Here's a thought (sorry, it Ireland/Britain related again). If Wikipedia supports a position on some matter or other - and it does - then it's pushing POV, and given the site receives more hits than just about any other website, Wikipedia is the web's biggest POV pusher; right?

Take this example. There's controversy and ill feeling about the naming of Londonderry in Northern Ireland. The official name is Londonderry, but the Irish pov pushers are in there and have managed to get an Ireland Manual of Style ruling that the name should be Derry throughout the 'pedia; see here. We then have gits like this who take no prisoners in their quest to change every instance of Londonderry to Derry. So my point is - Wikipedia is, to all intents and purposes, promoting the use of Derry as opposed to Londonderry, so the dirty bastards are POV pushing, simple as that. Anyone who reads Wikipedia will conclude that Derry is right and Londonderry is wrong.

Surely the non-pov way would be to accept either version and defer to the choice of the first major editor of an article, and only change following agreement (see the BC/AD versus CE/BCE ruling for how this can work).

So there you have it. I bet this sort of thing is happening throughtout the 'pedia, so despite all the shit from the likes of Jimbo regarding some pillars or other, Wikipedia must be the world's biggest pov pusher.


Note: for the county of Londonderry as opposed to the city, the IMOS states Londonderry must be used - POV pushing again.

Perhaps we should be examining the unholy alliance between WP and Google, because without the artificially high search engine ranking, WP would just be USENET with a lot of bureaucracy.

I believe "first major editor" is a horrible way to decide naming conventions. What would be more useful, I think, is that where there are social contentions about names of things, if the article in which the name appears is mostly about the country or culture or system where one name is used, then go with that country/culture/system name, with the other contentious name in parenthesis after it. So, throughout Wikipedia, on "Irish" articles, it might say "Derry (or, Londonderry in British terminology)"; and on "British" articles, it might say "Londonderry (or, Derry in Irish terminology)".

I'm obviously not an expert on this or other matters of nomenclature, but my path seems to be a more constructive solution than a "first major editor wins" solution.

That (follow the most common convention) was the main naming convention rule as I recall it--I believe I formulated it originally that way.

As I understand it, there is a dispute about whether Northern Ireland as a country and culture is British or Irish. Thus that solution is just going round in a circle, because the argument would just shift to a slightly different topic.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law, they say.

Of course. The ability to shape "the truth" that users will find at the no. 1 Google link for a topic, or person, is a key part of what drives participation, and is what all the entrenched battles that make it to arbitration are about. Ironically, the more slanted the information is, the better it is for participation, as more people feel compelled to join and try to balance the thing.

Neither of those sources look like they back up that statement to me... The first is from a travel guide which are always subjective to the writer, and the second is... a news article by someone anonymously writing for "The Derry Journal" *facepalm* I see what you mean...

Not always. Some articles are such battlegrounds that I'd imagine few with credentials or at least actual academic reading on the subject would want to go near them. As that Wikiwatch guy used to say, "I do sometimes contribute to Wikipedia, but my first rule in such matters is never tackle a subject in Wikipedia that I can do better on my own web site. After all, why should I knock myself out writing a brilliantly crafted article that some flat-earther will butcher two hours later?"

This especially applies when it's One Rational Guy versus Ultra-Nationalist and Friends. No one wants hours of hard work using sources that are published by Oxford, Harvard, Yale, or other respectable venues reverted by a guy using LORD FRANJOSLOV'S GREATER ABKHOSODAVIAN HOMEPAGE or "the leaders of the [insert minority group] revealed their treachery against the nation" sourced to "Zyo Priroddsadghjn sa kosdsdj de sjdjamo" [The Evil Danger of the Enemy We Face] by Dr. Martan Natšionalistić, 1990 speech, accessed via abkhosodavia-national-front dot com.

You're probably right as far as the generality of it goes but the fact that you list things like

"Academy of Sciences, Institute of Marxist-Leninist Studies at the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania, & Tirana University 1975"

"Institute of Marxist-Leninist Studies at the Central Committee of the Party of Labor of Albania 1971"

on your user page as some kind of serious resource sort of speaks for itself.

That and this whole rhetoric of "I'm just here to oppose teh "Nationalists"", pulled straight from old Communist propaganda - where "Nationalist" is defined as anyone who had the nerve to think that wacky ol' communism wasn't the best thing that ever happened to places in Eastern, Southern and Central Europe (not to mention that when it came down to it, in practice there really never was any conflict between "nationalism" and "communism" in these places, the two groups actually to get along quite fine and fed off of each other once the dust of WWII settled)

Yes, there's honest too goodness "Nationalists" on wikipedia, just like there are honest too goodness trolls. But just like with the adjective "troll" having essentially devolved to mean "anyone that dares to disagree with me" the word "nationalist" has lost all meaning there too. Which is too bad because there are some quite obnoxious nationalists on there.

Believe it or not both have been used in academic works before. The goal is to use them in subjects where it's appropriate and with qualifications, such as "according to official communist historiography" or what have you. There are innumerable academic works and articles which cite Pravda and all sorts of Soviet works with such qualifications.

Obviously being like "the Party was led by the great Comrade Enver Hoxha who single-handedly steeled the unity of the people and the Party in a great fusion of mass-based power against the occupying forces" and sourcing it to The History of the Party of Labor of Albania would be totally improper.

Sure, that's reasonable. I'd have to see it in context.

Also for what it's worth I meant "nationalist" in the sense of the post-1991 ex-Soviet and Balkan conflicts, articles which degenerate very quickly and have talk pages with like 30 pages worth of archives filled with "The opposing side is evil" "YOU LIE" and with terrible sources gleaned from Google.