Jump to content

Talk:Jelena Dokic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Source or STOP

When some people try to write some nonsense they should source that by serious source or to stop doing it! I.e. that her mother is a Croat. Source it otherwise stop. If her mom is a Croat she wouldn't be forced to leave Croatia and ran to Serbia as many Serbs from Croatia were forced to. Moderators, stop those faking!178.223.22.60 (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

title

Jelena DokiÄ? is a bad title. Moved back. --mav 02:58, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nationality

I think that it is very important to say: She is born in Croatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alser (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to get a handle on this to some degree. There's no such nationality as 'Serbian Australian'. That's a US style of describing oneself which doesn't happen in Australian English. One is 'Australian of (nationality) ancestry' I had a bit of an 'edit fight' over it, and probably shouldn'y. Was merely attempting to 'correct' the phrasing. Looking on a fan site (http://www.jelena-dokic.com/jelena/ ), it says she's actually Yugoslavian. I have no idea. What's the various tennis associations list her as? Bleeter (talk)

Jelena's father is Serbian, but her mother is Croatian. I edited the article to mention this, with a reference to a very recent article about Jelena that verifies this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.17.254 (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please list a source for that claim. Both of her parents are Serbian, and reside in Belgrade, Serbia. If you have a source which says that her mother is Croatian, please list it. Otherwise don't use hear say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alser (talk • contribs) 19:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will accept that source. I have never heard her mother say that she is Croatian, and still don't understand why her mother was never back to Osijek since their escape from Croatia in 1991. She still lives in Belgrade, Serbia with her son. Her crazy husband has another house somewhere in Vojvodina.

I felt it was important to reference this source, to try and improve the accuracy of Jelena's Wikipedia page, which is supposed to be reliant on fact (whether one likes them or not)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.17.254 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How credible can be only one source and one journalist on one side, and a mass of other journalist on another side. For journalist and common people in Serbia, and in Croatia, that claim that Jelena's mother is Croatian in unknown.

Journalists in Croatia always refer to Jelena as Serbian tennis player, with dual citizenship. In this interview, one of them, asks her: " How much is difficult, as the Serbian tennis player with Australian passport, to find sponsors in Croatia?" http://www.24sata.hr/sport/clanak/dokic-nemam-love--trazim-je-i-u-zagrebu/15977/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.147.8 (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jelena Dokic has an Australian passport and is of Serbian ancestry. That is enough. Her mother might be Serbian or Croatian or whatever (the name Podnar could also be Slovenian, Czech or Polish, if you like you may go back 200 years), so we don't have any reliable sources. The obscure article in the footnote certainly isn't reliable. Jelena always declared herself as Serbian. The late Drazen Petrovic (basketball player) was one of Croatia's greatest sons, who declared himself a Croat, though his father was Serbian. So, leave it to Jelena Dokic, because she knows very well who and what she is.--80.133.250.33 (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Jelena Dokic has an Australian passport and is of Croatian and Serbian ancestry. That is enough. To say she is of Croatian and Serbian ancestry is factual and is not influenced by her self-identified ethnicity. I've restored the information blanked by the anon IP above.Ordinary Person (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


"Jelena was born to a Serbian / Croatian family in the Croatian town of Osijek as an eldest child of Damir & Ljiljana Dokic. She has a younger brother, Savo. At the start of the war in Croatia in June 1991, her family moved away to Sombor, Serbia, & later, in 1994, emigrated to Australia. From 1994, they lived in Fairfield, a suburb of Sydney; where she attended Fairfield High School." http:// www. lonympics.co.uk/dokic.htm So, her mother is a Serb. Why a Croat would ran away from Croats during civil war in Croatia? Please, remove that stupidity. Also Jelena back to 2000s had supported ultranationalists Serb Radical Party. Remember? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.181.31 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

top sentence

The top sentence sounds a bit clumsy but I'm not sure how to phrase that properly. Top-tier player, or something? --Shallot 14:52, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sources for changes to Jelena Dokic entry (end 2005)

Rankings as at end 2005: (from WTA web site) http://www.wtatour.com/rankings/singles_numeric.asp?page=4

Info about 2001 Australian Open, her return to Australia in 2005 and 2005 quote: (from Sydney Morning Herald web site) http://www.smh.com.au/news/tennis/dokic-i-am-australian/2005/11/30/1133026474486.html

Troy88 17:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article

I move following section to here from an anon who may have deleted more than they thought --Alf melmac 14:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC);

Jelena Dokic, married to Enrique Bernoldi. Most hated female on tour. Victim of Her management company and the USTA. Banned from 2004 Olympic games by the WTA and USTA. Lawsuit against her old management company for bad representation. Won settlement from management company for indentured servitude. Receipt of no pay/ financial compensation. Management company found guilty of financial sabotage of Ms. Dokic's career in favor of Martina Hingis and Anna Kournikova. Father Damir victim of slander and libel campaign by tennis world.

title, again

Marco79 wrote: moved Jelena Dokić to Jelena Dokic: proper name in English (without diacritic)

Her surname is Dokić, not Dokic. She plays for Australia, there's no doubt about it, but if her birth certificate says Dokić, it says Dokić, it doesn't say Dokic. The practice of removing diacritics exists in English written media when they do not have the acute accent, but here we do have it and there's no reason to skip it. Does anyone actually think that English readers will be horribly confused by the acute and start panicking when they see it? --Joy [shallot] 12:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Her name is 'Јелена Докић' in Serbian and 'Jelena Dokic' in English. Her birth certificate probably says 'Докић' rather than 'Dokić' or 'Dokic', but you're saying you don't know for sure what her birth certificate says. I gusss some English-speakers might be confused by 'ć'. 203.164.184.190 12:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Non-European and non-Western (names and titles), "Dokic" without the diacritic should be correct as that is the "most common form of the name used in English". (I have never, ever seen "Dokić" in an Australian newspaper, say.) But I don't really care, since I presume the relevant RDRs exist. I don't think readers would be confused (do we think so lowly of them? :)). pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, if she was born in Osijek, her original birth certificate is most likely written in Latin script. --Joy [shallot] 19:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I knew a friend once from school whose last name was "Basic" (pronounced "ba-sich"), who came from Croatia or Serbia (not sure which one), and she never used a diacritic when writting her name in English (I don't know how she spelt it in Serbo-Croatian). Wouldn't Jelena do the same when writting her last name in English, spelling it 'Dokic' not 'Dokić', I reckon she would. BTW what does "RDR" mean? 203.164.184.10 12:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dokić

As you'll all see, I've taken the liberty of reverting the text back to the Croatian version. There are reasons for this. Unlike diasporans born outside of their homeland, Dokić was born in Yugoslavia and lived there for the first nine to ten years of her life, her first language was Serbo-Croat and she will no doubt have been familiar with the alphabetical system. Now, I clearly cannot speak for Dokić herself because I have never met the girl. I do know however that people from our former republics who go abroad will do one of two things with their name: they may either leave it as it is with all diacritics and insignia (after transliteration if first language is primarily written in a non-Latinic script, eg. Cyrillic or Greek), leaving locals to pronounce the name however they choose, or they will transcribe their name into a text which is more comprehensible to locals. In the case of Jelena Dokić, the first factor would have been to switch the initial letter to a 'Y'. When I was at school there many many Polish pupils with me and a few Yugoslavs. Since they were all born in the UK, most were simply unfamiliar with the standards from the origin and so they dropped them systematically (subconsciously, not having properly learnt them) whilst maintaining their original spellings. Jelena may now be playing under the Australian flag again but she does not fall into the category of one who was born there, without knowledge of Osijek, Croatia or Yugoslavia. In some of these cases it may be the parents who decide to localise their names at birth, better still, give them local language names instead of current homeland names. The fact is that she was born with one name which for reasons familiar to people from the former Yugoslav republics, had two alphabets, and Dokić is how she was known in the country of birth and still so today. As for local media leaving out the diacritic, this is another subject. It is common for English language newspapers to discard local spellings for various reasons, possibly saving time or not confusing the reader, I don't know; either way, the British papers barely ever use the diacritical marks, and this even in the international sections which deal with non-naturalised citizens, such as Slobodan Milošević (forever written Milosevic), or Hungarian Ferenc Gyurcsany (actually spellt Gyurcsány); Sven-Goran Eriksson (spellt in Swedish, Sven-Göran) and Turkish football club Fenerbahce (from Fenerbahçe). In fact, British newspapers nowadays even leave out diacritics which had long been a part of English itself, such as café, Haïti (to stress pronunciation) so it isn't worth removing the diacritical mark on these bases and leaving the rest of it untouched. Evlekis 11:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

...Article about Monica Seles is not Monika Seleš. She is not Serbian, but Australian. --Göran Smith 14:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that's right. I think she's actually ethnic Hungarian but originally from Vojvodina. During the time she was growing up, Hungarians did for the most part have linguistic rights which included nomenclature and local orthography, at least in one official format. This would have actually made her Monika Szeles, possibly with a diacritical mark on either or both of the e letters. Either way, Monica Seles, using a c and a single s to start the surname and a single s at the end, both free of diacritics and digraphs, is how she herself has chosen to identify. That is not to say that the Serbian Latinic or the Hungarian forms would be incorrect and I certainly never suggested that Dokic is in any way incorrect, these forms are all conventional. It is just that the introduction needs to reflect the personal choice of the subject and one can find no source that Dokic is Jelena's own usage when in Australia. You see, Seles could have left her first name unaltered and it would have done nothing to inspire a different pronunciation (I mean switching K for C). In neither Hungarian orthography nor Serbo-Croat Latinic is the c of the same value as k at any time, not even in front of hard vowels and consonants. As for variations, well they all fit, I mean even Shakespeare had a dozen or so ways of spelling his own name and only in recent decades have writers settled for one conventional form. Evlekis 15:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Евлекис

Birthplace

ITF and WTA official pages of Dokic [1] [2] mentioted she was born in Belgrade. It is mistake ? --kelovy 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I live in Serbia and I know from media and I think that is a general knowledge, in Serbia and Croatia, that she's born in Osijek, Croatia. --Göran Smith 09:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thank You for information --kelovy 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion concerning this article

A discussion that may affect the name or title of this article is ongoing here. Please voice any opinions or concerns on that page. After the discussion concludes, this article may be moved to a different title, in accordance with Wikipedia's Naming Conventions. Thank you, Redux (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The name of this article should be changed to "Jelena Dokic" because that is the name used on the English-language websites of the official governing bodies of tennis, the Women's Tennis Association and the International Tennis Federation. That also is the name used on the English-language websites of Fed Cup and the Australian Open. Tennis expert (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wins against former number one ranked players

The article states:

"Other highlights include beating several former World No. 1 players: Martina Hingis in the first round of Wimbledon in 1999, Kim Clijsters at the 2003 Zürich Open, and Venus Williams at the 2000 Italian Open."

I am confused as to whether that means she has beaten several former number one players or three former number one players. Please can someone rewrite the sentence to make it clearer? Coyets (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The article continues:

"Other high-calibre players whom Dokić has defeated include Monica Seles, Justine Henin, Amélie Mauresmo, Mary Pierce, and Jennifer Capriati."

This implies that these players are of high calibre, but are not former number one players. This is incorrect. So both sentences need rewording. Coyets (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Damir

Is there a case for a separate article on Damir? He's fairly notable. I was going to add some material to his article regarding his recent arrest for threatening the Australian ambassador and possession of firearms and bombs, but discovered he doesn't have an article. That kind of information doesn't seem quite appropriate in the Jelena article. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur. The guy has notability in his own right, eg [3]. -- 150.101.214.69 (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can start with this version, but even being very NPOV you'll have a fairly negative article (IMHO) so definitely fill it with references. Mark Hurd (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Mark Hurd (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Error

I don't know what the score was so I can't truly edit this piece but

"Dokic was knocked out of the Brisbane International by Amelie Mauresmo in straight sets in the first round. Dokic was up 5–3 in the first set before Mauresmo came back to win the tiebreak 11–9. In the second set, Dokic was down 3–5 but rallied to lead 6–5 before Mauresmo won the set in a tiebreak, 7–5."

Obviously you can't tie break at 6-5 so if someone knows the result, can you edit it to be factually correct. thanks. 86.135.254.246 (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote is fine - it is highlighting "turning points": In the first set Dokic led by two games (5-3) before Mauresmo broke back and they got to 6-6 and tiebreak was required. Similarly in the second set Mauresmo led by two games, (3-5), then was behind one game (6-5), but got it to 6-6 for another tiebreak. Mark Hurd (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a blog

... but an encyclopedia. Please don't list every single appearance of Dokic. People who want to know about that can easily check the WTA website. --Bernardoni (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


I agree. This is ridiculous level of detail, and would be even for a number one ranked player. Are the biographies of other tennis players/sportspeople so detailed ????????? Gloveman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

Dokic on and off court

There is no doubt in my mind that Jelena Dokic is a fantastic tennis player (which is why I admire her), eg. making the Australian Open quarter-finals to be beaten by Dinara Safina. However, the public figure is not as strong being daughter to domineering father Damir Dokic. She has proved that she is not a total angel with the recent outburst on the flight to Hobart International 2010. I found that quite unfair towards the the victim (it was sparked b a passenger putting her bag too far out near Jelena's belongings). I mean she sometimes does go overboard when it is in NO WAY NECESSARY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.72.89 (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated photo

There are two different photos of Dokic in the article, but one appears twice. The long shot of Dokic appears in the lead-in, and then is repeated in the section covering 2009. Just below that is another photo, a profile clearly showing Dokic's face. Recommend that the profile photo be moved to the lead-in position instead, and not repeated. The way the photos are currently arranged, it distracts the reader from the text of the article by lending a sense of deja vu. 75.172.158.117 (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. While this is likely to remain contentious, a few things are clear. First, points are well taken that usage in inferior sources cannot trump usage in superior ones on this or any other issue, and that many sources may avoid diacritics due to their own editorial policies or limitations. Regardless, the fact remains that very many quality sources - and the subject herself - are using "c" when writing in English. There appears to be rough consensus on this point even among those who disagree. In light of this, there is no pressing policy reason to prefer the diacritic.Cúchullain t/c 19:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Jelena Dokić → Jelena Dokic – Spelled Dokic in virtually all reliable sources about tennis, and also on her own personal website [4]. I see no reason to treat her differently than Bernard Tomic, Andrea Petkovic, Novak Djokovic or Ana Ivanovic. Relisting. Discussion still ongoing.--Aervanath (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)MakeSense64 (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Disregarding for the moment the whole WP:TENNISNAMES debacle, I'm fine with us saying her long-current status as a primarily Australian player allows us to start discarding the original and previously used name. I'm even willing to entertain the possibility the Australians and other English speakers stopped pronouncing the ć as ć, however unlikely that may seem. But I went to check the posted link and found http://jelenadokic.net/bio/ saying "Born in Osijek, Serbia, Jelena started playing tennis aged eight, after watching Croatia-born Monica Seles on television." That's two glaring factual errors in the first paragraph of what is supposed to be either an autobiography or an authorized biography. That's just bizarre. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - at this point I find it amusing to see "reliable sources" mentioned in the proposal given that my Björn Borg boxers (disappointingly safe for work) are a more "reliable source" than Francesco Ricci Bitti's Wimbledon-name rules. Okay, it may make sense to Australianize Miss Dokić's name, and thereby forget "consistent with related articles" Damir Dokić her father. But the nomination above highlights glaringly what Joy has noted - that Ana Ivanović was somehow Australianized while still being a Serbian citizen, counter to all other Serbian Ivanovićs, apparently for playing tennis rather than being a chess grandmaster, diplomat, sociologist, model or footballer. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. If, as it seems, she has become a naturalised Australian, then her name is probably fair game for losing its diacritics. It may cause havoc with pronunciation, but that's just a natural consequence in cases like this. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, as this is the English language Wikipedia & therefore diacritics should be removed. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
GoodDay, ok, should be remove all diacritics from this Wikipedia, then? No, of course.. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no reason to lose diacritics, as they are used in hers official name. --WhiteWriterspeaks 22:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as she renders her name into English in a such a manner, why are you objecting to her personal preference, which also happens to be the WP:UCN in WP:UE ? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, although as an immigrant to an English-speaking country it is certainly possible that she may have adopted a diacritic-less form of her name, it would be useful to see more clearcut evidence of this before proceeding with this move. Certainly at one point, this person showed a strong cultural attachment to her country of origin, although this may have been under the influence of her father from whom she is now estranged. The proposer does not seem to make a distinction between citizens of Serbia or Croatia or Bosnia versus naturalized citizens of other countries (Andrea Petković) or even citizens of other countries who weren't born in the country of their ancestral origin (Bernard Tomić), and I think this is a mistake. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Reply. We do not base article titles on citizenship or nationality only . Per WP:AT we base it mainly on English-language usage and on any naming conventions that may apply. We do have a WP:CYR naming convention that covers Serbian names, and the first thing it tells us is to use the "conventional English name" if there is one. As a former top 10 ranked tennis player who has competed for Australia in the Fed Cup for many years, there is plenty of English-language coverage about her, and the "conventional English name" we find always used is "Jelena Dokic". That's all we need to know. Do you see any policy based reason not to use WP:CYR? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. ESPN, BBC, Herald Sun, and The Australian all give this name diacritic free. Kauffner (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly the most commonly used name in reliable sources, added to the fact that she is Australian so even the usual "BLP!!! Think about what's on her passport!!" type arguments don't apply. Jenks24 (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I wasn't going to oppose but the above comment "BLP!!! Think about what's on her passport!!" rather invites it. I don't know whether the intent is to show contempt for the consensus of Wikipedia's editors in generally conforming names of living persons to reflecting those person's nationalities, or show some other kind of contempt, but whatever the intent was the contempt is loud and clear and a move shouldn't pass on this basis. In fact the argument backfires since even though Australia's online immigration forms are diacritic disabled https://www.ecom.immi.gov.au/visas/help.do?action=help_185 just like the ITF and heraldsun.com.au above, Australia allows dual citizenship, as does Serbian nationality law and Australia publishes citizenship materials in Serbian http://www.citizenship.gov.au/learn/cit_test/test_resource/serbian/ So Miss Dokić, is (without any reliable source that says otherwise) still Miss Dokić. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I think you read too much into my comment, it was only meant to express mild frustration. As for the content of your argument, I think it will suffice to say that I disagree, but don't think re-hashing the same argument again would be productive. Jenks24 (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Until there's evidence that her name has changed, we can do without making assumptions. The project won't suffer if the article is left here. --HighKing (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    Out of 17,100 post-2000 GNews hits, one has a diacritic -- and its non-English. This should not be a close call. Kauffner (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That's the problem with using Google counters as a source - they're invariably wrong and riddled with inconsistencies. For example, you accidently (ahem) limited the second search more severely than the first. But when we look at the results from the first search, I see from the results that the names of her mother and father, and of other tennis players such as Arantxa Sánchez Vicario, have also all been changed. Completely undermines your argument. --HighKing (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You're actual argument is that the sources are "changed"? I don't why I didn't think of that one. "Follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language" (WP:DIACRITICS). In other words, her citizenship, where she was born, and her legal name have nothing to do with this issue. Kauffner (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm - good point. The main point I was trying to make is that Google searches is flawed as there's no qualitative aspect to the result. That said, I understand your point and the decision keeps coming back to the actual policy - and if editors don't like the policy, that's a different discussion and should take place at the policy page. In this case, I can't find an abundance of english language sources that use diacritics so as per policy, the article title should reflect that. --HighKing (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wait until there's some document showing that she changed her name. The suggestion above that a person's name loses its diacritics just because the person becomes an Australian citizen is simply incorrect. There are many Australians whose names are spelt with characters with diacritics. Ordinary Person (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as per her own choice in how she spells her own name in English, plus the fact the WTA and ITF also spell it Jelena Dokic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Mildly Support, since she's an Australian tennis player and seems to prefer the diacriticless spelling. mgeo talk 20:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a BLP and since we see no proof that she changed her name we must continue with what we have, we can't guess. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Reply - Can you point us to the policy or guideline that says that we need a proof that a person has changed their name before we can agree to use their common name as found in English-language sources? It's interesting when people start inventing new guidelines on the spot, rather than use our existing titling policy. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
      • You mean the existing policy that says not to use inaccurate names even if they are the ones most commonly used in reliable sources? We've been down this road over and over. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
        • That's not the proper interpretation of "inaccurate names" as was established in recent discussions on the Talk page there. It goes against WP:ON. And you will need sources contending that the name in question is ambiguous or inaccurate. Do you have them? MakeSense64 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
          • MakeSense64, I really do not think you should try and claim "consensus at WT:AT", nor at MOSPN, or any other venue the tennis/hockey-names group have been attempting to 'adjust' what the guidelines say to fit this group's particular interpretation of how wp should be. Far from consensus one of the most disruptive and timewasting sidelines to this determination to anglicize tennis players' names has been the attempts to delete and change guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support She is an Australian player and per her own website and reliable English-speaking sources (WP:UE)--Wolbo (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Wolbo, I really shouldn't be commenting on every other 'vote' but others are as tired as I am. Firstly she's got dual citizenship, secondly WP:TENNISNAMES didn't consider nationality/passports a valid criteria. If "she is Australian", then should Matwé Middelkoop retain diacritics because he is a Dutch tennis player? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. She's dropped the diacritic, all English news services have dropped the diacritic, all (other) English websites have dropped the diacritic, evidence above. No evidence yet produced that any English source uses it. So why even have a discussion? Ah, some Wikipedia editors want to save Wikipedia and the world from the forces of ignorance, and fear that any lost diacritic may lead to the loss of others. You're wasting everyone's time. There is a case for retaining the diacritic in some article titles. This is not one of them. Andrewa (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Andrewa, it's probably more that some Wikipedia editors don't celebrate deliberate tabloidism and, sometimes, xenophobia. Though I don't think xenophobia and "English Wikipedia" have surfaced on this RM, tabloidism has. And it isn't true to say "English news services have dropped the diacritic" any more than the BBC "has dropped it" for Václav Havel. Further Serbian spelling has been used to refer to Dokić seeing as she was a player for Serbia at the height of her career:

"For example, team captains can exhibit intimating behaviors, and parents of a talented athlete might use excessive surveillance to monitor their son's or daughter's life outside sport (eg, see the case of the father of Jelena Dokić, a world class tennis player)" Glyn C. Roberts, Glyn Roberts, Darren C. Treasure, Ph.D. - Advances in Motivation in Sport and Exercise 2012 p123

The difference is that that's an encyclopedic source not a tabloid. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations doesn't currently mention tabloidism so far as I can see. Is your objection to regarding news sources as reliable sources based on some other policy or guideline?
But thanks for the source. It appears to be about her father, rather than about her, so it's of marginal relevance. The spelling of her father's name is not in question. Andrewa (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andrewa
  1. No it doesn't. Yes; Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.
  2. "Jelena Dokić, a world class tennis player" refers to Jelena Dokić, not her father.
In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Replies below. Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jelena Dokić is her name. Even the BBC allows their staff to spell their names as they should be. You can't make her English by anglifying her name. --Bas-Celik (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
You mean like where the BBC spells her name Jelena Dokic right here or right here or right here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Jelena Dokić isn't staff, what BBC does re their staff I don't know. But in most publications the usual BBC MOS distinguishes between West Europeans (allowing é in French German and Spanish names) but not allowing dlouhé é when it occurs in a Czech name. Exactly the same é is allowed for a French person, or an American Beyoncé, but not allowed in a Czech name.
That's the BBC (apart from some specialist publications like BBC Music), they don't have 1000 unpaid Czech proofreaders. en.wp does In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
...which means by the way that Jelena Dokić the pre-WWI Serbian pianist would be Jelena Dokić in BBC Music Magazine (except that she never made any recordings). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Which means nothing since my post was simply a refute of the previous one that said how the BBC spells Dokic's name. But then again, Rene Lacoste here, here and here. Yet in wiki it's René Lacoste. So the BBC doesn't always allow French e's to have that foreign thingy on top. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, Fyunck
Anyone who was actually reading what Bas-Celik wrote would read "Even the BBC allows their staff to spell their names as they should be." as what it says. The word "Even" means "even" ("even" recognising that the BBC are generally a bunch of dimwits who could barely make a café viennois much less spell one). And "their staff" means, for example Slobodan Topović of the BBC World Service, since the BBC doesn't employ Jelena Dokić. As for that misspelled BBC webpage you linked, yes either BBC is useless at consistency, or each department and his dog have their own MOS.
Btw "That foreign thingy" is not the first apparently xenophobic statement you've let slip in the last two months of attempting to pull the accents off East Europeans' names. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Nor is it the first time you are not truthful in making me xenophobic in an "English language wikipedia" or in saying I single out East Europeans when I follow English sources. I'm getting used to your lack of truth and your censorship though. I just don't believe anything you spout. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
...would you believe it, I just Googled [BBC + café viennois] and sure enough a BBC sports webeditor has misspelled it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/radiofoyle/programmes/sport/sidelines/gallery2/11.shtml it was exaggeration. But it wasn't. Go figure. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment: Sometimes it's hard to draw the line between instream replies and going to the discussion section. My suggestion is, do whatever will making it easiest for other editors, especially but not only the closing admin. Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In reply to In ictu oculi above:

