User talk:Kotniski/Neu

Old comments
This relates to a previous proposal that was on this page; sorry I forgot there was a talk page too.--Kotniski (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I like your draft for WP:AT... I do not like the draft for NPOV. I think it is important for that policy to specify that we not only may, but should use non-neutral names as our article titles, when those non-neutral names are in common use (as in Boston massacre etc). I think this is best presented at NPOV because it goes to the heart of what it means to have a truly neutral POV... we may think something isn't neutral, but our feelings take second place to the sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My draft does say "...can and should be used..." If you think the point can be better emphasized (perhaps by restoring the Boston massacre etc. examples), then feel free to edit.--Kotniski (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I had to read it again, but I can now see that you do say that ... sort of. I don't think it is as clear as the current version.  I will think on it further.
 * On a much broader note... I think the underlying issue in all "naming" disputes is that people get emotionally involved when they think in terms of the word "name". "Names" are closely associated with the thing itself, be it a person, a place, or an event.  What we are trying to say on both pages is that we must detach from our emotions about the "thing itself" (and its "name")  and instead approach the issue of "what we should call this topic" from a dispassionate and neutral point of view.  I don't know if it is possible, but perhaps we should see if we can discuss this issue without using the word "name" at all. It might help people understand the level detachment that we are seeking.  Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what NPOV basically does; but since it was felt necessary to include a section on "article titles" in it, it would seem more logical and complete to extend the scope of that section to cover names in more generality. I think there is a very specific point to be made about names (though it's not specific to article titles): that neutrality is generally attained here by using names per sources, even if various factions may dislike those names. If we're going to say anything about names/titles at NPOV, it should be that (and it shouldn't be presented in a way that implies that the principle applies only to article titles).--Kotniski (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Re present proposal
This is well done. Very concise. Maurreen (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Feel free to edit if you think you can improve it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't think I can improve it. :) Maurreen (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)