User talk:Danlaycock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is Danlaycock's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Danlaycock.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Unified login: Danlaycock is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.
Committed identity: 390d0e40969a8b041b178b5ada625d157b62befec186507791b21b1e23357b7f2a25328becf9e6f480adc0fe158b5efbe063ce697c938e7c677da38babe87f00 is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.


East Timor[edit]

It seems the official name has been changed... again... from Timor-Leste to East Timor. Problem is that I don't see the "general consensus" he mentioned for the change. --B.Lameira (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course there isn't any consensus for the changes. He's being disruptive and forcing his POV into the article without consensus. And doing it on Ivory Coast and Myanmar as well. TDL (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
English is not an official language in any of these countries. So how is any translation into English official? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Because they are officially used by the government for official purposes when they conduct business in English. TDL (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
TDL That is of course why the Constitution of East Timor, as translated in English calls it East Timor. I don't think that the proceedings of foreign governments get to decide what is or what is not English. I try to name both terms in the articles involved because that's just reasonable, also from an historic perspective, apart from a linguistic one. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Please review the history. It was originally East Timor when the constitution was written and was subsequently changed, which is why modern usage differs from the archaic usage.
Foreign governments of course can not dictate common english usage. Only english speakers can decided that. This is why the article is titled East Timor, and the country is referred to that throughout, despite the objections of the government. But they can decide on how they want to officially represent themselves in the english language. I understand you dislike their decision, but that is their official position. TDL (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Better read that constitution again. They haven't changed the name of their country. On your other point; Exactly TDL! We are the English language Wikipedia and we follow where the sources and the language guide us. Not primarily what is declared official by some government, although that does deserves mention. I did just that. But don´t just follow what is decided by some government! That is not our business and we have nothing to do with that. What is official matters just as much as what is generally used in English. Official is just one thing and it is not something that we should accept as the only and holy thing on Wikipedia. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Citing a many years old translation to argue that the name hasn't subsequently changed is hardly compelling. See for example the current government's website on the constitution, which I have linked a number of times for you, here which has a modern translation of the preamble of the constitution. Yes the name was changed. Read the discussion on the talk page. You can learn about the history here, which I previously linked.
I agree wholeheartedly that we should follow the sources. And the sources are unanimous, the official name is Timor-Leste. For example, see: United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names list of country namesCIA World factbookOxford dictionary, etc. As of yet, no sources have been produced saying that the official name is East Timor. Found any yet?
Yes general usage is important, and the fact that the country is exclusively referred to as East Timor throughout the article reflects that. For example, East Timor is used 5 times in the lead to 1 time for Timor-Leste. The entire article is written based on general English usage, while a single sentence is written based on official usage. So the argument that we are "just follow what is decided by some government!" and treating the official name as "the only and holy thing on Wikipedia" completely neglects the reality of the current state of the article. TDL (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I just want to name both sides of the equation, when there is one. And only in the lead where it somehow matters. How wrong is that? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Because what you wrote is factually wrong. You wrote that it is "officially the Democratic Republic of East-Timor". This is simply not true in 2016. No sources have been provided to support this. Meanwhile, numerous sources refute it. We shouldn't make up facts because we don't like reality. TDL (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry TDL, but only one of the sources you provided in your quote above on the Constitution gives the actual text of the legislation. And that clearly says: "Democratic Republic of East-Timor", as it's the same document we've seen before. I have never stated that the name Timor-Leste isn't also in use, your UN source however is a working document by a UN commission, that clearly states that the names therein are for official use 'by the UN', and not Timorese legislation. You say that: "Citing a many years old translation to argue that the name hasn't subsequently changed is hardly compelling." It's however the same document that you cited before to prove the exact opposite, and the one your government website source cited above links to. It's also not very compelling to work from the premisse that the sources we have, must have changed somehow without actually having a newer version to show for it, which is basically the premise that you are now working with. The present document on Wikisource says exactly the same as the one in your earlier quote. Democratic Republic of East Timor. So does the one on constituteproject.org. I will work with that, unless you can show a more recent document in which the text of the articles have been changed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
No idea what you are looking at, but this website with a partial translation of the constitution clearly uses "Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" and not Constitution of the Democratic Republic of East Timor". Note that this translation previously used "Democratic Republic of East Timor", which would suggest that the current version has been updated and corrected.
Can you point to where you see the UNGEGN state that they "are for official use by the UN"? Can't find any evidence of that. What I see is that they are "formal names are those used in an official diplomatic context". The UN does not conduct diplomatic relations.
I am not working on any "premis". I have presented several highly reliable sources which explicitly say that Timor-Leste is the official name. You are speculating and hypothesising because you can't find any modern sources to support your position. (Wikisources and constituteproject are self published and clearly not reliable sources. They do not trump highly reputable sources such as the UNGEGN, World Factbook, Oxford dictionary, etc.) TDL (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't why this is being debated. Timor Leste is the official name. A country can decide their own name. If a country wishes to a use a word from a different language they can. It is their right. And they exercised their right. --Melbguy05 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately Melbguy05, the opinion you state above is based on sources and documents that actually state the opposite. Click and actually read the actual legislative text of the document or documents involved, as linked to by the sources given. I have commented on this earlier on the talkpage of the East Timor article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Names of countries not in English[edit]

Hello Danlaycock, as you may have gathered I'm not too impressed by what is or is not official. My interest is what the English translation is, and when that is contentious it is best to name both versions, since the English language, and the words used therein cannot really be changed by legislation in any country that wants to revert some words in it. Even if that word is the name of said country. We have already had exchanges about this matter elsewhere. I would be a fan of naming both names in whatever order and not to fuss about what if official. In the case of the Ivory Coast or Cote d' Ivoire, the French name is obviously official, since French is the official language of the country. The French name may be used officially, even in communications that are otherwise in English, but it doesn't make it official or even English. Official is not a concept we should be too worried about on the English language Wikipedia, although it should be reckoned with. We are not the slaves of the institutions that purportedly get to decide what official exactly is. That would take away our independence as an encyclopedia! You may have noticed that I feel rather strongly about this. I don't think that we should just follow (ok we should of course mention it) what some institutions declare (who are these people even!!) to be "official". Not just slavishly. We have other viewpoints and they're decidedly not necessarily POV. They are not as long as all is balanced. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia explicitly does not follow what institutions declare. Hence the names of the articles under consideration (along with others like Cape Verde), where the spirit of WP:OFFICIALNAMES is adhered to. We do, however, need to consider the official names when describing the official names. Institutions do get to decide what official exactly is, as something is official because these institutions say it is. "These people" are the representatives of the subjects under discussion.
Additionally, your philosophical aversion to change in the English language is flawed. Through the same flexibility which means that institutions do not determine common English usage, English usage can be changed. This is why for example you translate "Timor-Leste" as "East Timor" instead of "East East", because you have accepted Timor into your lexicon as a proper noun rather than as something to be translated. The full "Timor-Leste" is similarly being promoted as a proper noun. Legislation has changed English in the past, and although you're right to note it hasn't in the cases under discussion here, that doesn't mean it hasn't in other cases or won't in the future. CMD (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment CMD and your point is well taken. A problem in this case however is that the source originally used by the editors that want to use the "Democratic Republic Timor Leste" name in the lead exclusively, is the English translation of the Constitution of that country in which the name "Democratic Republic of East Timor" is consistently used in all legislative articles that mention the name of the state. And that basically goes for all the versions that these editors have come up with. And also for a few that I have found (on Wikisource for instance). My analysis is that maybe (but I could be wrong) the editors are too quick on their feet and just see the name Timor Leste mentioned somewhere and assume that the source supports their claim without even clicking or reading further. So I think we have a problem here.... My object is not to erase the name "Democratic Republic of Timor Leste" from the lead. Or claim that anything is "official". I just want to acknowledge the obvious dichotomy that we are facing when actually reading the sources given. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Old legislation did sometimes use East Timor, prior to standardisation of taking the local name and using it in English. Other sources may continue to use it, and while I haven't seen it happen, perhaps even the East Timorese government slips up every now and then. Nonetheless, that does not mean there is a dichotomy, as none of that invalidates that there was a change and that the current formal English uses Timor-Leste. In addition to the UNGEGN source, which is derived through consultations with the member states, see the current usage by officials, such as on the embassy in the USA, government publications, and submissions to UN bodies. CMD (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

CMD, everybody keeps telling me that somehow and somewhere there must have been "a change" but frankly nobody has anything to show for it except an opinion or something from a UN subcommittee. I'm not denying that the name Timor Leste is in use there and once again I don't think it should be removed from the relevant sentence in the article. But the English language translation of the constitution says exactly what it says. It says: "Democratic Republic of East Timor". UN bodies do not get to decide what names of countries are, but if they use it I don't mind that it is mentioned in the article. About UN names for countries just ask the people from the Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia about that. Then of course there is this source and it is the English translation of the constitution of East Timor that says: "Democratic Republic of East Timor". How can that not trump a working document by a subcommission in the UN? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That UN document was created with guidance from the member states involved, and it is based off the wishes of the states. Macedonia is the only situation I know of where their UN official name differs from their domestic official name (Taiwan's travails in officialdom perhaps a similar case). Sometimes a change is hard to pinpoint, but has clearly taken place. You will for example be hard-pressed to find a precise moment where Canada or Malaysia dropped their long formal name, and yet both have done so. I have shown you the usage by government sources, and you can find many many other examples. That is the current situation. There is on the other hand no evidence that "Democratic Republic of East Timor" is in usage, and even the shortform name "East Timor" is official deprecated. CMD (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Several sources I keep coming across seem to call it that however in a context that seems official enough, as I have explained on this and other venues. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey again, same editor in question is trying to insert his POV on Ivory Coast page... again. --B.Lameira (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Not really B.Lameira and User:Danlaycock. I tried to take away the translation altogether and just let the French one stand, as the article states that the matter revolves around the fact that the name of the state is not translated by the Ivorian authorities for diplomatic purposes (if I get the timeline right, which may not be the case. I didn't check, so B.Lameira may be justified in the remark he made here as such). To me that seemed like a solution everyone might be comfortable with, but I obviously was too quick on my feet again. However, when the Ivorian authorities don't translate the name of their state into any other language, why should we construct a bilingual phrase like: "Republic of Cote d'Ivoire" on Wikipedia and not just use the complete and indeed official French name? That doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution to you two at this point, but I did add a comment to the talkpage, suggesting that this might be a solution that actually confirms what is said about this in the article. I'll leave this be for now, but I do think that the way other countries deal with the matter in their communications with and about the country are not all that univocal and I am finding some info about that from official sources that I would like to discuss at some point with you or others. That also goes for the issues I raised on East Timor, which are somewhat more puzzling, given the sources and what they actually say. I will notice at some point if the two of you or others are interested. On the Ivory Coast situation I am not suggesting at this point anymore, that any name besides the official French one should be used in the lead. I do think that the situation can be clearer and more precise in the lead part of the article. I would like to discuss these matters further at some point. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
If you could provide sources regarding East Timor aside form the constitution, which as noted was translated before the decision to use the Portuguese as a proper name, they would be interesting to look at. I do not think however, as I have already noted, that a few exceptions call the overall point into much question.
Regarding Cote d'Ivoire, we should use the phrase in question because that is the official English name, which is useful to present on the English Wikipedia. CMD (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you CMD. Agreed with everything you said here.
With regards to Macedonia, Ii consented to officially use the name "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" within the UN system, which is what the UNGEGN reports. Of course it uses other names in other situations, but that just means it has more than one official name.
I'll again link this, which is a translation of the preamble of Timor-Leste's constitution using the modern name, as it seems to keep be suggested that this does not exist. Note that this translation previously used "Democratic Republic of East Timor", which would suggest that the current version has been updated and corrected. TDL (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)