The article should be put at the policy-determined place (which happens to be "Ivory Coast")
In your opinion. ;=)
Sam
No really. Any halfway objective examination of the evidence shows that "ivory coast" is used more widly. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant of the evidence or acting illogicaly .
-- geni
My point is not that "Ivory Coast" is the proper name of the country. Nor is it that I insist on making "Ivory Coast" the title of the article.
1. What I *AM* saying is that the English-name POLICY has already passed consensus: country articles are given the title of the most commonly used English-langugae name of the country. (Like "Germany" or "Italy")
This is a procedural question: shall we set aside the policy and make an exception here? And by voting on it, or what?
Policy should be the default, and an exception should be made only if there is consensus for an exception.
What some people are trying to do is call the status quo the default (lots of people ganging up to thwart policy by using the French name) and requiring a supermajority vote to PERMIT ENFORCEMENT of the policy.
2. I am *ALSO* saying that letting a government tell Wikipedia what to do is a dangerous erosion of our editorial independence. We can simply say in the article that Ivory Coast's government "forbids" anyone - inside or outside their jurisdiction - to translate the country's name (if this is really so). But since our servers are in Florida, I think we can safely assume we are outside their jurisdiction.
If "Ivory Coast" ever lose currency - as it no doubt will in years to come - then of course we'll reflect this.
3. People seem to think that the TITLE of the article makes a statement about the "true name" of the country. This is ridiculous. The article itself even says so - or would, if partisans didn't keep removing this statement.
The article keeps saying that the offical name of the country is Cote d'Ivoire, and that the government has gotten other governments to use the French name. That should be enough.
Ed Poor