A request for real names

[Derek Harkness]

In a similar theme to the naming policy discussion in the biology are, (see http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,310.0/topicseen.html ) I would like to propose that we name articles on geographical places (e.g. cities and countries) based on the full and official English language name of that country.

So the UK article would be titled "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland" and not as "United Kingdom" or as "Great Britain". Likewise the USA would be titled "United States of America". I see no reason why we should go for nick names for the article titles. Of course, the full list of alternative abbreviations for the country or city would be given in the article and set up as redirects or disambiguation pages.

[Neville English]

I endorse this request.  I think that the use of the binomials in the snake project is the right way to go as well.  The only stipulation I would make is that a comprehensive set of redirects is established to avoid duplicate articles getting started. 

Of course, I also think that historic names for countries should be used separately to describe the history of that country (including formation and dissolution/supersession) during the period that the name was in effect. 

I have no opinion on the issue of terminology about state/nation/country...   

On the subject of 'real names' for people ... well that's a whole different ballgame. 

[Chris Day]

I endorse this request.  I think that the use of the binomials in the snake project is the right way to go as well.  The only stipulation I would make is that a comprehensive set of redirects is established to avoid duplicate articles getting started. 

I am supportive of this too. I assume this will be one of the first big decisions from the editorial council. Will we have a centralised discussion oin this topic?  At present I have seen this topic pop up in a few different places.

[Derek Harkness]

The only stipulation I would make is that a comprehensive set of redirects is established to avoid duplicate articles getting started.

A comprehensive set of redirects will be required no matter how we decide to name articles.

[josesanmartin]

I disagree. The article names must be "France", "Russia", "Brazil"... and "United States of America".

There are two reasons for that.

The first one is simplicity. "France" is much simpler than "Republic of France".

The second one is about entity being described in the article. The State is not the Nation. The "Federative Republic of Brazil" is not the very same entity as is "Brazil". For instance, the history of "France" goes back the middle ages. The section on "History of the French Republic", would begin, at most, in 1789. The same thing happens with many other counties. Would we start an article about an entity called "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela", with is only eight years old? Or should we write about "Venezuela" that exists since 1811?

However, using "United States of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "United States of America" is the best, indeed. But please remember that USA and UK are two exceptions among the names of countries. USA and UK (well, at least USA) are not names, are just descriptions. It's not the case of "France" and "Venezuela", and most of the countries in the world, that do have a name that is distinct from its official name.

Regards,

José San Martin

[Nat Krause]

My suggestion would be that article titles like "Republic of France" should be used for articles about the modern state and its system of governance, while titles like "France" should be used to summarise the historical, geographical, etc. aspects of France, i.e. the characteristics that would not change if it had a different form of government.

[Derek Harkness]

I think the historical entities have to be separated form the geographical. Historically, every state has come into existance, dissapeared, reapeared, been invaded, conquored, invaded others, built empires, lost empires, changed government, changed name, amalgamated and been liberated. Histoically it's a complete mess. Historically 'France' has had different geography. When writing a geography article on France we should mean 'modern' France not any historical bornderies that have been bigger or smaller than the current State. Since we are describing modern France, we should use the name of modern France, which is the Republic of France.

If this was a history workgroup decition, then I'd be all for 'France' as the history of France is inclusive of more information. Infact, I may prefer the 'French' as a history title. But this is not history, it's geography.

As for the argument of simplicity. Within the article it's sell you can call the State by any name you want. You can even call it using a pronoun rather than it's full name. Within the article text, simplicity may be required. However, for the article title, I don't see how simplicity equates to benefit.

[Sébastien Moulin]

My two cents (from a French citizen). I somewhat agree with josesanmartin. First, the "Republic of France" does not exist ; at least it is a mistake in translation ("République française" should be translated as "French republic"). But even then, "French republic" only designs the form of government of France, when it is a republic (1792-1799, 1848-1851, 1870-1940 and from 1945), that is a very narrow part of what the word "France" encompasses. Even when one is dealing with contemporary France, one never uses the expression "French republic", except for dealing especially with French political institutions. That is why this expression is often to be found in official documents, but it is not the official name at all (the first article of our constitution simply uses the word "France"). For instance, a French will never say "I live in French republic", this is just the wrong word here. So I am afraid than French people reading an article about their country so wrongly titled would find this very strange. Of course, if the article is only about the system of government (but neither history or geography), then it is the right word.

I guess each country is a particular case and it is difficult to fix rules. The title should in any case refer to the real name, in a sense that it is really used. For countries like USA and UK, the "technical" name may be used in reality, because it describes something complex (a federation or an union of several nations), but it seems to be more the exception than the rule.

Last, I wonder how an article titled "Federal republic of Germany" would sound to German ears. This technical name was used when the country was splitted (before 1990), accuracy being then needed, but now everybody simply says "Germany". I am afraid that using the technical name for the current country has strange connotations.

[Derek Harkness]

For instance, a French will never say "I live in French republic", this is just the wrong word here. So I am afraid than French people reading an article about their country so wrongly titled would find this very strange. Of course, if the article is only about the system of government (but neither history or geography), then it is the right word.

