Talk:Le Livre noir du Canada anglais
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] English title
I wanted to point out that the book has been published in English translation as The Black Book of English Canada. It can be bought online at Amazon:
I believe the page should be moved to the English title. -- Mathieugp 23:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I know, mon cher Mathieu. As the article founder, I am well aware of the English version forwarded by Ray Conologue and one of the first thing I did was to add a link to its Amazon.ca selling page. As for the title I tend to defend original titles rather than translations. The translation is not the work, it is a version of the work. ...and as I have also defended for other languages and other subjects light years from Quebec politics, I feel using the title in the original language is only respectful of the culture in question. --Liberlogos 01:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I am not against your argument, on the contrary, but it goes against Wikipedia policy for article naming. You can read it about it here:
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)
-- Mathieugp 04:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Titles are usually in their English translation (The Three Musketeers, as an example). Il faut ici penser comme un anglais, en anglais...--Staatenloser 14:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the title in French is wrong, « anglais », as an adjective, should be without capitalization. Here's the proper title : Le Livre noir du Canada anglais.--Staatenloser 19:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Titles are usually in their English translation (The Three Musketeers, as an example). Il faut ici penser comme un anglais, en anglais...--Staatenloser 14:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Perhaps, but I would argue that The Three Musketeers occupies a special position because its English title is already so well-established in popular culture. Since Le Livre noir du Canada anglais is not, I think its French title should remain, just as in the French wikipedia we have Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow, though this isn't a great example as it's an an article I began. (And here I am thinking like an anglophone, because I am one. :)) --Saforrest 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Neutrality?
Why is the neutrality of this article disputed? It describes a book that is definately not neutral, true, but surely there is a way to describe its ideas accurately, without taking a position on either side? I think it's a valid and important book in the debate on this issue. It should be well presented somehow without these warnings. Dan Carkner 15:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)