Talk:Myanmar: Difference between revisions
imported>Domergue Sumien No edit summary |
imported>Domergue Sumien No edit summary |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
* The junta only tries to change the use of the English language by promoting a new translation from Burmese to English (Burmese ''Myanma'' > English ''Myanmar''). But this junta has no power nor legitimacy to say what is correct or incorrect in English. Nor the UN. | * The junta only tries to change the use of the English language by promoting a new translation from Burmese to English (Burmese ''Myanma'' > English ''Myanmar''). But this junta has no power nor legitimacy to say what is correct or incorrect in English. Nor the UN. | ||
* There is absolutely no etymologic difference between English ''Burma'' and Burmese ''Bama'' or ''Myanma'': this is just the same name and the same meaning, but with different forms adapted to different languages. You can't compare this with a real name change like ''Ceylon > Sri Lanka'', where different etymologies and meanings are involved. | * There is absolutely no etymologic difference between English ''Burma'' and Burmese ''Bama'' or ''Myanma'': this is just the same name and the same meaning, but with different forms adapted to different languages. You can't compare this with a real name change like ''Ceylon > Sri Lanka'', where different etymologies and meanings are involved. | ||
Therefore, imposing "Myanmar" in CZ is non-neutral | Therefore, imposing "Myanmar" in CZ is non-neutral, presenting "Burma" as a "former" name is clearly non-neutral: this presentation is a misunderstanding of a [[linguistics|linguistic]] issue. A neutral position would be the following: | ||
* ''Burma'' presented as the general, English name of the country. | * ''Burma'' presented as the general, English name of the country. | ||
* ''Bama/Myanma'' presented as the Burmese name of the country. | * ''Bama/Myanma'' presented as the Burmese name of the country. | ||
* ''Myanmar'' presented as an official translation promoted by the junta (and suppported by the UN), from Burmese to English, in spite of the English use. | * ''Myanmar'' presented as an official translation promoted by the junta (and suppported by the UN), from Burmese to English, in spite of the English use. | ||
--[[User:Domergue Sumien|Domergue Sumien]] 12:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | --[[User:Domergue Sumien|Domergue Sumien]] 12:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:14, 12 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)
- Use the current name established by the country. As always it's what the people want to be known as. I'd also reference previous names for the same country in the article. You can add this to the history.Mary Ash 18:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that the people have nothing to do with it, in a military dictatorship. However, I am making an editorial decision that we use UN names as a standard, with older or alternative names in brackets if needed. It is actually non-neutral to use the name Burma, and inconsistent with CZ's Neutrality Policy (which applies until the EC makes new policy). Sorry to those who want Burma, but it is not the legal name. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Use the current name established by the country. As always it's what the people want to be known as. I'd also reference previous names for the same country in the article. You can add this to the history.Mary Ash 18:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this editor's decision. This is firstly a question of language use. When you speak English, you say normally, spontaneousaly and traditionally "Burma", "I went to Burma", "I learned to speak Burmese when I was in Burma", "I went to Spain", "I went to Germany", "I went to Japan", etc. You rarely say in English "I went to Myanmar" and you never say in English "I went to España", "I went to Deutschland", "I went to Nippon"... "Burma" is not a former name, it is simply the name of the country in the English language, in a neutral register.
- The Burmese junta has never changed the short form of the name. It's hard to explain, but this is an objective fact. The short Burmese name has always been, and is still today, Myanma (formal Burmese) or Bama (colloquial Burmese), before and after the junta.
- The junta only tries to change the use of the English language by promoting a new translation from Burmese to English (Burmese Myanma > English Myanmar). But this junta has no power nor legitimacy to say what is correct or incorrect in English. Nor the UN.
- There is absolutely no etymologic difference between English Burma and Burmese Bama or Myanma: this is just the same name and the same meaning, but with different forms adapted to different languages. You can't compare this with a real name change like Ceylon > Sri Lanka, where different etymologies and meanings are involved.
Therefore, imposing "Myanmar" in CZ is non-neutral, presenting "Burma" as a "former" name is clearly non-neutral: this presentation is a misunderstanding of a linguistic issue. A neutral position would be the following:
- Burma presented as the general, English name of the country.
- Bama/Myanma presented as the Burmese name of the country.
- Myanmar presented as an official translation promoted by the junta (and suppported by the UN), from Burmese to English, in spite of the English use.
--Domergue Sumien 12:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)