Wikipedia:Naming conflict

This policy should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).

A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic or a geopolitical/ethnic entity. These generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

Wikipedia does not take sides on a political controversy or determine something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy. However, some degree of standardisation of terms is required for practical and technical reasons. This article describes how to resolve naming disputes within the bounds of the NPOV policy.

How naming works on Wikipedia

Article names

A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. This is required by the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term. Thus the article United States can be reached via redirection pages at US, USA, United States of America, etc. (See Wikipedia:Redirect for more on redirection pages.)

Definitive names should never be acronyms - thus North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, not NATO; or United Nations, not UN.

Names in articles

Within an article, there is no technical constraint on using synonyms. You can freely use "ICTY" (a redirect) as a synonym for the much longer "International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia" (the definitive name of the article). Or you could use both terms, as in "the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)". It is not necessary to use the definitive or long form on every occasion within an article.

Overlapping names

A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names. For instance, the term "Macedonians" may refer to the Slavic people who call themselves by that name, the inhabitants of the geographic region of Macedonia, the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, the inhabitants of the ancient kingdom of Macedon or even an obscure early Christian sect.

These overlapping meanings can be resolved by proper disambiguation. See Category:Disambiguation for examples of disambiguation pages.

Disputed names

Names may be disputed for nationalist, political or religious reasons. Common causes of naming disputes include:

• Party A regards Party B's use of a name as a territorial claim;
• Party A believes that Party B is using a name in an inappropriate context;
• Party A believes that Party B has no moral right to the use of a name;
• Party A believes that Party B is infringing Party A's exclusive right to a name.

In such instances, the use of a particular name can be construed as promoting a POV. This can cause heated controversies on Wikipedia.

Resolving article name disputes

Wikipedia's technical and practical requirements mean that one particular name must be used as the definitive name of an article. How this may be done depends on what kind of name it is - a proper noun (e.g. George W. Bush, United Nations) or a descriptive name (GNU/Linux naming controversy).

Proper nouns

The name should be selected in a mechanistic fashion, not relying on subjective or POV arguments. The three key principles are:

• The most common use of a name takes precedence;
• If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
• If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

• Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
• Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
• Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
• Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:

Criterion	Option 1	Option 2
1. Most commonly used name in English	?	?
2. Current official name of entity	?	?
3. Current self-identifying name of entity	?	?
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

Mark each box with 1 for a yes, or 0 for a no. Add the totals of each column to get final scores for the options. The option that has the highest overall score should be used as the article name.

Where a choice exists between native and common English versions of names (e.g. Deutsch/German), always use the common English version of the name.

Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

Descriptive names

Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications.

For instance, what do we call the controversy over Qur'an handling at Guantanamo Bay? The article is located at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Note that the title makes no statement about who is the (more) guilty party: it does not "give away" that conclusion; in fact the article itself draws no conclusion. Similarly, the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks does not assign responsibility for the attacks in the article name.

Resolving disputed names within articles

Using names within articles can be complicated by historical and local contexts, as well as the difference between the type of entity that is being named.

Types of entities

A distinction should be drawn between a self-identifying entity and an inanimate entity. An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain does not have its own name for itself (obviously). Thus the English name Mount Everest is just as arbitrary as the local name, Qomolangma. The use of "Mount Everest" as the definitive term in Wikipedia is simply a matter of convenience, as the mountain is far more widely known by the English name than by its native Tibetan one.

A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdánsk. The country formerly called Burma now calls itself Myanmar. The people formerly called Eskimos now call themselves Inuit. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.

Dealing with historical contexts

Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo.

Example: The Polish city of Gdánsk was called Danzig for many years. The name "Danzig" is not the definitive term today, but it is correctly used in an historical context (e.g. before its annexation by Poland after 1945).

Dealing with local terms

Be aware that the use of a term may be influenced by local considerations.

Example: The body of ocean water between Korea and the Japan is called the East Sea by Koreans and the Sea of Japan by Japanese. The latter is also the most widely used term in English. Which is right? Wikipedia refuses to say, but we have an excellent article about the naming controversy.

Dealing with self-identifying terms

Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. Suppose that the people of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. In this instance, the Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach to the term, arguing that it should not be used.

Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen – whereas the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective and is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy, as it would be an objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. However, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV. The moral of the story is: describe, not prescribe.

This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, it may well be worth mentioning that this usage is disputed by the Maputans and linking to an article describing the controversy.

Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are acceptable (e.g. "Japanese" for Nihon-jin).

How to identify common names=

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

1. The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
2. International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF etc.
3. Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
4. Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
5. Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .