Wikipedia:Naming conflict

This policy should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).

A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic or a geopolitical/ethnic entity. These generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

Rationale

Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy.

Nevertheless, some degree of standardisation of terms is required for practical and technical reasons. This page suggests an effective and efficient method as to how to resolve naming disputes within the bounds of the NPOV policy. Some may find this method to be unacceptable, but it is beneficial for all of us to stick to a uniform way of choosing an article title. An agreed set of group rules can help to determine naming practices in a consistent and fair fashion.

The need for an objective procedure is increased by the fact that Wikipedia's usual policy of seeking consensus is not always an effective way of resolving such disputes. In some cases, it may be impossible to reach a consensus and a dispute may be put to a vote. The outcome may be determined on the basis of purely arbitrary and subjective factors. An objective procedure can help to avoid this.

Equally, the prospects for achieving long-term consensus can be complicated by the fact that contributors change over time. At one point, a certain group of contributors may agree to use one name, but this group only represents the view of the particular sub-community of editors that exists at that time. When new contributors arrive, they are faced with the choice of reopening the discussion (thus diminishing the weight of the opinions of their predecessors), or sticking to the old consensus (which deprives the new contributors of a chance to have their say). In short, no consensus represents the voices of all the contribuors to a given article. Following a permanently established objective procedure that does not rely on a fleeting consensus gets around this problem.

How naming works and how sometimes disputes occur in the process

Article names

A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. This is required by the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term. Thus the article United States can be reached via redirection pages at US, USA, United States of America, etc. (See Wikipedia:Redirect for more on redirection pages.)

Acronyms should usually not be used as definitive names - thus North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, not NATO; or United Nations, not UN. Acronyms that have become words in their own right and have had their original expansions largely forgotten are the exception; thus, radar rather than "radio detection and ranging," laser rather than "light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation."

Names in articles

Within an article, there is no technical constraint on using synonyms. You can freely use "ICTY" (a redirect) as a synonym for the much longer "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" (the definitive name of the article). Or you could use both terms, as in "the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)". It is not necessary to use the definitive or long form on every occasion within an article.

Overlapping names

A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names. For instance, the term "Macedonians" may refer to the Slavic people who call themselves by that name, the inhabitants of the geographic region of Macedonia, the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, the inhabitants of the ancient kingdom of Macedon or even an obscure early Christian sect.

These overlapping meanings can be resolved by proper disambiguation. See Category:Disambiguation for examples of disambiguation pages.

How to make a choice among controversial names

Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. If the particular name has negative connotations for a party, the decision can be controversial; some may perceive the choice as being one that promotes a POV with which they disagree.

Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons. They should instead follow the procedure below to determine common usage on an objective basis. By doing this, ideally, we can choose a name in a systematic manner without having to involve ourselves in a political dispute.

The procedure for determining article names differs somewhat between the two principal classes of names – proper nouns (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or descriptive names (e.g. GNU/Linux naming controversy, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season).

Proper nouns

The three key principles are:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

• Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
• Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
• Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
• Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:

Criterion	Option 1	Option 2
1. Most commonly used name in English	?	?
2. Current official name of entity	?	?
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	?	?
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

Mark each box with 1 for a yes, or 0 for a no. Add the totals of each column to get final scores for the options. The option that has the highest overall score should be used as the article name.

Where a choice exists between native and common English versions of names (e.g. Deutsch/German), always use the common English version of the name.

Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

Descriptive names

Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications.

For instance, what do we call the controversy over Qur'an handling at Guantanamo Bay? The article is located at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Note that the title makes no statement about who is the (more) guilty party: it does not "give away" that conclusion; in fact the article itself draws no conclusion. Similarly, the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks does not assign responsibility for the attacks in the article name.

Resolving disputed names within articles

Using names within articles can be complicated by historical and local contexts, as well as the difference between the type of entity that is being named.

Types of entities

A distinction should be drawn between a self-identifying entity and an inanimate entity. An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain does not have its own name for itself (obviously). Thus the English name Mount Everest is just as arbitrary as the local name, Qomolangma. The use of "Mount Everest" as the definitive term in Wikipedia is simply a matter of convenience, as the mountain is far more widely known by the English name than by its native Tibetan one.

A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. The country formerly called Burma now calls itself Myanmar. The people formerly called Eskimos now call themselves Inuit. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.

Dealing with historical contexts

Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo.

Example: The Polish city of Gdańsk was called Danzig for many years. The name "Danzig" is not the definitive term today, but it is correctly used in an historical context (e.g. before its annexation by Poland after 1945).

Note that it is not always necessary to use a contemporary name to refer to a historical place. For example, there are two distinct articles Edo and Tokyo, even though the two are essentially the same geographic entity.

Dealing with self-identifying terms

Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. Suppose that the people of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. In this instance, the Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach to the term, arguing that it should not be used.

Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen – whereas the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective and is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy, as it would be an objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. However, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV. The moral of the story is: describe, not prescribe.

This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, it may well be worth mentioning that this usage is disputed by the Maputans and linking to an article describing the controversy.

Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are acceptable (e.g. "Japanese" for Nihon-jin).

How to identify common names

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

1. The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
2. International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF etc.
3. Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
4. Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
5. Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .