Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors/naming

message: ARCHIVES:
*Archive 1 (discussion upto June 2006)
:The following is an archived discussion of a debate about a requested move that is no longer active.  Please do not modify it.  The result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

message: :Add any additional comments
Why those ones, and not the Comneni and anyone else affected by the moves? Adam Bishop 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Each dynasty can be a separate case; the plain reader of English may find these even more confusing than Komnenos.  Septentrionalis 22:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ___Because I was too lazy to request move for all of the Byzantine Emperors. If this move gets approved, it will be easy to request also for the others, if it gets rejected, I saved a little time. Everyone is free to ask other dynasties to be moved.--Panairjdde 22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ___As regards Cantacuzenus / Cantacuzene, I meant this as a group move. Of course we can discuss single article exceptions, but I want to set a rule for this.--Panairjdde 22:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If we're going to do this, it should be "Andrew Palaeologus."  At any rate, I'm not sure about the process issue here.  I'd kind of rather just stick with the ODB version than go through an effort to repeal it piecemeal.  with individual page moves.  And I'm not sure this page is the best place to discuss it (although it's obviously a much better place than Talk:Constantine XI.  Panairjdde - have you notified Imladjov, et al, of this effort? john k 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on WP:RM; but I'll leave a note on WT:NC (names and titles), which they're participating in. Septentrionalis 23:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ___You are free to vote against. My will is to settle the matter, since we got to a stalemate, in my opinion. This move request should be decisive, I hope. I notified the move request to those who partecipated to the discussion on Talk:Constanine XI.--Panairjdde 23:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This moving back and forth business is a waste of time. Anyway, my vote goes for the most recent academic standards which is the ODB forms. An encyclopedia should show current updated information, not antiquated information / spellings etc. The latinized forms had their day, but it is very rapidly coming to an end. The "use English" argument is pretty ackward as well as the old standard was / is not based on English but on Latin. The new Oxford standard is gloser to Greek, but neither standard is based on the English language. The Oxford standard is approved by Oxford University and used by Dumbarton Oaks, the world's leading authority on the Byzantine Empire, so it is used in the most important publications of recent research. Second, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium is the world's leading authoritative work on all material relating to the Byzantine Empire, a position which has lasted since 1991 and which seems extremely unlikely to change in the (near) future, given the very small scope of this market. Third, the Oxford forms are no less "English" than the Latinized forms, both have been approved by native speakers of English. I for one don't believe that 100 leading international scholars all developed a brain damage at the same time. If these people and two of the world's most prominent academic institutions can agree on a common standard, that's good enough for me. Times change and we change with the times. Valentinian (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ___The point is not if the scholars use one form or the other, but if Wikipedia should use Greek or Latinized form. Wikipedia has the policy to use commonest form, and the commonest from, for the time being, is Latinized. Noone complained of the moving effort, when Imladjov unilaterally started to change to his preferred form, I do not see why you are complaining now.--Panairjdde 00:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My "complaining" can basically be boilt down to that you've split up the discussion to the individual families. It makes no sense to use one standard for the Palaiologi and one standard for the Komneni. And discussing each and every family in turn is just a waste of everybody's time. Since you seek a general use of Latin, why not simply suggest this? Btw, WP:NC says If you wish to propose a new naming convention, do so on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, whilst also publicising the proposal at Requests for comment and the Village Pump, as well as at any related pages. Once a strong consensus has formed, it can be adopted as a naming convention and listed below. Shouldn't this proposal be listed there instead? Valentinian (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ___Yes, I agree, it does not make sense to have different standards for different families. Have you read my "22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ___As regards "Naming conventions", this is not a new naming convention, it is a revert of moves done after a survey in Talk:Constantine XI.--Panairjdde 01:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a new naming convention; this is the application of the existing naming convention; WP:UE. As for the Comneni, we'll get to them; some people may feel differently about C/K, as I do about Cantacuzene. Septentrionalis 00:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Valentinian has just identified a problem with the stylization he wishes to adopt: by his principles, shouldn't that be "Komnenoi"?) Septentrionalis 00:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked the Oxford form for the plurals, but we should use that form. Nomatter the convention, I never use the plural forms myself, since I prefer the forms "House of ..." or "... dynasty". Second matter; WP:NC not WP:UE is the primary policy. The examples in paragraph 2.29 of WP:NC: all relate to spelling conventions of historical monarchs, so that is the most specific policy. Valentinian (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of the form of a monarch's actual name (as opposed to how to treat their title), there is nothing in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) (which is surely the operative policy page),to indicate that do should not use the most common English forms.  