  1. Yes, and we keep getting back to this - It's the opinion of some that such names without the diacritic are inaccurate despite current English usage. IMO this is a good test case of that proposition, which I and others reject. I'm happy to go with diacritics if we can come up with an article title convention that supports them, I think it would be a good idea. I'm not happy with Wikipedia taking a stand to promote their usage as being required for accuracy.
  2. Context. To whom does the father of Jelena Dokić, a world class tennis player refer? If that's the best example to date (and it's the only one given to date) then at the risk of arguing from silence it doesn't look good. Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, "Jelena Dokić, a world class tennis player" refers to Jelena Dokić, not her father... In ictu oculi (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you said that before, but it wasn't the question. The full quote, the father of Jelena Dokić, a world class tennis player, refers to her father, and he not Jelena is the topic under discussion in the book in question (parents of a talented athlete might use excessive surveillance to monitor their son's or daughter's life outside sport (eg, see the case of the father of Jelena Dokić...). So, on the evidence we have so far, the diacritic is used only in discussing Jelana in the context of her also famous father Damir Dokić. This usage is relevant, that has not been questioned, but are you really saying that it challenges the overwhelming evidence of the usage of Jelena Dokic in other sources? Andrewa (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
1x a spelling of a Slavic name in a book with Chicago MOS is more reliable for spelling than 100x spelling in tabloid/website/popular sources that do not allow Slavic names. (I don't know how often this needs to be repeated?)
1x a colour photo of a rose is a more reliable about its colour than 100x black and white photos.
1x a recording in stereo is a more reliable about dimension than 100x mono recordings.
1x a cheeseburger is a more reliable source about the taste of beef than 100x vegetarian meals.
1x a book publised in 2012 is more accurate about 2011 than 100x books published in 2009.
I take it you, or everyone, accepts the rose, stereo, cheeseburger, 2012 book analogies, why is it so difficult then to accept that 100x sources which don't allow ć are not reliable sources for ć or c, and don't outweigh 1x source which does allow both ć and c?
As a further illustration, the sentences you've written in English above use diacritic marks which are not part of the original English alphabet.
J is an English diacritic rendering of Latin I to distinguish Latin I (i) and Latin I (ii).
U is an English diacritic rendering of Latin V to distinguish Latin U (i) and Latin U (ii).
W is an English digraph rendering of Latin VV
Would you in 2012 on a visit to the Bodleian Library accept 100x 16th Century English books unable to print these 3 letters as a reliable source for an English name over 1x 17th Century English book able to print these 3 letters? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
There are probably far too many errors and baseless claims here to ever address them all individually, but let's start with the rose analogy. You take it I accept it. Whatever made you think you could assume this? I'm puzzled. Andrewa (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
AGF probably. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I can see that my initial vote [5] could be accused of violating WP:AGF, but since then I think I've been remarkably patient.
So let's take another tack. You propose four analogies, the rose, stereo, cheeseburger, 2012 book analogies, plus one further illustration. I don't think any of them are at all relevant or helpful here, but not to clutter this RM too much, which of the five do you think is the best of them, and I'll critique that one? Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
To be honest the best of them is the one that I gave: "Jelena Dokić, a world class tennis player," which I said was the only mention of the individual in a WP:SERBIANNAMES equipped source with an equivalent MOS to en.wp, but I was forgetting that Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Tennis 2011 has "Jelena Dokić" on Page 387. The 3rd reference to a Jelena Dokić in Chicago MOS text, Serbian and Greek art music 2009 p45 is to the 1913 pianist Jelena Dokić. These sources establish beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jelena Dokić' name is Jelena Dokić, and that the name in accurate sources (for spelling) is consistent with her father Damir Dokić. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by [otherwise] reliable sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
@IIO. That's a misleading shortcut you have created there (and should be moved up on the page or deleted). The section your shortcut leads to is pending on "When no commonly accepted form exists in English" (which is clearly not the case for a famous tennis player like Dokic). MakeSense64 (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I see Wolbo has deleted the footnote text "Jelena Dokić, a world class tennis player," from the footnotes, I will restore it. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Yet again you have ignored the question. I'm afraid I'm going to conclude that you agree with me that none of the five arguments in question is worth discussing.
In case the indenting is getting confusing, the question was which of the five do you think is the best of them. Andrewa (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
But I will reply to the new material (thank you).
The name of the 1913 pianist is not necessarily spelled in the the same way as that of the current tennis player. This is an extremely important point. We could similarly argue that as Thomson is a less common spelling than Thompson, the article on Alexander Thomson should be renamed to Alexander Thompson.
The Grasso reference does appear to be relevant, and does support the use of the diacritic. So, if we accept your arguments that the other sources quoted above are not to be considered, there would (finally) be a case for retaining the diacritic in Wikipedia. But that's a big if. Andrewa (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, then what is the other if? The only 2x diacritically enabled sources which discuss the person both give the Serbian spelling Dokić. That is 100% of reliable-for-purpose (purpose= establishing orthography) sources. Can you cite a diacritically enabled source which has a MOS including Slavic names, and yet treats Dokić as having, among Serbians, anglicized her name? For example a book with "Ana Ivanović vs. Jelena Dokic" that would establish that the source is reliable for establishing whether it is used or not. Do you, or anyone, know of such a source? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The only if I used is if we accept your arguments that the other sources quoted above are not to be considered. Andrewa (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Question:
It's in the first section of WP:RS:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.

In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
We consider "English language usage" in all the sources we consider reliable. And if you found only 2x sources who used (or enabled) diacritics for a certain topic, then that tells a lot about the "English language usage" for that topic. Guidelines like WP:UE and WP:ON would make no sense if you automatically consider English language sources "unreliable" just because they use no diacritics. You have then fallen into a circular argument.
Per NPOV we report on what we find. If we generally find a "conventional English name" without diacritics in our sources , then we use that name per WP:CYR. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
MakeSense64, I don't know who "we" is but you, Fyunck and Kauffner in the WP:TENNISNAMES essay expressed a policy based on the belief that sports websites which do not carry a full font are reliable sources for the spelling of French, German, Spanish, Czech etc. names. That belief, and the WP:TENNISNAMES essay goes against probably 25% of en.wp which touches on Europe, Turkey, French-speaking Africa, Latin America, plus Zoë Baird and co. = 1,000,000s of articles. Your argument is either that ESPN is a reliable source for spelling East European names (is it?) or your argument is that the rest of en.wp is wrong and Lech Wałęsa is wrong. So I say again, why not nominate Lech Wałęsa as JohnDoe did in 2011? Why pick on two Serbian tennis players? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I would assume that the we here means the community of Wikipedians. That makes sense here, and it's the sense in which I used the term above, and you seem to have understood it there. Andrewa (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Andrew, to be honest I wasn't 100% sure of who some of your "we" statements were referring to. I do know that MakeSense's "we" doesn't apply to the way most en.wp editors view which sources are reliable for spelling East European names. If it did Václav Havel would be anglicized too. So evidently "we" don't anglicize Václav Havel, and "we consider "English language usage" in all the sources we consider reliable." isn't true for Václav Havel, is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Has the name of the Václav Havel article been discussed? Can you provide a Wikilink to that discussion? Andrewa (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Exactly = "WP:UE and WP:ON would make no sense if you automatically consider English language sources which do not use full font "unreliable" for European names just because they cannot display them correctly? Of course WP:UE and WP:ON still make sense. It is possible to source someones name outside ESPN. In fact WP:UE demands avoiding ESPN and using only reliable sources, otherwise it couldn't give diacritic names as examples. And what relevance has Wikipedia:Official names got to misspelling Serbians?

