Talk:Myanmar: Difference between revisions
imported>Domergue Sumien (Burma vs. Myanmar) |
imported>David Finn (please see forum) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
As a linguist, I think we should prefer ''Burma'' in CZ. The traditional, usual name, in the English language, is ''Burma'', not ''Myanmar''. This is an objective fact that we have to reflect in the article's title. The name ''Myanmar'' is nothing but a bad transcription (although oficially supported by the SLORC) of the formal Burmese name of the country, which is in reality ''Myanma'', not even ''Myanmar''. ''Myanma (Myanmar*)'' is a Burmese name, convenient for an encyclopedia written in Burmese; it is not a genuine English name and therefore it is not suitable as a prioritary name in an encyclopedia written in English. The bureaucratic use of the UN, which uses ''Myanmar'' in English, is not a valid reference for a correct redaction in plain English.--[[User:Domergue Sumien|Domergue Sumien]] 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | As a linguist, I think we should prefer ''Burma'' in CZ. The traditional, usual name, in the English language, is ''Burma'', not ''Myanmar''. This is an objective fact that we have to reflect in the article's title. The name ''Myanmar'' is nothing but a bad transcription (although oficially supported by the SLORC) of the formal Burmese name of the country, which is in reality ''Myanma'', not even ''Myanmar''. ''Myanma (Myanmar*)'' is a Burmese name, convenient for an encyclopedia written in Burmese; it is not a genuine English name and therefore it is not suitable as a prioritary name in an encyclopedia written in English. The bureaucratic use of the UN, which uses ''Myanmar'' in English, is not a valid reference for a correct redaction in plain English.--[[User:Domergue Sumien|Domergue Sumien]] 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
:We would need some kind of reference establishing that. Please see the thread in the Content section of the Forums for a discussion about this. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:17, 11 October 2010
I think we should follow Wikipedia's lead, and use this name (I participated in the discussion there). I saw the junta's name in an article (sorry, forget which) during the Big Write & thought it was time to raise this point. Ro Thorpe 19:19, 5 March 2008 (CST)
- Why is it being called Burma in the article? David Finn 10:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality is not an option. There is a redirect from the SLORC's name - and I've corrected their name... Ro Thorpe 13:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't get it - is Citizendium taking a political stance on the naming of this article? The United Nations members index lists the country as Myanmar. If that is what the UN call it, what reason does CZ have for an opposite approach - there is nothing in the article itself that elaborates on this point. David Finn 14:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that the UN should decide CZ policy. As I say, neutrality is not an option. Ro Thorpe 15:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, I asked what reason does CZ have for an opposite approach, which is a different question. I don't seem to be getting a straightforward answer here, I'll post the question on the forums and ask for community input. Cheers. David Finn 15:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
As a linguist, I think we should prefer Burma in CZ. The traditional, usual name, in the English language, is Burma, not Myanmar. This is an objective fact that we have to reflect in the article's title. The name Myanmar is nothing but a bad transcription (although oficially supported by the SLORC) of the formal Burmese name of the country, which is in reality Myanma, not even Myanmar. Myanma (Myanmar*) is a Burmese name, convenient for an encyclopedia written in Burmese; it is not a genuine English name and therefore it is not suitable as a prioritary name in an encyclopedia written in English. The bureaucratic use of the UN, which uses Myanmar in English, is not a valid reference for a correct redaction in plain English.--Domergue Sumien 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- We would need some kind of reference establishing that. Please see the thread in the Content section of the Forums for a discussion about this. David Finn 18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)