Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Former Yugoslavia naming conventions

Instructions
Just out of curiousity, how does this page work and how do we go from here? When does it even begin and what time frame is there to settle the matter? Is it a case of each participant having one monologue each to present his case which is then handed over to the committee? Or can we have multiple entries? If it is the latter then this too could see the very same escalation in tension like the examples previously witnessed. I don't refer to digging old wounds and bringing up the past, we have a case here which will see opposing views and these never seem to end!

Can I also point out another thing? The three articles listed: Lorenc Antoni, Luan Krasniqi and Shpëtim Hasani are not key topics by themselves. Apart from a conversation having taken place on Talk:Shpëtim Hasani, the Luan Krasniqi page is merely one of dozens of examples where reverting has taken place on this issue. Lorenc Antoni is the big player here. I must point out that the disagreement has not hitherto been for subjects born in Yugoslavia and successor states but persons born outside of the territory who came to live a portion of their lives on the territory. To be truthful, a regime is already in place for subjects born in Yugoslavia and this in turn is something that predates my inception as an editor, many users have been involved in the shaping of the articles and even in cases where I came to be involved, there was compromising which took place (particularly with User:Ev who suggested move the entire translation list to the footnotes). Note also that any change to the existing policy that is implemented here may involve the restructuring of many articles spanning the entire former Yugoslav region and this will attract attention from other editors involved in those areas (eg. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Vojvodina, etc.). As I say, the three of us - even with the backing of the committee - cannot surely plough ahead and amend the A-Z of Yugoslav-born subjects when the matters which concern us are restricted to a compact area. Zjarri himself has acknowledged a difference between those born in and out of Yugoslavia so I feel no need to raise issues on those born inside the territory, it would just complicate things, but for those born outside or before the state's creation: there is still a lot to say, by all of us.

Can someone please confirm the game plan for me so I know what to do and when? Note that I am logging out until tomorrow at the earliest (Tuesday 18 July 2012). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This only has to do with non-Slavic people that were born or lived in former Yugoslavia. We're not dealing with subjects related to all citizens/residents of former Yugoslavia. We're the ones involved in this dispute and statistically you and Majuru have been making almost all of the edits of these narrow topics(Ev, whom you mentioned hasn't been on wiki since August 2011). We don't agree on these issues and they'll hopefully get resolved on MEDCOM (if it gets approved). Bear in mind that the dispute will be divided into various points and we'll be able to discuss each one separately. In any case we're not going to determine anything that wouldn't be determined that way if there were 20 users involved in the dispute. These processes are about arguments not about numbers of users that take part. Sometimes the involved users may be 100 and sometimes just 3.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know Ev hasn't been active for a year, I was saying that many other editors have been involved in these translation presentations. I also am fully aware that this is about non-Slavic subjects but there are far more of these examples than you think: Hungarians, Vlachs, Turks, Roma, Italians, Germans, Austrians, the list grows; the region covered stretches from our familiar patch to Slovenia and all inbetween. Are we reviewing existing cases for those already known to be born in Yugoslavia in contrast to this or do we stick to those born outside the region? If we have to do both then we are in for a long ride. Besdies, how exactly do we present ourselves, where and when? I've never done one of these projects before. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait for the request to be accepted first.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's get started
Hi everybody! I'm Keilana, and I've been a mediator since 2008. Just a little bit about myself, I primarily edit in science-ish areas but I do lots of admin tasks also. I respond to both Keilana and Kei, so call me whatever works for you. The first thing I'd like everyone to do is create a new section with a statement of what they find the issue to be and where they stand. This is just so that everyone knows how everyone sees the situation. I want to ask you to not name other users or attack others' positions in these statements; my goal here is to get you to work towards a solution as colleagues, not adversaries. Thank you for participating in this process, I hope that you will come out on the other side satisfied with the outcome. I look forward to reading your statements. Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 22:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Situation - ZjarriRrethues

 * Hi Keilana. I'll try to be as precise and brief as possible. The issue as the title indicates has to do with the use of alternative names on bio articles of non-Slavic personalities that lived in former Yugoslavia. The mediation is necessary because conflicts are frequent and almost always end up on ANI, while the lack of a definitive policy exacerbates discussions as the participants tend to assume that their interpretation of the current conventions is the correct one.


 * View of ZjarriRrethues:
 * 1) All alternative names additions should be based on the frequency of their use in English-language sources. If there is a substantial number of English-language sources that uses the alternative version, then it should be used, otherwise its use would be irrelevant as it wouldn't reflect academic/journalistic norms. For example on Xherdan Shaqiri from time to time disputes arise as to whether the Slavic rendition should be used, however, no English-language sources have ever used that version
 * 2) The only bios that could be excluded from the above common use convention are those of high-ranking officials of the Yugoslav regime as they were representatives of the Yugoslav state apparatus, although in most such cases a substantial number of sources do use alternative Slavic renditions.
 * 3) No Cyrillic transliterations should be used on any bio article that doesn't have a Slavic rendition. For example there's no distinct Slavic rendition of Lorenc Antoni, thus adding the Cyrillic transliteration of that name is redundant.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction
When I started editing in 2005, there was an existing practice across Wikipedia which continues today. Subjects born in or resident in countries where their names were rendered differently were given in host nation languages as translations. I joined the parade and continued this practice, but as you can now see, it has hit a wall because some users resist this policy. The general mindset among editors is that providing a person's name in the homeland script is a form of biographical information.

Examples
Here now are some examples of subjects with translations in homeland languages despite having a different ethnicity:
 * Evangelos Averoff, Sotiris Bletsas and Nicola Matushi - these are Aromanians (a branch of Romanians) from Greece. All have Greek names in translation.
 * Jalal Talabani - an ethnic Kurd from Iraq, his name is in Arabic.
 * Kazimir Malevich - ethnic Polish person associated with Ukraine and Russia in Soviet period.

The original reason for wishing Lorenc Antoni's name be removed in Cyrillic was because his birth in 1909 came three years prior to his place of birth becoming a Slavic entity (Kingdom of Serbia from 1912, through to Republic of Macedonia today). I argued that the subject spent his entire life on a Slavic territory as he died in Pristina in 1991, then Kosovo, Serbia, Yugoslavia in order of government level. Suffice it to say he was a Yugoslav subject and citizen with no affiliation to any country outside of it. Because little is known of the person, it was not clear whether to use Serbian or Macedonian Cyrillic. He was born in what would become Macedonia, but it would not do so until 1944 and no Macedonian language would have been officially used from 1912 to 1944. But his death in 1991 suggests the later part of his life may have been in Kosovo, then Serbia. Most sources on this individual are in Albanian and focus mainly on his works more than his private life. What we do know however is that in accordance with practice, there was definitely a need to have this individual given in a local format to reflect the country of life - this in turn gives Cyrillic for the region, and fortunately both Macedonian and Serbian Cyrillic are the same for the purpose of this individual's spelling.

I recently encountered a problem when I attempted to specify which Cyrillic be applicable on Pitu Guli which this edit. I was put sraight with the following revert here. Note however that we are editing on what is neither a Slavic subject (he was Aromanian/Vlach) nor a person to live on a Slavic land - he was a revolutionary so he cannot have been part of a "regime" either. He fought for a Slavic land (but whether this was Macedonian or Bulgarian remains a subject of heated local debate - not something for here).

I could argue that there are far stronger cases than Lorenc Antoni where a Slavic language name is better discluded. Antoni lived out his entire life in Yugoslavia, not everyone born in Yugoslavia did. An example is Gajur Deralla whose timeline is uncertain regarding birthplace. He was clearly a person associated with the territory of the former Yugoslavia/Serbian Kingdom but his activities in life were such that he may have never even been registered there. Lorenc Antoni and Gajur Deralla are incommensurable.

Bare in mind also, it causes no problem that Dušan Bajević has his name in Greek despite becoming a Greek citizen in later life, was not born there and is not linked to the regime. I am pointing out that my practice is universal across Wikipedia, produces information for people to read and causes no problems of any kind. Of course, no article is perfect and many lie without their applicable translations in much the way persons have their date of birth missing. I have added these in the past and so far I have met no resistance from any seasoned editor for having done this, the latest examples were Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim (second paragraph) and Roman von Ungern-Sternberg after they were brought to my attention. Two weeks on they sit comfortably, as do all non-Slavic subjects within Yugoslavia away from the areas close to the Albanian border - only here do you meet resistance. I merely enquire what makes them different from everyone of the list above. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

