Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-20/Minotaur

Where is the dispute?
There has been some issues brewing about semantic issues in the Minotaur article. It's been leading to some edit warring and mild personal attacks. I am staying out of it, but the article is suffering as a result. I would appreciate experienced neutral parties to mediate here.

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Notpietru
 * User:Elphion

What is the dispute?
They are arguing and reverting edits about the Minotaur's name, the use of articles in Greek, etc.

What would you like to change about this?
I'd like to have some agreement on the diction that they are arguing about and guidance given to the editors.

How do you think we can help?
I ask that you offer an opinion and see if they will act more maturely. if that fails, then refer to more formal mediation. Thanks.

Mediator notes
I am starting this case by making sure the parties are aware of the situation and that they agree to work towards a solution through mediation. —  æk Talk 10:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Notpietru, Elphion: please indicate your willingness to participate with a comment below:


 * I'm willing to participate. This is not about the maturity of participating editors - it's not about editors at all. It's about the authenticity of material available on Wikipedia, and the dissimulation of Greek heritage by unfortunate ignorance (a word I use precisely and neutrally, "unawareness") and obstinacy. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I welcome mediation. Elphion (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Understanding the issues
Alright, after reviewing the article history and talk page, it seems like there are two concrete issues here:
 * 1) The transliteration of the Greek name into the Roman alphabet with diacritics
 * 2) How to address the alternate name "Asterion" in the article

It seems like #1 has become somewhat of a moot point – the transliteration is no longer included in the article. Is that acceptable to both of you?

As far as #2 goes, here is my understanding of Notpietru's position: the name "Minotaur" was understood as a description in ancient Greek, and not a name; the name of the creature used by ancient Greeks (those from Crete specifically) was "Asterion."

Elphion thinks that the phrasing used in the article to express that sentiment is prescriptive, implying that "Asterion" is the correct name for the creature. S/he also holds that "Asterion" and "Minotaur" are equally valid names in ancient Greek.

Is this understanding basically correct? Are their aspects of your views that I have not captured? Please give a brief comment if you think there are additional issues to be considered. —  æk Talk 05:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Re.


 * , entirely acceptable.
 * , basically that is the concern - Asterion might not be so readily recognisable as 'Minotaur', nor part of the 'sub-cultures' the other editor seems to consider, but it is a name in the truest sense of the word from a truly native source. Its importance is non-negotiable. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also... "statement is prescriptive", not at all, entirely descriptive (proper name/proper noun). I'm not sure why this has become such an issue. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) is not really acceptable. The transcription is useful information and has been part of the article since 2006. (It is not my addition.) When Notpietru removed it last month, the only substantial reason offered was that everyone should know the Greek alphabet. I think that is insufficient reason for deleting it, and hiding information seems inconsistent with the purpose of an encyclopedia.

(2) I argued on the talk page that "by its proper name, Asterion" implies a unique proper name. But the evidence for Asterion comes only from late Classical sources; there is no evidence that that is the name by which the Minotaur was generally known, or that he did not have other "proper names" in other times and places. Both Asterion and Minotaur are proper descriptive phrases, and the latter is more widely attested. The phrase "was known in Crete by the name of Asterion" was my suggestion as a compromise between Notpietru's "known in Crete by its proper name, Asterion" and Wetman's counter suggestion "known in Crete as Asterion"; it states what is known from the sources, without the unsourced assumption that the name is older than late Classical times.

Elphion (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a solution
OK. As far as #1 is concerned, the manual of style is pretty clear that the transcription should be in IPA if it is included at all. Based on Ancient_Greek_phonology, we get the following phonemic transcription from Μῑνώταυρος:. Since Ancient Greek is no longer spoken, we can't achieve a better (phonetic) transcription. Do you both agree to that transcription being included in the article, along with a link to the Ancient Greek phonology page (as required by the MOS)?

As far as #2 goes, I agree with Elphion that the current wording is ambiguous. This may have to do with the variety of English (American) that I speak, but I am the second editor to hit this snag. In the interest of clarity, we should probably edit out "proper" – after all, "name" means basically the same as "proper name" in everyday usage. How about the following proposed sentence: In Crete, the Minotaur was also known by the name "Asterion," which he shared with Minos' foster-father. This avoids the problematic "proper" and reflects the fact that "Minotaur" and "Asterion" were both in circulation (with the word "also"). Is this wording agreeable to both of you?

As a side note, we should also include the following Google books link in the citation for that sentence:. —  æk Talk 04:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) IPA is certainly acceptable, as I indicated on the talk page. WP:MOSIPA also condones the additional use of "official" non-IPA romanizations; the system used in Minotaur is quite standard, though perhaps not rising to the level of "official".  Omitting it in favor of IPA would be OK.


 * (2) Your wording is fine, from my point of view. Following WP:MOSTEXT, I would use italics rather than quotes for Asterion, which is here "mentioned" rather than "used".


 * Elphion (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello? Elphion (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I will declare this case closed in 7 days unless two individuals object. Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Without objection, I have closed this. Reopen if anyone appears.Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)