Tony Sidaway wrote:
Of course Ivory Coast is the real name of the
country, just as Royaume
Uni is the real French name of the UK, and it would be a very
fatheaded French speaker indeed who insisted on parking the article on
the UK under United Kingdom where hardly anybody would look for it.
The issue with Ivory Coast/ Côte d'Ivoire is not English versus French,
but Colonialism versus Independence. Most African countries that used to
have European names changed to local names by the time they got
independent, e.g. Gold Coast to Ghana, Southwest Africa to Namibia,
British West Africa to Nigeria. IC/CI didn't. So when they decided to
fix that problem recently, they did not to do what neighboring Upper
Volta did (they renamed themselves to Burkina and nobody knew where the
place was anymore), but instead they said the country name shouldn't be
translated anymore, as if it was a local name.
The question is whether a country should have the right to decide on its
own name, and if we should respect that decision. Deutschland doesn't
mind being called Germany in English, neither does Nihon mind being
called Japan in English, but CI/IC and Myanmar/Burma do mind their
traditional English names.
So in the interests of addressing systematic bias, I say we leave it the
hell alone. If they want to be called "Côte d'Ivoire", that's where the
article should be. End of discussion. MOS be damned; it's the spirit of
the rules that counts.
--
Alphax -
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: