| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
I arrived a bit late to this discussion but I think it hasn't been mined out yet. My take on the subject: The usual scientific practice is to locate a site within the country (and state, if you like) that is currently in power, regardless of whether one approves of its politics. Example: Many people disapprove of politics in Myanmar, but it is still correct to call it Myanmar, not Burma. It does not hurt communication to include the names of parts of countries or states, and this can also be a polite gesture to those who live there. When citing older literature that gives obsolete placenames, the usual practice is to give the older name (thus respecting the past) AND the current one (respecting the future). Example: A specimen may be originally described in 1851 as being collected in Silesia, and this piece of information will never change. "Silesia" is probably on the original label, so the name should not be ignored. As paleontologists, it comes naturally to us to respect the past. But it is helpful, as well as correct, for the author to add that this part of Silesia is now part of Poland. Scientific authors have a responsibility to communicate clearly. By all means, include the name that you prefer. But also, if possible, include the name that is recognized internationally in order to communicate. Readers are responsible to look up unfamiliar names (like Euskadi) in atlases, maps, geographical dictionaries, etc. Many such tools are available on the Web now. Editors have a responsibility to stand between authors and readers to make sure that scientific communication remains objective. Granted, this is not easy in today's highly politicized world (as Niko Malchus' example showed), but it should be the scientist's ideal. One science, Andrew K. Rindsberg Geological Survey of Alabama Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA
Partial index: