Wikipedia talk:Language proposal

message: This proposed Wikipedia language policy emerged out of a pending but narrower language-related proposal. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (language policy) and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (language policy). Dass 10:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: I'm not sure I like the way this policy is phrased.  Anyone should be able to translate a foreign-language Wikipedia article then post it to English Wikipedia.  They should ideally translate the whole document, rather than a part.  However, they shouldn't need anyone's permission or consensus just to post a translation.  Obviously, after the post, the normal wiki process continues.  The translation can be improved, either just to describe the topic better in general, or to better translate the original document. If you agree with everything I've said here, great.  I'll clarify the project page.  Otherwise, explain your objections. Superm401 | Talk 18:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I frankly don't understand what this policy is trying to say, and especially how it differs from the general Wikipedia policy that everything is supposed to be done by achieving consensus. And what is "competing, relevant, language-related Wikipedia English-language editors or groups of editors" supposed to mean? --Angr/ 18:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you will kindly point to the existing policy from which this proposal would be considered "separate" I will take a look at it and see if I can merge this policy proposal into it. Dass 10:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia already has the policies WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:NOR, and WP:V, and the guidelines WP:CON, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Common knowledge, and WP:CITE. I don't see what this proposed policy adds that is not already covered by those policies and guidelines. --Angr/ 15:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I do know is that my sock-puppet was gang-banged. Something is not working properly.  Dass 06:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Just to be explicit, there's absolutely no way I'll support the "revised version", which needlessly mentions both religion and cabals. Superm401 | Talk 02:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Mentioning the possibility of cabals just inflames people." What is inflaming about the mentioning of cabals or their possibility? I am not trying to inflame anybody. I am simply pointing out that they exist and must be dealt with when they are being destructive of the goal of the Wikipedia project which is to construct a free online encyclopedia.  -- Dass 06:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What evidence do you have for the suggestion that there are cabals out there intent on undermining Wikipedia policy on collaboration and consensus? What flaw in Wikipedia policy do you consider to encourage gang-banging? --Angr/ 15:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The flaw in Wikipedia policy that I see from this vantage point is the   reflection of a corresponding flaw in the American character. I don't want to get into an ethnic war of words over it. -- Dass 06:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way. I am American - born and raised. -- Dass 06:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It started with one sentence. The second sentence was added in response to someone's criticism or question. I quickly removed a third extraneous sentence. -- Dass 06:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: At the risk of "inflaming" Superm401 or anybody else user-cabals must be looked at objectively if they are a problem which in my experience they are, a very serious problem because some are working in direct opposition to the goals of the Wikipedia project by flaming users that they disapprove of on hidden but presumed racial, ethnic or language grounds. The flaming is done by invoking Wikipedia policies, guidelines, rules, etc., ad infinitum, culminating in accusations of vandalism and calls to block the "vandal". This is "Ignore all rules" or IAR in reverse or, more accurately, "ignore all rules of civility". I have nothing against cabals per se. It's just that I prefer open and honest ones to closed and dishonest ones. -- Dass 06:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may dislike the idea of user cabals, and may think (perhaps correctly), that Wikipedia is influenced by them.  However, you're missing something.  All Wikipedia policies deal with action, rather than identity.  For example, the 3RR mandates that no one revert pages more than three times daily(and recommends they do so much less).   Wikipedia:No personal attacks requires people not to insult each other, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not tells people which pages they should not create.  Your policy seems to be implying that people should not be part of cabals, but a cabal is not definable and their is no way to enforce such a clause.  Essentially, the problem is that your proposed policy doesn't require anything tangible. I still don't see the point.  Can you give an imaginary case for which the existence of this policy would make a difference?  I might understand your goals better. Superm401 | Talk 07:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that Wikipedia is influenced by user cabals. I know so from personal experience. In the section below (Redundant) I have invoked a hypothetical example where current Wikipedia policy does not work. I do not want to cite the specific example that I was involved in because it would open up a whole big can of worms. I was new to Wikipedia and committed some tactical errors in pursuing my objective and also, perhaps, one major strategic mistake. For that matter, I am still very much a newbie. The point is that I was totally unprepared for the vicious personal assault that I was subjected to. As for cabals they can certainly be identified. It's no problem to go back to the discussion page and extract the relevant ID's. But that is not the issue. The real problem is in dealing with bias grounded in language preferences. The voice of the non-native English-speaking English-language editor is simply drowned out at best and viciously suppressed at worst. Dass 06:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabals 

message: I'm afraid that this policy is rather redundant. It is common practice to work by consensus through collaboration. And Wikipedia does not call for witch hunts on editors undermining policy, not to mention cabals. Radiant_>|< 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be afraid. It is not the intended purpose of the proposal to conduct witchhunts but rather to stop group vandalism. I have removed the word "isolate" since it is being misinterpreted. The proposal now simply calls for identifying the culprits. After the vandals are identified current Wikipedia policy can take over. My concern is not to punish or to take revenge but to stop vandalism and personal attacks based on ethnic, racial and linguistic bias. Dass 05:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This proposal is intended to address a specific major Wikipedia problem. The  problem is discussed elsewhere in Wikipedia. It is referred to as a "systemic problem". This proposal addresses a problem which in my experience is not being currently addressed, namely, when a native English-speaking editor or a group of native English-speaking editors decide that their preferred translation/transliteration (of a person's name, for example) is the only acceptable one. The policy (or guideline or rule) cited is that it is the form most commonly used by English-speakers. The wishes of non-native English-speakers with respect to the use of that specific name form is considered irrelevant. There needs to be a way of giving non-native English-speakers a say in what name form is used when the name or the person named has cultural, historical or linguistic significance to non-native English-speakers. Taking a vote is meaningless since non-native English-speakers are always a small minority with respect to any specific foreign language.  Dass 05:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy concerning using the most commonly used name in English is just that: we use the most commonly used name in English. No one's opinion (whether native English speaking or not) matters. The most commonly used name in English is determined partially by Googling (making sure to count only pages written in English), and partially by consulting what other English-language encyclopedias use. --Angr/ 14:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the policy that we need to supersede.  Dass 05:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't. That's very good policy, and it needs to stay. --Angr/ 07:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How and why is it good policy?  Dass 08:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's good policy because it's descriptive rather than prescriptive. Wikipedia is not here to tell people what they ought to say, it's here to report on what people do say. Finding out the most commonly used name for something in English and using that reflects the actual facts "on the ground" among English speakers. Using names that are less common in English writing because nonnative speakers consider them "correct" is telling people what to do. --Angr/ 14:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Those refer to article content, not names. --Angr/ 14:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant 

message: *The “one-language rule” or  OLR is not well-defined. There is, in practice, a strong element of subjectivity that can and does creep in not only because of the way in which  it is loosely defined but because of the way in which it is loosely applied. 
*The OLR need not be superseded. It can be subsumed. What is missing is the context in which the OLR is applied. And it is there where all objectivity is lost. 
*The assumed context is the universe of all English-language editors. But that universe is not homogeneous. There are two principal sets of editors: 1) English speakers (native and non-native English speakers) and 2) foreign-language speakers (native and non-native foreign-language speakers). The intersection of these two sets is the set of all editors who are both English speakers and speakers of a foreign language. The second set of editors includes numerous subsets, for example, French speakers, Swahili speakers, etc. 
*When objectively applied to the set of English-speaking editors and, separately, to one of the sets of foreign language editors, the OLR can be fairly presumed to yield objective results within each separate language group. But when applied only to the universe of English-language editors the OLR loses whatever objectivity it may have or claim to have in a language-related conflict. 
*Let’s consider a hypothetical example: Jeanne d’Arc. She is generally known as Joan of Arc in English. Most French-speakers have no objection to her being referred to in English as Joan of Arc. It is a straight forward rendition from French to English. If she were better known to English-speakers as Jeanne d’Arc that would also be acceptable but Joan of Arc is acceptable to most French speakers. 
 
*But supposing that the French speakers claimed that calling her Joan of Arc was a desecration of Jeanne d'Arc's memory because it was the English who were responsible for her being burned at the stake. If the English-speakers insisted on calling her Joan of Arc the French speakers would have no recourse under the current policy. A Google search would support the English speakers' choice. If put to a vote the French speakers would be outvoted. They would be stuck with Joan of Arc however vehemently they objected to the name and however offensive it might be to their historical sensibilities. 
*The new proposal would give the French speakers an equal voice in determining the final choice of name because collaboration and consensus would be between two boards of editors, one composed of English speakers and the other composed of French speakers. Collaboration and consensus would be between representatives of the two language-defined boards.  
*A two-language rule brings a new approach to solving problems which the one-language rule often exacerbates. The bottom line is that the OLR even when applied in a homogeneous or neutral language context achieves mere agreement. At best it achieves a veneer of consensus, a forced consensus, a false consensus. The OLR should only be used as a last resort. It is an instrument of war.  Dass 09:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-language rule