Talk:Internet Party and Mana Movement

Party metadata

This New Zealand article has some associated metadata templates to display political party colours and names in election candidate and results tables.

The table below shows the content of these metadata templates.

Internet Party and Mana Movement — political party metadata
Color		Shortname
	#7F0000	Internet Mana

Article title

The party can do whatever ever it wants to do to draw attention to itself, but in Wikipedia, we use standard English capitalisation -- see WP:TRADEMARK -- so in Wikipedia, it is "Mana" not "MANA". Ground Zero | t 14:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not about "drawing attention to itself", it is a legal political name as registered with Elections NZ, it is about minority cultural sensitivities (the word itself has cultural implications in New Zealand), and it is neither trademark nor an English word. FanN | talk | 14:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"MANA" is not an acronym, so there is no reason to use all caps. The Mana Movement uses "MANA" in English and "Mana" in Maori on its website. Its English-language Facebook page uses "Mana". In this letter from the Mana Movement's vice president to the chair of a parliamentary committee, "Mana" is used. There is no explanation on the party's website for this inconsistency. What is the evidence of "cultural implications"? Can you provide a source for that?

WP:TRADEMARK does not just apply to corporate trademarks: "Trademarks include words and short phrases used by organizations and individuals to identify themselves...." This is Wikipedia's policy, so the party's preference or what the NZ Electoral Commission is willing to register is not what we follow.

Wikipedia policy says, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one".

New Zealand media haven't landed on one format or the other:

Radio NZ uses "Mana", as do the Rotorua Daily Post which is part of the NZ Herald group, NZTV, and NZ's National Business Review. The Dominion Post's stuff.co.nz portal uses "Mana".

Some other news sources (but fewer by my count) use "MANA".

So Wikipedia policy seems to come down clearly on the side of using "Mana". Can you find any Wikipedia policies to support using "MANA"? Ground Zero | t 16:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ground Zero. Nurg (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mana movement in its own press release on 31 July used "Mana supports the Silent Leaders Challenge" so I think that Ground Zero's conclusion to use Mana on Wiki is ok NealeFamily (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not one of the links given use the party name in anything like its correct form (most use a hyphenated Internet-Mana, while TVNZ couldn't even get the name, or the leader's name (then Vikram Kumar), right after attending a press conference where the party name was released, "Mr Dotcom's party has secured top billing in the newly formed Internet-Mana Party alliance. Mana's leader says the name was still being discussed right up until this morning.") - not really surprising for a party that has only been in existence for a few weeks, and several of the links are to the Mana Party, which while it is a component of Internet MANA is not the same thing and is therefore irrelevant. The only realistic references are those from the interested parties - the 25 May Memorandum of Understanding between the two component parties, and the Electoral Commission's 24 July party registration press release. Also MOS/Trademarks says absolutely nothing about political parties, try pointing me towards a MOS on Political parties that mandates naming conventions. Can you find such a policy that prohibits Internet MANA? FanN | talk | 03:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

MOS/Trademarks doesn't mention political parties specifically, but "words and short phrases used by organizations ... to identify themselves" covers organizations in general, with no exception given for political parties. Nurg (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

NealeFamily, the press release you refer to is from the Mana Party, not Internet MANA. It also has one instance of "Mana" vs. eight for "MANA" so your claim is not really valid - but as it's a different party it is entirely irrelevant. FanN | talk | 03:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We still don't have any explanation for why Internet Mana, which is an organisation and therefore covered by the Wikipedia style guide, is using all caps. The old party didn't use it consistently, and didn't in at all Maori. It is common for organisations and corporations to use non-standard capitalisation as a way of standing out, but Wikipedia does not go along with that. Ground Zero | t 11:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission website has the party as "MANA Movement" but capitalisation on the party's website appears inconsistent. I would put some weight on the registered name as declared on the Electoral Commission website, but agree with Ground Zero that the Wikipedia policy at WP:TRADEMARK is to capitalise just the first letter. --Pakaraki (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Pakaraki, usage on the party's website is entirely consistent throughout - unless you're looking at the wrong party as User:NealeFamily did.

User:Ground Zero, while I'm ordinarily not privvy to political party coalition agreements hammered out in the small hours in smoky rooms there is a clue to the significance of the NAME in a quote above. The fact that the NAME was a sticking point (albeit an expected sticking point) that was practically the last point agreed upon deserves some consideration - the [perceived] balance of power within the new party suggests as a compromise "MANA" is capitalised while "Internet" comes first. I hear you screaming OR, but my point is that if the parties concerned took so much effort in naming their party who the hell are we to say they can't have it? Finally, in this WikiProject we use real party names, not versions that conform to a "one size fits all" policy - especially one that is neutral on political party naming conventions. FanN | talk | 13:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Fanx, I do not scream, and ask you to keep the discussion civil. WP:OR and WP:TRADEMARK are Wikipedia policies, and Wikipedia articles are written in accordance with Wikipedia policies. If you disagree with those policies, you are free to propose changes to them on the talk pages of those policies. You will, however, have to accept that until those policies are changed, they are applicable.

WP:TRADEMARK is in no way "neutral" on this matter. It is unamibiguous: "Trademarks include words and short phrases used by organizations ... to identify themselves". I am sure that you will agree that a political party is an organisation, and if you have doubts, please refer to the Wikipedia article on political parties, which begins, "A political party is an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members...."

I have reviewed Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics. It makes no mention of article naming conventions.

What this comes down to then is your assertion that this article should follow the party's preference, rather than Wikipedia policy. You had stated that "This is not about "drawing attention to itself", it is a legal political name as registered with Elections NZ, it is about minority cultural sensitivities", but you have not provided any reference to support his claim. You now acknowledge that the non-standard capitalisation serves to indicate "the [perceived] balance of power within the new party". The party is free to stylise its name however it wishes. Wikipedia policy is to use standard English capitalisation. If you disagree, you can propose changes to the Wikipedia policy. Ground Zero | t 19:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:TRADEMARK also states This guideline (in its entirety) applies to all trademarks, all service marks, all business names, and all other names of business entities. The party name is neither trademark, service mark or a business name. The WikiProject has never needed to codify a policy on party names since they haven't come under attack until now, but names have been changed before, and most recently was the Mana Party which dropped its disambiguation, Mana Party (New Zealand). On a related note in Talk:Mana Movement#Undiscussed move you critiqued an editor for not having discussed (with you, presumably) the name change from Mana Party to MANA Movement, yet you seem to have no problem in bastardising party names when they don't fit your worldview. FYI there is no such entity as Internet Mana Party (or Internet MANA Party) - there is the Internet Party, the Internet Party and MANA Movement, the MANA Movement, previously the Mana Party, and there is the abbreviated Internet MANA. No wonder the wider media world gets this wrong when editors here are are prepared to play fast and loose with party names - there is a solid reason why wikipedia follows majority google hits, like it or not wikipedia informs practice as much as follows it. Clearly "the old party" used capitalisation differently - because it was differently named, please - no more strawman arguments. I cannot contest your claim that MANA is capitalised differently in Māori (another word you misspelled) since your knowledge of Māori is apparently better than mine (although you provide no evidence to your statement), and your claim than capitalisation of MANA "seems to be an attempt to get more attention" is the most original of original research I have encountered for quite some time. I'd doff my hat in awe of your Chutzpah ... if I had one. FanN | talk | 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not need to challenge or attempt to have changed the current Wikipedia policy. As it stands it clearly does not mention or include political party names, and no amount of sledgehammering by you can make that designation fit (at least until the policy is changed), and while a political party name may be otherwise trademarked it is not a trademark per se. If there is any change to be made to WP:TRADEMARK then inclusion of political party naming needs to be expressly stated. Further, your argument that WP:TRADEMARK read together with political party is unambiguous amounts to a logical fallacy, and generally Wiki policies are confined to one article and not meant to be understood by cherry-picking whatever suits your purpose. That "Trademarks include words .... used by organizations" and that "A political party is an organization" in no way demands that political party names are trademarks. It is as ludicrous as claiming that the group mammals includes dogs, and all dogs are carnivores therefore all mammals are carnivores. FanN | talk | 02:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I provided evidence that the Mana Movement does not write "Mana" all in caps in Maori in my second comment in this section. I reproduce it here for your convenience: "The Mana Movement uses "MANA" in English and "Mana" in Maori on its website."

I am not saying that all mammals are carnivores. I am saying the WP:TRADEMARK applies to political parties. I am sure you agree that a political party is an organisation. Furthermore, I am sure you agree that WP:TRADEMARK applies to "words and short phrases used by organizations". It is not a logical fallacy to say that the policy applies to the Internet Mana organisation. Further, it is not necessary to include political parties explicitly in WP:TRADEMARK because political parties are included in the general term "organisations".

You could just as well argue that there is no Time (magazine) or Kiss (band) or Asus computer company, but that it what Wikipedia policy has decided to name the articles for TIME, KISS and ASUS. Whether those organisations like it or not.

"generally Wiki policies are confined to one article" -- um, no. Wikipedia policies are intended to apply generally. They are not intended to apply to one article. That would means we would have as many policies as articles, which we don't.

As far as capitalising Mana being an attempt to get more attention for that name, that seems to be the point of your comment about "the [perceived] balance of power within the new party", i.e., the Internet name is placed first, so Mana is written in all-caps to provide balance. So this is non-standard capitalisation. One might call this bastardisation of the English language.

Please stop personalising this by claiming that this is about my "worldview" when I have always based my arguments on Wikipedia policy. Further, three other editors agree with my representation of Wikipedia policy. None have stepped forward yet to agree with yours. My argument has always been that we should not be concerned about the party's preference, but about Wikipedia policy. Ground Zero | t 02:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Both sides provide valid arguments and on balance, I have a slight preference for "Internet MANA". Schwede66 06:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not personalising it by stating you have a worldview. Your worldview is that WP:TRADEMARK covers political parties, my worldview is that it does not. Two of the three users you claim support you were referencing the MANA Movement's web page (as you have throughout this discussion), something not particularly useful when we're discussing a different party :) FanN | talk | 11:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The other editors and I reference the "Mana Movement" web page since it is a part of the "Internet Party and Mana Movement", which doesn't seem to have a webpage yet. And the Mana Movement uses the same word "Mana".

