Misplaced Pages

Talk:Second Intifada: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:03, 10 April 2007 editTimeshifter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,343 edits →What about "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)" as a title?← Previous edit Revision as of 21:10, 10 April 2007 edit undoTimeshifter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,343 edits →Google booksNext edit →
Line 387: Line 387:


:::: The search results show that both "al-Aqsa Intifada" and "Second Intifada" are widely used, scholarly sources seems to prefer the latter and no one would challenge its neutrality. The only reason to insist on using the POV title "al-Aqsa Intifada" is to push the POV that the Palestinian violence was a response to Sharon's visit. That may be a POV pushed by PLO, Fatah, Hamas, by a bunch of websites and by certain WP editors, but it doesn't mean WP should espouse it. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC) :::: The search results show that both "al-Aqsa Intifada" and "Second Intifada" are widely used, scholarly sources seems to prefer the latter and no one would challenge its neutrality. The only reason to insist on using the POV title "al-Aqsa Intifada" is to push the POV that the Palestinian violence was a response to Sharon's visit. That may be a POV pushed by PLO, Fatah, Hamas, by a bunch of websites and by certain WP editors, but it doesn't mean WP should espouse it. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Some of the Palestinian violence WAS caused by Sharon's visit. Also, the visit was a flashpoint for an already tense situation after the failure of the 2000 Camp David summit. To deny all this is just POV-pushing and fantasy on your part. Stop trying to rewrite history. We editors are WAY too sophisticated here at wikipedia for that primitive spin control. Admins should maintain a more neutral stance in my opinion. If you can't set aside your POV, then I suggest you resign as an admin. I really tire of your continuous personal attacks, insinuations, subtle smears, and not-so-subtle slanders. --] 21:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


==Are these anti-Israel sites?== ==Are these anti-Israel sites?==

Revision as of 21:10, 10 April 2007

Soft redirect to:Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner
WikiProject iconMilitary history Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Additional information:
/ 
Note icon
This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Template:Infoboxneeded

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Intifada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Old page, 1, 2, 3


Disengagement plan

What's wrong with just saying "West Bank"? It appears to be the more commonly used term. Khoikhoi 05:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Samaria"

There's been several reverts back and forth about the use of Samaria in sentence about the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from four settlement outposts in the northern West Bank. Samaria is the name of the biblical area roughly comprising the northern West Bank (the area around Nablus, or Shekhem as some people like to call it). It is also part of the name of an administrative region claimed by Israel recognized by nobody else. I think Samaria deserves mention in the article about the West Bank, but not in any article that the northern West Bank is mentioned in. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for pushing the Israeli point of view (through multiple reverts), but should use language understood by AND agreed upon by the World community, that is as neutral as possible. --Fjmustak 08:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just saw this thread, but as I said in my edit summary, this has nothing to do with the modern Israeli state, its administrative divisions, or any politics. Samaria is a geographic term describing a specific region within the northern West Bank. I think that people are being confused by reference to Judea and Samaria, which is an Israeli administrative area and political term. Cheers, Tewfik 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tewfik, Palestine is also the name of a geographic area, however, just like Samaria, it can also refer to a political area. Part of the geographic region Palestine is the modern-day State of Israel, and the geographic region Samaria is roughly equivalent to the modern-day northern West Bank. So if an article is talking about pre-1948 Palestine, I would use Palestine, otherwise Israel it is. Same with Judea and Samaria. If it's about biblical history, then Judea and Samaria it is. In the 21st century, the West Bank (and maybe in the 22nd century a real State of Palestine). --Fjmustak 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Palestine refers to a geographic area, and so does Samaria - neither currently refer to a political area. As I said above, I fear that you are confused with Judea and Samaria, which is a political term/Israeli administrative area. Samaria refers to the northern part of the West Bank north of Jerusalem, and is not an exclusively Israeli/Jewish term. Tewfik 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to rename

