Talk:The Nation (disambiguation)

The Nation shouldn't be a dab page

My scan of "What links here" suggests that almost all the links are to the U.S. periodical. Although there certainly are other meanings, this is a case where one meaning is so much more common that the reader who simply enters the term should come to that article, with a link to the dab page at the top. This isn't denigrating the Irish publication -- I'm suggesting that "The Nation" should be handled the way "Dublin" is. JamesMLane 10:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Nation is or has been the name of over 40 international publications. As happens all too often on Wikipedia US readers usurped the name to refer to their publication as though their publication is the definitive one using that name. It has now been moved to its own page, where it should have been put at the start. As I'm working on the article on the Irish newspaper (which is one of the most famous in Irish history) that has been given its own page and a link added in here for disambigulation. As others work on their own pages on their own Nations their links can be added in here. The reason why right now all the links are US is because this page had been usurped by US readers to refer to their publication. Those links will have to be redirected.

The situation isn't comparible ith Dublin, London, Paris etc. There we have names that are known internationally and recognised as meaning one thing, but there are other localised locations where the meaning is taken to referring to a local location. In those cases a link to the less well known places can be added to the main page. But the US magazine is not even widely known to ordinary Americans, let alone known outside the US border. Time and Newsweek it ain't. Internationally The Nation means different publications in different countries all over the planet. The US magazine is just one not particularly widely known one, not the definitive one, as is the case with the capitals of Ireland, Britain, France, Italy, the US, etc. FearÉIREANN 20:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue isn't nationalistic pride or international recognition or identifying a "definitive" use of a term. The issue is service to our readers. As I understand it, the Irish newspaper is no longer published. How many readers will type "The Nation" into the search box because they want information about a defunct periodical, compared to the number that will be looking for the U.S. magazine? I pointed to the links as evidence that current usage is overwhelmingly tilted toward the U.S. magazine. This isn't because of any alleged "usurpation" by the dastardly Yanks. It's because, of all the wikilinks to all periodicals called "The Nation", the vast majority refer to the U.S. magazine. It will be easier to change the handful that don't, instead of changing more than 250 others. (There are 335 links to The Nation now, and 250 is a low estimate of the number that refer to the U.S. publication.) Moving the article would also mean that the many editors who refer to the U.S. magazine would have to know about this situation and insert a piped link -- but many wouldn't know, so readers trying to follow a reference would come to a dab page. One reason the U.S. magazine has so many links is that it's cited as a source in other articles (even some about non-U.S. subjects), and it's likely to continue to be cited much more than all other "The Nation"s combined.

By the way, when I say "The Times" I don't mean The Times. I'm not trying to change that one, but I think that changing The Nation to a dab page is a distinct overreaction to concerns about U.S.-centrism. JamesMLane 01:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JamesMLane. I stumbled across this new setup today as a result of following some links and it really doesn't make much sense (quite confusing also). While of course it is valid to point out that there are many other publications that go by this name, it is clear that the The Nation (U.S. periodical) magazine is most referenced within Wikipedia. What's the point of going through and renaming all those links? I suggest that The Nation (U.S. periodical) be moved back to The Nation, and that the first line should be a notice of other meanings linking to The Nation (disambiguation). --Howrealisreal 23:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been quite some time now and nobody has responded to the points raised by myself and James. I went ahead changed the setup to how I outlined above. --Howrealisreal 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that there was a standing objection, I think it might have been preferable to list this at WP:RFM. Having said that, it does seem to at least satisfy the statistical test for "primary meaning" for dab. purposes. Alai 03:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For a long time, The Nation was the location of the article about the U.S. periodical. It was moved by one editor, with no prior discussion on the talk page or on RfM. I suggest it should be moved back. Then anyone favoring making The Nation a dab page or a redirect to one can make the case for that move on RfM. JamesMLane 04:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a chance in hell. If you want an article on a US topic, put it on a US page. Don't be so arrogant as to presume that all the world regards The Nation as meaning an American publication. Attempts to highjack a page to push americocentrism will simply be treated as vandalism. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. It's a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. You've been around way too long to pull that newbie "vandalism means any edit I disagree with" routine.

As for your specific comment, no one is presuming anything about what "all the world" thinks, because that's not the test. For example, there are some people who hear "Boston" and think of something other than the capital of Massachusetts. So what? That doesn't mean that Boston should be a dab page or a redirect to a dab page. The test is whether there's one meaning that's clearly predominant. Your comment below is a non sequitur because the term "President" doesn't meet that test. References to other presidents are common. "President" doesn't usually refer to the President of the United States, but "The Nation" usually refers to the U.S. periodical. JamesMLane 07:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I strongly agree with James and Howrealisreal. The Nation is in fact a very well-known publication, as the largest-circulation opinion journal in the largest English-speaking nation in the world. The Pakistani and Thai publications are apparently quite obscure, and the Irish one hasn't been published in over a century, so I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of readers winding up here will be looking for the American magazine. RadicalSubversiv E 03:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

By that wacky logic - President should be the default page of the US president. Government the default page about American government, Politics the default page about American politics. That is not an option. You may think that the US periodical is "a very well-known publication". In reality it isn't that well known even in the US among ordinary people and is largely unheard of outside the US. Don't presume that the entire planet is pre-occupied with the United States and things in the United States. This is Wikipedia, not Americopedia. If you want an American-orientated encyclopædia, create one. This is not it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's actually not true. If you go to the "President" article (as well as the others you mentioned), you will find that the articles that link there have a range of meanings. They are not specifically related to the United States Government and span international and business meanings as well. On the other hand, most all of the articles that link to "The Nation" are in reference to the U.S. periodical. You are right this is not Americopedia, but it is Wikipedia which is ruled by consensus. The number of articles that link "The Nation" with the U.S. magazine, and the fact that you seem to be the only one who is so offended by this, speaks volumes to what consensus is showing.

Additionally, I would like to point out that I am not someone who endorses American exceptionalism. To me, this is not about American domination of Wikipedia. My feelings on this matter are simply because it is a mess of a lot of work to go through and change all the wikilinks that suddenly go to a disambiguation page. It's confusing to the readers. --Howrealisreal 07:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Rather than relying on hyperbolic (and totally false) accusations of national chauvinism, what say we consider Wikipedia policy, which reads:

When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well-known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. (emphasis added)

as well as:

Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?

Based on the existing links, and the fact that it is by far the largest circulation publication by this name (the next-closest contender not having been published in a century), it's fairly clear to me that the answer to this question is the U.S. magazine.

Jtdirl, if you have a serious case to make, referencing facts and Wikipedia policy, please make it. Otherwise, please respect the consensus of other editors, and refrain from making personal attacks.

RadicalSubversiv E 09:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That is not the meaning of that policy. I've been one of the people involved in its implementation. It means that if in general a term is understood by a broad group of people to mean one thing, ie, most people worldwide think of the British capital when they her London, the Irish capital when they hear Dublin, the French capital when they hear Paris, then that meaning is on the main page, and other local Londons, Dublins, etc are disambigulated. It does not mean, and never has meant, where one country's users are more numerous on Wikipedia and so have created more links to their understanding of the term. It means widely used, ie, among a wide segment of WP users and contributors, not one big lump from one country. US users may understand The Nation to mean their publication. But UK users have never heard of that magazine and think of the term of meaning their publication. Irish users think of The Nation as meaning one of its most famous historical newspapers which every school kid will have learnt about. Pakistani users think of their The Nation when they see the term. In no way can US users by weight of numbers claim ownership of a page. If their magazine was an international publication like TIME or NEWSWEEK then it would have a right to the page, but as it is an exclusively US publication unheard of outside the US neither it nor any other publication can claim ownership and priority over the name. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

By the same token, you have to understand that just because you are Irish, you cannot speak for the entire international community. How do you know that people in other parts of the world have not heard of the U.S. periodical called The Nation? The most important thing is to make Wikipedia understandable for the world community, and by making tons of links all of a sudden go to a disambiguation page is confusing. If you would like "The Nation" to be a disambiguation page, the RIGHT way to go about doing that would be to start changing the links in other articles that link to that name-space. Am I not correct? --Howrealisreal 00:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a Brit and if I hear/read someone referring to 'The Nation', without qualification, I assume it is the American one. I'm well aware of the anti-systemic bias thing, but the fact that most links are clearly supposed to direct people to the US periodical is sort of decisive. Having 'The Nation' go to a DAB is just being a pain in the arse for us geeks who hang out on Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I work in the media and emailed 8 colleagues about it, asking the question "when you hear of a publication called "the Nation" what publication do you think of?

• The man in the Guardian said "Do you mean the American one? There is one in Thailand too I think, and I thought there was one in France but it closed down."
• A BBC contact asked "Which one? Do you mean the Irish one Thomas Davis launched?"
• An ITN contact said "It doesn't ring a bell. Is there some particular one you are thinking of?"
• A (London) Times colleague said he thought there was something of that name in Pakistan or India.
• Another Guardian friend didn't know of a magazine of that name.
• A CBS friend I used to work with asked whether I meant "our" one or someone else's?
• An Irish Times colleague asked "Which one? There are ten internationally, I think."
• A friend in the Irish Independent asked did I mean the old Irish newspaper.

I emailed them back to say I was asking about the US one. Four never heard of it. The rest either had but knew nothing about it, or in the case of the CBS guy said that he was surprised I had heard of it!!! So much for an internationally known name. And the people being asked work in the media!!! If they don't recognise it the odds on ordinary people visiting WP worldwide recognising it are slim. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That's all fine and well but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. You still have not addressed the most important issue: that there will be over 200 pipes that go to a disambiguation page. You seem only to be obsessed with the surface phenomenon here, and have failed to see the depth of the problem. We all understand how strongly you feel about this issue, but is it fair to make tons of work for everyone else just because of it? --Howrealisreal 01:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl has decided to change the setup again for The Nation namespace. I initially reverted his changes, but I'm going to let it slide as a sign of good faith. I think it's pretty unfortunate that he refuses to discuss and must act unilaterally. --Howrealisreal 00:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the RfC

Since the American publication The Nation is still active and is by far the largest (in circulation and in global reach) of any publication under that name, and since it appears that 80% or more of the Wikipedia links to The Nation refer to that publication, it seems clear to me that The Nation should be an article about the U.S. publication, with a dab link at the top. The sole counterargument appears to be rooted in anti-Americanism, which isn't a very convincing case. | Klaw ¡digame! 19:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue. Why is this a holy war for either side? Inbound links to The Nation aren't a very good way of determining noteability of an article because inbound links to competitors might simply be correct and the ones to the main page less precise (if it were a dab, those links would be wrong). So if that standard doesn't work, what standard will work? Was there really a consensus to move the dab to (dismabiguation)? If so, then that's it, the main page goes to the US periodical. If not, then let's work on that consensus rather than simply having a revert war, shall wel? Tedernst | talk 01:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Inbound links aren't a perfect guide but they're one good indicator. In this instance, if you look at the non-U.S. periodicals, you'll see that collectively they have fewer inbound links than the U.S. one -- and that's even if you count a huge number of Irish periodicals where the articles include a template that lists the defunct Irish publication. As for consensus, The Nation was created as the article about the U.S. magazine. It stayed that way for more than two years without objection. Then it was moved by one editor, without prior discussion on the talk page and without a notice on Wikipedia:Requested moves. On the evidence of this talk page, the move was not only not supported by consensus, but was opposed by consensus. Incidentally, I see no reason why The Nation should redirect to The Nation (U.S. periodical), with the link to the dab page being at the head of the latter. We should just go back to having The Nation be the article about the U.S. periodical, but headed by the link to the dab page. JamesMLane 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not America. I have seen no good reasons why "The Nation" should either be or redirect to an American publication. In fact, I have seen no reasons at all that are not Americo-centric. Please consider a global view. Stifle 11:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty telling that all the people who oppose keeping "The Nation" connected with the U.S. Perodical article seem to be very outspoken when it comes to the "global perspective" ad hominem argument, but pretty quiet when it comes to sifting though and correcting all the broken links they'll create as a result of their opinions. In reality, what is ideal for some is not always logical for all. --Howrealisreal 15:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As evidence that I have no problem sifting through and correcting the disambig links (they won't be broken) I have started to change links to The Nation to The Nation (U.S. periodical). However, I was asked to stop by JamesMLane (see my talk page). This is a non-issue for me. Stifle 20:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I made this suggestion to Stifle because it's best that no one change any links until we've reached some sort of resolution. That's also why I haven't restored the article to the title I prefer. At this point, those who've commented on this talk page seem to divide as follows:

• The Nation should be the article on the U.S. periodical, 6 users: JamesMLane, Howrealisreal, Alai, RadicalSubversivE, Squiddy, and Keithlaw (Klaw).
• The Nation should be a dab page or a redirect to a dab page, 2 users: Jtdirl (FearÉIREANN), Stifle.
• Unclear (commented only on process), 1 user: Tedernst.

So, how about we restore the situation before any moves were made, after which Jtdirl or Stifle or anyone else can list it on Wikipedia:Requested moves? Then, whatever the resolution is, there will be links to be fixed. JamesMLane 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I think the people who oppose "The Nation" being synonymous with the U.S. magazine may not know much about it. I'm not claiming to be an expert or anything, but I do read the U.S. magazine and I can say that very often they are not only concerned with U.S. national issues. I also know they have a very large and global circulation with bureaus in Budapest, London, and Southern Africa. Additionally, there are a few contributors for The Nation are not American:

• Naomi Klein is Canadian
• Alexander Cockburn is Irish
• Slavenka Drakulić is Croatian
• (formerly) Christopher Hitchens is British
• (formerly) Jean-Paul Sartre is French
• and I'm sure some others..

--Howrealisreal 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And the late Daniel Singer was Polish-born, educated in France, Switzerland and England, and (except for WWII) lived in Paris. And he also wrote for New Statesman. - Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This subject has now been listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. The link there sends people here for the survey and discussion. JamesMLane t c 05:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Bias

Compare this article with the article on The Weekly Standard, then try and tell me that Wikipedia isn't liberally biased. Haizum 03:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)