007 were with me on that program), consider that the "New Consensus" is null and void, as far as I'm concerned. We'll just have to deal with them (geographical toponyms), case by case. What happened to the mediator, btw. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still for the consensus, but the mediation is king of "overruns" it. Question to both of you (Dan & Vercumba) - what is the problem with sticking to 10% minority rule for all the places (no matter Poland/Lithuania/Latvia and ext.)? There is not question of "deserve" - this is strict math - current official name and those who are or were used by English books and local residents.--Mikej007 (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, if it is used in 10% or more of English sources in should be rather:

• Name ... (also: Name 1, Name 2)

The current use means it is not an archaic name but an alternative name.--Mikej007 (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mikej007, you are missing the nature of the solution and the current use of archaic English-language Baltic place names. Archaic does not mean obsolete. English language sources regularly use pre-independence Baltic place names, particularly scholarly sources. Those place names are invariable based on other languages. Including the archaic but still used in scholarly literature English usage addresses most of the needless jostling for appropriate communication of alternate place names while avoiding gnashing of teeth over how those names originally came to be. We are writing an encyclopedia to be as useful as possible to its readers, not anything else. The insistence by various parties on linguistic smorgasbords of place names in article leads produces content which is confusing, is not informative, and which leads to unconstructive and divisive arguing over claims to recognition, acknowledgement, prominence in the lead versus other place names, et al. which solve nothing. I've presented a solution which works in all cases and which is absent of any value judgements.

   The WP standards/conventions you seem enamored of are part of the problem, not the solution, and why we have wound up here in the first place.

• To your 10%: The problem with any mathematical rule is that it's just another version of arguing about "deserving" under the guise of an ostensibly quantitative criterion. We all know how well quantitative Google searches work (another WP "standard") in resolving conflicts—they fail abjectly and completely.
• To your minorities: The problem with minorities is that POV pushers will put in Russian transliterations of place names in article leads anywhere there is a significant Russian presence—in many places the result of Soviet importation of Russians and Russophones while deporting and killing the legitimate inhabitants. I'm not saying that because I'm some xenophobic Russian hater (POV pushers have called me that when they haven't had anything else to back their arguments), I'm just relating what has already happened before in exactly this sort of case regarding Baltic place names.

Neither of my objections are my personal projection of "if we don't do it my way, the sky will fall." My objections are based on years of observing prior WP empirical editorial behavior. My solution avoids all those issues. Yours opens up the floodgates. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Just to be clear, the "archaic" designation is required precisely because it is continued English language use of (post-WWI) pre-independence place names. As I indicated, "current" and "archaic" are not mutually exclusive. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for compromises and in fact on Birze, when Novickas wrote up a "Names" section that was enough for me. If those who object to inclusion in the lead would take the trouble to do that then I'd have no problem (assuming that there's no monkey business in how the section is written). But like Mike I don't think I like the term "archaic" here as it can be easily misunderstood. And the Mogosci example you give is pretty close to what the current guideline suggests. Note also that there isn't much argument over which alternative name should go first (IMO, alphabetically) - that's not what's driving the disputes (since it's hard to argue over the ordering of a null set). Also please note that the guideline is not being applied even in clear cut cases, like Ponary, where it's more than 50% of English sources that use the name - so again, it's not really about the accuracy of Google books searches (and these are useful, with certain caveats). Like I said above, if it's a close call, based on Google book searches then it can be discussed. But it's not the close calls that are driving the disputes. It's the inclusion of Polish or Yiddish names in Lithuanian places in any case what so ever, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that these names are used extensively by English language sources. Radeksz (weird keyboard w/o tildes)

Well, in this specific case, using the same consistent measures as for Kiev vs. Kyiv and elsewhere (and Radeksz, the emphasis isn't at you):

• Paneriai (BGN Standard)
• Dvaras Paneriai (Variant)
• Panėris (Variant)
• Panerių (Variant)
• Ponary (Variant)

We note Ponary in the lead per my suggestion (archaic English usage), we note other names in other languages in names section and we are done. I think this is reasonable. I myself added Libau to the lead of Liepāja despite my nationalist desires to spit on 700 years of Baltic German domination and exploitation—properly including Libau as alternate historical English usage makes it palatable as it is (unfortunately, perhaps) necessary as this is an English language encyclopedia. We seem to forget that in these arguments. Arguing about Polish, Yiddish, Belarusian, et al. "deserving" to be in the lead or "ignoring" historical realities by not having them in the lead is not appropriate and is properly and in all cases neturally handled in a names section per the existing standard. Whatever English-usage variant is used in English language sources is noted in the lead without reference to any foreign language etymology. That will become obvious in the names section.

   As for the "tuning" issue and my own edit on Liepāja,

• Liepāja ... (archaic: Libau) ...

is per the WP name places guideline. As "archaic" appears to be the cause of some confusion and concern,

• Liepāja ... (historical variant: Libau) ...

would work just as well and I think we could justify and adopt that for Baltic place names. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm also willing to put my money where my mouth is... 1st edit and 2nd edit. It's not about what makes me happy, it's about what makes an article more informative for English language readers—that is, equip them better to understand other English language sources. There's no reason to put Libau in the lead as "German name for" because it is still "used a lot" because IT IS NOT GERMAN EXONYMS that are at question, it is ENGLISH LANGUAGE USAGE. Putting Libau in as German because German "deserves" to be there would be patently offensive. (And that is the part my compromise solves.) Done shouting. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Lastly, I know full well the history of both Polish-Lithuanian alliance and acrimony. I wish the latter were otherwise, but it is not. The lead as it is now can be taken as a reminder of past hegemony and/or occupation. I won't even get into the arguments that have been had over whether there were more Lithuanians in the area, or Poles in the area, what the predominant ethnolinguistic settlement of the area was, who came in and settled when, ad nauseum. That is all irrelevant to NPOV presentation of English language usage of a place name in the lead and presentation of alternate foreign-language names in a names section. I hope I've made my points clear. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Compromise balloon

Hello. The current mediator has some RL things to contend to, so I'll be picking this up for a while.

Under the history section, as the place traded common names, could the separate names be listed there? Typically, the common name (Lithuanian, at present) is always kept in the lede. Is there a census on the place? Do Poles call it by its Polish name, etc? That would be a good place to put the other language names. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

   In a nutshell, one side wants only the current (native) name in the lead, the other side wants to include other "significant" foreign language place names which "deserve" to be in the lead. ("Quotes" aren't meant to imply POV, just that those have been some of the key criteria in discussions.) I've proposed something which is a bit of both but also neither.

   I won't presume to speak for the other editors, however, in terms of a wider standard to adopt for the Baltic states and past alliances, invasions, et al., many historical place names are not the current place names. I've proposed the addition of historical English-language usage names to guide readers in finding more historical materials—for example, any book about Latvia prior to 1900 will have Libau, not Liepāja. Noting past English usage allows the inclusion of significant past historical names in the lead without the debate over what languages, who did what when, etc.—the goal being to avoid offending those on the perceived receiving end of animosity, invasion, hegemony, subjugation, et al.

   Whether we note names in other languages (foreign language exonyms) in their own names section or at the outset of the history section doesn't make a big difference. My proposal here is to leave foreign language exonyms, stated as such, out of the article lead.

   So far there's been no outright rejection—if there are no objections (and I've already stated what I propose is not my first choice, but I believe it solves both a need for our English language readers and also a problem for native editors "defending" their heritage—as before, no "POV" implied), I'm willing to write up as a supplement to the WP place names standard similar to some of the "extensions" defined for some other areas/countries. Hope this helps! VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry, a bit wordy as usual. Your balloon essentially is one side of the current debate, that is, native place name only in the lead and others in the body, so it doesn't really achieve a compromise. If you're not intimately familiar with the history of the Baltic states, you'll have some catching up to do to fully understand the underlying dynamics of the conflict. :-) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I getcha :-)

But I fear that the problem is being solved before the problem is being solved ;-) Your proposal evens that out, though. It's just that when there are a lot of differing views, and we decide on one thing first, it colors what needs to be done next. If that makes sense.

It would be helpful for me--and others--if I had a statement of what everyone's ideal article looked like. This is a contentious and POV area, and I want to respect that; there's no point in denying this. It's much easier for me if people spoke their mind without much cross discussion (tends to muddy the waters). Does this sound like a good starting point for moving ahead? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I'm basically saying for the time being to forget about NPOV during discussion. I want to avoid that pretense.

Actually, I'm not looking for NPOV. Both sides,

• native place name only in lead, relegate rest to body
• native place name plus significant foreign language names in lead

can be argued to be NPOV, which is why editors haven't budged on this one. You can't argue that any side is "wrong," both have valid criteria to back their positions. However, as this is an English language encyclopedia, that presents a POV way of looking at the conundrum and coming up with an alternate solution. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a general message to all :-) That's basically what I'm saying ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba I completely don't understand what exactly are you proposing. Loosmark (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In this specific case...

To Loosmark...

Paneriai (historical variant: Ponary) is a suburb of Vilnius situated about 10 kilometres away from the city center. ...

Then in (new) Names section or in History section, something along the lines of...

Paneriai has shared in Vilnius' cosmopolitan past. Names for Paneriai in other languages include: פאנאר/Ponar (Yiddish), Ponary (Polish)... listed in Latin alphabetical order (transliterated if need be)

So, the key points being:

1. Ponary is included in the lead as other historical common English language usage, how it got to be that or where it came from is not material
2. Ponary, Ponar, and any other foreign-language variants are listed in the article body, in alphabetical order, transliterated if need be to Latin alphabet

Hope this helps. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok i understand now but frankly i don't see much sense in your proposal. The Polish name gets bumped out of the lead and replaced with the archaic name which is little more than a curiousity. Loosmark (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Vercumba, the only thing I still have problem with is the use of: historic variant, because some of those names as Vilno/Wilno, Ponary and others are still used in English literature, sometimes even more frequently than the official Lithuanian name. I still prefer the 10% minority rule.--Mikej007 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not so much of a historical variant, it's Polonized Lithuanian name Pa-neriai, "near River Neris", not near Polish name of the River Wilja.-- Lokyz (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) We have a little microcosm here...

• Loosmark — it's not the current name but it is a name found with increasing frequency in English language sources as we go back (particularly before independence), not archaic in the terms of obsolete or a "curiosity"
• Mikej007 — %ages and all, that is why I included the reference to the BGN database earlier, it's as impartial and complete a source one will find on English language usage for place names. We are here because the twain of who deserves/who doesn't deserve viz a viz the lead will never (IMHO) meet regardless of how you try to quantify it
• Lokyz — you are correct on the derivation, however, my compromise is to indicate prior English usage (as Mikej007 rightly indicates, "historical" names are still often used, usually with regard to specfic events or eras, for example, the Russian Navy at Libau). This way we avoid the issue of which "other" exonym "deserves" to be in the lead while still being of use to our English language readers.

When it comes to the Baltic States, pre-independence common English usage has very little to do with most of today's place names. Providing that usage closes an information gap common to many articles regarding Baltic places. Segregating all foreign language names and listing alphabetically gets us out of priorities, historical considerations, et al., which have been at the crux of the conflict. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Personally, I see Wilno and Vilna (not Vilno) most frequently in terms of historical names for Vilnius. Vilnius is the standard name for common English usage. "More" than Vilnius is regarding historical accounts. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. English usage for place names in the Baltic States can't be quantified, it has to be qualified on an individual basis as to time period being discussed and when the source was originally written and when the sources the source used were written,... VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We are dealing with making rules and compromises, from which each case will be derivated. As I said previously, we can say official current and other names, but I don't think we can use them as only "archaic" or "historic", especially in the case of Wilno, 20% Polish until today. Same for almost all cities and towns in the region. And can we forget the Yiddish names used until today in all Jewish genealogy research in English? Objectively, should we send it somewhere to the names section? We are talking about rules not feelings, that's why I am for 10% minorities.--Mikej007 (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So far we're not even near to find compromise [25] [26]. Could anyone fix this? At least until the matter will be resolved. Seems that someone does not like names in the lead, and others do not like the Lithuanian origins of the name. Such edits are highly unproductive, if not to say provocative.-- Lokyz (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If the aim of this mediation is to set a precedent for all these cases, I respectfully ask that I change the layout of this casepage so I can bring some order to the discussion; reading through this at the moment is a little mind numbing ;-) If anyone objects, please say so. I'll be setting ground rules later. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck to the new mediator, Xavexgoem. First, let me ask you the same question that I posed to our previous mediator, "Out of curiosity, what qualifications do you feel you possess that would enable you to mediate the dispute?" His answer was succinct and as he put it "Honest"...."I will be honest with you and state that I am an inexpierenced (sic) mediator, and have no real qualificcations (sic) for mediation... Dr. Dan (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I coordinate this project, I'm on MedCom, I got my admin bit from DR work almost exclusively. National disputes have been my specialty. The last mediator asked for help as he tends to RL problems [27]. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish you good luck and a lot of patience Xavexgoem. You will need it.:)--Jacurek (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck to the new mediator, Xavexgoem, and much thanks to the previous one, Raziel. I think I can say that I am more or less back to constant internet access though I will still be busy in the next week or so and still have a bit of traveling to do. But I can make sure to check this discussion at least a couple times per day. Also, please feel free (Xavexgoem, not any of the editors involved in this mediation) to re-arrange the discussion page for sake of clarity. Perhaps each user should get a separate section or something?

Xavexgoem, one more question. How fluent are you in the Polish language? Do you speak Polish? Can you read Polish? I ask as a result of reading this [28] earlier posting. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitraryish break

As to the matters: ... comments moved to "View" section. I apologize for the length. Just getting it all out there.radek (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

On your first point: I too would like to hear from other editors their objections to this proposal. Likewise for your second point.

On your third point: local agreements trump policy (really guidelines) so long as they remain neutral and well-sourced. This is part of the spirit behind ignore all rules and against wikilawyering. But I agree that trumping guidelines should only be used if attempts at following these guidelines fail. On that note, I'd like to hear folks' opinions on how the guidelines could not apply in this particular instance, if there are any. Bear in mind that guidelines are followed when they work, which is most of the time (remember that they're documentation, not prescriptions).

I'll have us focus on the guidelines first. We're at a blank slate now. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If the user:Radeksz would be so kind to withdraw his allegations on other users supposed conduct (WP:PA anyone), I'd be glad to answer to this WP:POVish (see for instance Recovered Territories), WP:POINT'ish and even WP:ORish attempts to "correct" history.-- Lokyz (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you're talking about.radek (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a grievance here. You're not going to ask why? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I would ask him to state what his grievance is specifically and clearly first, so that I can understand what he is saying.radek (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the paragraph I was referring to was removed, canI remove my comment?-- Lokyz (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It was probably archived (see talk page). Xavexgoem (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, only if you find this to be absolutely contingent to your involvement. I for one don't believe any allegations anyone makes to anyone else, certainly not during mediation. I'm erasing the board here; conduct issues have their own place, and it isn't here. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Things that do matter is not discussing editors. The topic matters (meaning if there is a WP:Place policy why should it work on Biržai and it still does not work on Cracow), otherwise we'll sink into the poisonous swamp of nationalistic wannabe beliefs.-- Lokyz (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what's being debated below :-)

If you can argue for it (see wp:consensus statement), please do so! Otherwise, we'll be stuck talking about through the place guideline and past each other. It's worth a shot. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

On WP:PLACE

What are the arguments for following WP:PLACE? What are the arguments that it does not work in this instance?