As we are not able to resolve this amongst ourselves,, I propose to take this to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I would accept the outcome of that process. Would you? Ground Zero | t 22:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Reading Internet MANA as equivalent to MANA Movement is akin to reading Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition agreement as equivalent to Conservative Party (UK).
The three party websites are:

• MANA Movement
• Internet Party
• Internet MANA

The MANA Movement has only recently renamed itself from Mana Party, so likely has text in both cases. The Māori text may or may not be relevant - I don't know enough Māori to have an opinion on it. If resolution is sought, what exactly are we resolving? This article name, or WP:TRADEMARK? FanN | talk | 14:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that the question is whether WP:TRADEMARK applies to the capitalisation of the party name in the article title and in article text that names the party. I contend that it does and that the party's capitalisation preference is indicated in the first line of the article, but is not used in the title or elsewhere. As I understnad it, you contend that [{WP:TRADEMARK]] does not apply, and that the party's preference should be followed in those instances. This should be a relatively straightforward question for the good people at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard to resolve, then we can move on from it. I would be disappointed if the DRN were to side with you, but I also think we should get it resolved so that we can both spend our time on other things. Would you accept the decision of the DRN? Ground Zero | t 16:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is that WP:TRADEMARK applies to the names of political parties. Jenks24 (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Internet Party and MANA Movement → Internet Party and Mana Movement – "Mana" is a Māori word. It is not an acronym. Placing "Mana" all in capital letters is the organisation's stylistic preference that varies from standard English capitalisation. WP:TRADEMARK applies to "words and short phrases used by organizations and individuals to identify themselves and their products and services", and directs us to "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". As the Internet Party and Mana Movement is an organisation, WP:TRADEMARK applies, and standard English capitalisation should be used. The organisation's preference for all-caps would be indicated int he lead paragraph of the article. Ground Zero | t 15:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Ground Zero | t 15:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:TRADEMARK NealeFamily (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nominator Ollieinc (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - it would be consistent with the Mana Movement page, would want to see direct reference to the Register of Political Parties having the MANA capitalisation. Ridcully Jack (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This complies with WP:TRADEMARK as I interpret it. Nurg (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the same reasons as supporters above - WP:TRADEMARK (note capitalisation) says nothing about political parties so does not apply ("applies to words ... used by organisations" cannot be read as applies to all organisations, or all types of organisations - if it isn't spelt out in TRADEMARK it is not applicable and no amount of wishful thinking can make it so). Proposer has been invited to otherwise propose changes to TRADEMARK but has not done so - until it is proven that TRADEMARK applies it doesn't. Consistency with Mana Movement is irrelevant as proposer already renamed that article to conform to his/her proposal here, and his/her misinterpretation of TRADEMARK. Until TRADEMARK is clarified we should not even be having this discussion/proposal based on a false premise. Proposer is invited to withdraw this proposal and take an appropriate proposal to WP:TRADEMARK first. FanN | talk | 21:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Since WP:TRADEMARK does not define or list what it means by "organizations", it would be interpreted as meaning organisations in general. Otherwise, Fanx's logic extends to any organisation or type of organisation that is not listed, and therefore the phrase "Trademarks include words and short phrases used by organizations and individuals" has no application. I don't think that the Wikipedia community would make such a logical fallacy in writing the style guide, so I don't agree with Fanx's logic. I will not withdraw the proposal. Let the move request run its course. If it fails, I will accept the decision. If it passes, I would encourage Fanx to accept the decision and let the matter drop, but of course s/he would be entitled to appeal the move through the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution mechanism. Ground Zero | t 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Or, since WP:TRADEMARK does not define or list what it means by "organizations" (or whether all such names, words, and/or phrases are automatically included), it would be interpreted as meaning trademarks (and only trademarks) in particular, to the exclusion of all other names, words, phrases etc. that are not trademarks. The fact that the policy, and its definitions are badly written is not an excuse to take it to mean whatever you wish it to mean and you cannot take it as a matter of faith that the "wikipedia community" meant one thing when they wrote another. If the logical fallacy is there because no-one bothered to write it in clear unambiguous English or proof-read it properly then it stands as a logical fallacy - and not as a concise policy suitable for reading however we like. You may dislike my interpretation, but I certainly refuse to accept your mandating a broken guide being used to hammer in a "rule" that clearly cannot be shown to exist. FanN | talk | 05:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree that WP:TRADEMARK is badly written or unclear. You are free to raise your concerns with that policy on its talk page. It remains policy, however. It does not seem that others here share your views on WP:TRADEMARK. Ground Zero | t 11:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Thanks for notifying me. As I said in the discussion above, both sides provide valid arguments and on balance, I have a slight preference for "Internet MANA". Schwede66 00:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Online billionaire Kim Dotcom"

Dotcom may have been an online millionaire, but never a billionaire.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Just because one overseas newspaper mentions this term, it doesn't become true. If I recall correctly, the figure mentioned in the media when he had his assets frozen was in the tens of millions; one or two magnitudes short of a billion. Schwede66 17:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)