Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please help fix this problem. |
 |
This page documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
The following guidelines apply to events and activities such as military conflicts and terrorist incidents.
Contents |
[edit] Conventions
Article names for current and historical events are often controversial. In particular, the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate. The use of particular strong words is neither universally encouraged nor discouraged. The spirit of these guidelines is to favour familiar terms used to identify the event. Rules to select a name should be applied in the following sequence:
- If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
- If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
- If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications.
[edit] Definitions
A common name or standing expression exists if most English speakers who are aware of the topic call it the same thing. Slight variations on the name, such as changes in word order, count as the same common name. For example, World War II is often called the Second World War; they are close enough to be considered variations of the same common name.
A generally accepted word is a word for which there is consensus, among scholars in the real world, on its applicability to the event. The use of a strong word may still be controversial among politicians, Wikipedia editors, or the general public.
[edit] Neutral Point of View
Regardless of which rule applies, there may still be different points of view on how to characterize the event, and some of these points of view may be contrary to the title. These points of view should be discussed in the article. By longstanding tradition, Wikipedia article names are not expected to fairly represent all points of view. In fact, for any significant event, there is most likely going to be some bias in the title unless all it did was mention the place or the date. Say an article was written about the student uprising in Tianamen Square in China; if whoever was writing it was pro-Chinese government (even though the article should be neutral), it might be titled "Tiananmen Square criminal insurrection"; if it was pro-students, it might be titled "Tiananmen Square massacre." Only an article giving the location or the location and the year would have no bias at all, such as the one, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.
For many events, it might be necessary to have a non-neutral point of view in creating the titles - or redirects to whatever the article is titled - if for no other reason than to allow people to find them by what they would normally call the article when searching for it. See the mention below for "Rape of Nanking."
[edit] Examples
- My Lai massacre: This is a common name, and scholars generally agree that a massacre took place. Rule #1 applies, and rule #2 would give the same result.
- Rape of Nanking: This is the common name (Rule #1 applies), but redirects to Nanking Massacre, which in view of everything that happened is probably a better title since more than just rapes occurred. However, "massacre" probably shouldn't have been capitalized.
- War on Terrorism: This is a common name, so it should be used even though many people consider it to be propagandistic. Rule #1 applies.
- Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse: "Torture" was a controversial word here. There is no common name, so rule #1 does not apply. There is general scholarly agreement that torture has taken place, so rule #2 kicks in.
- Darfur conflict: The term "Darfur genocide" is used, but is not common enough to constitute a common name, so rule #1 does not apply. Many people consider the conflict to be a genocide, however there is no general scholarly agreement on this yet, so rule #2 does not apply. Hence rule #3 applies, and "conflict" is used instead of "genocide."
- September 11, 2001 attacks: A debate here concluded that there was no common name for the event. Scholars agree that the events were acts of terrorism, however adding the word "terrorist" to the title would have given it more words than necessary to identify the event.
