I think we need to change our naming convention to use the more correct article title if everybody who knows the history of the term in question agrees that it is correct; that is, if everybody who has a coherent POV on the matter shares the same opinion. In other words, we should use academically correct titles, not those which Google prefers.
Examples:
1) Ockham's Razor should not reside at Occam's Razor (Occam is the latinization of the town name Ockham; the town still exists today).
2) Pennsylvania Dutch should be at Pennsylvania German (it is not Dutch at all; the word is merely a corruption of "Deutsch" or "Dütsch").
As I wrote on [[Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch]]:
Regarding the title, I agree this should be under Pennsylvania German. This is a case where a redirect makes perfect sense. I support anglicized article titles, but I do not support using an obviously inccorect title because it is more popular among the uninformed. It is not POV for us to assert that "Pennsylvania German" is correct if there's nobody who disagrees, based on factual arguments and not mere habit, with that statement. This "Dutch" has nothing to do with Dutch.
[...]
Linkability is not an argument: People are already linking to this article using [[Pennsylvania German|Pennsylvania Dutch]], because obviously they do not want to use the corrupt form. Searchability is neither, since redirects show up in searches. Google-ability is only slightly reduced, since "Pennsylvania Dutch" would still be mentioned in the article body.
On dim, 2003-02-09 at 13:47, Erik Moeller wrote:
Linkability is not an argument: People are already linking to this article using [[Pennsylvania German|Pennsylvania Dutch]], because obviously they do not want to use the corrupt form. Searchability is neither, since redirects show up in searches.
On the contrary, that shows that people *do* want to use the corrupt form, else they would be changing the links to [[Pennsylvania German]] and letting the technically correct form appear in the text.
What it does show is that people have an aversion to linking to redirects.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On dim, 2003-02-09 at 13:47, Erik Moeller wrote:
Linkability is not an argument: People are already linking to this article using [[Pennsylvania German|Pennsylvania Dutch]], because obviously they do not want to use the corrupt form. Searchability is neither, since redirects show up in searches.
On the contrary, that shows that people *do* want to use the corrupt form, else they would be changing the links to [[Pennsylvania German]] and letting the technically correct form appear in the text.
Sorry, my example was incorrect. I meant [[Pennsylvania Dutch|Pennsylvania German]]. I always get confused with the direction -- that's why I think the syntax should be [[foo->bar]], not [[bar|foo]].
What it does show is that people have an aversion to linking to redirects.
Indeed.
On dim, 2003-02-09 at 14:09, Erik Moeller wrote:
Sorry, my example was incorrect. I meant [[Pennsylvania Dutch|Pennsylvania German]]. I always get confused with the direction -- that's why I think the syntax should be [[foo->bar]], not [[bar|foo]].
Well then, objection withdrawn. :)
What it does show is that people have an aversion to linking to redirects.
Indeed.
Lord knows why; that's what they're *there* for.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
What it does show is that people have an aversion to linking to redirects.
Indeed.
Lord knows why; that's what they're *there* for.
The main problem are double redirects; especially with titles that are under dispute, people prefer to link to the current version. This is perfectly reasonable. In any case, if we can choose an article title that is both more likely to be used in other articles and academically correct, I think it's obvious we should do it.
Regards,
Erik
On 2/9/03 4:47 PM, "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
- Ockham's Razor should not reside at Occam's Razor (Occam is the
latinization of the town name Ockham; the town still exists today).
- Pennsylvania Dutch should be at Pennsylvania German (it is not Dutch at
all; the word is merely a corruption of "Deutsch" or "Dütsch").
As I wrote on [[Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch]]:
Regarding the title, I agree this should be under Pennsylvania German. This is a case where a redirect makes perfect sense. I support anglicized article titles, but I do not support using an obviously inccorect title because it is more popular among the uninformed. It is not POV for us to assert that "Pennsylvania German" is correct if there's nobody who disagrees, based on factual arguments and not mere habit, with that statement. This "Dutch" has nothing to do with Dutch.
The current policy is the healthier one. Wikipedia should by and large reflect the common consensus, at least on a zero-order approximation, not try to enforce the "correct" view of specialists or linguistic sticklers (of whose ranks I consider myself a member), in particular with the names of entries.
