[WikiEN-l] POV nomenclature

[stevertigo]

--- Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:

> If it's an official name, then that's what it's called. What's next,
> renaming articles on companies and products because their names were
> chosen to have positive associations? We could have such winners as
> "[[computer company named after irrelevant fruit]] is the maker of
> the [[Apple variety chosen because the name has a snappy abbreviation]]."

People should note that Stan's term, "official," also is POV.
I shouldnt have to expand on that point.

--- George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it your assertion that WP should not use the miliary operation
> names for describing events?

Maybe. Probably. Why not? Lets start a discussion.
(References which are deferential to "offical" concepts will be disregarded.)
 
> It's one thing to state that military terminology tends to gloss over
> unsightly details like shooting and killing people, which is true.

Yes. 
 
> It's quite another to assert that military operation  names are
> unencyclopedic or so POV that they should not be used in the WP.  The
> operation names are just designators for an event, and are often both
> the most common and only popularly known public label for those events
> (Desert Storm, for example).

Again "most common", "most known" etc. are not significant points.
The 2003 Invasion of Iraq article for example, according to your view,
should be called "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

> It is possible to take Robin Lakoff too seriously.

I dont read him/her. Its also possible to take the Pentagon too seriously too.

-Stevertigo

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com