Common drugs such as aspirin typically have official names (2-acetyloxybenzoic acid in the case of aspirin)

how does that apply to this article?

Serbian citizens such as Jelena Dokic typically have official names Jelena Dokić

I have seen some funny reasons for anglicizing "foreign" tennis players in the last 2 months, but to cite WP:ON in relation to why to avoid the only 2 reliable sources we've found (Grasso and Roberts), both of which say Jelena Dokić is no substitute for finding a source which says "Ana Ivanović vs Jelena Dokic". Until someone finds something like Grasso or Roberts which says "Ana Ivanović vs Jelena Dokic" the only two reliable-for-purpose sources in this RM both give this Serbian-Australian who played for Serbia tennis player a Serbian name. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Surely describing this as misspelling Serbians is begging the question? Andrewa (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Andrew, no, it not "a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition" because en.wp spells Serbian names correctly when they do not play tennis. en.wp runs on Chicago MOS for its bios, and bios are accurately spelled, including Serbian bios. We also know the correct spelling, since we have both Serbian sources, and Grasso and Roberts, two Chicago MOS sources. From this point onward any decision to not spell correctly is misspelling. ...unless it's been done not on grounds of spelling, but on nationality, which is another issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It is an example of this sort of reasoning. One of the best I've seen, actually. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Andrewa
Extremely patronising, particularly since there's no "reasoning" involved, I'm simply reporting observational evidence. Can I ask you if you read enough Serbian to be able to assess whether what I've said is correct or not?
Premise: "en.wp spells Serbian names correctly when they do not play tennis"
Evidence: category:Serbian politicians
On the basis of your knowledge of Serbian, is the statement "en.wp spells Serbian names correctly when they do not play tennis" true of category:Serbian politicians
Are you able to assess this evidence?
Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This is suppose to be the ENGLISH LANGUAGE Wikipedia, which means its primary concern should be ENGLISH 'only' readers. The only reason diacritics is being pushed on this article & other articles, is linguistic pride by multi-lingual editors. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So far as this article is concerned, I'm afraid I think there is a good deal of evidence above supporting that view. Interested in what others think of it.
So far as other articles are concerned, I think we should deal with them after this one is decided. Andrewa (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Andrewa,
How does the above comment increase the relevant data set in this discussion? We still only have 2 reliable-for-purpose English sources which can spell Jelena Dokić as Dokić (and both do). I have provided both of these. So far all you have provided is "Ah, some Wikipedia editors want to save Wikipedia and the world from the forces of ignorance, and fear that any lost diacritic may lead to the loss of others." Now how does that sentiment cancel out the only 2 reliable-for-purpose English sources, Grasso and Roberts? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but we have many reliable sources. Yes, we know you don't accept them. And please don't come back How many times... again. The answer is once. The purpose of a talk page is to seek consensus. Repeating a rejected argument is not the way to achieve this. (And nor is ignoring relevant questions... would you like examples?) Andrewa (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
PS simply because if this RM does not go through, that would represent a relevant and fairly major shift in policy. Andrewa (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Andrewa. No, you are wrong, simple as that. Policy WP:IRS promotes selection of sources reliable-for-purpose, reliable-for-context. Evidence please: Can you please give an example of a notable East-European bio that does not follow a minority of accurate-for-European-spelling sources over a majority of inaccurate-for-European-spelling-sources in regards to the spelling of the bios name. I give politicians Václav Havel, Lech Wałęsa, Petr Nečas, Mirko Cvetković, composers Béla Bartók, Leoš Janáček, mathematician Paul Erdős, philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, tennis player Björn Borg, general Tadeusz Kościuszko as 10 examples. Which of these 10 follows the majority of English sources for spelling on en.wp? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Those articles should be titled Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Petr Necas, Mirko Cvetkovic, Bela Bartok, Leos Janaceck, Paul Erdos, Soren Kierkegaard, Bjorn Borg, Tadeusz Kosciuszko. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, well in NY Times they would be, so would 300,000 others. But NY Times still allows French, German and Spanish names. Andrewa, I'm wondering whether your own idea on diacritics supports "François Mitterrand" (English Francois Mitterand)" or whether you support Mitterrand as perWP:OPENPARA? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not my own idea that matters, any more than yours does. The case of Mitterand was settled long ago, I see no reason to reopen it. Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe... Not convinced of that either. Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, and I'm interested in the outcome here and won't take it personally. And consensus is changing IMO, and in exactly the direction you want. That's why I'm so interested in this particular case.
I don't think this case is that significant to be honest, as P.T. Aufrette says, it has 2 issues (i) nationality, (ii) tennisnames, that make it unusual.
I asked a question last time you raised Václav Havel, any answer yet?
I checked and no. I picked him at random as a notable and liked East European who completely uncontroversially has an East European name. As far as I know Lech Wałęsa (2005 unanimous for high-MOS) then a triple nom on François Mitterand Lech Wałęsa Gerhard Schröder (User JohnDoe 2011, majority keep at high-MOS name) the Hockey names debacle, Nico Hülkenberg, then Tennis names.. seems to be the history. In the normal course of editing 100s of edits to correct spelling happen naturally as editors correct stubs, the only significant move in the other direction was the unnoticed move of Ana Ivanović - partly the tennis names group got lucky that the Article Alerts on WikiProject Serbia weren't working, so no one saw it. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
But I'm still not convinced we've got as far as imposing Serbian spelling on a living Australian who doesn't use that spelling herself, and is frequently in the news, and in Australia at least, nobody seems to use the diacritic. It would seem to me to be a significant departure from WP:AT for Wikipedia to adopt it, with no obvious justification. Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Here are you arguing from Australianness? If so then you are probably right to return to the nationality argument now (no one who edits East Europe articles will accept that 100x ESPN mentions trump 2x academic sources for Slavic spelling). My immediate reaction to this was the same as Joy's and Oh Confucius', that maybe Dokić is Australian-Serbian or Serbian-Australian, and it isn't clear that now she's no longer playing for Serbia Dokić would still be identified as Serbian. Very frequently when making edits we'll judge whether a French chef in London, Dominican fashion designer in New York, Slovak sportsman in Canada has "lost his name" in the same way as folk did at Ellis Island.