For example, I know about the term "Pennsylvania Dutch" and have seen it used in many contexts (social, political, commercial branding, etc.) whereas "Pennsylvania German" is just not a term in use.
Similarly, "Occam's Razor" is by far the more prevalent and *preferred* spelling for the term by English speakers.
The current policy is the healthier one. Wikipedia should by and large reflect the common consensus, at least on a zero-order approximation, not try to enforce the "correct" view
There's no reason to put correct in quotation marks here if nobody disagrees other than by mere habit. And if that is so, it is proper for an encyclopedia to use the correct term. That's why the Britannica uses "Ockham's Razor". Using the Google popularity test for article titles is unprofessional.
To pick an analogy: Based on Hollywood and TV movies, many people believe that cars will explode after a heavy crash, which often leads them to escape the vehicles quickly instead of trying to save others who are still in them. Wikipedia will correctly point out that it is an error, because there is nobody who factually disagrees with it.
For example, I know about the term "Pennsylvania Dutch" and have seen it used in many contexts (social, political, commercial branding, etc.) whereas "Pennsylvania German" is just not a term in use.
Try googling for it.
Similarly, "Occam's Razor" is by far the more prevalent and *preferred* spelling for the term by English speakers.
16K vs 26K in Google - hardly "by far" the more prevalent and preferred. What matters is not just the number of sites, but also the type of sites.
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 11:36:00PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
The current policy is the healthier one. Wikipedia should by and large reflect the common consensus, at least on a zero-order approximation, not try to enforce the "correct" view
There's no reason to put correct in quotation marks here if nobody disagrees other than by mere habit. And if that is so, it is proper for an encyclopedia to use the correct term. That's why the Britannica uses "Ockham's Razor". Using the Google popularity test for article titles is unprofessional.
Look, English isn't your native language; I wish you would stop showing disrespect for the common linguistic heritage of those for who it IS their first, and usually ONLY language.
Jonathan
Jonathan Walther wrote:
Look, English isn't your native language; I wish you would stop showing disrespect for the common linguistic heritage of those for who it IS their first, and usually ONLY language.
? I saw no disrespect. He has a point. I'm not sure I go with him all the way, but there *is* an important point here.
--Jimbo
Erik Moeller wrote:
"Pennsylvania German" is just not a term in use.
Try googling for it.
"Pennsylvania German" returns 17,200. "Pennsylvania Dutch" returns 64,800.
What matters is not just the number of sites, but also the type of sites.
That's right, I think.
I don't personally think that there is any *simple* rule we can use like "Always trust Google counts" or "Always trust Britannica" or "Always trust academics" or "Always trust the dictionary" or "Never use fancy letters with diacriticals". Each of those things counts as a _factor_ in determining what we should prefer, and none of them will always trump the others.
If all that Erik is saying is that there are cases where "academically correct" should trump "popular usage" then I would agree. But there are lots of cases where "popular usage" should trump "academically correct".
In this case, it is possible that [[Pennsylvania Dutch]] should be an article that starts off by pointing out that it's a popular but inaccurate term, pointing people to [[Pennsylvania German]] for an actual history of the people, culture, etc. And then the rest of the page could be a history of the _term_.
But I don't think any simple rule is possible.
--Jimbo
At 05:20 PM 2/9/03 -0500, the Cunctator wrote:
On 2/9/03 4:47 PM, "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
- Ockham's Razor should not reside at Occam's Razor (Occam is the
latinization of the town name Ockham; the town still exists today).
- Pennsylvania Dutch should be at Pennsylvania German (it is not Dutch at
all; the word is merely a corruption of "Deutsch" or "Dütsch").
As I wrote on [[Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch]]:
Regarding the title, I agree this should be under Pennsylvania German. This is a case where a redirect makes perfect sense. I support anglicized article titles, but I do not support using an obviously inccorect title because it is more popular among the uninformed. It is not POV for us to assert that "Pennsylvania German" is correct if there's nobody who disagrees, based on factual arguments and not mere habit, with that statement. This "Dutch" has nothing to do with Dutch.
<snip>
For example, I know about the term "Pennsylvania Dutch" and have seen it used in many contexts (social, political, commercial branding, etc.) whereas "Pennsylvania German" is just not a term in use.
I agree. In this particular case, we're not dealing with a long-dead philosopher: we're dealing with the language of a thriving community. The question is, or should be, _what terms do they use_? In particular, what terms do they use when they're speaking English? (In Pennsylvania Dutch, I suspect they call it "Deutsch".) Certainly, the region is called the Pennsylvania Dutch Country, not the Pennsylvania German Country. Googling won't get you this one--the Amish avoid the Internet.
I agree. In this particular case, we're not dealing with a long-dead philosopher: we're dealing with the language of a thriving community. The question is, or should be, _what terms do they use_? In particular, what terms do they use when they're speaking English? (In Pennsylvania Dutch, I suspect they call it "Deutsch".) Certainly, the region is called the Pennsylvania Dutch Country, not the Pennsylvania German Country. Googling won't get you this one--the Amish avoid the Internet.
User Someone_else suggested a good compromise in this case; referring to the language as "Pennsylvania German" and to the people as "Pennsylvania Dutch". The articles could be split up if either treatment gets too long.
When dealing with the name of a people, it is proper to go by popularity alone. When dealing with a language (or, like Occam's Razor, a philosophical concept), the opinions of scholars must weigh more than the Google count alone.
Regards,
Erik
Of course, "German" is no more Deutsch (or Dietsch) than "Dutch" is. "Dutch" is at least cognate with what they call themselves in their own language, whereas "German" is is a Celtic name that has never been used by any of the many Teutonic peoples.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 08:38:54PM -0500, Tom Parmenter wrote:
Of course, "German" is no more Deutsch (or Dietsch) than "Dutch" is. "Dutch" is at least cognate with what they call themselves in their own language, whereas "German" is is a Celtic name that has never been used by any of the many Teutonic peoples.
According to Tacitus, 2000 years ago they were calling themselves something cognate with "Germanii", which was the Roman word for them. How did German suddenly become a "Celtic" word? What research can you show to back up that assertion? How can I trust other information you add to Wikipedia articles if it has a similar amount of research behind it?
Jonathan
Nastiness doesn't get you anywhere, Clutch. A quick Google search found http://druidry.org/obod/druid-path/celts_saxons.html which said, in part, "The ancient Germans and Celts had many things in common so culturally it might be more correct to group them all together as Northwest Europeans rather than separate them politically". How much research have you done on the issue? Germanii were only one tribe, anyway, weren't they? Zoe Jonathan Walther krooger@debian.org wrote:On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 08:38:54PM -0500, Tom Parmenter wrote:
Of course, "German" is no more Deutsch (or Dietsch) than "Dutch" is. "Dutch" is at least cognate with what they call themselves in their own language, whereas "German" is is a Celtic name that has never been used by any of the many Teutonic peoples.
According to Tacitus, 2000 years ago they were calling themselves something cognate with "Germanii", which was the Roman word for them. How did German suddenly become a "Celtic" word? What research can you show to back up that assertion? How can I trust other information you add to Wikipedia articles if it has a similar amount of research behind it?
Jonathan
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 07:14:53PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
Nastiness doesn't get you anywhere, Clutch. A quick Google search found http://druidry.org/obod/druid-path/celts_saxons.html which said, in part, "The ancient Germans and Celts had many things in common so culturally it might be more correct to group them all together as Northwest Europeans rather than separate them politically". How much research have you done on the issue? Germanii were only one tribe, anyway, weren't they?
No. Linguistically the Celts and Germanii were very different. In fact, there is evidence that the Germanii were originally a tribe of Persians who lived near the Black sea at the time of Cyrus. A couple hundred years after Romes first contact with them, the name Germanii had become used by the Germans themselves to describe all the tribes that shared the same language, religion, and heritage. Before that, Germanii did only refer to one particular tribe of Germans (around 200BC). The only thing the Celts and Germans had in common was living in Northern European, and having white skin. Religiously, ethnically, culturally, they were very different. Where the Celts cultivated the ground, the Germans were foragers.
Because of the interbreeding that has happened in North America in the past couple hundred years, many people don't understand the differences that once existed between these two groups, and easily make the mistake of thinking they were just close branches of one big "Euro-American" family.
Jonathan
|From: Jonathan Walther krooger@debian.org |Content-Disposition: inline |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 19:02:48 -0800 | | |--K8nIJk4ghYZn606h |Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed |Content-Disposition: inline |Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable | |On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 08:38:54PM -0500, Tom Parmenter wrote: |> |>Of course, "German" is no more Deutsch (or Dietsch) than "Dutch" is. |>"Dutch" is at least cognate with what they call themselves in their |>own language, whereas "German" is is a Celtic name that has never been |>used by any of the many Teutonic peoples. | |According to Tacitus, 2000 years ago they were calling themselves |something cognate with "Germanii", which was the Roman word for them. |How did German suddenly become a "Celtic" word? What research can you |show to back up that assertion? How can I trust other information you |add to Wikipedia articles if it has a similar amount of research behind |it? | |Jonathan | |
Hi there, Jonathon,
Of course, that was a contribution to the mailing list, not the Wikipedia, but I did look it up first. The Oxford English Dictionary and Grimm are a little bit more reliable than Tacitus for the meaning of words, don't you think? And, of course, Latin picked up words from other languages, such as Celtic. Tacitus may have been right, but I did not make it up. Why would I have done that?
So, here you go (from OED):
German, a.2 and n.2 Also germayne, germaine, germane. [ad. L. German-us, used, as adj. and n., as the designation of persons belonging to a group of related peoples inhabiting central and northern Europe, and speaking the dialects from which the "Germanic" or "Teutonic" languages have been developed. The name does not appear to have been applied to these peoples by themselves, or to be explicable from Teut. sources. A view widely held is that it was the name given by the Gauls to their neighbours; the Celtic derivations suggested are from OIr. "gair" neighbour (Zeuss) and from Irish "gairm" battle-cry (Wachter, Grimm). According to Muellenhoff, "Germani" was originally the name of a group of Celtic peoples in north-eastern Gaul, was transferred from these to their Teutonic conquerors, and afterwards extended to all the Teutonic peoples.]
<snip bit about pronuciation that wouldn't render in ascii>
In English use the word does not occur until the 16th c., the n. appearing in our quots. earlier than the adj. The older designations were Almain and Dutch (Dutchman); the latter, however, was wider in meaning.
Note also that "Dutch" for the language and people is older than "German", harking back to the original discussion.
Hoping this finds you well, I remain,
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 10:35:33PM -0500, Tom Parmenter wrote:
Of course, that was a contribution to the mailing list, not the Wikipedia, but I did look it up first. The Oxford English Dictionary and Grimm are a little bit more reliable than Tacitus for the meaning of words, don't you think? And, of course, Latin picked up words from other languages, such as Celtic. Tacitus may have been right, but I did not make it up. Why would I have done that?
Tacitus was "on the ground" so to speak. He referenced his sources, and did a lot of legwork. He is the closest thing to a reliable, first-hand witness we have. I don't care to spend a lot of time debunking modern historical revisionists who have political axes to grind.
Jonathan
|From: Jonathan Walther krooger@debian.org |Content-Disposition: inline |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 22:10:43 -0800 | | |--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA |Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed |Content-Disposition: inline |Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable | |On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 10:35:33PM -0500, Tom Parmenter wrote: |>Of course, that was a contribution to the mailing list, not the |>Wikipedia, but I did look it up first. The Oxford English Dictionary |>and Grimm are a little bit more reliable than Tacitus for the meaning |>of words, don't you think? And, of course, Latin picked up words from |>other languages, such as Celtic. Tacitus may have been right, but I |>did not make it up. Why would I have done that? | |Tacitus was "on the ground" so to speak. He referenced his sources, and |did a lot of legwork. He is the closest thing to a reliable, first-hand |witness we have. I don't care to spend a lot of time debunking modern |historical revisionists who have political axes to grind. | |Jonathan | |--=20 | Geek House Productions, Ltd. | | Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting, | QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation, | General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998 | |Phone: 604-435-1205 |Email: djw@reactor-core.org |Webpage: http://reactor-core.org |Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2 | |--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA |Content-Type: application/pgp-signature |Content-Disposition: inline | |-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) | |iQCVAwUBPkdCY8K9HT/YfGeBAQGKfgP/ZjsHL6lSRdmwLzCCdf90BifEXKw/Q8e9 |p48EzaCWQk3qpA5nRsgTiodxQb8jnCigFJp2mLnBKPS8rLaXXByKErhIqZ1qrnPc |sKGT34CAygStODF1v0FO1g6ngxdDlgSz7WYklrN79/LTtYzRH2JLqbRcNJAbcuAM |p1e1Or96sUQ= |=6oVm |-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- | |--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA-- |_______________________________________________ |WikiEN-l mailing list |WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
Well, now we see you as you are, Jonathan,
It's easier, I guess, to go on about Tacitus if you cut out the part where you insulted me and said I had done no research and the part where I answered your insult and proved you dead wrong by showing you my research. (Unedited exchange below). Silly me, I thought you'd be apologizing this morning, not adding more falsehood and insults.
I don't have any axe to grind. I pointed out that the debate about the corrrectness of "Pennsylvania German" versus "Pennsylvania Dutch" was not well framed since both were English words. That's all. I think anyone can look at the contents of this message and take your measure and mine pretty accurately.
Howlin' Tom Parmenter, that accurate and honest guy who does his research before he shoots, a/k/a Ortolan88
The entire story, with no cuts:
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 22:35:33 -0500 From: Tom Parmenter tompar@world.std.com To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org CC: wikien-l@wikipedia.org In-reply-to: 20030210030248.GB10674@reactor-core.org (message from Jonathan Walther on Sun, 9 Feb 2003 19:02:48 -0800) Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Naming convention: popularity vs. correctness Reply-to: tompar@world.std.com
|From: Jonathan Walther krooger@debian.org |Content-Disposition: inline |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 19:02:48 -0800 | | |--K8nIJk4ghYZn606h |Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed |Content-Disposition: inline |Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable | |On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 08:38:54PM -0500, Tom Parmenter wrote: |> |>Of course, "German" is no more Deutsch (or Dietsch) than "Dutch" is. |>"Dutch" is at least cognate with what they call themselves in their |>own language, whereas "German" is is a Celtic name that has never been |>used by any of the many Teutonic peoples. | |According to Tacitus, 2000 years ago they were calling themselves |something cognate with "Germanii", which was the Roman word for them. |How did German suddenly become a "Celtic" word? What research can you |show to back up that assertion? How can I trust other information you |add to Wikipedia articles if it has a similar amount of research behind |it? | |Jonathan | |
Hi there, Jonathon,
Of course, that was a contribution to the mailing list, not the Wikipedia, but I did look it up first. The Oxford English Dictionary and Grimm are a little bit more reliable than Tacitus for the meaning of words, don't you think? And, of course, Latin picked up words from other languages, such as Celtic. Tacitus may have been right, but I did not make it up. Why would I have done that?
So, here you go (from OED):
German, a.2 and n.2 Also germayne, germaine, germane. [ad. L. German-us, used, as adj. and n., as the designation of persons belonging to a group of related peoples inhabiting central and northern Europe, and speaking the dialects from which the "Germanic" or "Teutonic" languages have been developed. The name does not appear to have been applied to these peoples by themselves, or to be explicable from Teut. sources. A view widely held is that it was the name given by the Gauls to their neighbours; the Celtic derivations suggested are from OIr. "gair" neighbour (Zeuss) and from Irish "gairm" battle-cry (Wachter, Grimm). According to Muellenhoff, "Germani" was originally the name of a group of Celtic peoples in north-eastern Gaul, was transferred from these to their Teutonic conquerors, and afterwards extended to all the Teutonic peoples.]
<snip bit about pronuciation that wouldn't render in ascii>
In English use the word does not occur until the 16th c., the n. appearing in our quots. earlier than the adj. The older designations were Almain and Dutch (Dutchman); the latter, however, was wider in meaning.
Note also that "Dutch" for the language and people is older than "German", harking back to the original discussion.
Hoping this finds you well, I remain,
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
Let's compromise: Pennsylvania Allemani.
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org]On Behalf Of Tom Parmenter Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 17:39 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Cc: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Naming convention: popularity vs. correctness
Of course, "German" is no more Deutsch (or Dietsch) than "Dutch" is. "Dutch" is at least cognate with what they call themselves in their own language, whereas "German" is is a Celtic name that has never been used by any of the many Teutonic peoples.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Erik Moeller wrote:
When dealing with the name of a people, it is proper to go by popularity alone. When dealing with a language (or, like Occam's Razor, a philosophical concept), the opinions of scholars must weigh more than the Google count alone.
I would add that these "rules" _tend to be true_ (maybe), but that it does depend on the particular case. I would say that when dealing with the name of a people, popularity is a strong factor, but also what they call *themselves* is a strong factor. How hard it is to spell, how likely the "correct" term is to become popular in the near future, etc., all of these can be taken into consideration.
--Jimbo
So then you're in favor of moving Christopher Columbus to Cristobal Colon, just like Lir was? I will disagree with it now just as much as I disagreed with it then. "Correctness" is another word for "elitism". We shouldn't confuse the reader. If it's good enough for World Book, Collier's and Britannica, why isn't it good enough for us? I especially object to continuing to call "Pennsylvania Dutch" "Pennsylvania German", as I've said in the Talk page for that article. The Google search I did clearly shows what people call it. And it has nothing to do with using a "corrupt" form. I object strenuously to use of that term. That's EXTREME elitism. People are calling it what people expect to see and have been forced to get around where we have mistakenly put the article. Zoe Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:I think we need to change our naming convention to use the more correct article title if everybody who knows the history of the term in question agrees that it is correct; that is, if everybody who has a coherent POV on the matter shares the same opinion. In other words, we should use academically correct titles, not those which Google prefers.
Examples:
1) Ockham's Razor should not reside at Occam's Razor (Occam is the latinization of the town name Ockham; the town still exists today).
2) Pennsylvania Dutch should be at Pennsylvania German (it is not Dutch at all; the word is merely a corruption of "Deutsch" or "D�tsch").
As I wrote on [[Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch]]:
Regarding the title, I agree this should be under Pennsylvania German. This is a case where a redirect makes perfect sense. I support anglicized article titles, but I do not support using an obviously inccorect title because it is more popular among the uninformed. It is not POV for us to assert that "Pennsylvania German" is correct if there's nobody who disagrees, based on factual arguments and not mere habit, with that statement. This "Dutch" has nothing to do with Dutch.
[...]
Linkability is not an argument: People are already linking to this article using [[Pennsylvania German|Pennsylvania Dutch]], because obviously they do not want to use the corrupt form. Searchability is neither, since redirects show up in searches. Google-ability is only slightly reduced, since "Pennsylvania Dutch" would still be mentioned in the article body. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Zoe-
So then you're in favor of moving Christopher Columbus to Cristobal Colon,
No, because that name is used neither by scholars nor the public. As I wrote, I am not opposed to anglicization, and anglicization is by itself not unscientific. (There are reasonable arguments that can be made against it in the case of European languages, but I do not subscribe to those arguments.) If there exist two different English terms, however, the one which is correct should in most cases be used, provided it has already been adopted by scholars.
Regardless, we have found a compromise for the Pennsylvania article, so I will no longer use it as an example. Ockham's Razor, on the other hand, should be moved to that title. Using "Occam's Razor" in the title and "Ockham's Razor" in the text is just plain silly.
Regards,
Erik
Redundancy is an accepted principle of good design, expecially for indexes (which is what we're talking about). So both should be titles if both are in use by the public (our masters).
Correctness is best avoided in any event as it is a source of friction. Perhaps there is some preference by the Pennsylvania Dutch, perhaps not, but the term is in general use. It also referrs to German immigrants who arrived during a certain time frame and share certain cultural characteristics, not to German immigrants in general.
Fred
From: erik_moeller@gmx.de (Erik Moeller) Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: 09 Feb 2003 22:47:00 +0100 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Naming convention: popularity vs. correctness
I think we need to change our naming convention to use the more correct article title if everybody who knows the history of the term in question agrees that it is correct; that is, if everybody who has a coherent POV on the matter shares the same opinion. In other words, we should use academically correct titles, not those which Google prefers.
Examples:
- Ockham's Razor should not reside at Occam's Razor (Occam is the
latinization of the town name Ockham; the town still exists today).
- Pennsylvania Dutch should be at Pennsylvania German (it is not Dutch at
all; the word is merely a corruption of "Deutsch" or "Dütsch").
As I wrote on [[Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch]]:
Regarding the title, I agree this should be under Pennsylvania German. This is a case where a redirect makes perfect sense. I support anglicized article titles, but I do not support using an obviously inccorect title because it is more popular among the uninformed. It is not POV for us to assert that "Pennsylvania German" is correct if there's nobody who disagrees, based on factual arguments and not mere habit, with that statement. This "Dutch" has nothing to do with Dutch.
[...]
Linkability is not an argument: People are already linking to this article using [[Pennsylvania German|Pennsylvania Dutch]], because obviously they do not want to use the corrupt form. Searchability is neither, since redirects show up in searches. Google-ability is only slightly reduced, since "Pennsylvania Dutch" would still be mentioned in the article body. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Good idea. I agree completely.
M Carling
On 9 Feb 2003, Erik Moeller wrote:
I think we need to change our naming convention to use the more correct article title if everybody who knows the history of the term in question agrees that it is correct; that is, if everybody who has a coherent POV on the matter shares the same opinion. In other words, we should use academically correct titles, not those which Google prefers.
Examples:
- Ockham's Razor should not reside at Occam's Razor (Occam is the
latinization of the town name Ockham; the town still exists today).
- Pennsylvania Dutch should be at Pennsylvania German (it is not Dutch at
all; the word is merely a corruption of "Deutsch" or "D�tsch").
As I wrote on [[Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch]]:
Regarding the title, I agree this should be under Pennsylvania German. This is a case where a redirect makes perfect sense. I support anglicized article titles, but I do not support using an obviously inccorect title because it is more popular among the uninformed. It is not POV for us to assert that "Pennsylvania German" is correct if there's nobody who disagrees, based on factual arguments and not mere habit, with that statement. This "Dutch" has nothing to do with Dutch.
[...]
Linkability is not an argument: People are already linking to this article using [[Pennsylvania German|Pennsylvania Dutch]], because obviously they do not want to use the corrupt form. Searchability is neither, since redirects show up in searches. Google-ability is only slightly reduced, since "Pennsylvania Dutch" would still be mentioned in the article body. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
I think we need to change our naming convention to use the more
correct
article title if everybody who knows the history of the term in
question
agrees that it is correct; that is, if everybody who has a coherent
POV on the matter shares the same opinion. In other words, we should use
academically correct titles, not those which Google prefers.
I agree. Two reasons:
* The text of our articles always aims for correctness as recognized by those who know what they're talking about, not for "correctness" as recognized by the majority of the people. The same should apply to article titles.
* We're here to educate, not to provide people with the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from reading something familiar. For retaining memory, there's nothing better than a healthy shock. You follow a link to X and end up on page Y, how is that possible? Shock! Confusion! Immediately you investigate and the article gives the answer, right there in the second paragraph. You're not going to forget that one easily.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Axel Boldt wrote:
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
I think we need to change our naming convention to use the more
correct
article title if everybody who knows the history of the term in
question
agrees that it is correct; that is, if everybody who has a coherent
POV on the matter shares the same opinion. In other words, we should use
academically correct titles, not those which Google prefers.
I agree. Two reasons:
- The text of our articles always aims for correctness as recognized by
those who know what they're talking about, not for "correctness" as recognized by the majority of the people. The same should apply to article titles.
- We're here to educate, not to provide people with the warm and fuzzy
feeling that comes from reading something familiar. For retaining memory, there's nothing better than a healthy shock. You follow a link to X and end up on page Y, how is that possible? Shock! Confusion! Immediately you investigate and the article gives the answer, right there in the second paragraph. You're not going to forget that one easily.
I share those sentiments. Still, inconvenient as it may be, it does end up on a case by case basis.
Of the two specific proposals by Erik I happen to agree with one and disagree with the other.
I agree with Ockham because it is English and he was English. There are apparently two such villages in England with no certainty about which of them produced old Bill. If we're going to use a Latinized version why not go all the way and refer to him as [[Gulielmus Occamensis]]?
I disagree about [[Pennsylvania Dutch]]. That term is not just about language, but about three centuries of cultural life. That term has developed a large range of connotations that go well beyond what the term "Dutch" may mean by itself. As the popular saying goes: "The whole is bigger than the sum of its parts." There is still room for [[Pennsylvania German]], but it seems to me that this would have a more restrictive sense that deals with linguistic aspects of German in Pennsylvania including in areas that are not familiarly considered to be "Pennsylvania Dutch".
Eclecticology