The name of a country in English will frequently be strange to the people of origin of that country.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is called 'Chosŏn' in their own language which translates as 'Morning Clam'

The 'Republic of Korea' is known in the south of Korea as Daehan Min-guk which translates as 'Great Han People's Nation'

The 'People's Republic of China' is called Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó and this translates as 'Central Kingdom Peoples Republic' which is frequently sortend to Zhōnghuá - Central Kingdom.

So it comes as no surprise to me that French people would think the English name for their country to be a bit unusual and abnormal. But we use the English names for this project, not a translation of the local name. The official English version name is commonly not a proper translation of the local language name. So I'm not going to argue over how to translate "République française" because what the french call their country in there own language is irrelevant to what non-french people call that country using the English language.

[Sébastien Moulin]

So it comes as no surprise to me that French people would think the English name for their country to be a bit unusual and abnormal. But we use the English names for this project, not a translation of the local name. The official English version name is commonly not a proper translation of the local language name. So I'm not going to argue over how to translate "République française" because what the french call their country in there own language is irrelevant to what non-french people call that country using the English language.

Yes, you are right about the fact that an English encyclopedia should use the English name (for instance Germany and not Deutschland!). But what do you call the "English official name"? Who decides which name is "official"? It seems to me than France is commonly used in English, whereas "Republic of France" is almost never used (even less than French Republic according to Google). I do think the only official name is the one used in French constitution, where "France" appears six times, and "Republic of France" or "French Republic" zero time. In this particular case, the word "France" is the same in English, so why English speaking people would use another official name? I just wanted to point out a mistake, which is independent of the language: "French Republic" (or any other translation you use) does not refer to the country but only to its system of government and political institutions. I doubt it designs something else in English.

All the examples you give refer to countries with a particular political situation, making requirement for a technically accurate name necessary (the two Koreas, or the Chinese/Taïwanese problem). Moreover, Asian names are difficult to translate, and there are often differences between the occidental and the local names, as you point out.

About Germany, I am not sure, because its fundamental law uses "Federal Republic of Germany" as an official name ("Bundesrepublik Deutschland"), so it may be the title of the article if official names are retained. It is true that several countries have the word "Republic" in their official name (Czech Republic, etc.). But for France, this is simply a mistake. I do not ask to use "France" because it would be a translation of the local name, but because it seems to me that it is the official name, both in French and in English. Well, so, this does not answer to the question of using official or more common names when they differ. I did not intend to answer to this difficult question anyway.

[Dan Drake]

The name of a country in English will frequently be strange to the people of origin of that country.

Yes, but the name of France in English is France, not French Republic or anything else.
Wikipedia has a very sensible policy that geographic names in its English version are to be the normally used English names. Of course, being a WP policy, it has no particular effect. But CZ Could adopt something comparable and make it work.

Everything that is considered to be a country or a nation or a state (etc.) ought to have an article, under the name that English speakers usually use for that entity -- where such a name can be identified, as is the case with France. An article on the French Reuplic (and/or a handful of sequentially numbered articles, as the editors may decide) would be an excellent thing to have, concerning itself with the Republic specifically.
 

[Derek Harkness]

Sébastien, I will default to your ability to research the real name of France or republic of France or French Republic.

I think there been an assumption that the real or official name of a country is always the longest version and the short version is unofficial or colloquial. This is not always the case. Sometime the short version is the officially preferred version, sometimes it's not.

However, for every recognised country in the world, there is an English official name under which that country is recognised, known and referred to. Some countries have more than one official name. Where there is more than one official name, the longer version would be preferred since the long version usually includes the short version within it.

I particularly don't like Wikipedias 'common' name policy. Who decides what is a common name? That is the sort of thing that leads to the DPRK article on WP listing under North Korea. It could put Rhodesia instead of Zimbabwe because the old name is still pretty common. It also leads to confusions such as this one on the UK talk page http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom

One potential solution to the names issue - What does it say on the front of your passport?

[Andy McNair]

Perhaps the nations could simply be referred to by their common names, with official names listed alongside the common names in the title. I do not think that the article title must necessarily reflect the official name of the nation, although it is more professional to do so.

Article title: France (Official name: Republic of France)

Article title: Republic of France (Commonly known as: France)
                     Commonwealth of Australia (Commonly known as: Australia)
                     United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Commonly known as: England)

Just kidding about the last one.... Although it does illustrate a clear point - many people simply refer to the UK of GB and NI as "England", unfortunately.

The author could specify the article's keywords according to the title.

[Larry Sanger]

Hi there Andy, welcome.  No doubt you arrived here as a result of the reminder I sent out to everyone.

Please give us your bio or (if you don't have a suitable account at all) register with us, here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:RequestAccount

The forums are meant for Citizens only.  Thanks.

[Aleta Curry]

Perhaps the nations could simply be referred to by their common names, with official names listed alongside the common names in the title. I do not think that the article title must necessarily reflect the official name of the nation, although it is more professional to do so.

Article title: France (Official name: Republic of France)

Article title: Republic of France (Commonly known as: France)
                     Commonwealth of Australia (Commonly known as: Australia)
                     United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Commonly known as: England)

Just kidding about the last one.... Although it does illustrate a clear point - many people simply refer to the UK of GB and NI as "England", unfortunately.

I like this suggestion.

And that last isn't so much of a joke--the UK was often just "England" when I was a girl.

Our (English) teachers used to correct us formally--but we got it from them--they used to slip up all the time!