I propose to rename this article into more neutral "Second Intifada". The only reason to call it "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is a POV linking Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount with Palestinian violence. ←Humus sapiens 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. If there are several popular names, the more neutral term is most appropriate. Plus, "Second Intifada" gets more google hits than "Al-Aqsa Intifada". --MPerel 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur as well, though I suppose we should make sure there's the appropriate redirect and "also known as..." in the introduction. --Leifern 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the fact that "Second intifada" is both more neutral and more common should make the renaming almost automatic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The "official" name is Al-Aqsa Intifada, and not the Second Intifada. It is not a POV, just a name. Similar names include the 'Yom Kippur War' (not the Fourth Arab-Israeli War) or the 'Boston Tea Party' (not the 1773 American protest). The link between Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (Al-Aqsa) and the Palestinian uprising is a fact, and not a POV. They both started on the same day. Whether Sharon's visit was the reason for the outbreak of the uprising or was the last straw that broke the Palestinians' backs (or even an excuse used by those bloodthirsty Palestinians to murder Israelis) is really irrelevant. The BBC Timeline in the Links section calls it Al-Aqsa Intifada, and then goes on to describe it as the second Palestinian intifada (small s and small i). --Fjmustak 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That is the POV I was talking about. There is no "official" name, and as it's been noted out by MPerel, "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is not even the prevalent name - unlike Yom Kippur War or Boston Tea Party. ←Humus sapiens 00:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"The link between Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (Al-Aqsa) and the Palestinian uprising is a fact": considering that the article devotes a whole section to discussing the multiple POVs on the chronology, the title shouldn't be the place to press one of them over the others. Tewfik 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The section that starts with "On September 27, Sgt. David Biri was killed;" is a sneaky way to trivialize Sharon's visit and delink it from the intifada. An intifada is an uprising. A singular killing incident is hardly an uprising. The major violence started after Sharon 'stormed' the Temple Mount complex. The Palestinians are the ones who dubbed it as such, as they are the ones that were uprising. As to the 'googling' of "Second Intifada" and "Al-Aqsa Intifada", the results are very close, and the "second intifada" ones could be inflated for two reasons: 1- Google is not case sensitive, and the second intifada (as in the second Matrix movie) is just saying that there was an original event called the "Intifada". 2- There is only one way to write "second" (it's not a transliteration). --Fjmustak 02:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that 1) the name reflects solely Palestinian POV, 2) hostilities began before Sharon's visit (which BTW, was dignified, and not 'stormed'), and 3) there is no reason to use POV title because "the results are very close". ←Humus sapiens 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
1) It's a Palestinian event with a Palestinian name. 2) hostilities began in 1948 (and before) when Jewish gangs terrorized Palestine, but that doesn't mean the intifada started back then (I will keep the comment about the dignified part to myself). 3) The "results are very close" comment was only meant to shed some light as to why 'googling' in this case is not really indicative. --Fjmustak 08:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Fjmustak, I request you keep a balanced representation here or at least make an attempt to learn the subject that you're speaking of. In your mentioning of these gangs which "terrorised Palestine", you've left out the "locals" who came in from outside in order to mooch off the Jewish economy by theft and looting or the local peasantry Fellahs who refused accept compensation after the land they were working on was sold to zionist organization by Arab Effendis and went on to terrorize Jewish communities by a multitude of tactics (usually by random shooting and killing and extorting "protection" money) despite not having any ownership rights to the land they were occupying (or the nearby area). Thefts and attacks by Arabs existed long before 1920 and before parts of the Jewish community organized any retribution - I'm sure that you know retribution is considered the proper way in Arabic society, esp. in those days so don't go on like the standard pseudo-historian revisionists who "blame the jews" for a situation that was caused mostly by Arab theft from their own people.
Here's a retribution example: the retubition attempt backed up by an official Fatwa of the Farkhi brothers to avenge the assasination of their brother Haim Farkhi in Akko. Jaakobou 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Exploding buses, pizzerias and discos inside Israel is not merely "a Palestinian event". 2) You wrote: "hostilities began in 1948 (and before) when Jewish gangs..." - Nonsense: see 1920 Palestine riots, Jaffa riots, 1929 Palestine riots, 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. 3) Your argument works against your POV. ←Humus sapiens 10:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Humus sapiens. For everybody Al-Aqsa Intifada has started after Sharon visit not before. Sorry to say but nobody notice 1 dead civilian or soldier in Israel region. Only in Israel and maybe in U.S. people think that this intifada has started earlier. For Israel is normal to blame other side and for U.S I will only say that 20-25 % of population support Israel in anything because God has given this land to Israel (Polls say that not I) 06:00, 28 March 2007 --Rjecina

I strongly support renaming the article. Al-Aqsa Intifada is a POV title, and, incidentally, is a name that I have read only on Misplaced Pages. The relationship between Sharon's visit and the uprising is a matter of historical debate. This should be (and is) represented in the article; the debate should not be decided, in favor of anti-Israel propaganda, in the title. "Second Intifada" is neutral. 6SJ7 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The title is not POV. It is simply the name of the conflict, get over it. No one complains about calling it the Yom Kippur War, so why should people complain about this being called the al-Aqsa Intifada? We don't complain about calling it the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict when Lebanon itself wasn't even fighting, and if we do, if we're not going to change it, we might as well leave this one alone as well. There will never be a neutral term for any subject this politically and emotionally charged. If we change it to the "Second Intifada," then we will be ignoring the prominent link between the uprising and Sharon's visit to the Noble Sanctuary and offend someone. There is never a neutral term for anything regarding history. It has all been renditioned and renamed to fit someone else's status quo. If we don't complain about anti-Semitic being only leveled for Jews and not Arabs as well, we shouldn't nitpick the name of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.11.39 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that "Second Intifada" doesn't assert the point of view that Sharon started it, which is exactly the point. I think that the rest of your examples and your consistent substitution of the neutral Temple Mount for the exclusionary Noble Sanctuary on this page further strengthen that argument, and I highly suggest that you review the oft-cited WP:Neutral point of view policy, which I admit is not as easy as it sounds. Cheers, Tewfik 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those who are against renaming the article. It is widely referred to in the press and in popular discourse as the Al-Aqsa Intifada and I do not think the name is POV. Oneworld25 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The Second Intifada is more common on Google, and has been used on all sides, including by al-Jazeera. It's also the more neutral term, because there's a POV that says the Sharon visit was just an excuse for an uprising that was about to begin anyway. SlimVirgin 11:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to renaming this article. The only thing that should be considered in settling this dispute, is which name is the most common. Not which name some editors think is more neutral, not who started the conflict, not whether Sharon's visit is or is not the cause of the conflict, but what is the more common name, in the English speaking world. That is how the naming dispute over Yom Kippur War was settled, and that's how we should settle this one also. So far, the evidence that has been provided to support "Second Intifada" being the more common name consists of: a count of Googe hits, and one article (in al-Jazeera) which refers to the conflict as "second Intifada". Fjmustak has provided good reasons why counting Google hits is not strong evidence that "second Intifada" is more common than "al-Aqsa Intfada" as the name of the conflict. As to Slim Virgin's example from al-Jazeera, here is an example the other way from ynetnews: . A lot more examples are needed, and this discussion hasn't even begun. Sanguinalis 01:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "Second Intifada" is more common on Google, as well as Google Scholar -compare this and this. It's clear that there is no "official" name so given that "Second Intifada" is more common and avoids POV, this is the title WP should use. <<-armon->> 06:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC) The hits are close enough though, that we also need to make sure there's the appropriate redirect and "also known as al-Aqsa Intfada" in the introduction, as per Leifern. <<-armon->> 06:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Now try the google scholar search again, using advanced scholar search with exact phrase "in the title of the article".
So if when we are talking about the name of the article, rather than whether the words "second intifada" might have occurred somewhere in the article, it seems that scholars choose to use "al Aqsa intifada" over "second intifada" at a ratio of about 23:1 - from my own observation it's rare to hear the phrase "second intifada", which is why I was surprised to see people suggest that it was more common - more common on blogs maybe? --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I just edited my own post as I'd transposed two digits when copying from google - although it doesn't make a big difference - it's still a 23:1 ratio of articles in favour of "al Aqsa intifada". In case there was any doubt, I oppose the proposal to rename the article. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A search on allintitle: "al Aqsa intifada" actually returns 69 articles. <<-armon->> 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake, looks like I copied from the wrong window or something. So 69 vs about 59 - much closer than I would have expected. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 15:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well given the closeness in results, and that it's only the title search where "al Aqsa" beats "second", as well as "al Aqsa" being in quotes in some of the titles, I'm going to stick with renaming. In a case like this, the more NPOV title should be used. If "al Aqsa" does become the standard name, it's not like we can't change it back later. <<-armon->> 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the title is what matters - otherwise some random text in the article, or even a footnote like "sometimes known as the second intifada" would hold just as much weight as the title. Yet another search for what it's worth - regular google this time... and this discussion is about the "name" or "title" of this article.
I hope I got the copy/paste right that time - hopefully someone will check again. Once again, "al Aqsa intifada" has the greater numbers, although as I remarked before, even searching for results by title, there could be a lot of blogs and other minor entries in those numbers, which I think we might be able to agree, shouldn't hold quite as much weight as a scholarly article or a report on a major international news service such as from the BBC, Reuters, AP or AFP. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
OK but then look at this search on "2nd intifada". This turns up an additional 36,500. <<-armon->> 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I support "Second Intifada." I think it's more accurate and less POV. IronDuke 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Google phrase searches:

The wikipedia guidelines lean toward the Google scholar results for title searches, I believe.

Google Scholar phrase searches. In titles only:

So that means Al-Aqsa Intifada should probably be used. The main (non-title) google searches are pretty close. Maybe later the Google scholar results will change. Maybe not. But for now Al-Aqsa Intifada is the more popular name in Google Scholar title searches. So I believe the guidelines indicate it should be used. It can be changed later if the results change. --Timeshifter 01:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The numbers 62 vs. 68 don't mean much (especially in the light of other ghit test), and given that "Al-Aqsa Intifada" implies very strong POV, I still think the title should change to a less POV, of course with proper redirects, mentioning other names, etc.
To summarize, I still haven't seen any serious objection: 1) ghit is inconclusive at best, 2) POV is not serious, and 3) revenge for "Yom Kippur War" is laughable. Did I miss something? ←Humus sapiens 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

About the "Yom Kippur War". I assume it is the main name for that war since it is the name used for the wikipedia title. But according to the wikipedia article it is also called the Ramadan War, October War, 1973 Arab-Israeli War, and the Fourth Arab-Israeli War. I assume the editors and admins working on that page had similar discussions concerning the name. --Timeshifter 01:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War is by far the most common name in English. Please look in the talk archive. ←Humus sapiens 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I support the rename to "Second Intifada", the "Al-Aqsa" title is a somewhat propagandish term. Jaakobou 13:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Most people would recognize "Al-aqsa intifada" over "second intifada" given the BBC and CNN (two of the most popular media in the English speaking world) used the former term over the latter. See my edits below.Bless sins 01:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Many users consider teh name "Al-Aqsa intifada" to be "POV". Can someone point out the type of bias "Al-Aqsa intifada" exhibits? Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Western, rich and poor sources seem to use both terms.Bless sins 01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what bias exactly. It is a POV to link Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount with Palestinian violence. ←Humus sapiens 09:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages tries to keep an NPOV tone, and to balance all the POVs by expressing all significant POVs. At the same time Misplaced Pages has decided it can not force people to use less-popular, less-POV names. It has to use the popular names because that is how people look up the names in search engines. Most hits on most websites come from search engines. I know this because I am the webmaster for a website, and my stats tell me how people come to my website. So wikipedia uses the admittedly-POV popular names in article titles, and then uses an NPOV tone in the article, so that readers come to understand all the POVs, including the name of the article. It is common to see the name of an article called "highly disputed" in the first paragraph of a wikipedia article. So many readers come away from a wikipedia article with a better NPOV overview than before they read the article. But if they can't find the article then they do not get this overview from wikipedia. --Timeshifter 09:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see anyone disputing the need to have Al-Aqsa Intifada as a redirect, so "if they can't find the article" does not apply. ←Humus sapiens 10:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
That might work. But it is against wikipedia policy. The same would be true for the Yom Kippur War also. Are you willing to redirect it to the non-POV, neutral, "1973 Arab-Israeli War". Currently 1973 Arab-Israeli War redirects to "Yom Kippur War". --Timeshifter 13:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
On further reflection I see that the redirect would not solve the search engine problem. People will be searching for "Al-Aqsa Intifada" and will not find a wikipedia article with that title. Because the article will be titled "Second Intifada." That is a good reason to maintain the current wikipedia policies that say we should use the most popular name. --Timeshifter 17:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so: search engines are quite sophisticated these days. Given the choice between 2 widely used titles you chose a POV one, insisting that a NPOV title "is against wikipedia policy". Please review WP:NPOV. ←Humus sapiens 05:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I am fairly good at using search engines. I have written a lot about it in various places. An article title is very important in how high up a particular article shows up in search engine results. "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is much more popular in article titles than is "Second Intifada." I am not choosing anything. I am following wikipedia guidelines. See the talk sections here titled "Some wikipedia guidance" and "Google title searches". --Timeshifter 06:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The answer is at the end of the next section. ←Humus sapiens 06:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey results

Compiling the votes. Please correct me if I made a mistake.

Supporting the move
  1. ←Humus sapiens 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. --MPerel 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Leifern 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Tewfik 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. 6SJ7 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. SlimVirgin 11:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. <<-armon->> 06:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. IronDuke 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Jaakobou 13:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Objecting the move
  1. --Fjmustak 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. 06:00, 28 March 2007 --Rjecina
  3. Oneworld25 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Sanguinalis 01:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. --Timeshifter 01:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. I don't see a vote by User:Bless sins: he showed up only after KazakhPol moved the article, but I am sure he would vote to keep the POV name. ←Humus sapiens 08:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It could be considered deceptive to indicate a poll when none existed. This is just a compilation of yours, Humus. Some people may have since changed their mind after the extended discussion. --Timeshifter 13:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
He clearly indicated that it's his compilation, and asked for corrections. Don't be a dick. <<-armon->> 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
He was not clear. He said "Compiling the votes". There were no votes. Please stop the personal attacks and incivility. Please read the wikipedia guidelines on those 2 topics. If it continues, I may report you to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Timeshifter 14:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
OK don't take my advice. <<-armon->> 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't pay much attention to insults anymore. The wikipedia guidelines provide a better way to deal with them: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - --Timeshifter 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Threating your opponents is not helpful. I don't see anything "deceptive" about honestly compiling results of the above survey/poll/vote/discussion for future reference. Meanwhile, I am changing the section title from ===Poll results=== to ===Survey results=== in good faith. ←Humus sapiens 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some wikipedia guidance

From Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions:

This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

From Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references:

Identification of common names using external references.

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.

  • The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Misplaced Pages" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
  • International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
  • Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
  • Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
  • Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .

From: Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict

Bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

---

So there are some wikipedia guidelines. I haven't looked yet at the other methods in the above list. Such as Google News, encyclopedias, UN, BBC, CNN, Guardian style guide, etc.. --Timeshifter 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Google title searches

Google phrase searches limited to the phrase in article titles:

It seems that people title it the Al-Aqsa Intifada, but use "second intifada" inside articles. Probably because most English speakers have a hard time constantly writing, and spelling correctly, "Al-Aqsa." If I were writing a web page on this intifada, I would try to title it by the most distinctive name. Then I would say that it was the second intifada in the Palestinian territories. Then I would continue with "second intifada" in the article because it is easier, and does not require capital letters. --Timeshifter 06:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa intifada is the name used amongst scholars, we should stick to that.Bless sins 01:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There could be several reasons for the google search giving higher results to "second intifada".
  • It is likely that when searching for "second intifada" the word "second" may be used in a minor or irrelevent context. E.g there could be a sentence like "During the intifada, the second attack on...".
  • Some hits don't have the word "second". Consider this link inthe google search.
Google searches should not dictate wiki content.Bless sins 01:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
See the URLs I used for Google searches. I used phrase searches. See also the previous 2 sections of the talk page. The definitive searches are the Google title searches for phrases. 39,500 results. That is far more results for "Al-Aqsa Intifada" title search results than for "Second Intifada" title search results. You have to put quotes around the phrase in your google searches. To only get results for the phrase found in titles you have to put allintitle: in front of the phrase with a space in between it and the phrase. Click the Google shortcut URLs at the beginning of this section to see. --Timeshifter 02:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Google searches for the phrases in all parts of pages come out with around the same amount of results. BBC uses "Al-Aqsa Intifada" or just "Intifada". Title searches in Google Scholars lean slightly toward "Al-Aqsa Intifada". See the previous talk sections for the URLs to click to see the current results. --Timeshifter 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Al-Aqsa intifada" is used by BBC, CNN, .A "second intifada" search on CNN shows nothing useful,, same with BBC. . Can anyone show how "second intifada" is more notable?Bless sins 01:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Google searches should not dictate wiki content." - sure they should not. Also the propagandist POV that Sharon's visit initiated the violence should not dictate the article title, and sensationalist news agencies should not as well. ←Humus sapiens 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions states "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". Thus a name used by popular media in the English speaking world should be given preference, as most English speakers would easily recognize it. Also, can you specify what type of POV does the title "Al-Aqsa intifada" exhibit? The term is used by both Palestinians and Israelis, Arabs and Westerners, activists and professionals. "Al-aqsa intifida" is not specific to a race, religion, nationality, profession or class.Bless sins 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing the name to back to "Second intifada" as you've not yet achieved concensus on talk, and "Al-Aqsa intifada" is a long-standing name.Bless sins 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Another attempt by User:Bless sins to pretend upholding WP guidelines while trying to elbow in his POV. Of course Al-Aqsa is specific to a religion and of course the idea that Sharon's visit initiated the violence is propagandist POV. ←Humus sapiens 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you minded WP:Civil. You are free to attack my arguments, but no personal attacks against me. Please just answer to my objections. Yom Kippur is also specific to a religion, yet we use Yom Kippur war, thous others refer to it as the Ramadan war, and it can be neutrally referred to as the October war. Bless sins 02:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Bless sins, you'll need to work hard to regain good faith. Unlike Yom Kippur War, which is by far the common English-language name, the name Al-Aqsa Intifada did not gain advantage compared to Second Intifada, despite all the propaganda. ←Humus sapiens 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't make me the subject matter, rather my arguments. Answer my objections: towards whom is "Al-Aqsa intifada" biased? Why do the most popular English media prefer "Al-Aqsa intifada" over "second intifada"? What reason do you have for "second intifada", except google seraches that are irrelevent?Bless sins 02:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Your question has been answered repeatedly. Once again: "Al-Aqsa intifada" is biased toward the POV that the violence began as a grass-roots response to Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, vs. the POV that this was a calculated outbreak of violence , pre-planned by the Palestinian leadership months in advance, and unleashed under the pretext of the visit. Isarig 02:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you believe the POV is anti-Israeli as it appears to blame Sharon (it doesn't). But why do the following Israeli sources use the term: Ynet news, Political Science professor at Tel Aviv University Haaretz? Even a very anti-Arab piece uses the term Bless sins 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You assume too much. You asked why it is POV, and I explained it to you. Israeli sources are not beyond using POV descriptions. Isarig 03:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Humus sapiens. I will take this to the incident boards if you insist in changing the name to a less popular name according to Google title searches. This is in violation of the wikipedia guidelines for naming articles. You are an admin, and you must follow wikipedia guidelines. I don't personally care either way what the conflict is named. But the wikipedia guidelines demand we use the most popular name. And please stop your personal attacks on Bless sins. --Timeshifter 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


I have shown how popular sources (in the English speaking world) prefer "Al-aqsa intifada". Can Humus Sapiens show any source comaparable in popularity to the BBC and CNN that prefers "Second intifada" over "Al-Aqsa intifada"?Bless sins 03:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Both BBC and CNN were noted for being non-neutral in the AIC, but this is a wrong place to discuss it. Also, news media may have other considerations: al-Aqsa is shorter and snappier (read sensationalist, POV) than bland (read NPOV) "second". WP is an encyclopedia. Given that both names are widely used, we should choose a neutral one. ←Humus sapiens 09:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages tries to keep an NPOV tone, and to balance all the POVs by expressing all significant POVs. At the same time Misplaced Pages has decided it can not force people to use less-popular, less-POV names. It has to use the popular names because that is how people look up the names in search engines. Most hits on most websites come from search engines. I know this because I am the webmaster for a website, and my stats tell me how people come to my website. So wikipedia uses the admittedly-POV popular names in article titles, and then uses an NPOV tone in the article, so that readers come to understand all the POVs, including the name of the article. It is common to see the name of an article called "highly disputed" in the first paragraph of a wikipedia article. So many readers come away from a wikipedia article with a better NPOV overview than before they read the article. But if they can't find the article then they do not get this overview from wikipedia. --Timeshifter 10:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You already said this above (and I responded). Please do not cross-post long paragraphs to different sections/talk pages. ←Humus sapiens 10:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no rule against it. You repeated similar arguments in 2 places. So I used the same reply. I posted twice before you replied. --Timeshifter 13:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Crossposting extensive paragraphs does make this discussion hard to follow. In any event, a Google test does not trump WP:NPOV. In this case where the two terms' notability are of equal orders of magnitude, the one lacking a strong POV is the one that policy demands. Tewfik 22:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
See section higher up called "Some wikipedia guidance." Also read the sections after it. Please read the preceding discussion before parachuting in on talk pages. It is rude and uncivil to blindly support your friends without first reading the discussion. You have done this on other talk pages too. Also, please avoid abusive edit summaries. "al Aqsa Intifada" is much more popular in titles of articles. I don't care what the conflict is called. But religious fanatics have popularized the conflict names "Al Aqsa Intifada" and "Yom Kippur War". Both are religious names, and people look up those names more often in Google and other search engines, because those names have been more popularized and sensationalized.
Shall we get rid of all religious names in wikipedia? Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia of what is, not what we think it should be. We could completely sanitize wikipedia into complete political correctness, but then far fewer people will read it and learn of other viewpoints. WP:NPOV does not mean we censor viewpoints. It means we express all significant viewpoints using reliable sources. Then we let readers come to their own conclusions and syntheses of those viewpoints. Misplaced Pages does not tell people how to think or believe. --Timeshifter 05:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please take your grievances regarding "Yom Kippur" in the title to Talk:Yom Kippur War (I suggest read the archive first) and don't make this a tit-for-tat case. Also, this is not an appropriate place to reform WP. We are discussing the renaming of one particular article. ←Humus sapiens 06:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to change the wikipedia guidelines. You are. You are trying to rename a wikipedia article to a less popular name. See the results at the beginning of this talk section. See the wikipedia guidelines in the talk section here titled "Some wikipedia guidance." --Timeshifter 06:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are those results from a few days ago:

Google phrase searches limited to the phrase in article titles:

We already discussed this. Repeating the same argument doesn't make it more convincing. Unlike a personal website or a news agency, a serious encyclopedia should not be driven by chasing ghits or attracting readers by sensationalist POV propaganda. ←Humus sapiens 06:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that your repetition of the same argument does not make it more convincing. We can agree to disagree. --Timeshifter 08:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. 1. Humus Sapiens, and other have failed to show how "Al-aqsa intifada" is POV, as defined by WP:NPOV.

WP:NPOV says "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."

WP:NPOV then goes on to define bias. It categorizes it in 10 categories (class, gender, political etc.) Humus Sapiens, can you tell me which of the categories does "Al-Aqsa intifada" fits in? In other other words, whose bias does "Al-Aqsa intifada" present? Palestinian? Jewish? Middle class?

  1. 2. Consider the follwoing rules, outlined by wiki policies:
  • ""'article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize..."WP:Naming
  • "The most common use of a name takes precedence;"
  • "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons."Misplaced Pages:Naming_conflict#Article_names_2

Clearly, we should use names most commonly used in the English speaking world. Thus we should look towards popular media outlets, like CNN, BBC, New York Times etc. I have already shown hwo these outlets give preference to "Al-Aqsa intifada" over "Seocnd intifada".Bless sins 12:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