Good question re Australianness... No, I don't think that's an issue here, the question is what she is called not why she is called that. But it is part of the reason for my interest. If Wikipedia is to retain this particular diacritic, then we'd better have good logical reasons for it, because to my countrymen I can assure you that it looks very much like either ignorance or advocacy or both on our part. I spend some time defending Wikipedia, so it's good if we don't make too many indefensible decisions. Andrewa (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
But you'll note that some of the editors objecting to diacritics themselves aren't keen on the nationality argument, perhaps because if nationality (or green card/residence-of-notability) is a factor (which it is for me, when WP:RS support it) then the closing admin on these 2 RMs should probably just go Dokić = Australian, remove ć, Ivanović = Serbian, restore ć. That would be a logical sensible consistent resolution to both articles, just admit that being Serbian or being Australian does make a difference. Maybe you could propose something rational like that as a swap to the editors who accomplished the Ivanović move and see whether they'd go for it, but I suspect not, because the whole point about Ivanović is being able to cite a diacritic-stripped famous Eastern European as a precedent, as in the header of this RM, where the other examples are emigrants or are muddied from the old romanization "Dj." The whole point about Ivanović is that she isn't Australian but has still had her name Australian-British-Canadianized as if she was. That may be one reason why she was nominated before Dokić, you'd have to ask the nominator how he selected this one East European among 1,000s. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
There are certainly fallacies on both sides, IMO, as is to be expected given the power that Wikipedia now has to change the English language. Andrewa (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you consider Britannica Janica Kostelić (Croatian skier) inherently a fallacy? When Britannica made that entry it didn't follow ESPN, neither does en.wp Janica Kostelić. (I assume you're very familiar withUser:Prolog/Diacritical marks) In ictu oculi (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We do not have any policy or guideline that asks us to use Chicago MOS. WP is purely source based, so we use what our reliable sources use. That's our current policy for AT. Andrewa is rightly diagnosing the problem here: WP should not be used to push Chicago MOS spelling into areas that do not use it, that would be advocacy and violate wp's NPOV stance. If the English speaking world adopts Chicago MOS as the standard in all its writings, then WP will automatically follow by following the sources for our articles.
Every country has spelling puritans and spelling pragmatists, but wp is not siding with either of them by staying diacritics-neutral and spelling-neutral. From a spelling-neutral pov it is very obvious that Jelena Dokic is written like that in nearly all reliable English sources, while the rendering with diacritics is hard to find. You merely pulled up a few sources which retain the diacritic in her name. Denying the spelling found in all other reliable sources is an obvious case of begging the question. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
MakeSense64
Just a second
"WP should not be used to push Chicago MOS spelling into areas that do not use it,"
Who is pushing? and What areas?
en.wp already uses Chicago MOS. Including tennis articles. Look at any article touching on Europe, LatAm, Turkey - the Latin alphabet zone
  • Jelena Dokić is at Chicago MOS, with academic sources supporting
  • Ana Ivanović was at Chicago MOS 2005-2012 until on Feb 21 when she became the opening shot in the WP:TENNISNAMES push to push Chicago MOS names into.
Look at the head of this RM. Whose name do you see as nominator? Who wrote WP:TENNISNAMES? Who is pushing against the Chicago MOS used for this article from its creation 2003-2012 ? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style mentions The Chicago Manual of Style in three places only, and none of them seem relevant to this discussion. Wikipedia:Article titles doesn't mention it at all. So I'm curious as to how en.wp already uses Chicago MOS.
Nor does WP:TENNISNAMES seem relevant to this discussion. The outcome of this discussion is relevant to the proposals there, obviously, but WP:TENNISNAMES has no authority at this stage. Andrewa (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Right on. WP doesn't use Chicago MOS for article titles, otherwise we wouldn't have most of the naming conventions we currently have. And nobody has asked to move Jelena Dokic on the basis of WP:TENNISNAMES, I didn't even mention it in the nomination. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
MakeSense64
1. Is this article Jelena Dokić at equivalent to Chicago MOS or equivalent to NY Times MOS?
2. Same as before - please prove it. Show me one Latin-alphabet category, even category:Czech male tennis players which doesn't use equivalent to Chicago MOS for article titles.
3. Same as before. Your essay WP:TENNISNAMES was proposed as policy before rejection and still summarizes the argument (i.e. that en.wp should follow majority low-MOS sources) which you, MakeSense64, and Fyunck have been making in this and other attempts to anglicize French, Roman, German, Serbian living persons names on en.wp if they play tennis. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Reply. You continue to try to make the logical error called: generalization. You seem that think that because 95% of say "Czech football players" articles are titled according to Chicago MOS, the other 5% should be changed to it. It is like thinking that because 95% of the population in a country are christian, the other 5% should be converted. We wouldn't call that NPOV, would we?
Our titles depend mainly on "common English-language usage in reliable sources" as everybody can read in WP:AT and WP:ON. So, if you find 95% of "whatever category" at Chicago MOS spelling it is not because wp uses Chicago MOS, but because our sources for these articles use it. If the sources for a given article topic do not use Chicago MOS, but a conventional English name instead, then wp uses that conventional name. So, you may find 1%, 5%, 10% or 30% of article titles at a conventional (non Chicago MOS) name, depending on how many persons have acquired a "conventional name" within a given category (scientists, authors, chess players, Slovenians,...). As WP:CYR explains very well, it doesn't matter where such "conventional name" comes from, it may even be based on what some would consider a spelling error, it may be a spelling of convenience for the English readers... Why is it that you refuse to use WP:CYR for Jelena Dokic? Why is it that you think that all Eastern European names should be titled according to Chicago MOS, while we do not have any title policy or guideline that says so? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
User:Prolog/Diacritical marks is clearly marked as an essay, and as such has no authority. What's more it would be better marked as a user essay, with even less authority if that's possible.
As to the question Do you consider Britannica Janica Kostelić (Croatian skier) inherently a fallacy?, no, I don't. Actually, I consider the question as very close to nonsensical, but I'm fairly confident I don't do anything it might meaningfully describe. Andrewa (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Andrew, the reason I'm linking User:Prolog/Diacritical marks is because it is an essay which anyone unfamiliar with the different MOS in sources should read. You say you are "curious how en.wp uses Chicago MOS", therefore please read the essay, then please look at a category such as Category:Czech politicians, then compare the essay to the category to determine whether en.wp Users do in fact follow Chicago MOS not New York Times MOS, then come back to us here and give the result :) Thanks and cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You appear to have misunderstood me. When I said Wikipedia:Manual of Style mentions The Chicago Manual of Style in three places only, and none of them seem relevant to this discussion. Wikipedia:Article titles doesn't mention it at all. So I'm curious as to how en.wp already uses Chicago MOS. Nor does WP:TENNISNAMES seem relevant to this discussion..., the main point with was simply that your claim that en.wp already uses Chicago MOS is unsupported by both the Wikipedia Manual of Style and the Wikipedia policy on Article Titles. It's true that I am curious, but that term is really just there to make the discussion more readable. Andrewa (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I was ambiguous, when I said en.wp, I said nothing about WP:MOS, in fact I had forgotten that Chicago MOS was even mentioned there; by "en.wp" I solely meant en.wikipedia.org, the 4 million articles that sit at that url. In fact it is one of my observations that editors who edit WP:MOS MOS:PN, and other "how wp should be" pages, and the content provider type editors in real article space frequently have a dislocate. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
They're not perfectly in sync, nor would we expect them to be. No, you said nothing about WP:MOS, but surely it's misleading to say en.wp uses Chicago MOS when we have our own MOS which agrees with Chicago MOS on some points and not others? Surely we use our own MOS? Otherwise why have it? Andrewa (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by en.wp already uses Chicago MOS? Andrewa (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I mean that en.wp editors/articles defacto employ Chicago MOS, even if without knowing it In ictu oculi (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
An untestable proposition, surely? Andrewa (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to do the exercise that you suggest if you can provide reasons for its relevance. I have read the essay, several times, but as I said above (and its author you will note agrees, above) I don't think it's relevant either. Why do you think it is? Andrewa (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
That's very open-minded of you, seriously. I'm delighted to meet someone willing to look. The relevancy of the exercise is to establish whether or not it is true that en.wp editors/articles defacto employ Chicago MOS, even if without knowing it. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
But it can't decide that. Relevance to this RM, zero... similar to WP:TENNISNAMES. Andrewa (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Right. We do not base article title moves on essays (like WP:TENNISNAMES or WP:DGUIDE), and we also do not base article moves on exercises like looking at how many articles title are at Chicago MOS spelling. IIO is even welcome to do his exercise and write an essay on how many articles we have at Chicago MOS titles, but it will have zero importance for RM discussions.
Moves and RM are supposed to be based on our WP:AT policy, in combination with whatever Naming conventions may apply to the given topic.
That's why it is a worrisome trend that somebody who seems to hold the strong belief that all BLP should be at Chicago MOS titles, is moving 20 articles per day to diacritics titles, mostly without RM, and is largely going unchecked. Just look at IIO's recent weeks activity and you will see what I mean. Not all these moves may be against WP:AT, but I would not be surprised if some articles are moved because he believes that all French or all Serbians should be at Chicago MOS titles. I think it is about time that some uninvolved editor or admin is taking a look. I am not going to do it, because I have been involved in too much contentious discussions with him already. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I see. And then IIO proposes as justification for this move that these other articles have diacritics, showing that en.wp editors/articles defacto employ Chicago MOS, is that the situation? Andrewa (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
That seems to be the situation. And it would be one thing if he kept his argument to the paragraph with his own vote, but he goes on rehashing it in response to nearly every editor who votes the other way based on WP:AT or naming conventions. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
There are some other concerns with the discussion above. It's not easy to follow, and at least some of this is due to IIO's style of discussion. There is some strange indenting, and there are frequent logical non-sequitars, including but not only questions just left hanging with no attempt to reply, and replies that claim to address the question but don't at all. IIO appears to be of well above average intelligence, and passionate about the adoption of Serbian spelling, so I think we must at least consider the possibility that this is deliberate.
Taking this further, I think it's worth noting that if this RM is closed as no consensus, that would be a win for the promoters of Serbian spelling, and despite their protestations that this isn't a particularly significant case, the discussion above leads me to expect that it would then be quoted as an example supporting the wider adoption of diacritics. It would certainly be a far better example than some quoted, at least one of them twice. Andrewa (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Andrewa, hi, I think we're all capable of making logical-non sequitars, but you're a logician, you know that. All indenting here is difficult to follow, I also find yours difficult, but mine is not "deliberate" - if you can please link to a style page with better guidelines for indenting I'd be happy to learn to do better. I've left some of your questions unanswered because there is already a wall of text here and at the end of the day a discursus into logic wouldn't have furthered what remains a fairly straightforward WP:IRS question about a living person Jelena Dokić whose name appears in the only 2 sources which can be counted as reliable for spelling of Slavic names - Grasso and Roberts - as Dokić. Critically we haven't found any 3rd source which can spell Dokić as Dokić but chooses Dokic to weigh against these 2. And this is primarily a RM on a spelling issue, are we spelling this living person's name correctly. WP:BLP says "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page... We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." Grasso and Roberts are high quality sources for the spelling of her name. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You make it sound so logical, but it's so full of errors that it's hard to see this as accidental. I'm not sure that WP:BPL is talking about article titles, rather than content, here (the next sentence in the paragraph you are quoting talks of inline citations, which are not possible for an article title), but for the moment let's take your word for it that it is. Surely in that context, the highest possible quality source would be her personal website? In view of that, to say that we haven't found any 3rd source which can spell Dokić as Dokić but chooses Dokic to weigh against these 2 is ridiculous. Andrewa (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, if you don't mind I could do without "hard to see this as accidental" "deliberate" and so on. I think we've already discussed every possible angle here, in our semiprivate little discussion here. The real RM is above. If you really want me to continue I can, or if you want me to just agree I can do that too. Or I'm happy to give you the last word here. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Restore removed academic sources

Cúchullain, reasonable close on the basis of current primary nationality. For the record however, now that the article has been moved and Serbian name removed throughout article except bracket in lede, the two academic sources, both of which use the Serbian name, which were deleted during the RM can be restored: removal of both source and text Grasso, removal of Roberts text. Father should [remain Dokić. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jelena Dokic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jelena Dokic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jelena Dokic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jelena Dokic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jelena_Dokic/Archive_1&oldid=1239950674"