My position
I favour the continuation of translations of subjects into host nation languages per universal and longstanding code of practice. Whether this means Bulgarian language for non-Bulgarians in Bulgaria; Hebrew for non-Jews from the State of Israel, or Serbian for non-Serbs of Serbia, it is all the same. This is a technical and biographical feature and its inclusion must never be influenced by relations and history between the pronominal communities. These are encyclopaedic articles, not weblog pages which allow the editor to stylise his subject as he so chooses. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Evlekis! Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by User:Majuru
Dispute regarding the naming conventions of people born in ex-Yugoslavia: insertion of Cyrillic and Serbian Latin rendering of their names.
 * I am of the opinion that the Cyrillic/Serbian Latin additions are unnecessary, and in great part provoking (bearing in mind the wars that ravaged ex-Yugoslavia - I don't want to comment any further);
 * 90% of the additions are unsourced.
 * Let us not forget that this is the English-language Wikipedia. Majuru (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward
Thanks everyone for your statements. I would really like to ask you all to not go after the other participants - personal attacks will just keep the mediation from going forward. Our goal here is to figure out a compromise that's amenable to everyone. I'd like everybody to start thinking about possible solutions, and if you have one, please do post it here in a new section so it can be discussed. I also want to make sure that all of the issues here have been aired. Has that been done to everyone's satisfaction? Thanks, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 12:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you've now seen the positions. One says inclusion of translation should be on high-ranking government officials only, another says it should be incuded nowhere, and I favour the inclusion. Your own view on things would be welcomed greatly, do you have any suggestions? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm here as a neutral mediator and really shouldn't be offering suggestions, certainly not at this point. I'd really like you - and all the other participants - to propose a solution that you think would be amenable to everybody. Then we can discuss from there which ones work the best for all three of you. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 17:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I admit it is very very difficult. There is no leverage here, a feature is either included or it isn't! You cannot insert 50% of the information and leave the rest blank! :) Also I fear consensus will not be achieved because attempts to discuss this issue have take place. I think even the other editors were hoping that the matter go out of our hands and some neutral voices be heard. Our role has been to present our reasoning, why one wishes to include certain information and the other doesn't. On the whole, I have no problem with dismantling the Slavic translations but I need a solid reason for this: remember, it wasn't I who introduced the concept of displaying subjects in additional languages! I merely came along and continued a trend. Now there are indeed a number of reasons I will happily remove wrongfully inserted information, and each article needs to be assessed individually. However, it needs to be shown that the information was wrongfully inserted. For example, if a person was not really from Serbian-administered Kosovo but actually from Albania, and sources confirm that the home town is Shkodra and not Prizren, that the individual has nothing to do with Kosovo, then I will be the first to take the information off. The same applies where we see that an individual is born in Kosovo or Macedonia but left at an age so young that he never even started school. For this reason, the translation was either removed on (or never included on) persons such as Rita Ora and Genta Ismajli. The translations only exist on articles where the individual lived a fair portion of his life within a state (eg. completed schooling). So if someone is born in Serbia, pre- or post-SFRY break-up, or moved from a young age and started school; he will have been a state subject and this is unequivocal. This in itself warrants one's name in the local language for every other region of the world and all areas of the former Yugoslavia. Looking at the arguments presented above, I see no reason that when the state in question is Yugoslavia, it should only be high ranking government officials to have their name in the host language, whilst other notable subjects escape them; and I fail to grasp any link between Alnanians born in Serbia, and the Serbian-Albanian conflict. The connection is not clear to me, so I hope to get replies that explain this. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so how do you (and everyone) feel about discussing the most important articles here on a case by case basis? I do agree, consensus would be hard to find across the board but I think it can definitely be done with individual articles. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 22:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. But there is a major obstacle. I could suggest discussing Luan Krasniqi first; now concerning my edits, I will settle on such an individual having his name presented in host language translation after ticking certain boxes. But as you can see from the suggestions presented by the other editors, their criteria are different. On the whole, unless I am mistaken and have misinterpreted the comments by the other users, it seems that one should not have his name given in host language if he is from another ethnic group. That's the source of the conflict! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussing invividual cases will get us nowhere. As I said the argument should only be that of source use. Is there substantial use of the Slavic transliteration/translation in English language sources? Luan Krasnici/Dzerdan Saciri etc. aren't used by any number of substantial sources and most times appear anywhere else except for wikipedia. Wikipedia mirrors academic/journalistic discourse and consensus, but is not a source of any research, norms and conventions.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you follow this discussion Zjarri? We are talking about translations, not page target. If there is to be a Russian or Chinese translation, you will hardly find that variation in English will you! Of course if you did find Luan Krasnići on English language articles, this would not so much be a case for having the translation so much as a full scale argument to actually have the article moved to Luan Krasnići. Because if there were references to this name, we could argue that this is an English accepted variation. Now Milo Đukanović has a translation of one kind, but are you going to find an English language source to contain Мило Ђукановић? If not, why does he have to have that format? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)Мило Ђукановић is written in Cyrillic and Milo Đukanović/Djukanovic is written in a Latin-based script like Dzerdan Saciri. Milo Dukanovic/Djukanovic appears in all sources regarding that person, while Dzerdan Saciri appears nowhere else except for wikipedia. Bear in mind that the use has nothing to do with Slavic vs. non-Slavic forms as Latin-based Slavic renditions of names are frequent in English-language sources. You would expect that if Dzerdan Saciri was an alternative form there would at least be a substantial number of sources that use it. Since that's not the case why should this useless form that represents no actual source use in the English-speaking world be added? -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer. For precisely the reason that it is a translation. If you read what is says before Džerdan Šaćiri, you'll find the word Serbo-Croat. This informs the reader that what is to follow will be the subject's name in the language of his home country which differs from his ethnic name. I agreed years ago with one Albanian editor to remove Cyrillic where persons were born in Kosovo 1946-1989 and replace it with Serbo-Croat and have the Latinic only. If you do manage to find Džerdan Šaćiri in and English source, it won't be important that this be the Serbo-Croat spelling, you could move the page to Džerdan Šaćiri, or you can rephrase the intro: Xherdan Shaqiri, also known as Džerdan Šaćiri, is a footballer, etc.. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)Serbo-Croat forms haven't been excluded from English-language sources. In fact most of the names of the Slavophones of Yugoslavia appear in their Slavic forms i.e. your argument that Serbo-Croat forms don't appear in English-language sources isn't valid. Why do you think that the reader should be informed of a form that appears in no English-language sources?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, my argument is very valid. English is English and Serbo-Croat is Serbo-Croat, it is there as a translation and not as an alternative form of what the English name is. And to answer your question: Why do you think that the reader should be informed of a form that appears in no English-language sources?, for the very same reason Struga is given in Albanian despite there being "no English language sources for that name". Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)The Serbo-Croat forms are being used as the primary forms for almost all Slavophones of Yugoslavia in English-language sources and wikipedia i.e. not an excluded translation. Strugë is the indefinite form of Struga in Albanian i.e. it has nothing to do with translations and apart from the fact that it does appear in English language sources it's also added per naming conventions of placenames (WP:NCGN: Local official names should be listed before other alternate names if they differ from a widely accepted English name. ) This is a concisely definite geographic conventions issue. So why do you think that the reader should be informed of a form that appears in no English-language sources and is supported by no policy? That being said the view of the mediator would be welcome too.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A subject is a subject. Whatever conventions exist for geographical feautues do so on a linguistic premise. You argue that readers should only be notifed of translations if the translations appear in English and I've already explained this to you enough times, if a need for a translation stands then it makes no difference whether that translated form appears anywhere in English. In the case of Serbo-Croat, it is only because the text happens to be a scientific transliteration of the Cyrillic script that it takes those shapes. Whether giving Serbian or Serbo-Croat, there is a requirement for Cyrillic - a Latinic transliteration stands next to this form, and as I said, many are at the moment stripped of their Cyrillic forms. All of the towns in Western Macedonia to have an Albanian population whether as a majority or minority have the Albanian name written somewhere and no reliable English source uses any of these. It is only normally when Albanians themselves are the publishers. Many things have translations on Wikipedia, people, places, events, treaties, other phenomena. And the general argument that those translations should first appear in English text before telling the reader how something is rendered in a different tongue/script carries no substance. The name Pyotr Ilyich Chaykovsky is not to be found in English sources for Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky yet it is still included. The Račak massacre is never referred to in English as either Masakra e Reçakut or Akcija Račak, so why have these? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Zjarri, would you mind sharing some more of your sources? I think everyone would find them enlightening and helpful to this discussion. Thanks! :) Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 02:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Without prejudice: a neutral remark
Keilana, it's not that I wish to step in to defend a user with whom I am having this dispute but even I would have to admit that this is a tall order! Sources!! Given that the other two users prefer the feature to remain off the article and I am lobbying to keep it on, I in reality need to be the party to provide sources. I could do this easily enough but what you need to realise is that the process of transcribing ordinary Albanian, Turkish, Hungarian or Romanian names into the relevant Slavic language (eg. Serbian or Macedonian) is a straightforward process much like providing an Arabic or a Greek spelling to a subject title simply by seeing what the article is called. For example, one need only see the Greek name Antonis Samaras, and anyone familiar with literary Greek will be able to add without checking that this name is rendered /Αντώνης Σαμαράς/. Likewise, when an Albanian name comprises the two parts Ibrahim +Rugova, one knows that a Serbian translation onto the Cyrillic script is /Ибрахим Ругова/. If sources were required, anyone can provide a plethora, but it is not the spelling itself which is deemed dubious but whether it needs to be included.

On the territory of the former Yugoslavia, we use the umbrella term "Slavic" when referring to four specific languages: Serbian, Montenegrin, Bosnian and Macedonian. Save for the latter, the rest are sometimes collectively referred to as Serbo-Croat. Two other core languages within the former Yugoslavia exist, Croatian and Slovene. Here again, the former of the two also falls into the Serbo-Croat category. However, with Croatian and Slovene, there is no policy whatsoever for its subjects to have Slavic spellings. The languages exclusively use the Roman alphabet and use foreign names in literary text exactly as the name would appear in the local language. Because the other four listed languages may use the Cyrillic script, code-switching as such is not a practice of the written languages and subsequently when each is written in its Latinic format, names will only be in the transliterated form of the Cyrillic. (eg. source language=Ursula Plassnik, Cyrillic=Урсула Пасник, transliterated=Ursula Plasnik - with 1 S).

So those are the logistics of the affair, this talk is taking place to discuss whether the translations should stand or not. I have argued to keep them, the other two users prefer to see them removed. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What I think would be helpful would be for you to present sources that show both the Latin and other-alphabet spelling, I wasn't particularly clear about that, sorry. I don't have time to sort through everything at this exact moment, but that's the basis of what I think would be helpful. I'll be back in about 12 hours and will give a longer comment then. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

 * I've made an actual proposal that focuses on sources and is a middle route and case-by-case approach and I expect an agree/disagree from Evlekis/Majuru as well as the opinion of the mediator. The proposal was:

Slavic versions of names (both Latin and Cyrillic renditions) should be included or excluded based on their use in English language sources-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Evlekis is using a fallacious argument, under false premises. He says look: Albert Nagy also has his name written in Cyrillic. The problem we're discussing here, is precisely that: Do we have to write Albert Nagy's name also in Cyrillic? Majuru (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should we not? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly, that is the point. Why should we? On the other hand, it's up to you to bring valid arguments - it was you who started this discussion by inserting controversial material (Cyrillic versions, etc.) on the ledes. Majuru (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * All right Majuru, obviously if you didn't know the following I shall enlighten you. Albert Nađ originates from Serbia and in that country, Serbian is the official language. Serbian in turn is written in two scripts and one of them is Cyrillic, QED. Now, any reason we should not include it? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you oppose for example inserting (Albanian: Ivica Daçiq) at Ivica Dacic, because Albanian was also one of the official languages of Kosovo? Majuru (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is fine with me, feel free to add it again and cite this conversation as consensus. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, some other users seem to object to that, citing rv conflict pushing .Majuru (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Zjarri, thanks for the proposal. I've moved it into a separate section to ease discussion. Majuru, thanks for providing a source for the Albanian of Ivica Dacic, that seems to be really really helpful. Can we all move forward and start to find similar sources for other disputed names? I think that would do a lot to solve this underlying issue. I'm happy that we're starting to have progress! Keep it up. (Just a note - I know I've not been as present as I should be on this page the past couple days, real life is interfering but I will try to be here as much as I can over the next few days. Thanks for your patience.) Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 07:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@Keilana - not a problem, take your time, this page will still be here! Nobody is rushing. Sources can most of the time be provided, note however that where they cannot (ie. where subject is poorly sourced in any language at all) that it will not deny access for its inclusion. The only risk factor is the outside chance that the information being inserted is wrong, but this never happens. There is a straighforward transcription process for Serbian into Albanian and Albanian into Serbian which has long existed. On the rare occasion that variation occurs, sources easily support the irregularity, eg. Behgjet Pacolli's first name by convention in Serbian Latinic should be Behđet as Albanian /gj/ is equivalent to Serbian Latinic /đ/, but Serbian sources use Bedžet which if you transcribe back into Albanian, the first name would be Bexhet, because Albanian /xs/ is the equivalent of Serbian /dž/ (see the red writing below the photograph here). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@Majuru - yes that was before we had this discussion. If it brings a solution then I endorse the usage of Albanian language names for subjects originating from Kosovo. When you insert these, you leave the remark "per consensus" in the summary and if anybody objects, link them to this project page. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

For Keilana and all other mediators, a user-friendly outline
It pains me to declare that the above talk has resulted in dissensus and I have nothing further to add. My wish is for this to now be judged externally. I realise that this affair may be very difficult to follow so below is an explanation of the nature of the dispute; I shall also outline the views per user in light of what we have gleaned from the above discussion. To keep things as simple as possible, I shall for as much as practical name the two core languages which dominate this disupte, Serbian and Albanian.

A. Languages of subjects
The languages used for any subject on Wikipedia fall into three categories.
 * 1) . The most common usage in English - this determines the article title (eg. Zagreb or Ivo Karlović)
 * 2) . The name of the subject (ie. person or place) in the national language - featured in immediate translation (eg. Belgrade {Serbian: Београд/Beograd} or Novak Djokovic {Serbian: Новак Ђоковић/Novak Đoković}).
 * 3) . The name of the subject in any additional language deemed relevant (eg. Novi Sad, Serbian: Нови Сад/Novi Sad, Hungarian: Újvidék, Slovak: Nový Sad, Rusyn: Нови Сад/Novi Sad or Monica Seles: Serbian: Моника Селеш/Monika Seleš, Hungarian: Szeles Mónika}

Although three factors call for a potential form for display, it may not always be the case that a foreign name requires any translation: in the first example, the article name and the local name are exactly the same character by character, so no relevant alternative forms exist. However, when the English name differs slightly from the local name, it falls into the second example and a translation into the target language is required. For the third example, we see article per English titles, for Monica Seles there is a translation into the mother tongue (Hungarian) and a translation into the birthplace/original citizenship tongue (Serbian). For Novi Sad there are translations into its official languages. All of the listings are accurate, none require amendment, and all form the basis for our dispute.

B. Issues relating to discussion
I have lobbied for the continuation of the above conventions such as for the following examples of ethnic Albanians born in Serbia:
 * 1. Luan Krasniqi (Serbian: Луан Краснићи/Luan Krasnići)
 * 2. Enis Gavazaj (Serbian Cyrillic: Енис Гавазај)

In the first example (B1), there is no need for the addition of (Albanian: Luan Krasniqi) because the title is already on that page. In the second, I have no reason to add the full Serbian catalogue (Serbian: Енис Гавазај/Enis Gavazaj) because the transliterated form (Enis Gavazaj) is exactly the same as its Albanian counterpart - and that in turn is the same as its English common form so to avoid clutter, only Serbian Cyrillic is required here.

Now look at the following examples away from the Serbian/Albanian zone:
 * 3. Ahmad Kadyrov (Russian: Ахмат Абдулхамидович Кадыров) - an ethnic Chechen from Russia
 * 4. Nicola Matushi (Greek: Νίκος/Νικόλαος Ματούση/ς) - an ethnic Aromanian from Greece
 * Article titles consistent with mother tongue names, Chechen and Aromanian; translations provided for birthplace/homeland reasons but no transliterations into the Roman script have been included.


 * 5. Jalal Talabani (Kurdish: جەلال تاڵەبانی/Celal Tallebanî, Arabic: جلال طالباني‎/Jalāl Ṭālabānī)
 * 6. O‘tkir Sultonov (Russian: Уткир Тухтамурадович Султанов/Utkir Tukhtamuradovich Sultanov)
 * Article titles consistent with mother tongue names (Kurdish and Uzbek respectvely) but here, transliterations are included.

ALL LANGUAGES written in a non-Roman script have a transliteration into the Roman alphabet. Not only is it an international legal requirement but it is highly beneficial for the communities for literary communications. Only with a unified script can you send mail from abroad to a region in question, only with a unified script can one drive with a vehicle registration in any country and only with a unified script can one travel freely on a passport. However, just as orthographies vary among languages using the Roman alphabet (eg. Hungarian alphabet, Albanian alphabet, Vietnamese alphabet), there is no universal transliteration. The character /Ш/ is rendered /Sh/ in Bulgarian transliteration and /Š/ in Macedonian transliteration. Either way, once a transliterated form of a primary script is adopted, it becomes a property of the language in question and subsequently, speakers can communicate in either script. Often, the transliterated form proves more practical; Bulgarians, Russians and Greeks for example are more likely to send texts in the Romanised forms than their primary scripts, particularly whilst in other countries. To this end, transliterations may at any time be added where non-Roman scripts stand without them. Some editors prefer to leave them out as they add unnecessary clutter.

C. Flow of conversation
ZjarriRrethues initially stated that translations need only be included if they mirrored English usage. In other words, example B3 contains the translation /Ахмат Абдулхамидович Кадыров/. I informed ZjarriRrethues that translations are not about what is in English but rather what something is in the intended language. For a fictional example, if we are saying: Soccer (Greek: Ποδόσφαιρο); this means we are telling readers how the word is in Greek, so it is irrelevant whether that Greek form appears in English. Furthermore, the condition in which you see it (Ποδόσφαιρο) is incompattible with English as it is in a separate script therefore can never appear in literary English.

ZjarriRrethues sidestepped the fact that translations are about the named language by introducing a "middle road" concept which is that we start with any Romanised form of a translation being inserted to check whether that features in English. If it does, he believes it can remain on the article; if it does not, then he believes it should not stay. I then cited Blerim Xhemaili - the ethnic Albanian name of a person appearing on his Macedonian name title Blerim Džemaili - and informed him that Blerim Xhemaili does not feature in English. He argued that Blerim Xhemaili is the subject's mother tongue spelling.

I asked how he would feel if we gave Serbian Cyrillic only, as in example B2. ZjarriRrethues replied that because a Romanised form exists, it cannot be ignored and so that Romanised form must first feature in English before we can use it as a translation.

So the position of ZjarriRrethues is this: if a translation appears in a foreign script as in Example B4, it is all right to remain even though this can never appear in English. If a Romanised form appears such as in B1, this should ONLY be permitted if the Romanised form (ie. Luan Krasnići) features in English sources. He argues this regardless of why this form was added in the first place (ie. official language of birthplace territory) and in spite of the fact that its removal will also remove the accompanying Serbian Cyrillic (Луан Краснићи).

However, ZjarriRrethues proposes one exception to this rule: when a translation such as A3 (Szeles Mónika for Monica Seles) reflects mother tongue usage, as in this case we have Seles' native language Hungarian form, then we can flout the covenant that Roman alphabet translations must reflect English usage. To this end, he feels that Seles' other translation, the Serbian (Моника Селеш/Monika Seleš) should be removed on account that its Romanised Monika Seleš is neither the English common name nor is it ever used in English.

Firstly I congratulate ZjarriRrethues on his innovation "middle road" theory. If accepted, it would be a fantastic way to purge Slavic names off ethnic Albanian subjects born in Yugoslavia and successor states. I mean, not even I can argue with that! It is absolutely correct that Luan Krasnići per Example B1 never does appear in English. Of course, I have cited examples such as Pyotr Ilyich Chaykovsky who is consistent with Examples B5 and B6 on this section, Romanised translations feature here that don't appear in English, but ZjarriRrethues could only produce the rudimentary argument that "we are discussing former Yugoslavia only". Technically yes this is true, but if anybody feels that Yugoslav presentations are exempt from the wider practice, that ethnic Chechens in Russia, Kurds in Iraq and Aromanians in Greece can have translations in every script needed but minority figures from the former Yugoslavia should not, we need to know why. The ultimate question is, "what makes Yugoslav minorities different?". So far there has been no reply, but "Oh we are not talking about others!" is not a valid answer.

One other user has been involved in the debate, Majuru. Like ZjarriRrethues, he favours the outright removal of Serbian/Macedonian variations for any ethnic Albanian subject born in Yugoslavia. However this discussion has been open two weeks now and in that time he has only disclosed his grievance at the talk taking place on this page, and has interrogated me as to why we need to have Cyrillic for Albert Nađ. Be that as it may, he has to date offered no reason as to why the articles are better without these translations and so I am presented with nothing to refute from that direction.

My position is clear, and very very simple, it is based purely on the now oversubscribed wider practice; I do not believe Turks from Macedonia, or Albanians and Romanians from Serbia are exceptional to Turks from Bulgaria (eg. Yıldız İbrahimova). I believe that home country linguistic issues are relevant per Example A3 and where such terms vary outside of the former Yugoslavia, I believe we should continue the policy for persons inside the territory. And finally concerning the "why use Cyrillic", and "why use Latinic when it doesn't reflect English", I shall address mediators directly here that I am neither pushing for Serbian Cyrillic or Macedonian Latinic! I merely present the relevant language per the subject's home country. If this means Granit Xhaka is born in Serbia where Serbian is the official language both now and at his time of birth, and if the Serbian forms are different from the article common name and the ethnic Albanian form (the latter two are one and the same), then I feel justified in adding, "Serbian: Гранит Џака/Granit Džaka" - why Cyrillic? Because it is a property of the target language which is Serbian; why an alternative Latinic form not used in English sources? Because that too is a property of the target language which is Serbian. So if tomorrow Serbian adopts a third script, a modified register based on Arabic, then from tomorrow, there will be three official scripts for anybody born there. There is no POV-pushing, and no controversy here.

My final remark is for the mediators to reflect on one matter - look at the plethora of languages presented on Kazimir Malevich. See how they sit in harmony, side by side, all relevant for one reason or another per the individual's life.

''This presentation is addressed to Keilana and any other mediator, it reflects my vantage point in the affair up to now, no citations are provided because all I have claimed features on this page, and I ask that if anybody has something new to add, they do so in the above section or on a new section. I can update this part accordingly if new arguments emerge.''

Thanks for reading

Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * So you perceived my middle route proposal to add only names that are substantially used in English language sources (i.e. case-by-case approach where all outcomes are possible) as an attempt to purge Slavic names. Your approach, motive attribution and comments throughout the discussion have been tendetious, not to mention that yet again you started another extremely long section in order to repeat your view without any attempt to compromise as I've tried to do or to offer something new to the general debate, therefore there's nothing else that I can/will contribute to this discussion unless the mediator intervenes to impose proper decorum. Mediation is about compromise, which I proposed and yet my proposal, which doesn't ensure whether a Slavic alternative will be added or not as it's based on a case-by-case approach has been labeled by Evlekis as a fantastic way to purge Slavic names.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, on a second thought, I agree with Zjarri's comments. Slavic names should be included only if the sources dictate so. Does Evlekis have anything new to add to his constant interminable babbling, and writing over and over the same thing? Majuru (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Majuru, can you please be a little more civil? I too would appreciate Evlekis's comments here. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 16:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keilana. I am afraid I just cannot agree to a practice whereby we only provide state language names if the version first be used in English because it is a debasement of purpose, if we're giving someone the Macedonian spelling, that means we are showing them how it is written in Macedonian and English plays no part in the matter. Naturally if the variant consistent with Macedonian is to be found in English, it would elevate itself to candidate for actual article name - and even if it doesn't succeed, you can certainly list it as an alternative form on the first line in bold without reference to it being Macedonian. How about this for a suggestion? We see from the various instances I have given that national language spellings are ubiquitous outside of the former Yugoslavia, why don't we continue providing state language official names per wider practice? I mean I just do not see what makes Turks from Macedonia different from Turks from Bulgaria, and Bulgarian Turks all have their Bulgarian names. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the proposal, Majuru and Zjarri, what do you think? Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 20:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Evlekis: I don't think adding more Cyrillic before the mediation is over, is a good idea. It shows disrespect for the whole process. Majuru (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll worry about that, can you answer Keilana's question please. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a proposal but a rejection of every compromise. On the other hand Evlekis had nothing to say about my proposal other than labeling it an attempt to purge Slavic names. The way I see it Evlekis has no intention to reach any compromise, therefore if he doesn't change his stance I think that there's no point to continue the mediation.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 07:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Again: the content of Wikipedia is determined by previously reliable published information, and not personal belief or experience of editors. Even if you are sure, the thing must be verifiable. Policy says that all material changed or likely to be changed, needs a reliable source. A reliable source is described here I'm of the opinion that we'll discuss every addition, one by one on the talk pages. I think some names maybe written either in Cyrillic, or in Croatian Latin alphabet, and not both. This is not Borba. Majuru (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I am not happy with Zjarri's proposal so far - I feel that a translation first having to appear in English before it can be considered worthy of display is meaningless and defeats the object, translations aren't about what they are in English except when English is the target language. We are discussing where Serbian or Macedonian are the target languages. Be that as it may, I am open to other suggestions, though I too have had an idea which is that we agree to continue the wider policy. If not, then really anybody opposing this should cite now why he feels ethnic Turks in Macedonia differ from ethnic Turks in Bulgaria.

Concerning Majuru's point: 1) sources - well so long as you can provide reliable sources that the subject was born/lived in Yugoslavia or related republic; and so long as there are sources to indicate what the official language of the pronominal republic was at the relevant time, coupled with the transcription policy between the external source language (eg. Albanian or Turkish) and the target language (eg. Macedonian or Serbian), then there can be no disputing the variations. However, the fact that one is born in Tetovo (MK) or Bujanovac (SRB) automatically requires official language name form, presenting the emphasis of citation needed on the translation can only imply that you question the translation itself and whether it be different from displayed variation rather than whether it belongs there.


 * eg. Granit Xhaka (Serbian: Гранит Џака/Granit Džaka) {fact}
 * User: "I question whether these translations are correct because I believe the correct Serbian form to be Гранит Джака/Granit Dzhaka."

And then I can very easily prove to the editor raising doubts about the translation that Albanian /Xh/ is Serbian /Џ, Dž/.

As for translation only having to have one script per Majuru's statement. This is not a matter for discussion here. Each language deploys its own orthography and uses as many scripts as it deems necessary. Some languages have more than two, some only have one. All languages not written in Roman scripts carry a transliteration so if deemed necessary to give Macedonian, it shall always have both scripts.
 * eg. Uprising (Macedonian: Востаније/Vostanie) - it is incorrect to give one but not the other. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

@Evlekis, do you have any reliable source on Гранит Джака/Гранит Џака? Majuru (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was born in Gnjilane and that is in Serbia and Serbia has its own alphabets by which Xhaka and all his kin are bound; if you believe that Granit Xhaka is how his name appears in Serbian, even in Cyrillic, then you find a source as that would be the outlandish opinion here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How can it be spelt any other way??? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We also have Albanian:Vladimit Iliç Lenin, but you don't see me inserting it in the lede. An Arabic-language sports publication would have Granit Xhaka = غرانيت جاكه. Or a Serbian blog would write Бил Клинтон (Bil Klinton) instead of Bill Clinton. That is not an argument. Now, on a second thought, it seems to me our dispute is a dispute regarding content. Either reliable, published source for everyone or no Cyrillic in the lede. You still fail to provide a reasonable argument for adding Cyrillic: Latin-alphabet, it seems to me, is more than enough and everybody can understand it, even Serbs/Macedonians. Majuru (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Granit Xhaka was born in Serbia, has lived in Serbia and is a Serbian citizen. Bill Clinton has not. And Vladimir Lenin does not fall into the Russians from Albania category. And the argument for including "Cyrillic" is because that is the Serbiana and Macedonian primary alphabet, if you don't like it, I suggest you lobby the drafters of the constitutions. Next question? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you have no reliable sources, beside a Serbian website, where - obviously - everything is in Cyrillic. I think you understand the concept of reliable source, that would settle permanently this dispute, don't you? Majuru (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are just trolling. So you are asking for a reference from The Guardian or The New York Times to clarify Xhaka's spelling in Serbian Cyrillic? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis, I would like to ask you to not label others' comments "trolling". I know you're not on board with Zjarri's proposal, and that's fine; we're here to find a solution everyone is satisfied with. I do like Majuru's suggestion that additions are discussed individually, as a proof of concept could we pick one and discuss the sources here, amicably? I think this would help us make headway. I could structure a discussion if you would like, or we could let it proceed organically - with the ground rule of no personal attacks/attacks in general. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 05:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Read this thread again to yourself, just from the Further discussion header.


 * The subject here was Granit Xhaka. This is an ethnic Albanian born in Serbia so at the moment, the Serbian spelling of his name appears on the article.
 * I am then questioned by Majuru whether I have any reliable sources on the Serbian spelling of his name.
 * I then produce this source.
 * Majuru then replies that the Albanian name for Lenin is Vladimir Iliç Lenin but he does not "add it to the lede"; he further argues that I have provided no argument for adding "Cyrillic" to Xhaka's lede.
 * I reminded Majuru firstly that Lenin is not from a "Russians from Albania" category but that Xhaka is within a "minorities from Yugoslavia" list: Kosovar Albanians; and that the purpose of having Cyrillic is because it happens to be a property of the target language which in this case is Serbian and so represents his homeland spelling.
 * Majuru, without ackowledging his wrongful citation of Lenin in Albanian, then slams the source I provided because it happened to be in Serbian and therefore "bound to be in Cyrillic".
 * In fact it wasn't, the source was Macedonian but that is by the by. If he wants Serbian sources I can provide them by the dozen. However he is holding onto a lost argument by insulting me as to whether I know what a "reliable source" is by which he means The Independent or The Wall Street Journal. Now if we were arguing over content, say a figure: I say 3,000 whilst the "reliable sources" claim 20-50, then he would have a fair point. But we are talking about the way one's name is written in a different language (target language), and the only outlet for "reliable sources" on this topic is publication in the target language, and that is what I provided. Majuru knows this only too well and if he doubted for one minute how Xhaka's name was written in Serbian, he would have presented his version by now and cited it. The same goes for any tongue, if you are going to provide a Chinese translation for a subject, the source will be from the world of Chinese literature, not USA Today, they don't broach such topics. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 06:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is an interesting case: Xhevat Prekazi - not one but two translations, one for his homeland for most of his early life (Serbian/Yugoslavia) and the second for his later citizenship (Turkish). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)