The only thing special about monarchs is disambiguating by country. john k 11:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just on a matter of fact, rjecina's statement above: "If you look russian, english, italian, french or even croatian you will find Palaeologus" is not true. The Russian and Croatian are Paleolog, the Italian is Paleologo, the French is Paléologue. To continue, the Spanish is Paleólogo. The German is Palaiologos, which is as close as you can get to the Greek (all examples found by checking Interwiki). If there is any argument to be derived from this (which I doubt!) it is that the Germans, by adopting a Greek form (as German writers did with classical Greek names more than a century ago), are pointing a possible way forward ... Andrew Dalby 13:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a way forward, that is a dead end - unless you are proposing to move Aeschylus. All of thes are the standard form of Latin ae in the language in question; none of them correspond to ai, which is all Rjecina meant - and all that matters. Septentrionalis 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the Russian form is based on Latin? I would have thought the Russian e corresponds to Greek ai, just as (in the new Russian article on :ru:Никита Хониат) the second Russian i corresponds to Greek 'eta'. But cultural history always brings new surprises! Andrew Dalby 18:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the eta in Παλαιολογος? Septentrionalis 20:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere.  He was talking about Νικητας.  For the ae/ai in Palaiologos, Russian just has 'e', since it is phonetic.  So in point of fact Cyrillic languages cannot be brought in support of "Palaeologus," as they would obscure the original orthography, be it Greek or Latin (actually all the examples in Andrew Dalby's list above show the 'e' because of phonetics and not because of orthography).  Since this is about English usage Rjecina's appeal to forms in foreign languages is misplaced.  Moreover, in some of them, including French, there is now a clearly discernible move towards ODB-type forms.  If successful, this move request will result in countless little inaccuracies and will continue to be challenged and eventually overturned by anyone informed enough to notice the increasing discrepancy between this site and the relevant literature. Imladjov 20:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The current standard usage is Muhammad with a dotted h; the h is left undotted only for reasons of convenience by mostly general publications.  To distinguish between Muhammad with and without a diacritic is perhaps going too far.  The point is that here there is a clear evolution from Mahomet to Mohammed to Muhammad on the basis of the requirements for accuracy of the relevant academic field over time.  Presently the last two forms are both used, depending on whether one wishes to stress vernacular phonology or classical orthography (similarly Nur ad-Din and Nur al-Din, etc).  Where current English usage is concerned, you can see for yourself that since the mid-1990s Cantacuzene is increasingly less often used than Kantakouzenos in the sample stats. Imladjov 05:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not standard usage; that is how (some) scholars write for other scholars. This demonstrates the difference quite clearly; and that Imladjov does not perceive it. Septentrionalis 14:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are still incapable of perceiving what standard usage actually is, at least do not presume to correct me.  It is preposterous to seek standard usage in the explicitly non-standardized and often uninformed and inconsistent usage produced by mostly non-scholars, or to argue that works written by scholars are intended almost exclusively for other scholars.  Forms like Muhammad and Kantakouzenos are actually explicitly prescribed in attempts to establish an actual standard.  Whether relatively common or not, the alternatives generally aren't.  Since "non-scholarly" usage eventually follows scholarly standards it would be futile to imagine a "non-scholarly" standard and make a stand for it now.  All it would do is make Wikipedia seem dated or unprofessional and invite new attempts for general revision. Imladjov 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: **The old, obsolescent forms, are equally disputable and no more English; the articles should be kept in harmony with the currently established practice in the relevant literature and the single standard reference work on the subject. See also Talk:Constantine XI for previous discussions.[[User:Imladjov|
* Not the ODB again... Roydosan 08:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not know what obsolescent means, consult Talk:Constantine XI, where john k and I had a little discussion of the word.  When a usage becomes abandoned by a field and replaced with another, it becomes obsolescent and eventually obsolete.  The only difference between the obsolescence of (e.g.) Cantacuzene and (e.g.) Mahomet are a few decades.  If you can point to another standard English reference work on Byzantium, please name it.  If you simply do not know, do not allege that you do (and you get to call me on that when I start substantively editing articles about Nuclear Physics and the like).  Speaking of English, please worry about your own (see again Talk:Constantine XI).  Imladjov 15:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Additional note: Cantacuzene in Nicol's book The Reluctant Emperor is used in stark contrast with Palaiologos, Komnenos, Angelos, Kydones, Eirene, Nikephoros, Kalekas, Kabasilas, etc within the same text.  That Nicol chose the form Cantacuzene precisely because of the assumption that it is still more recognizable to English readers is clear.  But he did not do that in every book that he wrote and at any rate the rest of his usage here conforms with the ODB system.  So if a standard is to be derived from this work alone, it would have to conform with the ODB as well. Imladjov 16:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You are pointing to the same book and Angold is actually inconsistent (see below).  Obsolescent means coming out of usage.  If authors are increasingly abandoning these forms, then they are obsolescent.  This is difficult to demonstrate with the limitations of a google book search unless you were to go manually through each instance and verify original dates of publication and create a statistical model. Imladjov 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Angold and Treadgold use the older practice, and emphatically so.  That some scholars should do so is not at all surprising (but why Angold should actually be inconsistent after expressly declaring that he will follow a "Latin transliteration of Byzantine proper names," ix, I do not know).  The point is that we should follow the general usage of current literature and of the standard reference work in the field.  Although Treadgold is fact-based enough to be employed as a reference (at least the full version), it is actually a survey.  While I personally like it, it has been met with some indifference in the field.  As far as surveys go, the most recent is Cyril Mango's Oxford History of Byzantium (2002), which is in harmony with the ODB and current usage. Imladjov 16:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oxford History of Byzantium uses the same format as the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium??  That's a total shocker!  At any rate, I don't think a term which is less used than it used to be is obsolescent.  It's just less used than it used to be.  If the term were genuinely archaic or obsolescent, I think you'd find that, for instance, new editions of old books would change the name format and that it would be very hard to find scholarly books using the old usage.  Have we reached that point yet?  It doesn't seem as though we have - reprintings of old books still use the Latinized spelling, and scholars are still writing books using the Latinized spelling.  There has, as yet, been no real evidence presented to suggest that the ODB usage is now the standard English usage. john k 17:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is used a whole lot less than it used to be and the alternative is used in almost all new works.  This is rather different from what you wrote.  As for new editions of books changing usage, this generally does not happen, and the usage of the author is kept for several reasons including bibliographic historicity and cost-effectiveness.  Reprinting is just that, reprinting, not re-formatting or re-writing; I am really surprised you thought otherwise.  If the Latinizing usage was ever standard, the ODB usage is just as standard now:  when Latinized forms were used prevalently, there were authors writing their books in what has become the ODB and current usage (e.g., Miller's Trebizond: The Last Greek Empire of the Byzantine Era written in 1929 -- to just name something that happens to be on my desk).  So if you are willing to say that the occasional Latinizing book published now proves that the ODB system is not a standard, you would have to admit that the Latinizing forms were never really standard in the first place.  In actual terms for something to be standard you cannot expect complete absence of alternatives, and for something to be obsolescent (or for that matter obsolete) you cannot expect its complete absence in the present. Imladjov 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has done a quantitative analysis which demonstrates that usage of the latinized forms is rare post-1991.  If this were to be done, you might convince me.  As it is, all we have is "a fair number of sources use the ODB forms" and "a fair number of other sources use the Latinized forms."  What evidence do you have to back up your contentions? john k 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it's good enough for the NCMH and the ODB, it's good enough for me. Given the choice between original research (analysis of usage in a arbitrarily selected set of books) and authoritative (rather than "reliable" as broadly interpreted) sources, which would you prefer ? I know what prescriptive policies (rather than woolly pseudo-policies) say about original research. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Angus, the ban on OR is about presenting original theories in articles.  It is not about doing original research on the talk page to determine how to apply another wikipedia policy (specifically: use common names).  There is pretty much no way to determine what the common name is, except by doing some kind of original research.  How would we ever determine naming issues without going and looking at how sources actually use terms? john k 11:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title appears in large letters at the top of the article; it can't be separated from the content. I have difficulty seeing how an arbitrary list of usages is any better than reliance on an authoritative source. If you don't agree that the ODB and the NCMH are, in general, to be relied upon then there isn't much point in debating the question. As for finding if there is a trend in nomenclature, that needs quite narrow definitions. We have to be sure that we are actually seeing the author's choice rather than editorial or house-style ones, and we certainly have to distinguish the author's work from that of an indexer. It's certainly not something we can do by counting raw Google Books or JSTOR hits. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 10:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was using Google Booksearch, since it keeps being utilized in our discussions; sorry if that was still unclear.  As I noted above, it actually does not include a great number of Byzantinist works and resources, and I did not attempt to restrict the statistics to works within that field.  So the results actually represent something like a best-case scenario for Latinizing usage.  If we look at Byzantinist usage alone (whether within Google Booksearch or in toto), the pattern would be even clearer.  Using JSTOR also poses its own problems: JSTOR contains a relatively limited number of journals (though it is expanding, and recently included the Dumbarton Oaks Papers) and most of the coverage does not yet go past (I think) 2000 or so. When I began looking for a statistic I actually attempted to determine how many (and which books) use what forms for dynastic names and so forth.  But the process of sorting the evidence was becoming impossibly long (you would be surprised how many early modern and modern Greeks seem to have the same names) and I just ended up picking 7 names from a page from my manuscript and looked them up in Google Booksearch under both forms for the respective periods.  Imladjov 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, JSTOR only goes up to 1999 or 2000.  In terms of historical journals of relevance, it does have many major generalist historical journals - AHR, EHR, Historical Journal, and such.  And as you note, it does have Dumbarton Oaks Papers.  A JSTOR search would of course not be comprehensive, but would give a good sense of usage in the 1990s.  Personally, as much work as it would be, I think the best way to get a sense of usage would be to try to compile a list, perhaps of sources written in the last 15 years, and see what it comes to.  Once we had that under our belts (as limited and flawed as such a list might end up being), we would all have the same basic knowledge base, which might make it easier to come to a consensus. As I said before, it seems like the search you've done so far suggests that the ODB forms are somewhat more common in works over the last 10 years or so, but not definitively so - both forms are in very common usage.   But I'd like to investigate further. john k 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, be my guest.  I did only a small sample because of time constrictions to see if the pattern were discernible even across a broad spectrum of literature (meaning not just Byzantinist publications).  Since JSTOR does not have the last 5-6 years and only included something as basic as the DOP as recently as last year, I am not sure we should be trying to base an investigation on it.  For all its drawbacks Google Booksearch may serve the purpose (if the data contamination is manually cleared up), and perhaps some information can be extracted from Amazon (which, unfortunately, dismantled some of its more helpful search engines years ago). I would have to look at the latter again, not sure if it is actually able to locate any word in any text. Imladjov 05:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Additional note on usage of works outside the Byzantinist literature.  While in principle this should be fully acceptable, it should be realized that when dealing with Byzantine topics such works tend to (a) rely on older scholarship and (b) can be extremely careless in usage.  For example, I was just perusing John France's The Crusades and the Expansion of Catholic Christendom 1000–1714, published last year.  Here we find ODB-type forms (Doukas), Latinizing forms (Comnenus), and irrational hybrids (Bulgarktonus, Mourtzouphlus).  I have already made reference to the amalgam Andronicos Comnenos (sic!) in Edbury's crusader translations (The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade 1996, 1998).  Such works can be very worthwhile in many ways (I would not have bought them if they were not), but certainly not in trying to discern proper usage for Byzantine names.  Restricting the field of inquiry to Byzantinist works would almost completely eliminate such problems, and would still involve a consideration of both kinds of forms (e.g., Comnenus and Komnenos) presented accurately and systematically (though not always consistently, as in Michael Angold's book cited previously, which contains both kinds of forms though no hybrids).  Moreover, even if often dependent on older publications, the non-Byzantinist literature is by default ultimately derivative in this respect.  As the Byzantinist output following the current practice continues, that practice will be increasingly reflected outside the field (as suggested by the limited statistical sample that includes the spike in crusader-related literature since 2001).Imladjov 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retort for NPOV

message: The requested move has achieved no consensus: at the time of writing, opinion is 11-10. Some have made the point that any renaming should not be done family-by-family but in accord with a consistent policy. Consensus on that is not achievable just yet, to judge by the discussion: even the criteria for choosing a policy, and even the methods for compiling facts on which we would base those criteria, are disputed. The current policy, though arrived at in good faith, lacked Wikipedic legitimacy and quite evidently failed to carry everyone with it.
I propose a moratorium for 9 months, during which the current article naming policy for Byzantine people will be adhered to experimentally (though we recognise that it is under dispute) and we will invite comments on relevant talk pages. On 12 April 2007 I offer to try to get consensus (among all current participants and others who then seem interested) on how to judge 'current usage', whether usage is shifting, and what other facts might be usefully presented; then (say on 12 May 2007) to present the resulting information on a suitable discussion page and invite a new vote.
