Talk:Pagan Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heraldry[edit]

What is the source for all the heraldry being used? As far as I know, Bagan didn't have heraldry and there are no sources cited for the reason behind the designs. EmeraldRange (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, heraldry has been removed EmeraldRange (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan vs. Bagan[edit]

Someone who understands the difference between Pagan and Bagan needs to clarify the use of the term Bagan in this article. The article is on Pagan, but the term Bagan is introduced without explanation and is frequently used after that, apparently in place of the word Pagan. JD Lambert 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan is the former English name for what is now spelled Bagan. Many city names or spellings were changed by the Burmese government in 1989. See Names of Burma/Myanmar for more information on the name changes. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 15:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added the substance of your comments in a new note on the article. JD Lambert 20:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bagan is native pronunciation and no native pronounce as "Pa Gan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarzar110 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that Bagan is closer to the actual Burmese pronunciation. I'm fine with the use of Bagan for the city's name today. But for the articles on Burmese history, many of which I've contributed to, I still prefer to use the terms that are most common/familiar to most people. For example, I've retained the use of Toungoo though I personally prefer Taungoo.
The problem with the new names is that they don't follow a standardized, rigourous pronunciation guideline--say, as with Chinese pinyin or Korean Romanization. True, the British spellings are just a hodgepodge of spellings as heard by the British and don't follow any rules. Unfortunately, the new system (if it could be called that) devised by this government isn't much better either. The hodgepodge of British butchering of Burmese names have been replaced by another set of hodgepode made up by people with little knowledge of English or international pronunciation rules. Trust me, I couldn't care less about people who say they don't like the rules because they were made up by the military government (as though they prefer the names made up by the colonial masters.) No, I don't like the new names because they don't follow a consistent rule set (and not to mention that it ought to rank much lower than many other serious issues that our country has faced.) Hybernator (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Cepyita: have you read this before you moved the name as you like? Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth revisiting this question as Bagan has been submitted to UNESCO as Bagan and not as Pagan.[1] (In contrast the Pyu city of Sri Ksetra is listed as Sri Ksetra and not Thayae Khittaya]]. Scholarly articles also have begun to shift towards the newer names too, especially in the case of Bagan because of the similarity between Pagan and the word pagan. Original discussion relied on both being hodgepodge; that doesn't necessarily mean we must use the older one. It's a neutral assessment of the failure of both. A consistent spelling like "Purgam" is just so underused that most readers would get confused/find little searching about it elsewhere. Another comment brought up is that Bagan is fine as the name for the place but somehow not for the historical entity centred on Bagan. It's not like the temples and the site is a creation of the modern city of Bagan. In either case, there's still plenty of inconsistency like Early Bagan Kingdom and Uzana of Pagan. If there are no objections, I think it's worth standardizing Pagan to Bagan. As for other names like Toungoo/Taungoo, I'm not sure there is as much need to use one of the other as much as Bagan. EmeraldRange (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Bagan". UNESCO World Heritage Center.

LOC transliteration[edit]

Since many Burmese kings have Indic names it would be useful to give Library of Congress transliterations of their names in addition to whatever system is being used here. Tibetologist (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 September 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Bagan Kingdom (non-admin closure) Turnagra (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan Kingdom → Bagan Kingdom – Bagan has been submitted to UNESCO as Bagan and not as Pagan. Scholarly[1] articles also have shifted towards newer names, especially in the case of Bagan because of the similarity between Pagan and the word pagan. Original discussion relied on both not being in a standardized romanization. Consistency should be with other articles like Bagan and Early Bagan Kingdom not with a standardized romanization 'Purgam' which is unused and hard to recognize. Pagan Kingdom may be the name used by old official sources but Bagan is a more WP:COMMONNAME and is also used by newer reliable sources, news and in general.

References

  1. ^ Aung-Thwin, Michael (2018). Bagan and the World: Early Myanmar and Its Global Connections. Singapore: ISEAS. ISBN 9789814786027.
EmeraldRange (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name change[edit]

Dear EmeraldRange, thanks for raising the issue. I'm sorry I couldn't respond to the requested move in time (as I didn't get a chance to check into Wiki in the past few weeks.)

I agree that we should adhere to WP:COMMONNAME. Now, the name of the kingdom is still overwhelmingly referred to as Pagan Kingdom in the academic literature and in more popular history. (Most academic literature on Burmese history still uses traditional names: Pagan, Ava, Pegu, Toungoo -- not Bagan, Inwa, Bago, Taungoo. Just a quick Google search shows that.) Encylopedia Brittanica [1] still uses Pagan Kingdom.

The use of Bagan Kingdom is still exceedingly small, and whether it will become the dominant usage remains to be seen. (Btw, just because you cited a recent Michael Aung-Thwin's book for using Bagan... know that Aung-Thwin's recent other books | A History of Myanmar since the Ancient Times (2012) and | Myanmar in the Fifteenth Century (2017) use Pagan. Of course, Thant Myint-U in 2021 still uses Pagan Kingdom.

Ideally, the name of the city, and the historical polity that ruled from there should have the same consistent name in English. While the names of the former royal cities in Myanmar have been changed, the academic and more popular names of the historical polities haven't followed.

Back to WP:COMMONNAME's "Use commonly recognizable names". Here, it's still Pagan Kingdom by a long shot. (Otherwise, we're on a slippery slope. What's next? Inwa Kingdom? Bago Kingdom? Taungoo Empire?) Hybernator (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hybernator, thanks for responding. WP:COMMONNAME advises to consider WP:CRITERIA as well, especially in a case where sources do not necessary agree. There is no need for consistent English spelling between all Burmese articles, just those on the topic of Bagan. The vast majority of sources use Ava, Pegu, Toungoo etc., This is not necessarily the case for Bagan because of Precision and Naturalness (both WP:CRITERIA. While Ava, Pegu and Toungoo do not a disambiguation, Pagan by itself without Kingdom afterwards is a common English word. WP:NAMECHANGES also advises higher priority to reliable sources written after a name change. While Bagan may be confused with Balancing GAN, a data-augmentation tool, Pagan may be confused with paganism and the field of Pagan Studies more generally. Searching both terms in Google Scholar demonstrates the obvious difference in both precision and naturalness.
I do agree with you that there is a larger consistency issue between the name of cities and their historical polities that is not easily reconcilable. However that does not imply that we must use older names whenever it is historical as we should use what someone familiar but not an expert in the matter might call it. Aung-Thwin also co-wrote another 2017 book titled Bagan and the World: Early Myanmar and Its Global Connections so he may not be the final authority on what English-language sources. It's misleading, however, to say that the use of Bagan is exceedingly small as there are plenty of independent English-language sources on the matter. The numbers comparisons are complicated by the use of Bagan in most recent articles to refer to the site and city. Ultimately, it is moreso a matter of similarity to common English words than the overall issue of Burmese romanization that causes both the typical reader and sources to use the more precise and natural Bagan. This is not an issue that causes a "slippery slope," even if such a change would be necessarily bad.EmeraldRange (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EmeraldRange, definitely agree that the quality of the sources is key. Here, a quick Google search on Pagan Kingdom of Burma/Myanmar vs. Bagan Kingdom of Burma/Myanmar under books shows Pagan remains very much the predominant usage today. Of course, that has a lot to do with the fact that the use of Pagan Kingdom is far older, and more established. Michael Aung-Thwin, probably the preeminent Pagan/Bagan-era expert alive IMO, uses both terms interchangeably. Another preeminent Burma historian, Victor Lieberman uses Pagan Kingdom. Likewise with Thant Myint-U.
As for the potential confusion with "pagan", yes, it's possibly an issue. But I'm not sure how big the issue that is, or if that's enough of a reason to change the name -- when the vast majority of the books on the topic still use the term. If the academic and/or popular usage does trend towards Bagan Kingdom, then, yes, we definitely should reconsider changing the article name then. Best, Hybernator (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral Page Move against closed move discussion[edit]

@Hybernator Please don't unilaterally move the page, especially against an already closed move discussion. If you want to open another move request, please feel free to. Wikipedia naming criteria is not based on what the most preeminent historians use but on the WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. what is precise, natural for English speakers interested in the subject.) not what is "correct" or "official." Furthermore, Wikipedia works on consensus and we should try to come to an understanding and invite other editors rather than using an appeal to authority. EmeraldRange (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • EmeraldRange, yes, precisely because of WP:COMMONNAME, "most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)", the name of the article should be Pagan Kingdom.
  • If the popular use by interested English speakers is a criterion, Google trends shows the searches for Pagan Kingdom, Pagan Empire, Kingdom of Pagan all handily beat those for Bagan Kingdom, Bagan Empire, and Kingdom of Bagan. If you further confine the search to "references", or to the "United States" where most of the searches came from, Bagan barely registers. See it for yourself.
  • Now, as I have acknowledged as you rightfully pointed out, Michael Aung-Thwin has certainly used Bagan Kingdom in (Aung-Thwin 2018) but it's hardly a tidal wave adopted by others -- academic or popular. Aung-Thwin's last book, a reprint (Aung-Thwin 2019) continues to use Pagan.
  • The onus is on you to provide the evidence that Bagan Kingdom is the common name used by interested English speakers.
  • As for the requested move you started, it was closed before I or some other editors familiar with the topic had a chance to comment. The article as it stands now doesn't even mention the term "Pagan". It was excised away by some IP. This is completely bizarre but also points to the sad state of affairs on Myanmar-related articles. Little oversight. Hybernator (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


WP:GSNR using google searches is not the appeal to authority you think it is. You lament that there is no oversight over Myanmar articles but decide to change without oversight again. It's clear this can become a WP:PMWAR and you should submit a move request and get the input of other editors instead of unilaterally moving the page as you see fit when there is clear lack of consensus. Independent, reliable English-language sources extend to beyond the United States or books written for a popular audience. Your appeal to American centrism makes your argument weaker not stronger. It's easy to revert the flagrant and unnecessary changes made by the IP, so I've reverted those as I agree with you that the term Pagan should be mentioned. I think you should open a move request and wait, patiently, as per WP:TIND and get the commentary of other editors

Bagan Kingdom --> Pagan Kingdom[edit]

Requested move 10 January 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Strong rationale and seeing no oppose (closed by non-admin page mover) Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 18:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bagan Kingdom → Pagan Kingdom – The name of the article should be Pagan Kingdom as it is the commonly known English name of the historical polity in both popular and academic usage.

  • First it's the common usage: Google Trends shows the searches for Pagan Kingdom, Pagan Empire, Kingdom of Pagan all handily beat those for Bagan Kingdom, Bagan Empire, and Kingdom of Bagan.
  • Use in reliable sources. Pagan Kingdom continues to be the name of the polity in reliable sources. From what I gather, most of the books using Bagan Kingdom are the travel guides.
* Encyclopedias:
* Most academic books on Burmese history in the last 20 years. (Books earlier all say Pagan Kingdom as the name Bagan Kingdom is still recent.)
In all, the use of Bagan Kingdom in academic books is still rare as we might expect from a neologism.
  • References in the article. All of the works referenced in the article as of today use Pagan Kingdom. The headline map uses Pagan Kingdom. (For transparency, I'm one of the main contributors to the article, and I contributed the map.) The names Bagan Kingdom/Empire in the article are unreferenced to date.
  • Precedence. This article had been under the name Pagan Kingdom for over a decade, and it was moved to Bagan Kingdom with little discussion or scrutiny into the rationales. What's next?
* Change the other history related articles on Wikipedia that use Pagan Kingdom like those for the royalty and court officials of the era? (Again for transparency, I contributed/wrote many of those articles, and used the term Pagan because the reliable sources use the term.)
* Do we change other articles that still use older terms, not the newer English names set out by the military government in 1989 like Ava Kingdom (not Inwa Kingdom), Toungoo Empire/Dynasty (not Taungoo Empire/Dynasty), British rule in Burma (not British rule in Myanmar).
  • Now, I'm not opposed to changing any of the names should they become prevalent in common usage and in reliable sources. Until then, the name of the article should be Pagan Kingdom. Hybernator (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ngrams and a google search which suggests that most uses of "Pagan Kingdom" refers to this topic. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rationale by the requester, seeing no opposition, pinging MelanieN to reduce the move protection of the article. --Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 08:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. I have reduced the move protection to Extended-Confirmed. Have at it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pagan_Kingdom&oldid=1194949572"