User:Ed Poor/Mediation

How to realize the mediation process

Where and how? Perhaps we could start on a public talk page and then move to e-mail (with multiple cc:'s) for private discussion as needed.
--Uncle Ed 15:14, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• I accept that, I would accept IRC, I could think of starting with e-mails right on (but I fear that could become rather messy?).--Ruhrjung 23:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

whittling down the number of participants

This is a rather large mediation group, so I'd like to suggest whittling down the number of participants. Would anybody be willing to be represented by another person? Would anyone be willing to represent others? Do you have any other desires about how mediation should occur?
--Tuf-Kat 20:18, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

our desires for mediation

Could everybody who is willing to participate in mediation please leave a message at User:Ed Poor/Mediation. I would suggest outlining your desires for mediation -- what you would feel to be the ideal outcome of mediation (and, perhaps, a more practical outcome you would be happy with).
--Tuf-Kat 20:18, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

User:Gdansk (for Gdansk and Yeti)

My pesonal feeling is that all Polish cities, rivers and provinces should be referenced by their Polish names. Additionally the German names of the Polish objects should be forbidden in English Wikipedia. This is because the Germans did many nasty things to the Poles in the past, and this included forbiding the Polish names, and enforced usage of the German names.

Although this is my personal feeling, I am also thinking of a compromise solution, shown below.

Problem one: principal placenames

If there is a widedly accepted English-only name like Warsaw, Cracow, Munich, Rome, Prague, let's use these English names:

If there is no widely accepted English-only name, let's use the local language name, preferably the official city name. Modern, offcial names should be used in all references to these placenames, modern and historical.

For example:

• Polish cities should be called by their modern/official (Polish) names in all references modern and historical. It doesn't matter if the the city belonged to other states and in the past.
• German cities should be called by their modern/official names in all references. It doesn't matter if the the city belonged to other states and in the past. For example: Dresden, Leipzig, Greifswald, Stralsund althouh they also have Polish names: Drezno, Lipsk, Gryfia, Strzałów
• Flemish cities in Flemish part of Belgium should be referred to using their Flemish names
• Walloon cities in the Walloon part of Belgium should be referred to using their French names

Problem 2: Alternative names

I think it is valuable to add the alternative placenames in various languages, but it should be done in a consistent and netral way in all articles.

If we agree that the Polish city of Wroclaw article begings with: Wrocław (German: Breslau, Czech: Vratislav, Latin: Vratislavia) we have also agree that the German city of Dresden begins with: Dresden (Polish: Drezno; Czech: Drazdany). The problem is our German friends think that alternative German names should be allowed everywere, and they do not accept Polish/Czech/other placenames for the German cities.

If we agree that alternative placenames are not allowed, let's use this rule in all articles. The problem is our German friends think that only Germany should be free from alternative placenames.

Additionally I think it is enough to mention ONCE the alternative language name. For example in the Poznan it is enough to mention once that the German names of the city is Posen, it is not necessary to state this fact 50 times in the article. The Problem is that our German friends put the German name in every artcile and in bold letters.

User:Halibutt

Since the Talk:Gdansk discussion is now long, unorganized and hard to follow, I prepared a new page at User:Halibutt/Gdansk. Its' purpose is to list all proposals and serious (meaning not you are stupid-ish) arguments in one place. I also added a link to it on the Talk:Gdansk page so that all members of the community interested in reaching a compromise could express their views.Halibutt 14:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

User:Ruhrjung

My primary desire is to establish norms which can be used not only in respect to Central European placenames, but also for other areas with similar conditions. I guess the situation on the Balkans is relevant to compare to, in Africa and in Asia there are plenty of placenames which recently have started to get obsoleted by new transliterations which are supposed to be cleansed of colonial associatons. The closest neighbourhood is however also the most similar. Plenty of major cities of the greater Baltic region have been known in English under other names than those today officially recognized: Christiania, Helsingfors, Wiburg, Petrograd, Dorpat, Reval and Königsberg have all become known to the English speaking world under new names in the last 100 years. The German expansions and defeats have also otherwhere given this result: consider Flensborg, Strassburg, Pressburg and Bozen.

What I recognize as the main problem is not primarily NPOV-writing, but how to make the initial paragraphs something all (or most) wikipedians can accept, like, and hopefully be proud of, at the same time as they pragmatically are so worded as to avoid provoking edits from fringe nationalists, either on the defeated or the defeating side of previous RL wars.

Generally, I hope to see an increased conciousness that removing disliked POV:s is less effective than complementing them.

What I hope to become the lasting outcome of the mediation process is also an ambition from the wikipedia community (including us participating in this mediation) to step in and act in some sensible and suitable way when such fringe nationalists act for instance by trying to edit away the traces of the nation of their dislike.

User:Szopen

I believe that the policy regarding those names should be:

1. Whenever English name exists, it should be used (Warsaw, Cracow)
2. Whenever there are two names which are commonly used in ENGLISH, or when English name is different from official, both shoudl be used, e.g Danzig/Gdansk (or in form Danzig (Gdansk) or Gdansk (Danzig)), Wroclaw (Breslau). The rationale: it's English encyclopedia, so it should be easy for English to find needed information.
3. Whenever city is not widely known in English, and no other two cases occur, local name should be used (e.g. Swiebodzin) except when in connection with some important event (e.g. Battle of Tannenberg in WWI, despite that current Polish name is Grunwald, etc).
4. In history sections, first mentioning of the name shoudl follow the earlier sentences, second should be whatever name is suitable for history period.