<DIV>But it doesn't work that way. Take [[Gdansk]], for example. We TRY to keep "In German, ''Danzig''", mainly because as far as a lot of English speakers are concerned, it still IS Danzig, and because that was the name it was known to English speakers for years up till about 20 years ago. But the nationalists refuse to allow that -- at best, they'll throw in French spellings, spellings from three or four other obscure languages, or just delete the Danzig phrase altogether, as "Nazi". They come back over and over again, with different anon or sockpuppet accounts, and replace it on a weekly basis. They are unwilling to accept anything but THEIR POV.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>RickK<BR><BR><B><I>"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">David Gerard wrote:<BR><BR>> Nationalist POV pushing is becoming a real problem on <BR>> Wikipedia. Particularly in cases where it appears <BR>> semi-official, as with these cases and with User:Levzur on <BR>> Georgia-related articles. I suspect a series of AC rulings as <BR>> we go isn't really the best way to approach the problem. What <BR>> can we do abouthis sort of thing? Gdansk/Danzig is just the tip of it.<BR><BR>The only thing we can do about it is what we've always done about it,<BR>and it's the best solution anyway:<BR><BR>DESCRIBE EACH SIDE'S POV<BR><BR>Say that according to _this_ group of nationalists, the situation is<BR>like this. Then say that according to _that_ group of nationalists, the<BR>situation is like that.<BR><BR>Here's an example, from a different controversy. Gay rights groups<BR>generally maintain that the homosexual population of the US
and/or UK is<BR>at ten percent (10%). Conservatives say it's much lower: one or two<BR>percent (1% to 2%) for males, two or three percent (2% to 3%) for<BR>females.<BR><BR>So what should the Wikipedia article say? Should it endorse the side<BR>which is obviously right? No, because it's a disputed matter. Each side<BR>touts its own 'objective' scientific studies and asserts that they are<BR>being totally sincere about "just wanting to tell the truth" about the<BR>situation.<BR><BR>Enter the NPOV policy:<BR><BR>*According to the HRC, the US male homosexual percentage is 10% (or<BR>whatever their website or books say)<BR>*According to NARTH, the percentage is 1% to 2%.<BR><BR>We can also say:<BR><BR>*The general public is more sympathetic to HRC's views, and the higher<BR>figure is generally used by mainstream journalists. <BR>*Moreover, [[gay rights]] activists dismiss NARTH's research as<BR>hopelessly biased due to the groups perceived "anti-gay" prejudice.<BR><BR>I didn't check just
now, but I think that's pretty much how the<BR>Wikipedia describes the topic now.<BR><BR>I think we should handle all Nationalist POV the same way: describe each<BR>POV, and possibly indicate how widely held it is.<BR><BR>Ed Poor<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>WikiEN-l mailing list<BR>WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org<BR>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p>
<hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/10/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/efficiency.html">New and Improved Yahoo! Mail</a> - Send 10MB messages!