View by Xavexgoem

I just want to note that guidelines are the accrued wisdom of years of these disputes. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Typically, additions to guidelines are written after the fact. Remember, guidelines are not policy (like NPOV, V or NOR). They only document best practice so far. If there is a major contention over the use of WP:PLACE, then we can ignore it if there's something that improves it. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "guidelines are the accrued wisdom of years of these disputes". Can anyone tell me who the author of the "10% guideline" is? And specifically when the consensus for it's inclusion was agreed upon, and by whom? Also, is this the proper section to make ones statement (below of course)? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who the author is, but that's not terribly important: insofar as the text hasn't changed, anyone who hasn't tried removing it is essentially an author, since they're keeping that consensus in place. At any rate, a consensus must have been formed for its inclusion anyway. I'll dig through their archives, though.

As for a statement: just put it below the most recent statement near the bottom under this header. Level 4 ====. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us that you will take the trouble to try to dig through the archives and establish the author of this policy and when it was put into place (no pun intended), specifically the 10% guideline. I believe that the opening line to WP:Silence is ..."Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)". I would think that says much about why we're having this mediation and that a presumed consensus is being questioned. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

On enforcement

I'm only a mediator. The only enforcement I can do is soft security. I can't force anyone to adopt a consensus made here if they weren't privy to this discussion. Neither can anyone else, for that matter. Consensus constantly changes; all I can do is move everyone along with the flow. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

View by VЄСRUМВА

I won't rehash what I've proposed before. The 10% rule muddles the issue because in this case (there are others), when a source uses "Ponary" (or, say, "Wilno" or "Libau"), is it the "10% of English language sources that use the foreign language name" or is it simply prior common English usage—where we specifically don't care about the etymology of the place name. I've proposed something I believe works as a standard and I am willing to write it up for consideration as a specific extension to WP:PLACE for Baltic states place names, similar to other area-specific place name conventions which have been created. "Ponary" in an English language source does NOT equal "English language source is using Polish..." Some may regard this as splitting hairs, but I believe I've explained why this approach to lead and body with regard to listing alternate place names works, being both informative and (hopefully) not offending any native sensibilities.
  As I've stated, listing "Libau" for Liepāja in the article lead as a historical English language place name variant is appropriate and informative. Listing it in the lead instead as German for Liepāja because the Germans were there for 700 years (and would still be were it not for the "call home") would be patently offensive. I hope I've made that distinction clear. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S.(1) Any place name which is not the name in the native language of the country of the place should be considered a foreign language place name. The argument that any-language name under sufficient circumstances X is a native name is part of the contentiousness and confusion. If my proposal works for wider application than the Baltic states I'll be gratified, but I would prefer to eat the proverbial elephant one bite at a time. :-) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  23:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S.(2) "Breslau" would still be in the lead as it was common English usage at one time (regardless of the original language of origin). :-) Books before 1900, Breslau = 7,930, Wrocław = 934 and those appear to all be in Polish. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  23:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

View by Mikej007

I clearly don't think that we should debate only for the Baltic states, because this case can be easily applied to other places, as Radek said previously. I don't have plroblem with Vecrumba's proposals, I have problem with terminology and inclusion criteria. For the specific example of Wilno region in Lithuania, the Polish names are not foreign as there are significant Polish minority there, and Polish is official in many cities and towns. I don't have problem with the use of (alternative: Ponary, Ponar and ext.) and writing proper name section with the explanation of the origins of the names (Lithuanian, Polish, Yiddish and other). I think it's fair and right. But than again, it should be applied to WP:PLACE policy - cause in that case there is no reason for writing (German:...) in Polish/Czech names or (Hungarian:...) in Romanian/Slovak/Croatian/Vojvodina/Zakarpattya names. Maybe we should open the discussion to other editors so it could be incorporated to the WP:PLACE policy. As for inclusion criteria: should we put all English-used names in the lead? It could turn to smogshboard. Just for Birze I can put something like 8. We should enact the 10% rule for the lead and the others to the name section.
P.S.(1) What is the native language of the country? Is official language is always the native one? Of course not - these things change due to political circumstances. According to the UN, native is a language/nation that resides in the area 500 years, which means that for some places in Lithuania both Lithuanian/Polish/Belarusian/Yiddish are native. Anyway, heritage is not the point here, as we try to be more practical and have to decide on the inclusion criteria.
P.S. (2) Breslau should definitely be there, but if your proposal will be accepted it should be not under German but under alternative and that concerns all Wiki policy about names.--Mikej007 (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

View by User:Novickas

Wikipedia policy is the problem here. It's mutable, and is constantly under dispute. (WP:Naming conflicts is fully protected right now.) But Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) reads right now as "The lead: ... Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or (my emphasis on or) is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place)". That's incredibly vague. Every major settlement on this planet has been called something else by a group of people that lived there. And very strange to say that a minority name should be included if they USED to live here. In practice, for example in the case of New York City, a featured article, if a signficant minority live there now, the minority's name is not mentioned in the lead. Some of the proposals here have the flavor of separate peaces, I think they're better off at the policy pages (altho a well-discussed separate peace could serve as an example). I will leave a message on PMAnderson's page asking him about the policy history, since he was deeply involved in writing these policies, which still lend themselves to serious disutes. Novickas (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC) (comment moved to own section)

The 10% in English rule has its problems too. Take the case of Biržai - see its talk page. Its Polish name is Birze. But there are so many Birzes that are surnames, Scottish words, or Kurdish words, as you can see from a Gbook search [29], that my Gbook search strings with exclusions (-"Viktors Birze" -"BILLY BIRZE" -"Miervaldis Birze" -"A. Birze" -"ILGA BIRZE" -"Iveta Birze" -"M. Birze", -Kurdish, etc) exceeded the search string character limit before all the false positives could be accounted for. And that did not even begin to consider the non-English books or the reliable non-Gbook results. But then who is responsible for demonstrating the 10%? Generally speaking the rule on WP is the burden of defending added material lies on the editor who introduced it. An argument was made on the Biržai talk page, however, that asking for such an analysis was unreasonable.

The Krakow article, recently designated Good, violates the current style guidelines by putting an alternate names (in other languages) section at the very end. (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): "Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead".) But it is undoubtably soothing to have it at the end. Including a See Also link to a list of alternate names doesn't seem to cause many troubles either.

@Xavex: You seemed to imply somewhere here that a separate arrangement made for this region will hold up. Does this mean you are committing yourself to ongoing intervention in these cases - interpretation, enforcement of 3RR and the like, and defense in broader WP forums? If so, do you anticipate finding willing delegates - admins, if necessary? Novickas (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That so totally depends on what happens here. "I might" is the best answer I can truthfully give ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you expand on what you meant by the statements "I might" and "it depends"? (I think this question is general enough to warrant that its response put somewhere else) Novickas (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Novickas, the concerns about non-place usage of Birze was addressed as part of the third opinion. The search terms was in fact "Birze Lithuania" which eliminated most people-named-"Birze" and I went through the remaining hits and showed that roughly 8 or 9 hits per page were to the town rather then the person. You asked me to go through a 10000 google hits and do the same thing which was of course a ridiculous request. The editor providing the third opinion on Birze noted this. This issue has already been settled. I don't know why you're pretending that it was not resolved.

The Krakow article has "Cracow" right up top in the lead in bold letter! If this is the policy you prefer then we can put Birze, Ponary, Wilno in bold letters in the lede rather than including it in parentheses. If you want to move the "Etymology" section in Krakow up, that's fine with me, provided that we can follow this format (bold alternative name in the lede following etymology section) for Lithuanian places.

Xav, please note that endlessly bringing up Krakow, and ignoring the crucial differences, is a standard ... diversionary ... tactic with a long record whose purpose appears to be to avoid actually discussing the issue at hand. Just like other diversionary tactics.radek (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

@Radek: I mentioned Birzai as an illustration of the difficulty of the 10% rule. Since there was a reasonable doubt, and I don't have a problem with alternate name sections in general, I created the section in August. But it hasn't really settled the issue there - alternate names have been added and removed from the lead sentence [30] maybe 15 times since then. You stated your satisfaction with moving alternate names to their own section at Birzai, but haven't intervened in the ensuing reversions. Re pointing out inconsistent applications of the naming conventions and WP:Lede rules, as I and others have done with Krakow - we aren't obligated to address these ourselves. They just go to demonstrating the problem.

I also ask that you not pressure MK and Lokyz for responses.(" I also think that it's about time...") Real life and all that. A deadline wasn't posted. Please make allowances for time, opportunity, and composition of thoughtful comment.

@Dan: the 10% or minority rule was added by User:Piotrus in June 2006 [31]. It hasn't been revisited much since AFAIK. That may or may not be a good sign for using this mediation as a springboard for changing the place naming convention policy page. It could mean either widespread acceptance or apathy. My initial impression is that it isn't invoked very often.

@Vercrumba: I don't quite understand your position. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be proposing that non-common alternate names be included as part of articles' history sections, with context. I.e. "The town is sometimes referred to as x, as a result of its incorporation into the x Empire during the 1800s" or "an x community lived in the town during the early 1900s; their name for the town was y." With refs. Can't argue with that - it adds info. But not all editors are willing to do that, and some are deterred by referencing. It might be seen as unduly burdensome.

@Xavex: What are the rules about threaded responses here? Novickas (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Since you ask, Xa, I would prefer that responses to my comments not be threaded. Novickas (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But Novickas, there really wasn't that much difficulty with applying the 10% rule in case of Birze. More broadly, since in the case we're discussing - and related ones - the use of the alternative name takes place in something like 50% of English language sources there is not likely to be much difficulty. In truly borderline cases we can talk about it. A lot of the reversions that have occurred since then, in my view of things, probably have to do with the fact that other editors are not willing to abide by Wiki policies generally.

Also, there is NO inconsistent application of Wiki guidelines wrt Krakow either. "Cracow" as an alternative name is already included in the lede. So no kind of a "problem" is being demonstrated, rather Krakow just serves as a pretext for introducing completely irrelevant red herrings into the discussion, which are the actual reason why these discussions, mediations, interventions and so on never end.

I do not mean to pressure MK and Lokyz. Since however, Dr. Dan has shown great profligacy in posting comments here and in other Wiki venues, I consider it reasonable to ask him to actually state his views on the issue that this mediation is about.

I want to know the rules on threaded responses as well, as I'm all confused.radek (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping threaded responses would be avoided. They tend to cause people to start arguing ;-) But it's hard to enforce. If someone doesn't want threaded responses in their statement then please say so. Then it'll be easier to enforce. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

@all: My ideal is an alternate names section with an internal link in the lead. E.g. Šiauliai; also known by other names (internal link to following section) is a city in Lithuania... It follows WP:LEAD guidelines, which are kept up by dedicated WP editors from around the world. From that guideline: "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line." Maybe someone could ask about the rationale behind this part of the guideline at its talk page. I think they would get a reply.

Re Šiauliai. The United States Board of Geographic Names lists variants as Schaulen, Shaulyay, Shavli, Shyaulyay, Šiaulių, Sokniai, Szawle. The Library of Congress Authorities File ([32]) includes some not in the BGN list - Shauliai, Shawli, Shaulwai, Shavel. Unfortunately, neither resource offers permalinks, but I plugged all of these into Google (x Lithuania) and all brought up EN results. So it's at least eleven alternates, not counting Cyrillic or Yiddish alphabet equivalents.

The internally-linked-in-lead alternate name section is simple, avoids argumentation over Google search counts, calls for the reader to make one mouse click or scroll down some, and gives room for diversity. If anyone needs help with creating name sections, finding the alternate names in BGN, LOC, or elsewhere, referencing them, or creating redirects from those alternate names, they can ask me or any number of other WPians. Novickas (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

@all: I'm withdrawing from this mediation until this (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list) is resolved. Novickas (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

View by User:Radeksz

• Xavexgoem, you asked what everyone's ideal article would look like. It's not really a question of what the ideal article needs to look like, but rather what is the ideal policy that should be followed. First, because this is a recurring topic of dispute (so it doesn't concern just Panerai, second because what is decided here might have implications for other related naming issues (so it's not just Lithuanian-Polish disputes), and third because, well, Wikipedia policies are there for a reason - to be followed. So, I've as I stated before, my ideal policy is the 10% of English language sources using an alternative name, or a significant historical presence of a given population are each sufficient reasons to include the alternative names. Borderline cases or ones where there is a compelling reason to make an exception can be discussed on case-by-case basis. This is in fact current Wikipedia policy [33] [34]. I think it is a sensible policy, I support it and it just needs to be implemented, even if some editors object to it on IDON'TLIKEIT grounds. As Raziel stated above not a single reason has been provided for why this policy should not be followed on the relevant article(s) nor why the alternative names should not be included (I think Vecrumba posted after that comment and has made the only attempt - questioning the applicability of Google books searches).
• However, unlike some, I clearly recognize that one doesn't often get one's "ideal" in this imperfect world. So, in the interest of compromise, and in the face of determined obstinacy, in principle I can support Vecrumba's proposal - though I think it needs to be worked out whether to refer to alternative names as "historical", "archaic" or by the language. As I've stated before when we had a similar dispute at Birze, once Novickas wrote up a separate "Names" section I was satisfied with that, and that aspect of Vecrumba's proposal is fine. My main concerns however are more practical. Specifically, if we do agree to Vecrumba's proposal (and so far I haven't seen the other side of the dispute, Dr. Dan and Lokyz (not to mention the anon) say much about this), what are the implications for other naming conventions in other articles which concern other countries? Vecrumba wants to limit this to Baltic states, but I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to Polish-German names and cities. If we agree to this here, can I, or anyone else, go through Wroclaw, Szczecin, Bydgoszcz, Bytom, Poznan, Jelenia Gora and countless other Polish cities which include German toponyms and remove Breslau, Stettin, Bromberg, Beuthen, Posen, and whatever Jelenia Gora is in German, from the lede? How would we deal with objections which would undoubtedly result? Shouldn't we get interested German editors and ask their opinions as well? Same of course goes for Polish-Ukrainian naming and so on.
  • I'll be honest: I asked the question as if you would have already had consensus. I'm basically trying to get where everyone stands, but I suppose I'm not being clever enough :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Basically the general problem as I see it is that if we have this proliferation of "bilateral agreements" then what's the point of having a general Wikipedia policy in the first place? And when does the general policy trump local agreements and vice-versa? And what if I think that the agreement between X and Y should apply to Z and W but someone else thinks it should be the agreement between G and F that should apply? I'm willing to be convinced that this isn't a deal-breaking concern and will then be happy to support Vecrumba's proposal in principle as well as in practice. But at this point I still don't see why sensible, already existing Wikipedia policy shouldn't be followed?radek (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Local agreements (i.e., consensus) always trumps the documentation. Remember, we're not talking about policies here (e.g., no-one is arguing that this should not be neutral, should not be verifiable, or should have original research, etc.) WP:PLACE is a guideline: it's to be followed to avoid these kinds of disputes, and usually it does; it's just hard to prove when guidelines are working as such (see WP:SILENCE). When they don't work, editors end up in this fruitless discussion over something that documents best practice instead of prescribes it.
  • That all said, guidelines generally trump unreasonableness. It needs to be argued that WP:PLACE does not apply in this dispute. Until that's been argued (and bear in mind many editors don't know how to effectively argue, but have reasons behind their choices), we're gonna be stuck here asking why folks won't agree to follow the guideline. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC) and all that said, if good comes out of this discussion, then WP:PLACE can be edited if we get a broad consensus. So, case in point: first the dispute, then the solution, then the documentation for that solution

Digressions

I have held off with my statement only because two of the most vociferous advocates of adding Polish "names" to Lithuanian geographical toponyms, Radeksz and Jaczurek, and are directly involved in this matter, were indisposed. One as a result of traveling abroad and not being able to give the matter his undivided attention [35], and the other having had an unfortunate accident [36]. It would appear from their respective user contributions that they are now able to participate with a normal keyboard (with tildes) and are out of danger medically, and can type. I have to insist however that the entire transcipt of this "mediation" be restored, for the record, in it's entirety. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dan, since you are so much involved in this discusion would you be so kind and explain us all your recent removal of all foreign names from the lead of this article[[37]]? Your CLEAR answer WITHOUT any questions would be much than appreciated? I understand that your answer will be honest and in a good faith. Best regards.--Jacurek (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is on the record, just on the talk page. I certainly haven't deleted anything; everything is on the record. I think I've made a note of archiving things to talk -- for the sake of length -- in my notes. If not, I shall do so now. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jacurek, I plan to explain it all in my statement. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, "on the record, just on the talk page" doesn't cut it for me. Nor am I suggesting that you have deleted anything. This mediation would be best served if is presented with all statements, comments, diffs, etc. as they chronologically occurred from the get go. Otherwise there may be reason to doubt the legitimacy and intent of the mediation. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Other than it being cumbersome to do so perhaps, does anyone object? Let the record stand as presented without any manipulation or extraneous editing. I strongly believe that this case will have further repercussions for Wikipedia policy and guidelines. It's best to present it as it developed and is. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see how sorting and organizing the page, given how chaotic these discussions can become, will contribute to clarity of it and facilitate the mediation. How in the world would it affect its "legitimacy"? For chronology, there are obvious time stamps. Also, whatever happened to everyone having their own section?radek (talk) 07:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, would you find it acceptable if I had the discussion in collapsable templates? I know this sounds silly, but otherwise that much text can be very intimidating. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No, Xavexgoem, I do not find it acceptable. Forgive the extra work that it entails, but all of the edits made here need to be left in place as they chronologically occurred, including those of the former "mediator". I fail to see the purpose of this rearrangement. The issue is complicated enough without selecting the order that the information is later to be archived. You should not have taken it upon yourself to do so without discussing it. Please restore it. As for the text being "very intimidating", that can be decided by anyone interested in reading it. And Radeksz, anything "swept under the rug" can have a time stamp, it's just that in such rearranged edits the time stamp is no longer "obvious". In fact moving things around begins to obscure edits that some people may have regretted making in the first place, but need to stay as written, when and where they were written. Let's not waste a lot of time with this. The total mediation needs to be presented as it has gone down without any "re-editing" or "rearranging". Dr. Dan (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But let me make one thing clear: I am mediating this. This is not easy. If I find a line of discussion to be distracting, if I find unhelpful comments being made, I do reserve the right to place discussion under archive. I am not here to preserve timestamps or format. I am here to try to get you folks towards some consensus. If you do not care for this approach, then you are free to leave discussion. That said, per your requests, I will leave discussions in the order in which they happened; I will not move things to the talk page, nor will I place anything under {{collapse}} templates. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So that you fully understand my motives for keeping the mediation as it was written, it was precisely with the the same purpose as you, i.e., that we will reach a consensus, but also to keep a record of many unhelpful comments and edits being made. I will be frank and tell you that your own ethnicity may disqualify you to mediate this matter impartially. You tell me. Just as your mediating a dispute concerning Fred Phelps might be questioned for a similar reason. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh... not really. I only consider my heritage to be "Wisconsinite" (so... German? My town is almost completely Norwegian...) My heritage extends no further than a label, and I only use the label for the sake of having a label at all (i.e., I don't care). If it's a real concern for you, I'll see if I can kick this up to MedCom. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask the question to antagonize you. After reading this [38] I felt that inquiring about it was not unreasonable. Your user box stated that you are of Polish ancestry. Nothing about Norway or Germany, or even Wisconsin. I am still curious whether or not you speak or read Polish. Perhaps when this is over we can have a beer together, as I often take my boat to Door County, and I enjoy philosophical discussions about "cabbages" and "kings". The part about your heritage extending no further than a label, and your using that label because "you don't care" really does intrigue me. I'm getting my statement together in the meantime. But if I may paraphrase Caesar's comment regarding Pompeia...Like Caesar's wife, a mediator should be above suspicion. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite an offer ;-) For the record, no, I don't speak Polish. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC) seriously though, back to business :-p

Question for Vecrumba

Ok, but would it be listed as "archaic: Breslau" or as it is now? It seems like you're proposing to 1) replace language that the alternative name is in with a generic "archaic" or "historical" label (so instead of "German: Breslau" it would be "Archaic: Breslau", and apply the 10% rule for inclusion, and 2) add a "Names" section to explain origins. Is that correct? But then why not just apply the 10% rule as is, with the language that the name is in?radek (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Under my proposal, it would be "(historical: Breslau)" in recognition of that being prior common English usage. More names detail would be covered in the article body. As I've indicated, the WP:PLACE "10%" is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to distinguish between a foreign language name that is being used in the English source and a historical common English usage name. The two are not the same. Presenting such names in the context of English usage accomplishes two goals:

• the English language reader is immediately informed that to read about the place in English in earlier sources they need to use the historical variant;
• English language historical variants can be presented, as I've used my example of Liepāja/Libau, without dredging up in the lead that the etymology of past English usage often has its basis in conflict and subjugation; historical foreign language names require the additional attention that can only be given in the body of the article.

Hope this helps! VЄСRUМВА  ♪  04:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Novickas

Actually the "or" is what makes it NOT vague in this case(s) - since we don't even worry about who lived there but whether or not 10% of English language sources use the name. 10% of English language sources do NOT use alternative names for New York. That part of policy is just fine.radek (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Leo1410

WP:PLACE should not be followed here for that simple reason that it does not lead to an NPOV encyclopedia that is most accessible for English-speaking people. Here are the reasons:

1) The policy gives undue weight to the imperial powers that have ruled over smaller nations in the past. This is a legacy of the fact that the English language itself is POV toward the conquerors. The Birzai and Warsaw arguments show that prominently featuring the name used the power that once held hegemonic power will offend people and is inherently POV.

2) This is English Wikipedia. We are creating an encyclopedia for English speakers. As Mikej007 pointed out, these articles are going to be mostly used by genealogists in the US, Canada, Australia, etc. If great-grandpa spoke Yiddish, Rusyn, or some other minority language (or one where names shifted with borders) he might have used a name that doesn't meet the 10% requirement, but still needs to be there. Is Suvalkai and Suwalki the same city? Why should the genealogist have to guess? Including any alternative names used in English, in the lead where they are most accessible, seems much more in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia than witholding potentially useful information.

3) The editors involved are wasting too much time bickering over a problem for which neither side offers an NPOV solution. They'd be much better off creating content.

Now, my points may seem to contradict, but I think Vercrumba has offered a very sensible solution. Include any and all relevant names used by ENGLISH sources, but do so in a way that doesn't give undue weight. I might suggest avoiding words like "archaic" or "historical" entirely. Examples off the top of my head (in alphabetical order so we don't bicker about the order):

Vilnius (also: Vilna, Vilne, Wilne, Wilnius, Wilno) Lviv (alternative: Lemburg, Leopolis, Lvov, Lwow) Krakow (Cracovia, Cracow, Krak, Krakau)

Then issues of when and where the alternative names are used can be addressed in relevant parts of the article. "Vilnius' Polish population (which uses Wilno, the Polish version of the city's name) has several political organizations including..."

To summarize WP:PLACE and the 10% rule won't fix this problem. Leo1410 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a pierogi and golabki-eating Polish-Wisconsinite like our mediator. With Fire and Sword is my favorite book of all time (though as someone with a History degree I can see how skewed the history in it is). I lived in Lithuania for a summer and picked up a little bit of Lietuviskai (Suvalketiskai in fact--the true Lithuanian, though those in Vilnius may disagree). I've never been to Poland and can't speak any Polish (despite my Polish pride). I'm fascinated by these arguments on wiki, but I tend to stay out of them.

1) Poland was never an "imperial power ruling over smaller nations" (I can see how one could stretch definitions here to make it so that Poland-Lithuania ruled over Ukraine and Belarus but that's about it). However, the concern about "imperial names" itself is legitimate - but that's why this is about alternative names not article titles. Note that myself and others like Jacurek and Mike are not proposing changing article titles, just including alternative names. Dr. Dan and Lokyz however, are, or at least have in the past, tried to push for changing "Krakow" to "Cracow".

2) Agree mostly. The 10% rule is there to prevent arbitrary abuse, like including the Swahili name of Polish cities just to annoy Polish editors, or the Igbo name of Lithuanian cities just to annoy Lithuanian editors. Basically there should be some threshold. Like I said there may be some exceptions, as there always are, but these can be solved on case by case basis.

3) I agree with this as well. I dislike the terminology "archaic" but other than that Vecrumba's proposal is pretty good. However, I think the 10% rule should still apply to what constitutes "relevant names used by English sources" - i.e. what goes in there. My only other concern is that it should be clarified to what extent it should generalize to places outside of Poland/Lithuania. I also think that it's about time that the other users - Dr. Dan, Lokyz and M.K. directly address Vecrumba's proposal.radek (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Fairly or not, many Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarussians view the Polish influence on their histories exactly the way Poles view the German and Russian influence on their nation. Whether you or I think Poland was an imperial power or not doesn't matter. English scholarship does not clearly consider Lithuanian national history discourse any less legitimate than Polish national history discourse. Just as the American, Canadian, British, and Shawnee historical interpretations must be considered in an NPOV article on the War of 1812, the school of thought that holds that Poland's influence in the cultural development of Lithuania was a negative thing carries as much weight as the school of thought that sees it as positive.

2) I doubt you'd find Igbo versions of Lithuanian village names in English scholarship. If we throw out the 10% rule and focus on inclusion (making wikipedia more informative) and less on exclusion (which leads to edit warring) it won't be an issue. I'd get rid of percentages and include any name with more than one documented English source. The 4-10 characters it will take to add another name aren't going to kill the article.

3) I think the Lithuanian editors might be more willing to accept a general convention for including all alternative names in a non-undue way. Right now, it just seems like a unilateral effort to place Polish names on almost-equal footing with the native name on every hamlet, neighborhood, and person that ever existed on land that was once part of the Commonwealth. I don't see why Polish names in Lithuania are more necessary than any of the other variants in naming across Eastern Europe. There needs to be a general solution applied to all Eastern Europe and probably to other parts of the world as well.

Can we hammer out the details on Vercrumba's proposal and present that as the potential replacement for the current guideline starting with Eastern Europe?

Leo1410 (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also responding to Leo1410—

1) Yes, the short version of my proposal is to present other English language usage that is necessary for the English language reader, as I've been indicating with my Liepāja/Libau example,...

2) ...and yes, without any representation of the etymology of prior/other English place names, which more often than not is rooted in hegemony; and as I've indicated, WP:PLACE does not address this phenomenon, that is, it knows about English and foreign language names but does not deal explicitly with common English usage derived from foreign names. It only does so implicitly in the context of current common English usage, which over-rides the local place name, e.g., the long-standing debate over "Kiev" versus "Kyiv" (and we see how well things are going there...). In my example, Liepāja (historical: Libau) is essential for any English reader interested in the history of the city, but in the context of 1), Liepāja (German: Libau) is not acceptable--nor does it inform the English-language reader that Libau is the name to use in reading about the history of the city.

3) As someone who fully understands the dynamics of Baltic/Eastern European place names from their own heritage and study of the region, this is the only solution I can come up with which properly serves our English language readers of our English language encyclopedia, regarding the article lead, without dredging up historical etymology and/or/by filling the lead with foreign language place names described as such--which, AGAIN, is a disservice to the English language reader as they won't know which one(s) represent other common English language usage.

   To the representation of alternate/past common English usage names in the lead, if it leads to a compromise, I can personally probably live without "archaic:" and with "also:" in the place of "historical:", although I do believe, editorially, that "historical:" is required to put the other English-usage place names (remember, we don't care if it's the current place name anywhere in non-English) in proper context. (And so to the fundamental flaw which makes WP:PLACE break, which is the doomed attempt to legislate, if you will, as it is a supposed consensus, what non- English usage, non- current- sovereign- entity- standard- local- names to also include.

   And so the fundamental failure of WP:PLACE, solving a problem (foreign place names in lead) not simply, with (a): English other English current-sovereign-common (if not also used in English), that is none and deal with them all with context in the body of the article, but instead (b): postulating 10% et al. with no context, which is destined to please no one and offend everyone. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Leo's response

1) As I said above, there may be some truth to that in regard to Ukraine (maybe Belarus) but I don't think that Polish influence on Lithuania is described as "imperialist" in English language sources. The two countries formed a voluntary union. Of course the negative view of the Polish-Lithuanian union(s) found in Lithuanian sources should be considered, just as the negative view of the Polish-Lithuanian union(s) found in Polish sources (and there are plenty) should be included. But calling the Polish-Lithuanian relationship "imperialism" is a very fringe view (if it exists at all) and not comparable (nor is it compared in English sources) to situation of Poland and Germany or USA and the Shawnee.

2) Like I said I agree, however 1 single English language source is not enough to prevent "retributionist" attacks. Of course the Igbo example is exaggerated - but I think it makes a valid point. Some editors might engage in tit-for-tat edits as in "if you put in Polish name in MY article then I'll put all kinds of names in your articles". The 10% rule is there to prevent such abuse.

3) I think you're misunderstanding the situation here. Foreign language, alternative names ALREADY ARE in most Polish articles, including Suvalkai in Suwalki - most Polish editors have no problem with the inclusion of Lithuanian names in the articles on places which have a shared Lithuanian-Polish background. This is why most Polish editors more or less are supporting Vecrumba's proposal here. It is the Lithuanian editors who insist that Polish names must not appear anywhere in Lithuania related articles, and do so in violation of current Wikipedia policy. Basically they are the ones who are acting unilaterally, claiming for some unexplained and unfounded reasons some kind of exceptionalism here.radek (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to get bogged down here on Leo's segment (I thought Leo's contributions to be very good, btw) with debating Radeksz on his views concerning Polish-Lithuanian relations, let me say several things. First, Leo is correct when he says ..." many Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and Belarussians view the Polish influence on their histories exactly the way Poles view the German and Russian influence on their nation". Second, when Radeksz states ..."But calling the Polish-Lithuanian relationship "imperialism" is a very fringe view (if it exists at all) and not comparable (nor is it compared in English sources) to situation of Poland and Germany or USA and the Shawnee", I think he needs to consider the PLC) (long non-existent) a little less, and re-read Zeligowski's Mutiny or the Suwałki Agreement or the 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania to get a better feel for another perspective. And is this also part of the naming policy [39]? Interesting that you bring up Cracow (the city's English name for at least 300 years), again. If anything, I may have "pushed" for changing "Kraków" to Cracow on English Wikipedia. It probably is the most obvious case of the dual standards being applied concerning geographical toponyms on English WP. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no double standard here. The very obvious difference is the one between "what to title an article" and "what alternative names to include". This has been said a million times previously so let me inquire if you understand the distinction.radek (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the distinction and the need for some editors to put non-English titles onto subjects that have a long standing English name. If however, you don't understand the distinction of a Double standard, as applied to "what alternative names to include" over the last several years, I hope you read my statement. I'll be sure to include a couple examples. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand the distinction. If so, why do you keep bringing it up over and over and over again? And I know what a "double standard" is, thank you very much - but distinction with of that with what? Please do provide concrete examples as otherwise a discussion is impossible. Also, rather than continually bringing up side topics and introducing diversions in the discussion can you please write a comment, in a section entitled "Comment by Dr. Dan" on your views on 1) The current wikipedia policy on alternative names and why it shouldn't apply in the specific case of Lithuanian places and 2) Vecrumba's proposal?radek (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please be patient. As I remember you weren't even going to be able to participate here until the middle of the month. Also, Jacurek was injured and needed some time off too. Those considerations and RL has caused the delay. But I will respond with a statement. And ..."continually bringing up side topics and introducing diversions" is a hoot of a comment. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be patient. I just thought that since you seem to be busy in other areas of Wikipedia and are being quite prolific even on this talk (with everything but actually stating your position) you had the required time to finally let us know where you stand. Why is my comment a "hoot"?radek (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid personal comments, you two. You can work out these differences on your talk pages. I'm drafting the next question, below. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Some details on the history of WP:PLACE

The process of writing WP:PLACE was organic, and was intended for Eastern and Central European naming disputes. Many proposals were written by many people, and subsequent proposals took parts from earlier proposals. Proposal F (Prop F), written by Piotrus, was the version that stuck for a while. The criteria for inclusion at that time was "75% or more of total hits considering all possible variants" from Google Scholar and Google Books.

User:Lysy changed the proposed guideline to cover a wider scope (wider scope); no reverts were made to that change.

On the talk page, User:Fadix fears there may be policy abuse (abuse?); Piotrus replies with this, effectively creating the 10% rule.

User:Pmanderson introduced the 10% rule (10% rule) in the article; this was achieved by changing a relevant footnote, so it might be hard to tell what happened from the diff. Lysy reverts. Piotrus takes Pm's text and makes a new proposal (here); this avoids revert wars. Pm eventually archives F (F is archived). The 10% rule is eventually consolidated into the main text (it was in ref tags before, which clearly became rather useless)

The {{guideline}} template is thrown up (guideline) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I should add that this all happened in 05-07, for the most part, and was not a controversial process. There were only a couple of reverts, and everything added to that page gained consensus. I repeat that if you want to change the guideline to change what you can do to an article is going about it backwards. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. For the record, can the exact time that this Wikipedia policy based on "consensus" was invoked concerning the insertion of Polish geographical toponyms into the lead of virtually every Lithuanian city, town, village, hamlet, and finally "neighborhood"? It appears on the surface that according to the mediator's research, the "policy" is around two and a half years old. If I'm not mistaken my research indicates that it was put in place, then removed, and finally reinserted. Isn't this what happened? More importantly, when was it first invoked and by whom? I think this information is pertinent and will be of benefit down the road when this entire mess is finally resolved. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Again: it isn't a policy, it isn't a "policy", it's a guideline :-p (NPOV, NOR, and V are the policies). This seems like some grand equivocation -- and I agree that it is, on many levels -- but the difference is that a guideline can be ignored if a consensus trumps it. Not so with policy: you can't trump the neutral point of view, nor original research, or verifiability.

Nor was it "consensus"; it was a bona fide consensus, no quotes. But consensus can change, which appears to be what's happening. When it happened doesn't matter, insofar as it's there now. Remember at the end of the day that we are a wiki after all. (It would be extremely difficult (perhaps impossible, for all intents and purposes) to figure out when WP:PLACE was first invoked elsewhere; it's also worth noting that between 05 and now, the 'pedia has changed a lot, so there's the risk of taking that particular invocation out of context. Piotrus et al might know, though.

As for the minor revert war: that was because someone was changing another's proposal, not because of the content of the addition to that proposal. That was quickly fixed by making the change its own proposal. Eventually, the old proposal was dropped without conflict. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you take a closer look at the early history of WP:PLACE, you'll see that it originated as a Polish-Ukrainian collaborative effort to settle some disputes (read: edit wars) between Polish and Ukrainian editors on place names in Eastern Europe, so it seems to be fairly relevant to Lithuania, too. Over the last years, I have repeatedly suggested the Lithuanian editors to contribute to the guideline. --Lysy^talk 03:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Piotrus

I think it is an excellent question: "Why shouldn't we follow WP:PLACE" in this case? I don't see the reason why we shouldn't; the fact that some people with a above-average nationalistic feelings will get offended is not a valid argument - encyclopedias are not written to be politically (in)correct, they are written to be informative.

The reason WP:PLACE supports use of alternative names (and do note that that use is actually very limited) is not because we support some imperialist or nationalist views, but because former historical names used in some English works are informative. With regards to Polish-Lithuanian history, it is obvious that many more than just 10% of English sources use Polish toponyms when discussing Lithuania, particularly in historical context. There are several reasons for it:

• Poland is bigger, has more writers, more people writing about it, hence Polish language will influence English more than Lithuanian
• up till the Lithuanian National Revival, Lithuanian elites were polonized, and spoke Polish instead of Lithuanian, which is reflected in publications (including English)

Bottom line is that historical Polish names are used (sometimes correctly, sometimes not) in modern English literature, are used even more often in historical one, and are often relevant to the context (since Polish language and hence toponyms were the ones used by literate local elites). A random person reading a random book on Polish-Lithuanian history is likely to run into Polish toponyms (and Lithuanian ones too, of course). Informative encyclopedia would make it easy, with redirects and mentions of alt name in text, to figure that Paneriai is Ponary, and explain to reader why the two names exist and which one is the most correct in what context. Edits that remove such info (example, example, example) are not helping anyone; on the contrary, they are making the articles worse. We are here to build an informative encyclopedia, and for that reason WP:PLACE should be followed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting. So, P.P., as the author of this guideline can you explain how you established the 10% figure, as opposed to 5% or 25%? Also are you able to pinpoint exactly when your policy was first invoked as a rationale in the dispute regarding Polish and Lithuanian toponyms? Does the "10% Plan" created by you apply to other things Lithuanian, e.g, people, buildings, and other matters as well, or just geography? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

10% is a nice rule of thumb; if the community wants 25% or 5%, I don't particularly care. Buildings I think fall into the scope of PLACE, people not so much, although there is the interesting feedback between Talk:Gdansk/Vote involving naming of people, so... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Leo1410 says..."10% won't fix the problem", Vecrumba says..."The 10% rule muddles the issue", you say..."10% is a nice rule of thumb". Obviously there are different opinions about it. Just the same I'll repeat my other question. Can you (or anyone else) pinpoint exactly when your 10% guideline was first invoked as a rationale in the dispute regarding the insertion of Polish names into more and more Lithuanian geographical toponyms? Although the disagreement goes back sometime now, I believe that the usage of the 10% guideline is a relatively new phenomenon. I could be mistaken. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Still hoping the Prokonsul will answer the question concerning when the 10% guideline was first invoked as a new rationale to insert Polish names into the lead sentence of virtually every Lithuanian geographical toponym on English Wikipedia (there have been so many other rationales and explanations). As he may be busy for awhile, it can be an open question for anyone to answer. I believe it has already been established at this mediation that P.P. created the guideline in June 2006. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Question to Vecrumba

Will you formally state what your proposal is, and what the issues around it are (e.g., historical, archaic, etc)? Seems like quite a few folks -- perhaps even despite themselves? -- are leaning towards your proposal. Thanks. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Succinctness is not my forté, and so:

• Article lead
  • The article lead shall indicate current common English language place name usage and other significant common English language usage, typically prior historical place names.
  • An objective 3rd party shall be used to determine common English language usage in lieu of Internet search statistics. For English Wikipedia that is the U.S. Board of Geographic Names' (BGN) database on the GEOnet Names Server (GNS), maintained by the National GeoSpatial-Intelligence Agency.
  • The hierarchy for place names at the outset of the lead shall be:
    
    1. Common English usage place name (also article title)
    2. Pronunciation key (optional)
    3. Sovereign foreign-language place name (if different from common English usage)
    4. Pronunciation key (optional)
    5. "(historical:" or "(also:" "English common usage variant 1, variant 2,...)", with variants listed alphabetically; as a point of demarcation:
       1. for the Baltics and Eastern Europe, alternate common English language usage prior to the cessation of all hostilities subsequent to the end of World War I is suggested to be introduced as "historical"
       2. for [another region], alternate common English language usage prior to [point in time] is suggested to be introduced as "historical"
       3. where there is a mix of usage subsequent to the historical demarcation point, or there is no such clear demarcation in English language usage, alternate common English language usage is suggested to be introduced as "also"
• Article body
  • Common place names in other languages may be indicated in the article body, either at the outset of the article body or in a separate "Names" section
  • The hierarchy for non-English place names in the article body/Names section shall be:
    1. Alternate language place names in other than the primary sovereign language, which languages also have official status in the country of sovereignty; where de jure (not de facto) autonomous regions exist whose regional language has official status, that name shall be included; these names shall be listed in alphabetical order
    2. Other alternate language place names may be introduced by the editors, as follows, in recognition of historical regional circumstances:
       1. Eastern Europe—in recognition of the movement of borders, transfers of sovereignty (whether forcible or peaceable), the impact of the Holocaust on the Jewish community, other language place names may be introduced which:
          1. recognize a indigenous Jewish community prior to the Holocaust in the place in question
          2. recognize current or prior historical indigenous settlement by ethnolinguistic groups whose language is not included in the above hierarchy
          3. for the purposes of this standard, "indigenous" is suggested to be, at a minimum, a continuous presence of more than two centuries of more than one eighth (12.5%) of the population of the place in question regardless of the circumstances of the establishment of that presence; the one eighth rule shall not apply to Jewish communities
       2. [another region]—in recognition of [historical circumstances]'
          1. [additional place name/language]
    3. For an other alternate language place name to be included under the second hierarchy above, the article must include a discussion of that ethnolinguistic community's history at the place in question

I've provided numerous examples in prior discussion. Per what I propose, you will note that for a place in Latvia with a predominant Russian population for at least two centuries, the article can introduce the Russian place name in the "second" hierarchy in the article body. Admittedly I've spent less time on the article body standard, but, again, the determinant should be related to the ethnolinguistic communities at the place in question, not an Internet search.

   My experience with Internet searches is that they are like the laboratory experiment where you ask, "What are the results you want?" before starting the experiment. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In regard to "Article lead 5.1" - I'm afraid that the way this is worded is not going to solve any of the problems that this particular mediation is about - shared history of Polish and Lithuanian places. The way it reads sounds like we'll have to decide what the common English usage was prior to WWI. And how are we going to decide that? Google books searches restricted to the pre 19xx (what year exactly did WWI end in this region?)? But then why not just use common English usage in present day sources, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be based on? And why World War I? The specific problem will be that one side will argue that the name "Ponary" was never used prior to after WWI (which is btw, false) and one side will argue that it was. In order to decide which side is correct we will have to go to the sources - and that is why something like the 10% rule is essential here, even if imperfect. I understand your point that google searches can be manipulated through data mining - but there are limits to that, particularly when the guideline calls for 10% and any meaningful search yields more than 30, 50 or even 60% usage.radek (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, take a concrete example, e.g., Šiauliai and demonstrate how this city would appear in Wikipedia according to your proposal? Thanks. It's really quite a lot to digest. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) The WWI point is only for the sake of "historical" versus "also" for describing the usage, not whether or not the name appears as alternate English usage. I'll look to see if I can clarify that (but not tonight). "Ponary" is alternate common English language usage and so it appears in the lead.
   On Šiauliai... The lead might be:

• Šiauliai, Lithuanian also: Šiaulių (historical: Schaulen, Shavli, Szawle)

with the article body listing going into languages/more detail, which I'd have to do some additional research to work into a proper example. The lead is a bit more complex than some others owing to also having an alternate Lithuanian name. This is just a start, consider this example a work in progress.
   Obviously a bit "busier" than the current lead, but the ones I've listed are all English usage names (per BGN, but I've left out some variants with very low use) which are informative to the English language reader who may look for other English language sources (regardless of etymology). VЄСRUМВА  ♪  05:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Simpler?

The lead might also read: Šiauliai, ( Lithuanian also: Šiaulių, see also other names. Seems a lot less complicated. The other names section can be adjusted to satisfy every possible "need", i.e. historical, archaic, nationalistic, patriotic, and someone's great grandpa's desire to reminisce about the past. Links and disambiguation adjustments should be able to provide finishing touches. And links in other languages are a great component of Wikipedia. I use them all the time. Only a mouse click away. That would help settle this too. You'll find this method employed in many articles in English Wikipedia with satisfactory results. In fact the current article on Šiauliai (undoubtably now in jeopardy), has this option more or less in place at this time. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Simpler, but wrong. With wiriting the sole Lithuanian name in the lead we are erasing hitory and heritage of centuries, and doing a bad job for the readers of wikipedia. As I said previously, a big fraction of the readers of the articles is and will be genealogy seekers. For many of those, grandpa told them about Shavel, Ponivezsh, Wilno, Memel, Brisk de Lita, Breslau, Katowitz, Warshe and ext. Objectively, that information should be in the lead, so it will be easier to understand what's going on wihout searches for etiology in the names section. Of course it should be, and there is the place to explain what is Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, Yiddish or German. I am leaning towards Vecrumba proposal, just with the exception of (also:...) instead the historical/archaic. My ideal:

• Šiauliai, Lithuanian (also: Schaulen, Šiaulių, Shavel, Shavli, Szawle) the also should should lead by click to the names section - also.

Basically agree with Vecrumba and Mike. My only concern is this: how do we determine what names go in the "also" section? This is where I think the 10% rule can be useful.radek (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I should be more precise - it would be the 10% rule or existance of a significant population in the past or a use of the name in historical sources. So for example, Suvalkai may not appear in 10% of English sources (I think that's borderline), but because it used to have a large Lithuanian population, Suvalkai should be in the "also" section of Suwalki.radek (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Short response, I'm not sure all the variants should go... if we look at BGN, sometimes there are quite a number of them. I cross referenced all the BGN variants to google books to focus on the most used--I'll think about formulating that into a litmus test for lead versus body "other names" (still referring to English language usage). To Dr. Dan, having alternate English language usage in the lead make the article immediately more accessible for someone doing any historical research. As in my example of Liepāja/Libau, all scholarly texts on the Russian Navy refer to Libau. Burying that in the body—although that would be my patriotic preference—would be a disservice to the English language reader. If it helps reach consensus/compromise, I'm fine with "also:" in place of "historical:", although I still believe there is a difference. "Also" implies it's still current usage, as opposed to "past" "current usage." I'll think some more on the whole 10% thing...VЄСRUМВА  ♪  18:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

close