User talk:Editorial Council: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
imported>D. Matt Innis
(moved to CZ talk)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Naming of countries==
The Ombudsman discussion about naming countries has been moved to [[CZ Talk:Editorial Council]].  [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The Editorial Council is asked to decide on a Citizendium policy on the naming of articles about countries. A policy is needed because there are likely to be multiple cases of dispute, and no consensus has been established from existing precedents on Citizendium. Any decision may require name changes for several existing articles.
 
The options to be considered could include
1)Consistently following a list of names from an external notable source such as the UN list of county names. This option has the merit of simplicity and objectivity, but (unless exceptions are allowed) it would entail renaming [[United Kingdom]] as the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”; other potentially contentious names from this list would include:
*Lao People’s Democratic Republic
*Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
*Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
Syrian Arab Republic
*United Republic of Tanzania
*Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
However, under this rule the [[Republic of Macedonia]] would become ‘Macedonia’.
I don’t see a consistent logic applied to the UN list of names, and it is subject to change.
 
2)Consistently using the current English translation of the formal name of the state. Such names would endorse: [[Republic of Macedonia]] but require renaming [[Sri Lanka]] as ‘Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka’ and [[China]] as
‘People's Republic of China’
 
3) Consistently using the English name by which they are commonly called.
This is unfortunately in flux, notably in the case of Burma/Myanmar. For example, the BBC, the Guardian and the CIA still use Burma; the New York Times uses Myanmar. It may be hard to resolve this objectively if there are different patterns of use around the world. Traditional use may be different from current use.
 
4) Laissez faire, allowing Editors to decide an appropriate name for each article , unless disputes arise. If and when they do, there needs to be some way of resolving these disputes. However; a position may be to allow Editors to decide IF they can agree, but if they can’t to default to an agreed formula (such as 1) or 2) above).
 
The Council might consider requiring that the official name, recent former names, names in the native language, and common alternative names are all noted in the Introduction.
 
{{unsigned|Gareth Leng}}
 
::Just a small correction: the provisional name under which the country that calls itself Republic of Macedonia was admitted to the UN is regulated by Resolution of the UN General Assembly A/RES/47/225 of 27 April 1993 and confirmed by Security Council Resolution 845(1993) of 18 June 1993. That provisional name is "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and all agencies of the UN (but explicitly not national states) are bound by the UN decision. About <s>160</s> '''130''' countries have now recognised the country by its constitutional name (including the USA but excluding all of the EU). There are also other countries not listed in the UN list, which cannot be ignored by an encyclopedia, so the UN list is not definitive in any sense other than international law. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 17:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::You are right as of now [http://www.un.org/en/members/];(I must have miseard the list)[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 17:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 
==Editorial workgroups==
This request arises from problems of editorial authority in an article about a country ([[Myanmar]])(the article originally entitled [[Burma]]). Similar issues might arise in many different circumstances.
 
In the particular case of article with the name of a country or state, we must recognise the difference between a ''state'', in the sense of a politically organized body of people under a single government; and a ''country'', in the sense of a geographical region distinguished by its people or culture or geography or governance. Different or multiple workgroups may be involved in developing any particular article; any any one might be developed in a way where editorial involvement from Politics or History or Geography is not essential. This can only be clear once an article has content that requires the relevant expert guidance. 
 
In the case of the article originally entitled Burma, the initial content was political, and it was correctly assigned to the Politics workgroup. When a dispute arose, workgroups were added to broaden the discussion, and this gave rise to further dispute.
 
It seems likely that this article ''will'' develop material relevant to other workgroups that would need expert oversight, but it might have been better to wait until such material was actually present before adding these workgroups. To add a workgroup merely to draw in editors when the article does not have relevant content that requires their expert attention seems premature; an editor can make editorial rulings only in aspects relating to their particular expertise. Having said that, to remove a workgroup that has been reasonably if prematurely added is unnecessary for the same reason – editors can only rule within their areas of expertise, whether or not the workgroup is there.
 
Similar, more serious problems will arise in the future if, for example, the same material has both historical and political relevance, but the two disciplines have different perceptions of its significance. Depending upon what perspective you come from, different aspects may assume very different levels of importance.
 
The Editorial Council may wish to consider how to manage articles involving multiple workgroups.  If an article is in workgroups A and B, should it need to be approved by editors from both? If not, why does it "need" both workgroups?  If the primary workgroup (A) marks the only group that is essential for approval, then this must depend on the content of the developing article. Accordingly, the editors of A must be allowed to make judgments about global issues affecting the article.  Specifically, ''if'' the article formerly titled Burma continued to develop primarily as a Politics article, then it seems to follow that approval must require a politics editor, and hence key editorial judgments such as about article name must be the call of politics editors, overriding all secondary workgroup editors in the event of disagreement.
 
I invite the Editorial Council to consider whether there needs to be a policy affirming that
1) Articles should be assigned a primary workgroup according to the greatest needs for expert guidance
2) An Editor from that Primary Workgroup is needed for its approval
3) Editors from the Primary workgroup have the right to make final decisions on all matters that must be addressed before it can be approved by editors of that workgroup.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:The Editorial Council should consider, however, if the Workgroup mechanism is fundamentally intractable, because it operates at too coarse a granularity. Take the following purely as experimental: there are some Subgroups that seem to be reasonable classifications for articles. I don't consider that a final solution and I suspect the longer-term solution will involve, perhaps stretching the term, [[semantic web]] concepts.
:I urge the Council to create, as one of its first acts, a Task Force on -- I'm not sure I have a good name -- "expertise management".  Such a Task Force should be chaired by an EC member, but actively search for, and include, experts in [[Library and Information Science]], software that can help article cataloging, integrated workflows, and user interface design. Given the group will have to consider software realities, the MC might be invited to help name the technical experts. Perhaps it shouldbe a joint EC-MC Task Force. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::Gareth, apropos state vs. country, I've experimented with this for both [[Iran]]/[[State of Iran]] and [[Israel]]/[[State of Israel]], with a fair number of subarticles in mostly military areas.  In no way am I wedded to "State of" and would be equally comfortable with "government of", or standardizing on any other prefix. The [[Israel]] article unquestionably needs work and I am no expert on the more distant but exceptionally relevant history.
 
::Not suggesting I "own" these articles, but I'm quite open to the idea of exploring pros and cons using them as examples. I do believe, and I am saying this based on specific politicomilitary experience, that the distinction is extremely important. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:33, 15 October 2010

The Ombudsman discussion about naming countries has been moved to CZ Talk:Editorial Council. D. Matt Innis 23:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Editorial_Council&oldid=750891"