Jump to content

Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors/naming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ARCHIVES:

Moratorium: a modest proposal

[edit]

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)[reply]

Support my own proposal. Andrew Dalby 12:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) Addition: I am assuming the proposed moratorium does not preclude further discussion. Imladjov 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support For the time being, I feel that this needs to cool down for a while. Charles 23:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support as per Charles and Obi-Jon. Valentinian (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see this as doing anything other than confirming the page moves. Roydosan 15:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not understand the "legal" value of this proposal. If the proposal passes without my approval, am I obliged not to propose moves? Based on which rule?--Panairjdde 23:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wo uld have to say common courtesy at the least. Charles 00:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any other reason? I asked for "legal" validity of this proposal.--Panairjdde 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on guys, let's take it easy. This is an academic debate not Miami Vice. Dr.K. 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok, but what if I ask for a page renaming under this proposal?--Panairjdde 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]