It is always easy to change Wikipedia article names; therefore, although more articles will meanwhile be written, a moratorium does not commit Wikipedia for the future. Four positive reasons for a moratorium:
* We will make more sense when we have cooled off
* The ODB, blessed and cursed, will then be 10 years old and we will be able to judge how (if at all) it has influenced usage over a ten-year series;
* Meanwhile we ought to be able to (but can we?) collect hit rates for the redirect pages in traditional Anglo-Latin form
* Meanwhile we will have collected more comments from Wikipedia users, not just the usual editors 
It may be said that this proposal favours my view (because I voted for the current, disputed, policy, and this means it remains in effect for 10 months). That's why I'm offering to consign myself to Purgatory by doing the survey work. And I'll go on contributing, whatever the orthography adopted in Heaven.
If you support, or oppose, the principle of a moratorium followed by a survey of current usage, please say so here. If you want to comment (e.g. on the timescale, or the procedures for reaching a decision afterwards), or if you want to help with that, please say so below. Andrew Dalby 12:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support my own proposal. Andrew Dalby 12:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support on condition The flawed "mediation" should not stand. If we return to the status quo ante, I will agree to mark the names as disputed, and return to them in the future without counting either version as established. Septentrionalis 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support.  There does seem to be deadlock, and at the time of writing the vote is 12:11 against the proposed move.  A moratorium would preclude or at least postpone an edit war and would keep our usage in harmony with the standard of the field.  On the mediation, see below. Imladjov 16:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support on condition. This discussion should not have taken place so soon after the mediation. I think we can devote our time in something more productive  while we are here without the need to open debates every other day on the same subjects. Having said that I wish to add that ODB is the standard in the field for a good reason: It is true to the original Byzantine onomatology and culture. Latin on the other hand a posteriori artificially filters out the Greek component of Byzantium and thus distorts and destroys the very essence of Byzantium: The unique phenomenon of its evolution to a Greek empire from a Latin Roman empire past. This old scholarship inflicted linguistic and cultural distortion must have been detected by the Oxford scholars and their colleagues. ODB is linguistically and culturally  neutral and therefore it is a scientifically sound name assimilation system in the English language that transmits Byzantine information without the distortions of after the fact Latinization. Therefore I support the moratorium on condition that the ODB status quo is maintained. Dr.K. 17:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, I don't find this very useful, and since we've already got people arguing about what form the pages should be left in in the meanwhile, it obviously isn't solving the problem.  When I was arguing about this before I said I'd leave it alone if I was going against a clear consensus.  But it seems as though there is no clear consensus, and there was never any real consensus.  The mediation was a failure, as any mediation conducted along those lines would be, and there remains no consensus.  If we're going to try to determine a cooling down course of action, I'd suggest that we actually try to make lists of works and publications that use each form to try to determine what the most common usage is.  For instance, A JSTOR search should be able to determine what journal articles and reviews were using, at least up until 1999 or so.  We could also slowly build up piecemeal lists of individual works that use whichever form.  At some point, we'll presumably have enough evidence that we can get a better sense of what usage is really like, and at that point we can try to see if we have a consensus, or if we need another vote, or whatever. john k 17:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support For the time being, I feel that this needs to cool down for a while. Charles 23:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support Trying it out whilst recognizing the dispute is an excellent idea. The possible use of hit counters could settle things once and for all Obi-Jon 01:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support as per Charles and Obi-Jon. Valentinian (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose I don't see this as doing anything other than confirming the page moves. Roydosan 15:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not need to be convinced that the mediation and plenty of other procedures past or present are flawed or questionable in one way or another.  A mediation was called for, the vagueness of policy prescriptions (again, see Third Opinion, with instructions such as "you alone get to decide either way. Read the arguments of the disputants thoroughly. Third opinions should be perceived as neutral. Do not offer a third opinion if you've had past dealings with the article or editors involved in the dispute. Make sure to write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.") allowed for a recommendation, which was then followed to its logical outcome.  This mediation was of course not binding, especially on those users who were not involved on it.  However, certain persons (myself included) had indicated their intention to stick to the results of the mediation (see my talk page under "Byzantine Rulers Names"). Imladjov 16:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I wo uld have to say common courtesy at the least. Charles 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any other reason? I asked for "legal" validity of this proposal.--Panairjdde 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on guys, let's take it easy. This is an academic debate not Miami Vice. Dr.K. 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a proposal, asking for consensus; not an arbcom decision. It has no legal or moral force, other than that consensus (if it gets one). Septentrionalis 02:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if it gets consensus and I edit in opposition to this proposal, what can happen? If we vote for a change of name and  revert, I am going against WP rules, but such kind of proposal is a preentive censure, since nobody can even "ask" to change before April 2007.--Panairjdde 09:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: there's no proposal for censorship. Comments would be invited on talk pages, including further comments from any of us who have already spoken. When the decision is taken, it will therefore be more fully informed. Andrew Dalby 11:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but what if I ask for a page renaming under this proposal?--Panairjdde 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is based on consensus. Consensus can be absolute so that if everyone agrees completely then everybody is happy and there is no problem. That's the ideal case. But let's say someone or (more than one) disagrees. Then two things can happen. Either the minority defers to the decision of the majority or they start an edit war all over again. If the former happens everyone may not be happy but at least no edit war occurs. In the case of the latter happening then obviously we need arbitration. Dr.K. 15:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me throw my opinion in here as the closing admin.  There's no poing being legalistic about anything: the moratorium is something rather informal.  However, to answer Panairjdde's question directly, you aren't obliged not to propose moves.  However, you should recognize that many fellow editors have agreed to a moratorium on the issue.  This means that your proposal to move pages is very likely to fail and stir up  hard feelings.  I would say, given the bitterness and difficulty in this debate, such a new proposal would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point: disrupting because it's unlikely to lead to any kind of outcome other than more bitterness.  If what you want is more discussion, I suggest opening a request for comment on the subject.  Mangojuicetalk 20:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moratorium: a modest proposal 

message: If Imladjov is looking for what was wrong with the so-called mediation, he need look no futher than the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal page itself, which says we are entirely unofficial; we are just normal Wikipedians; we don't order anyone to do anything; we nip arguments in the bud. Septentrionalis 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not need to be convinced that the mediation and plenty of other procedures past or present are flawed or questionable in one way or another.  A mediation was called for, the vagueness of policy prescriptions (again, see Third Opinion, with instructions such as "you alone get to decide either way. Read the arguments of the disputants thoroughly. Third opinions should be perceived as neutral. Do not offer a third opinion if you've had past dealings with the article or editors involved in the dispute. Make sure to write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.") allowed for a recommendation, which was then followed to its logical outcome.  This mediation was of course not binding, especially on those users who were not involved on it.  However, certain persons (myself included) had indicated their intention to stick to the results of the mediation (see my talk page under "Byzantine Rulers Names"). Imladjov 16:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I wo uld have to say common courtesy at the least. Charles 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any other reason? I asked for "legal" validity of this proposal.--Panairjdde 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on guys, let's take it easy. This is an academic debate not Miami Vice. Dr.K. 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a proposal, asking for consensus; not an arbcom decision. It has no legal or moral force, other than that consensus (if it gets one). Septentrionalis 02:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if it gets consensus and I edit in opposition to this proposal, what can happen? If we vote for a change of name and  revert, I am going against WP rules, but such kind of proposal is a preentive censure, since nobody can even "ask" to change before April 2007.--Panairjdde 09:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification: there's no proposal for censorship. Comments would be invited on talk pages, including further comments from any of us who have already spoken. When the decision is taken, it will therefore be more fully informed. Andrew Dalby 11:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but what if I ask for a page renaming under this proposal?--Panairjdde 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is based on consensus. Consensus can be absolute so that if everyone agrees completely then everybody is happy and there is no problem. That's the ideal case. But let's say someone or (more than one) disagrees. Then two things can happen. Either the minority defers to the decision of the majority or they start an edit war all over again. If the former happens everyone may not be happy but at least no edit war occurs. In the case of the latter happening then obviously we need arbitration. Dr.K. 15:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me throw my opinion in here as the closing admin.  There's no poing being legalistic about anything: the moratorium is something rather informal.  However, to answer Panairjdde's question directly, you aren't obliged not to propose moves.  However, you should recognize that many fellow editors have agreed to a moratorium on the issue.  This means that your proposal to move pages is very likely to fail and stir up  hard feelings.  I would say, given the bitterness and difficulty in this debate, such a new proposal would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point: disrupting because it's unlikely to lead to any kind of outcome other than more bitterness.  If what you want is more discussion, I suggest opening a request for comment on the subject.  Mangojuicetalk 20:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments