Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Names of Byzantine rulers

Mediation Case: 2006-05-23 Names of Byzantine rulers
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Panairjdde 10:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * The places were we are "discussing" are Talk:Constantine XI and User_talk:Panairjdde, the articles related are those involving Byzantine Emperors, Michael_VIII_Palaeologus, Isaac_II_Angelus, Alexius V, Irene Lascarina


 * Who's involved?
 * Mostly User:Imladjov and User:Panairjdde


 * What's going on?
 * User:Imladjov is changing the content of the articles (not the titles) from the Latinized versions (Palaeologus, Lascaris, Angelus, Comnenus, Andronicus) to the Greek ones (Palaiologos, Laskaris, Angelos, Komnenos, Andronikos). Ha claims the Greek names are the "new" scholar standard, I claim the old names are the most common used, also by non-scholars.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * I would like to revert to the Latinized forms, both in titles and in the articles. I agree to insert the Greek names for reference


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * It is ok to work openly


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?


 * This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
 * what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.


 * I would like to be a mediator, but I am not an expert in WP policies.

Mediator response
Hello, I'm digital_m  e ( t / c ) from the Mediation Cabal, and I'll be taking this case. As users have pointed out at Talk:Constantine_XI, the Latinized forms of the names appear to be in more common usage, as determined by google searches. However, both forms of the names have a large quantity of results, and as has been pointed out, Latin usage is more common in English. The results from IMDB are irrelevant, since these reflect naming in the last 100 years, which has no bearing on scholarly research of an ancient period. Therefore, these results can't be the sole measure by which it is decided which usage is more common. The main deciding factor here seems to be usage in scholarly work, and there are multiple references to scholarly works using the ODB forms of the names. The dispute seems to rise over a difference in opinions about whether Latin or ODB spellings are the "scholarly standard." Purely based off the evidence in the article, the scholarly standard appears to be ODB spellings. After reading through the articles in question, I do not see too many confusions on the part of non-scholars resulting from a change from Latin to ODB. To further alleviate confusion, a notice could be placed at the top of the pages, informing users that the ODB spelling is accepted as standard, and that the Latin spelling is equivilant. However, further discussion in order to establish a consensus is necesary before any changes are made, as the survey ended deadlocked.

Above all, please, remember to be civil, follow Etiquette, and try to reach a consensus.-- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 23:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Update 17:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Imladjov has asked for a more specific reccomendation. As this user has pointed out, whether Wikipedia should follow common usage or the scholarly usage is at question here. To resolve this, it becomes necessary to determine if Wikipedia (or any general encyclopedia, for that matter) is an inherently scholarly text, or, for lack of a better term, a "common" text. This also raises the question of whether some Wikipedia articles are scholarly, while others might not be scholarly. It is obvious that the articles in question draw heavily on scholarly research, but at the same time, they are written for the general public to be able to read. In these articles, there is nothing to be lost, content-wise, by following the scholarly standard and using ODB names in the article. It would be a different matter if the names were considerably different, but, as it stands, the Latin names are close enough to the ODB names, that, along with a citation of the Latin name, there would be little confusion resulting from the use of ODB names in the article. Therefore, it is my reccomendation that proposal two from this page be implemented in the short term, until a consensus can be reached about proposal three.-- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 17:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This recommendation is precipitate, and erroneous in fact. There is no scholarly consensus; there is a greater tendency to Hellenize in Byzantine studies, and no more than that. Furthermore, Wikipedia may at times be written by pedants, but it should not be written for pedants. Septentrionalis 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with for misconduct and  for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil. Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion
The following comment was left on my talk page by Imladjov.

Mediation on forms of Byzantine Names
Thank you for undertaking this mediation, which may be all the more necessary as the survey has deadlocked, with 9 users on each side of the issue at present. I would be interested in a more explicit recommendation from you. I think ultimately this comes down to the question of whether Wikipedia should follow "common usage" (and what exactly constitutes common usage here, and whether Latinized forms or ODB forms are actually more common today remains difficult to resolve) or the current standard in the field (the ODB), which is both widely accepted (as a consensus of English-language scholars in the field) and which is not by any means confusing or unattainable for "common" readers, as has been alleged by the opposing side. Perhaps it is appropriate to define an explicit naming convention for such materials, which does not currently exist, again contrary to the allegations of the opposing party. A further difficulty may be the different extent to which Greek names are now "Hellenized" in literature dealing with different periods (i.e., the type of usage current in the ODB may be a bit slower in affecting works on the classical period). Given the unsatisfactory state of the discussion, this may best be undertaken by a third party such as yourself or by a group of users.

If this message properly belongs on the mediation page, please feel free to move it there (I am not entirely familiar with this procedure).

Thank you for your time, Imladjov 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

About the use of Latin and Greek names
I read the proposed mediation, and I have one point to raise. If, in the end, it is decided that the ODB is a standard that has to be adopted for English Wikipedia, the best solution will be to have ODB names for both the article and the article name (title). There is no reason to have (for example) Palaeologus in the article name, and Palaiologos used throughout the whole article. Of course we will have a redirect and we will cite the Latinized version, but I think there should be consistency in the naming.

That said, since the survey looks like a balanced one, and the mediator gives such an opinion, it seems to me that my position is not overhelming as I though it was when I started this matter. In this case, I shall concede the use of a "scholar standard", since as far as it come out ODB is a "scholar standard", in the articles.

Let me state, however, that (1) we are using a scholar standard in Wikipedia, instead of a non-scholar-people standard, and (2) that this is just an example of how we are sacrifying a culture (the Anglo-Saxon one, in this case) in name of some sort of "correctness".

This matter ends here, for me. Best regards to all. --Panairjdde 13:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Panairjdde, I am sorry you feel this way, but Byzantine studies are entirely dependent on the relevant scholarship. In this case we are dealing with a standard set by English-speaking scholars.  There is no true divide between their work and what is theoretically available to the average English speaker who decides to pick up one of their books.  If using modern English convention is to sacrifice English culture, then I do not know what isn't.  Latin is not English, and I do not think you would like canis lupus to replace the English word "wolf" in that article.  So why do this with Byzantine names?  And we can hardly expect Wikipedia not to strive towards accuracy.  Best, Imladjov 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this mediation should be concluded, and am prepared to take it on. Wikipedia should avoid, where possible, taking positions recognizable chiefly to nationalists and pedants. Here it is easy.  Septentrionalis 20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)