Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-08-19/Paneriai

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Paneriai
Status	open
Request date	01:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:Dr._Dan User:Radeksz User:Jacurek User:Mikej007 User:Lokyz User:84.240.27.89
Mediator(s)	-- Raziel  teatime  17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment	Case open, dispute undergoing discussion.

Request details

Where is the dispute?

The issue is at the article for Paneriai, a suburb of Vilnius, specifically in the lead paragraph.

Who is involved?

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

• User:Dr._Dan
• User:Radeksz
• User:Jacurek
• User:Mikej007
• User:Lokyz

And some anon IPs

What is the dispute?

There is a lot of discussion and spirited debate about whether to include the Polish name for this suburb in the lead. Lots of edit warring and so forth, and accusations of POV flying from all sides. I am not familiar enough with the history to know all the details, but this reaching the level of a "you can't include the German name for this town, it insults my grandfather who died in WWI" debate. Unfortunately, there were historical atrocities committed at this location, and this history is coloring the conversation. I know these kinds of conflicts happen all the time on wikipedia. The edit conflicts have begun to reach other articles too, as various people are trying to make a WP:POINT about their positions by adding in Polish names for other Lithuanian towns for which no one has any rationale of doing so, etc. I gather there is some kind of rationale for doing it here.

What would you like to change about this?

The participants are not engaging with one another at all but are instead restating and restating the same arguments without much hope at consensus that I can see.

How do you think we can help?

I came to the article via a request for 3rd opinion, and I asked the various sides to explain their cases without resorting to calling each other fascists or propagandists, but the tone immediately turned aggressive and negative, which I will only react negatively to myself so I want to stay away.

Mediator response

First off, I would like to make clear to Radeksz and everyone else that I was not the one who wrote the opening sections on what the dispute was, those sections was created by user:Dmz5 (the one who created this page) and that is his perspective of the events that have taken place, not mine. Secondly, after looking at the talk page and revision history of the article in question (as well as several related pages), here's what the situation seems to be. There was a disagreement between users Radeksz, Jacurek, and Mikej007 and users Dr. Dan and Lokyz about whether to include the Polish name for the suburb of a now Lithuanian city. Radeksz and co. said that the name should be added because it is a commonly used name for the town in 10% of English sources (per WP:NCGN) and Dr. Dan and Lokyz argued that it was undue wight and that it should not be included. They also questioned the reason for placing it in the lead of the article. There was a good amount of edit warring, as well as personal attacks coming from both sides. A 3O request was made, and the user who accepted the request (Dmz5) later requested that MedCab handle the dispute.

Wikipedia guidelines say that as long as 10% of all English sources use the alternate name, it can and should be added to the article. As for placing it in the lead, WP:NCGN states that it can be placed in the lead as long as 10% of all english sources use it. I haven't seen any real argument for not including it except for the undue weight argument.

I believe that the article should include the alternate name since it's used by 10% of English sources (as Radeksz shows in Talk:Paneriai). I also agree with Dr. Dan that if this is done, it should be done to all geographical entities equally, however I think it should only be done to those geographical entities if 10% of English sources use the alternate name of that specific place. It seems like this is already being done, so mediation is probably no longer needed at this point, but if not then I think that is the best solution to this issue.

By the way, as you may know, some of the editors involved are currently absent. I know Radeksz will be back in about 2 weeks, but I'm not sure when Jacurek will be available again, so we should wait to reach an agreement (if an agreement needs to be made) until they return. -- Raziel  teatime  22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediator notes

I have taken this case and am currently investigating the dispute. -- Raziel  teatime  18:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• NOTE From Mediator: Please do not make any personal attacks while discussing the issue. I really don't want this whole thing to blow up just because someone got mad and decided to get back at someone by insulting them. Thanks! -- Raziel  teatime  19:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think in this dispute, as well as for all the Lithuanian places, especially in Wilno region ,we should add hte Polish names, as well as maybe Yiddish, Russian and Belarusian names. This country has a unique and divere history and the official languages varied in different periods of time. Ruthenian in medieval times, Polish in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russian in the Russian Empire, Polish in Poland Wilno Region and Lithuanian in Lithania. Also, many of the cities have rich Jewish heritage, with some of them having Jewish majority in different times. You can see linguistic diversity in List of Lithuanian Places in other languages. I think that regardless of the political point of view to what lead to different things in Lithuanian history, we can't just delete it's past by saying it offends current Lithuanian fellings. The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people, and official past names of places, that reflect their heritage, past, and sometimes ethnic composition are needed. This is also the common rule for Hungarian names in Transilvania, German names in Western Poland, German names in Czech Republic, German names in Kaliningrad oblast and ext. Moreover, the polish cities, that have some Lithuanian heritage, have their Lithuanian names shown in the heading of the article - see Bialystok and Suwalki.--Mikej007 (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• As I've already indicated to Raziel, tomorrow morning I am going away and will not have reliable access to the internet again until mid September. For what it's worth, here's my piece before that happens, and I might as well make it long and exhaustive.

First, I want to endorse everything that Mikej007 says above. The reason this is a recurrent problematic dispute is because editors like Dr. Dan and Lokyz claim (implicitly - they never really come out and admit it) some kind of exception for Lithuanian places from standard Wikipedia guidelines. According to these guidelines alternative names (in parentheses) can be included in articles on places if at least 10% of English language sources use these names, or if a substantial population of speakers of another language/ethnicity have lived in the place. This is why we have "Breslau" in Wroclaw, "Stettin" in Szczecin or, more directly, "Suvalkai" in Suwałki. These criteria are well satisfied for Paneriai, as I've shown on the talk page, so that the Polish and Yiddish name "Ponary" should be included as an alternative name - this is particularly true since this was a site of a major massacre of Jews and Poles by the Nazis (additionally I'd like to note that even the Polish village of the same name, Ponary, includes the German name "Ponarien", bot-added. Let me underline that - bot-added).

Since the objecting users (Dr. Dan and Lokyz) cannot argue with the guideline, nor with the evidence presented to support the application of this guideline, they (Dr. Dan in particular) resort to diversionary tactics - changing the subject, asking pointless and endless questions, irrelevant comments as well as the standard personal attacks and questioning of motives (and even quoting Lynard Skynard lyrics for no apparent reason) (in the interest of trying to retain a shred of good faith towards these users I'm not gonna say anything about the strange anon IP that all of sudden appeared on these articles). They do not address the issue. And because of this the discussions on the talk page end up being fruitless and get bogged down. We already had this discussion at another Lithuanian city's article Biržai and only after I asked for a Third Opinion was the situation finally resolved (and there I was dealing with a much more constructive and reasonable user, Novickas). I was hoping that asking for third opinion on this issue - Paneriai/Ponary - would likewise help to resolve the matter. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.

As to the recent development, I think I detect a bit of initial bias in Raziel's description of the matter, particularly this part: The edit conflicts have begun to reach other articles too, as various people are trying to make a WP:POINT about their positions by adding in Polish names for other Lithuanian towns for which no one has any rationale of doing so, etc.. What actually happened here is this:

• As part of my argument, I pointed out that most Polish cities had alternative names in their ledes.
• Dr. Dan found a few which didn't (well, they sort of did, but anyway)
• Jacurek and Mike said, "fine, go ahead and put alternative names in there"
• Dr. Dan went around and in addition to putting names in, bolded them and put them first (i.e. not as "alternative names" but as "proper names")
• Jacurek and Mike (I think) put Yiddish and Polish names, as alternative names, in the lede of Vilnius (where it actually belonged for awhile) and maybe some other Lithuanian cities. Presumably this was done with Dr. Dan's approval (see his comments about "new consensus").

(An illustrative fact here is that no Polish editors involved, or Mike, give a fish about whether or not Lithuanian or German or Yiddish alternative names are included in articles on Polish cities, but Dr. Dan and Lokyz insist that no Polish names must appear anywhere near a Lithuanian place's article. And this is a revealing double standard).

The bottom line on the above is that while this has spilled on to other articles, it's not a case of putting Polish names in Lithuanian places to make a POINT. If anything it's the opposite - Dr. Dan putting in alternative names in Polish cities to make a POINT (as in, if you do this to me, I'll get you back!), without bothering to do the work to show that the relevant Wiki guideline actually applies (his silly and irrelevant example of Etats-Unis is another case in point). What is required here is quite simple - a consistent application of the relevant Wikipedia guideline. The one that says that an alternative name should be added if at least 10% of English sources use it or if a significant number of people of another nationality/ethnicity/language used to live there. This is what I've been saying from the beginning, this is what I'm saying now, and this is why I've asked for third opinion on this matter twice already. If the objecting users have a problem with the guideline then they should lobby or attempt in some way to get it changed. Otherwise the guideline should be applied. We don't ignore guidelines simply because in some cases they rub somebody's nationalistic feelings the wrong way.radek (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A symptom, not the problem

This might be a good time to discuss representation of historical names in the Baltic States. Even now, for example, English language writings on WWII in Latvia refer to Libau, Goldingen, and all. Anything in English on Vilnius before independence (that is, common usage at the time) refers to Wilno, less often to Vilna, and, again, such names have continued to be used in scholarly works.
   Personally I am for sticking to current usage because every non-current place-name in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia usually signifies some conquering power and I have no desire to enshrine any one of those in WP. That said, it's not that simple. Polish->Lithuania, German->Latvia, German/Danish-> Estonia... most non-native place names have been common English usage at some time and have had a way of surviving to the present particularly in scholarship--and it may be better to opt for inclusion of some historical names than to leave out.
   I've only come to this editorial modification to my own personal position because, as I've mentioned, Libau et al. keep popping up in scholarship--and it's a disservice to our readers to not let them know, for example, that Liepāja = Libau. This would require buy-in on the part of, in particular, Baltic editors, and should be part of an effort to improve usability of Baltic WP content.
   As I've indicated, my personal ideal would be current native names only for the reason I've cited, but I'm willing to entertain options if it is done as part of a standard with clear benefits identified. I do not support making it an open season smorgasbord to do, say, Lithuanian, Polish, Ukrainian, Yiddish, Belarussian,... I do (reluctantly) support the primary English language usage name prior to independence—as this is the English Wikipedia. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Very pithy, very well put, Vecrumba. Part of the conundrum, unless of course the "New Consensus" is to apply that "smorgasbord" wholesale into the leads of articles, will be resolving the problem with lead placement. Should all of this stuff, no matter how undue, be added to satisfy an agenda, wrapped around google hits, bending Wiki Policy to it's limits, be placed in the lead? Or as miscellaneous info? If the former is what we want, and all agree to, fine, and it should be applied to all geographical entities equally. If it is a policy that will be applied selectively here and there with the kind of objections that I just finished dealing with at User talk:Dmz5 (Bаршава), it will be a "tough row to hoe". Dr. Dan (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to say it out loud - whatever this "new consensus" that Dr. Dan imagines is, I don't think I'm part of it, mostly because it is not a consensus and because it doesn't follow Wikipedia policy. Taking a "smorgasboard" approach to alternative names is silly and will most likely result in an annoying tit-for-tat as in "you put your name in my city, I'm gonna stick the Chinese and Polynesian names into every one of your cities!". Simply, all that is needed is a consistent application of the existing guideline - if more than 10% of English language sources use the name, then we can put it in as an alternative name. If not then not. For example, I seriously doubt that 10% of English language sources use the Hungarian name for Krakow so we don't have to worry about it.radek (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys I can't contribute to this discussion at the moment because I had an accident last night ( broken ribs, collarbone etc.) I will try to get back to editing as soon as possible but now I'm in too much pain. Talk to you soon.--Jacurek (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Get better! The discussion will still likely be going on...

Again, I completely support including all historical place names in articles, however, the place name for the title and in the lead should be the current one unless there is clear and compelling 3rd party evidence to the contrary regarding current common English usage (for example, the BGN database). I also have come to support, albeit out of editorial necessity and not personal preference, the inclusion of pre-independence common English language usage for place names despite, for the Baltics, the most common often being the language of a hostile power at some point. Any other solution will render article leads into "list of place names for X" instead of reading like an article lead by just sticking to other English language usage the reader should be aware of. Again, this is not my personal preference, however, I have come to believe it is the editorially responsible action here, and which also serendipitously bridges a good deal of the gap between native versus foreign language smorgasbord without getting into the heated nationalities debate. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Vercumba, what you suggst is fine, but it should be a common policy to thw whole Wikipedia and that is not the case. In fact, most of the time coomon historical names are presentd in the lead sucj as Hungarian→Romania, German→Poland, German→Czech Republic, Hungarian→Uzhgorod region, Polish→Western Ukraine, Polish→Western Belarus and I can go on and on. In the specific example of Lithuania, the Polish names represented at some time the majority of the population of those places, and until last century the official name of the place. As for the Yiddish, can we deny that in many cases, mojority or plurality of that city's population was Jewish - meaning that the most used name was the Jewish one? I think what Radek proposed is fair - 10% of common current English usage or minority today or in the past (we have to decide how far to go - I think a century is enough).

Btw, I frankly don't think that your comment about "hostile power" is in place. We can debate about it endlessly, but just think about it - is a country that represents the ethnic majority/plurality of the local population is a "hostile power"?--Mikej007 (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear - the "at least 10%" isn't what I propose. It is what the current Wikipedia policy is. I'm only trying to follow it.radek (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mikej007, you will note I stated "the most common...". Don't misunderstand me to mean that a shtetl is an invading power. Unfortunately, my point and concern are that place names are often used on Wikipedia to open old historical wounds to lord past conquest, suzerainty, and hegemony on the current (and hopefully rightful) inhabitants of a territory. The "10%" solution (that is, creating an ultimately arbitrary formula) opens WP to that abuse. As I have noted, this is the English Wikipedia, and the lead is best served with alternate common English place names prior to current usage and not with all significant language variants from significant periods, whether prior or current.

   I certainly welcome a wider standard regarding alternate names in an article lead, however, the proverbial elephant is best eaten and digested one bite at a time. If we can come up with a standard for Baltic place names, then perhaps that can work elsewhere. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me to mean that a shtetl is an invading power - It's not only about that - in some cases, especially in Lithuania - the majotrity of the populatuin as not Lithuanian (and it's not until this very day). And even if it is a majority, the ones who built Riga were the German, Swedish and Russian. Should we erase that history - definitely not. Shpuld we erase Jewish history - abruptly murdered by an invading power (with collaboration of the locals in many cases) - definitely not. This is the case not only with the Baltics, but with all other areas that I mentioned. Thus - 10% + minority (present/past).--Mikej007 (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a mediation on this issue was attempted and failed in the past: Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution. Bottom line: the region has a history that is shared by many countries, yet a notable faction of Lithuanian editors has adopted a course that differs from Belorusian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish editors, by attempting to remove all non-Lithuanian names from some articles. I consider such attempt at rewriting history damaging to this project; as many works in English use (not very consistently) different spellings, those spelling should be present in the affected articles, particularly when those articles deal with history of more than one country. In other words: nobody is saying that Paneriai is not Lithuanian, but in the past, this wasn't so, and other names were used (and that usage, rightfully, survived in modern English literature and shouldn't be censored from Wikipedia). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

..." a notable faction of Lithuanian editors has adopted a course that differs from Belorusian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish editors". P.P., which Estonian editors were you thinking of when you wrote this? Dr. Dan (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

..."nobody is saying that Paneriai is not Lithuanian, but in the past, this wasn't so"...P.P., did you mean between 1922-1939? Or did you have some other time frame in mind? Dr. Dan (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

..."the region has a history that is shared by many countries, yet a notable faction of Lithuanian editors has adopted a course that differs from Belorusian, Estonian, Latvian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Jewish editors".. I find it odd that you, P.P., excluded Germany from the region. Was there any particular reason? And btw, which Jewish editors? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And this is why mediation or discussion never works here - Dr. Dan just tries to change the subject, brings up irrelevancies and thinks that he's a host of a question/answer gameshow, inbetween making various implications and "hints" and who knows what else.radek (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing the subject how, Radeksz? Each of the above queries are directly related to a statement made at this discussion, right on this page. If they were truly irrelevant you should have made your snide comment about game show hosts after they were posted. As to "why mediation or discussion never works here", maybe it's because people pick and choose when and what they will respond to. I'd still like some answers from P.P., perhaps he was busy with matters like this [1]. Like you, he evidently doesn't agree with me that there was a new consensus allowing the placement of alternate names into these articles. Evidently only Mikej007 seemed to agree with me out of the parties involved here. I say evidently because he hasn't protested or changed P.P.'s edit. Due to Jacurek's unfortunate accident I can't determine how sincere he was here [2]. Perhaps he still favors a two way consensus. It seems that once again certain editors are "gung-ho" about placing Polish toponyms into the leads of Lithuanian geographical articles, but not so keen in having other languages placed in theirs. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know..I'm reading all this just can't type, will join asap. Thanks P.S. Yes, I still favor a two way consensus. --Jacurek (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, your comments about Dr. Dan could easily be interpreted as a personal attack, so I will reiterate: Please do not make personal attacks. Do not even make a remark that sounds like, or could be interpreted as, a personal attack. It really is not going to help.

Also, forgive me for asking, but am I correct in assuming that this "new consensus" is to place alternate names in not just the Paneriai article, but other articles regarding geographical places? -- Raziel  teatime  19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct--Jacurek (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain that to P.P. regarding Warsaw and his recent reverting of Mikej007 with this [3]. I believe Radeksz is not in favor of any "new consensus" either. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if Russian is necessary in Warsaw's article but for sure there should be English and Yiddish spellings there. If we start placing Russian names then minus well we should have one in German also. Please be aware that somebody will start placing the Russian names in articles about Lithuanian cities such as Vilnius for example. Hope this will not create any problem. (Sorry can't type anymore...)--Jacurek (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Khmm, and where the consensus was reached? Please provide any diffs where everyone has agreed that it is a consensus?--Lokyz (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "Not sure if Russian is necessary in Warsaw's article but for sure there should be English and Yiddish spellings there." Why not, Jacurek? The Russian people are a great people, the Russian language is a great language. Warsaw was part of Russia for a long time. For someone who is in favor of placing Polish toponyms into Lithuanian geographical toponyms down to the smallest hamlet and now even "neighborhoods" that seems odd to say the least. A few hours ago you made this comment [4] What's up with that? Dr. Dan (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep it reasonable. English and Yddish name are important for Warsaw singe a) it is English wiki and b) beforw WWII Warsaw (like most cities and towns in Poland) had a large Jewish minority. But Russian? Why? Because of the Russian partition? If yes, we should add the French name too (due to Duchy of Warsaw), as well as Russian name to Berlin and German to Paris :D As far as I am concerned, the important questions are a) is the given name used enough in English literature to justify it and b) is the history of the place connected with a given language (usually due to part of local population speaking the language as primary language. Ask those simple questions about every place, and you'll know which names are important - and which are just POV-pushing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Keeping it reasonable would be fine. Keeping a balanced approach would not only be reasonable but promote knowledge for the "convenience" of the reader as well. Warsaw was part of Russia for a very long time. As for the Duchy of Warsaw, it existed about six years. As for French names, I believe I recently discussed them with Radeksz here [[5]]. I find it very troubling that the argument for placing Polish names in Lithuanian articles would take precedence over placing Russian names in the appropriate Polish articles. Hopefully not everyone in this discussion agrees with this premise. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Warsaw was part of the Russia for a very long time. Really brilliant logic, just a curiousity: when do you plan adding Аляска to Alaska? Loosmark (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Loosmark, I wasn't planning on it at all. What I'll do instead is bring up one of the reasons that some object to placing the Russian toponym in the Warsaw article. Remember this? [6] In that example you seemed upset with the idea of placing the Russian version in English WP. I could be wrong (about you being upset). But when you posted your remarks at User talk:Dmz5 regarding your position ..."i don't support Yiddish or Russian toponyms for Lithuanian geography neither am i against them i simply don't have an opinion about that", you didn't clarify your position on placing Polish toponyms for Lithuanian geography. Could you tell us what it is now? Otherwise you might be accused by someone of changing the subject. Like I was here [7] Dr. Dan (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania was part of the Russia (in its various guises) for much longer - so why are you not adding Russian names to Vilnius, Kaunas or Trakai...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Really, how much longer? Unless of course you think the members of the PZPR (in its various guises) in Katowice who were shouting "Niech Żyje" weren't "really" part of Russia again. If so, you're in good company. Gerald Ford didn't think so either. In his own words....[8] Dr. Dan (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should use Russian spelling in either (Warsaw or Vilnius) but will not object if there is one. English and Yiddish however should be in both. I know Dr.Dan will not like it, but I also know that Vilnius should have Polish spelling as well since the city was held by Poland for so long with majority of the population in the past being Polish. Vilnius is a very specific case. I understand Lithuanian editors who object the inclusion of Polish spelling for historical reasons. Lithuanians view the Polish presence in Vilnius as an occupation of their capital and Poles see Vilnius (Wilno) as city they helped to build and as a city of the Polish heritage. We should agree however that Lithuanian capital Vilnius shares a lot of history with Poland and include the Polish spelling in the lead.--Jacurek (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"English and Yiddish however should be in both". Jacurek, what does English have to do with this mess? Is anyone trying to exclude English from English WP? What are you talking about? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, of course English is already here.--Jacurek (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

My answer to Dr.Dan's question above: i don't have a specific position on Polish toponyms for Lithuanian geography in the sense that there should be some special treatment for them. Simply, I totally agree with what radek wrote somewhere above, we only need apply wikipedia's policy on the subject which is clear enough. Loosmark (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, let me point out that Wikipedia already HAS a policy/guideline to address this very issue and no new "new consensus" or anything like that is required. The already existing policy is a good one as it differentiates between places which are referred to by alternative names in English language sources or have had a significant presence (troops in barracks don't count) of other language people living there, from frivolous insertions of names just to make a point, for revenge (not that any Wiki editor would actually be motivated by things like that) or for no reason what so ever. The policy - that at least 10% of English language sources use the name - is a good one and it just needs to be implemented.

There's no need to develop new policy. Just point out to the editors involved that policy needs to implemented.radek (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz has a point. If alternate names are going to be added to geographical places, Paneriai included, it should be done in accordance with WP:PLACE. Unless someone has a good reason not to follow Wikipedia guidelines? -- Raziel  teatime  17:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that. This should be the end of this discussion and we should follow the policy.--Jacurek (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Amen to what? If you can type now (meaning recovered), and the other editor who has engaged in personal attacks against me (I expect an apology, btw), has returned and will be able to respond with undivided attention, then after I and anyone else planning to respond in this "informal mediation" with a formal statement, "can we consider ending this discussion". Furthermore now that our "unbiased mediator" has for the second time inserted his "opinion" regarding this unresolved matter, the time has come for him to recuse himself from this mediation. Unless of course it's WP policy for a "mediator" to espouse his opinion prior to a decision being reached. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not my opinion, it is a matter fact. Unless someone can come up with a good consensus for ignoring Wikipedia guidelines in this particular matter, then there is no reason to not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. Which is precisely why I asked "Unless someone has a good reason not to follow Wikipedia guidelines?". -- Raziel  teatime  19:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem, not a symptom

The problem truly rears it's ugly head again. A one way street, not a two way street. When I said fine, let there be a "New Consensus", put in these Polish, and Yiddish names. Go for it. But let's put in the Russian and German names where appropriate too. That now seems to be unacceptable. User: Loosmark pretty much sums it up with ..."Warsaw is specific in that for 50 years Poland was under de-facto Soviet control and many Poles were oppressed so IMO Bаршава would be seen as provocative by most Poles." But despite the possibility that "Wilno" might seem provocative to others, is really of no consequence. So much for the "New Consensus." Please don't be surprised when your heavily POV ridden, and undue edits, are challenged and reverted in the future. And Jacurek, please do not be so presumptious as to assume what Dr. Dan "will like" or "will not like". Hope you're feeling better. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Dr. Dan (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I presumed that because of the long history of our disagreements over this issues. You never liked it, that is all. Thanks, I feel a little better but still can't type for too long.--Jacurek (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr.Dan i wasn't part of any "new consensus" in fact i was even unaware that you guys were working on a consensus. My opinion is there is no need for any new consensus, wikipedia policy is clear: if at least 10% of english sources use the name or there is a significant minority living there then the other name should be included. Wilno for example, fulfills both criterion, Варшава neither. Loosmark (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Do 10% of English sources use Санкт-Петербу́рг​ or Москва? Last time I checked both were included in the leads of those respective articles (Saint Petersburg and Moscow) in English Wikipedia. I think you'll find them in the French, German, Polish, and Spanish versions of WP, too. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What, the hell are you talking about!? Those are the names of the cities in the native language, including those was never questioned by anybody, it goes without saying those are included. Thanks for making me lose 47 seconds of my life for nothing. Loosmark (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the 47 seconds, Loosmark. Please remember all of the previous arguments given about placing "Wilno" into the Vilnius article, and I don't mean just the newly found 10% arguments either. Neither about "English sources" nor "minority populations". And kindly remember that neither "Wilno" nor "Ponary" are names of the localities "in the native language". As for what my point was, Cyrillic has it's place in English Wikipedia, even in articles relating to Poland. Btw, once again this [9]] is not an argument against it's use either. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit of a problem for me to remember all the previous arguments about Wilno because i entered this discussion only very recently (after sb tried to POV push sth into Warsaw lead that is). What exactly do you mean with the "newly found 10% argument" i don't know. Thats wikipedia policy - if you weren't aware of it before, what can i say though luck. Wilno and Ponary are included in the lead per wikipedia policy, it's as simple as that. And finally yes cyrillic can have its place in articles relating to Poland but only when there is a reason to do so: for example there is an Ukrainian minority living in Przemyśl. Loosmark (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, please remember to be civil and keep a cool head before posting. Thank you. -- Raziel  teatime  19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Raziel, the thing is that happens all the time. We try to keep discussion professional and the Dr. Dan asks pointless questions. Bottom line, I think that we should stick to 10%+minority rule (except for native language of course, which is obviously should be there). I yhink this is fair and satisfactory for all parties and there is no point to debate about heritage and staff. There are facts - Wilno, Ponary, Troki and ext. had significant polish and Yiddish speaking populations in the past (and maybe today too). Some of them meet the 10% criteria too, that's why Polish and Yiddish should be in the lead. Btw, same thing for Memel (Klaipeda), this time with German population un the past.--Mikej007 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"We try to keep discussion professional and the Dr. Dan asks pointless questions". Ha. Aybody else thinks its high time to start a user conduct RfC on Dr. Dan's "contributions" to discussions? I have at least once, during an arbitration, suggested that his input on talk pages is so non-constructive (constant sniping, baiting, jabs, and yes, sarcasm by a barge load) that a ban from all Poland-related talk pages may be in order; I'd be interested in community input on that proposal, which I think could greatly improve the atmosphere on, well, all pages where Dr. Dan choses to make his comments at. For the record, I'd support a stern warning from the community before such a ban is issued - everybody deserves another chance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. As the mediator above says there doesn't seem to be a particular need for mediation on this particular issue - the policy's already there, it needs to be applied, it's just that some editors insist on violating the policy (which when you get down to it, when done repeatedly, is no different from removing reliable sources from articles or making repeated BLP violations). However, there is a need for some kind of action on Dr. Dan's conduct on talk pages - which has been quite problematic for some time (and note that talk page discussions are Dr. Dan's primary inputs into Wikipedia).radek (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Raseksz, aren't you exactly supposedly away? Let me cite As I've already indicated to Raziel, tomorrow morning I am going away and will not have reliable access to the internet again until mid September [10]--Lokyz (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "not have reliable access" means sometimes better sometimes worse. This weekend I can access the internet a bit more.radek (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Another problem

So, P.P., an adminstrator, brings out his "little black book" with his three year old "evidence" and suggests censoring Dr. Dan again (nothing new about that proposition, by P.P.). Got any newer evidence? P.P., reiterates the fallacy that I ask pointless questions...:"We try to keep discussion (sic) professional and the Dr. Dan (sic) asks pointless questions, Ha." Professional? Did you mean perhaps that Dr. Dan asks pointless questions about pointless and untrue claims made on these pages [11], that remain unanswered? Or when you make comments like that, and they are challenged, do questions about them suddenly become "pointless"? Since you have been following this thread here, and at the Talk:Paneriai page I'm wondering why you didn't comment in your capacity as an unbiased administrator about [12] this? Or several other violations of policy? It reminds me of your behavior regarding the activities of this user. Don't you think this was a little too much [13]? And really, Mikej007, what's up with this [14]? Dr. Dan (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So apparantly presenting evidence of an editor's misbehavior now constitutes a "little black book" - of course the real problem is not the editor's misbehavior, but somebody having the gall to point it out. And the evidence is not three years old, it stretches three years back - including more recent stuff like your behavior at Zwierzyniec and Bialystok Pogrom. And what does Molobo have to do with any of this? And how many irrelevant questions are there going to be? How many? What's up with that Dr. Dan? And while we're at it, could you explain your edit here [15]? And don't you think that this is a little too much [16]? And why didn't you get involved in this discussion [17]? How many more question marks must suffer? How many? Eighteen? Three hundred? Who knows?radek (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Okay, I need to clarify a few things. First off, Dr. Dan and Lokyz, you are in favor of adding the alternate name to Paneriai as long as it is done to other geographical places, correct? And Radeksz, Mike007j, and Jacurek, you are in favor of the same thing as long as it is done in accordance with WP:PLACE, right? -- Raziel  teatime  17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with putting in alternative names in paranthases for all places where at least 10% (note that for the place under discussion, it's more like 50%) of English language source use it - whether these places are Polish, Lithuanian, Chinese or Mexican. I anticipate that there might be borderline cases (in which case I think the burden of proof/convincing should be on those wanting to put the alternative name in) and possible exceptions (in which case the burden of proof/convincing should be on those wanting to keep the name out), but if we can agree ... well, agree to actually follow the guideline, then we at least have a framework to start with.radek (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, what borderline cases, and possible exceptions, were you anticipating? Dr. Dan (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm anticipating that these may arise in general. I'm not anticipating any one in particular.radek (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I did not say that I do aggree to something, I did just suggest, that I would help to put alternative names to the so-called Polish cities leads. I had in mind the Polska Republika Ludowa borders. More when User:Jacurek will recover from his injuries, and when the supposedly absent User:Radeksz will come back, as the arbitrator suggested "in two weeks". Diff will be provided on request.--Lokyz (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How nice of you to suggest adopting a new policy of naming for places in Poland. But if you look at the name of this case, you may see that we are also concerned with naming of places that were once part of Poland (Second Polish Republic and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Aren't we also concerned with naming for places (sic), that were once part of the Russian Empire, too, P.P.? Like Варшава? I mean its been opened up as a topic here. It's as good as any place to finish up with it here too. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd add Austria–Hungary and the German Empire to the list, if editors are so eager to find true (i.e 19th century, that are pushed now) historical names. The Cracow for now is the main issue, since there is WP:ENGLISH, that is neglected at the moment.--Lokyz (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A question

Since the main initiators of this issue are injured, or away (I did not use word flee), should I present my statement, or should I just skip it? (all WP:AGF assumed.--Lokyz (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Please present it. -- Raziel  teatime  22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a quick answer, I'll do it as soon I'll get to my books.--Lokyz (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be able to occasionally check in, like now, for short periods of time to keep an eye on things. So if you want to you can start and I'll do my best to respond. Just please be understanding, time wise.radek (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lokyz, just to let you know, I do plan to make a statement, unless the matter is somehow resolved earlier, but not until ALL of the involved parties are able to participate with their presence and undivided attention. Not while some might "check in...for short periods of time to keep an eye on things" and others are too incapacitated to type. For now I will limit my participation to commenting on misrepresentations of facts, or positive and helpful comments as well. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)