These outlets are news agencies, non-scholarly and sensationalist. They are driven by other considerations. We shouldn't be. Ghit is not a reliable measure, and you cannot discard it when it doesn't serve your political agenda and then embrace it when it does. You keep quoting NPOV and keep pushing POV. Of course "al-Aqsa" was put there for propaganda reasons, your insistence only confirms that fact (as if we needed another confirmation). ←Humus sapiens 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not a propagandist. I only point out the obvious. That some people honestly took offense to the Sharon visit to Al Aqsa, and some people exploited it in a propagandist way. Either way the name for the war has stuck. Same is true for the name for the Yom Kippur War. People took offense at the attack starting on that day. Others exploited it for propaganda. As an admin you should stop your personal attacks, smears, insinuations, and incivility. If you do not stop I will report you to this incident board: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Timeshifter 06:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to Bless sins, with whom I had some earlier experience. We are all equal here, and if I abused my admin status, please either point out where or report it. Also, we are not discussing Yom Kippur here, if you want to talk about it, do it at its talk page.
Back to our subject: you just confirmed that "al-Aqsa" in the title is a POV exploited for propaganda. Given that both names are widely used, we should choose a NPOV one. ←Humus sapiens 08:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I asked you before to stop your personal attacks on Bless sins. You wrote to him: "Of course 'al-Aqsa' was put there for propaganda reasons, your insistence only confirms that fact (as if we needed another confirmation)." Bless sins is not a propagandist. Neither am I. Stop the personal attacks. The dispute resolution process requires that some attempts at discussion occur before reporting to incident boards.
"Al-Aqsa Intifada" is far more widely used by writers worldwide in the title of web pages:
Actually, they don't give preference to "al-Aqsa intifada"
NYT -overwhelming preference for "Second"
Results 1 - 3 of 3 from www.nytimes.com for "Al-Aqsa intifada".
Results 1 - 10 of about 230 from www.nytimes.com for "second intifada".
CNN -slight preference here for "al-Aqsa"
Results 1 - 10 of about 20 from www.cnn.com for "al-Aqsa intifada"
Results 1 - 10 of about 14 from www.cnn.com for "second intifada"
BBC -bit more than double for "Second"
Results 1 - 10 of about 69 from news.bbc.co.uk for "al-Aqsa intifada"
Results 1 - 10 of about 161 from news.bbc.co.uk for "second intifada"
I also tried http://english.aljazeera.net/. I expected them to prefer "al-Aqsa intifada" and they did, but not by the margin I expected...-bit more than double for "al-Aqsa"
Results 1 - 10 of about 112 from english.aljazeera.net for "al-Aqsa intifada"
Results 1 - 10 of about 49 from english.aljazeera.net for "second intifada"
Again, as "al-Aqsa" possesses an embedded POV, I think it's clear at this point that the article should be titled "Second Intifada". It does need to be clearly stated in the opening that it's also known as the "al-Aqsa intifada". <<-armon->> 00:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your search results showed some favoring one name, and some favoring the other name. None of the searches are title searches. --Timeshifter 06:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that both names are widely used, we should choose a NPOV one. ←Humus sapiens 08:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Al-Aqsa Intifada" is far more widely used by writers worldwide in the title of web pages:

Yes, there is a lot of anti-Israel propaganda on the web. It doesn't mean we should promote POV. ←Humus sapiens 10:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah right. 39,500 web pages are all anti-Israel. I am not anti-Israel and I prefer the name "al-Aqsa Intifada." Because it describes the flashpoint of an already simmering conflict about to explode. I really tire of your personal attacks, insinuations, smears, slanders, and incivility, Humus sapiens. --Timeshifter 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Hummus. A title search on the Internet as a whole is irrelevant. The only merit in limiting the search to titles may have been when using google scholar where (hopefully) we can assume reliable sources, and that was inconclusive. I really don't see the justification for using the POV term. <<-armon->> 10:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant because it shows what the vast majority of people worldwide use to title the conflict. The wikipedia guidelines require using the most commonly used name for an event. --Timeshifter 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
...most commonly used name per WP:RS. Cousin Ernie's blog doesn't count. <<-armon->> 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
39,500 web pages will have all types of pages. Read the wikipedia guidelines on names in the relevant section on this talk page. --Timeshifter 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Amazon search

Here is a search among a bit more scholarly sources:

  • "al-aqsa intifada" : 351 results
  • "second intifada" : 652 results

Questions? ←Humus sapiens 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth looking at those results for "second intifada". The books in question hardly consist of Israeli apologia. <<-armon->> 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The searches are not title searches. I could not find a way to do title searches at Amazon. When one does title searches at Google Scholar, "Al Aqsa Intifada" has more results. --Timeshifter 06:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That is why web search is not considered reliable. This WP article is not a website competing for google hits. Given that both names are widely used, we should choose an NPOV one. ←Humus sapiens 07:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages guidelines have priority. "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is far more widely used by writers worldwide in the title of web pages:

I already responded to that more than once. I don't know why the same discussion gets duplicated over several sections. I guess to confuse the reader. Next time, use more bold font please. ←Humus sapiens 10:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If you keep repeating the same argument all over the talk page, then don't be surprised that people respond to your arguments. I try to be creative in my replies, but the wikipedia guideline is simple. So it may sound repetitive to you. --Timeshifter 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar

Google Scholar phrase searches. In titles only:

So when Google title searches are done for books or web pages, there are more results for "Al Aqsa Intifada". Far more for web pages. --Timeshifter 06:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this. 68 vs. 62 is not a conclusive result. Given that both names are widely used, we should choose an NPOV one. ←Humus sapiens 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Al-Aqsa Intifada" is far more widely used by writers worldwide in the title of web pages:

Yawn. The same lame argument repeated does not make it more convincing. ←Humus sapiens 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Your lame argument repeated does not override the wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Google books

Did we forget google books? Here:

I think a serious encyclopedia would choose a NPOV title widely used in books rather than a POV one prevalent among websites of questionable quality. See also Argumentum ad Googlum. Why Getting a Million Hits on Google Doesn't Prove Anything. ←Humus sapiens 11:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Google Books results. Those results show yet again that "al-Aqsa Intifada" is a popular name. That result, combined with the overwhelming popularity of "al-Aqsa Intifada" in titles of 39,500 pages on the web (of all types of quality), indicate that fulfilling the wikipedia guidelines means keeping the name "al-Aqsa Intifada". --Timeshifter 13:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Except that WP:NPOV is policy not a guideline and you haven't made a case for the non-neutral term over the neutral one. <<-armon->> 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions is a policy, not a guideline. I have also made the case that "al-Aqsa Intifada" is not necessarily a propaganda term. The al-Aqsa events were the flashpoint for an already simmering situation. One could argue back and forth about its relative importance, but the fact remains that it was the starting point timewise. Same is true for the Yom Kippur War. It is not necessarily a propaganda name. It also marks the starting point of that war. Yet the names of both conflicts are religious names that have also been exploited for propaganda. In any case wikipedia does not rule out using propaganda names for article titles. Because that is what people use to describe certain events. Read the policy. It is clear. See the section higher up on wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 14:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The Yom Kippur War is not the issue here, and even if the naming conventions do not rule out using "propaganda names", they are only to be used when there is an overwhelming common use. This has not been shown. The results are clearly inconclusive for either, therefore the default should be to the more NPOV term. <<-armon->> 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Overwhelming common use:

You might as well keep posting that, as it's the only search which gives you the desired result. <<-armon->> 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There have been several. See the previous discussion. --Timeshifter 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hold on.... in the above search, "al-aqsa intifada" taps out at 131 and "second intifada" gets 257. This is even with "al-aqsa intifada" being inflated by WP mirrors. <<-armon->> 14:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Your link URL is incorrect due to additional terms. Compare these URLs:
http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle:+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22&hl=en&pwst=1&start=130&sa=N - Your URL.
http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22 - My URL.
Better yet, you can go to google.com, http://www.google.com, and search after pasting this into the form:
allintitle: "al-aqsa intifada"
Then you will see the correct result of around 40,000. Here is the link to the page about advanced Google search operators such as allintitle:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/operators.html --Timeshifter 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It's the same search, I just checked the unique results. It was 131 not 40,000. That result is busted. <<-armon->> 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Click the link:
http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22 - My URL. Around 40,000 results. I think I see the problem with your URL. It is made to only show one page from each site. Some sites have many pages with "al-Aqsa Intifada" in the title. Some sites are archive sites of articles from many publications. Such as findarticles.com --Timeshifter 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The search results show that both "al-Aqsa Intifada" and "Second Intifada" are widely used, scholarly sources seems to prefer the latter and no one would challenge its neutrality. The only reason to insist on using the POV title "al-Aqsa Intifada" is to push the POV that the Palestinian violence was a response to Sharon's visit. That may be a POV pushed by PLO, Fatah, Hamas, by a bunch of websites and by certain WP editors, but it doesn't mean WP should espouse it. ←Humus sapiens 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Some of the Palestinian violence WAS caused by Sharon's visit. Also, the visit was a flashpoint for an already tense situation after the failure of the 2000 Camp David summit. To deny all this is just POV-pushing and fantasy on your part. Stop trying to rewrite history. We editors are WAY too sophisticated here at wikipedia for that primitive spin control. Admins should maintain a more neutral stance in my opinion. If you can't set aside your POV, then I suggest you resign as an admin. I really tire of your continuous personal attacks, insinuations, subtle smears, and not-so-subtle slanders. --Timeshifter 21:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are these anti-Israel sites?

I found these with the Google title search. Humus sapiens says there are a lot of anti-Israel sites in the results from that search. What about these web pages with "al-Aqsa Intifada" in the title of the page:

I could go on...--Timeshifter 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Big deal, some websites sometimes use POV terminology. It doesn't follow that we should do the same when there is a choice between POV & NPOV. ←Humus sapiens 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use my idea (below in the next section) for the Yom Kippur War page too. It would cause more readers to go there. Title it "Yom Kippur War (1973 Arab-Israeli War)". --Timeshifter 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What about "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)" as a title?

I have seen many wikipedia names with clarifying info in the title in parentheses. Now that I see that most of the title results are from only a few sites, it has become clear to me that both names are about the same in popularity.

So if we want to educate the most people, then we need to make this WP:NPOV article accessible to the most readers. That occurs when both names are in the title. So when people search for either name they see the wikipedia article near the top. Otherwise we may lose half the readers because they do not see the article in the Google results. Most hits to articles come from search engines. Mostly Google. That is what is true on my website. So I always try to put the multiple names and keywords in the title of articles.

I am going to ask about this at the Misplaced Pages talk pages for the naming guidelines. --Timeshifter 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories: