Talk:Myanmar

External links

The following need to be deleted:

• http://www.myanma.net
• http://www.myanmar.org.uk/shwe/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.96.2 (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, but why? If you're sure about your decision, just do it (Wikipedia:Be bold) and provide a short reason in the edit summary. --Espoo 09:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The first has already been deleted. The second is a duplicate (http://www.myanmar.org.uk/ and http://www.myanmar.org.uk/shwe/). I can't "Be bold" as the article is locked; the message at the top of the article says "If you cannot edit this article and you wish to make a change, you can discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account." - hence this request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.134.3 (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

'Myanmar' or Burma

Well then, would anyone now object if in 24 hours time, I revert the page back to Myanmar? Evlekis 10:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes (see the section above #October requested move). After a WP:RM, unless there is a very good reason, page names should not be reverted for at least six months, and then the WP:RM procedure should be used to place a new request. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above in #October requested move: It is a convention that if a page has been moved via a WP:RM then a new WP:RM to move it back should not be made for six months. Here are two examples from the archives which come to mind but I can find more if someone asks. The reason for this is that if the debate has been thorough then little more can be said and there is a general Wikipedia convention that one does not make multiple requests just to get the result one desires because most editors have more constructive things to do with the time they spend editing Wikipedia. However this convention is not set in stone and there may be cases were due to circumstances it is necessary to have a requested move in under six months but I have not read any reasons in this section which seem to me reasonable reasons for another WP:RM. For anyone who puts in such a request in under six months should consider that it may well be counter productive for them because some editors will express the opinion that a move back should not take place just because the WP:RM is too soon. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR — A mistake was made here and that will draw in a far larger sample of opinions. A review should be held much sooner than six months. See my post below from the other day. --Jack Merridew 14:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The requested move was very widely advertised on WP:RM, Two separate RfCs (politics and geography) and on the Village Pump. It is difficult to see how a far larger sample of opinions could be been engendered for a requested move. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt any of it. Has the NYT commented on this move (yet)? I believe that the move itself will draw much attention to the move over time and that it inevitably will be moved back; WP:SOAPBOX etc. I'll keep an eye out for the move back and any discussions about it. --Jack Merridew 14:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

---

The following should put English/Non-english aspect of name to an end:
Modern Language Association (MLA): "myanmar." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 11 Oct. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myanmar>.
Modern Language Association (MLA): "myanmar." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 11 Oct. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myanmar>.
Modern Language Association (MLA): "myanmar." WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University. 11 Oct. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myanmar>.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third EditionPublished by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved., © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
All those English language dictionaries prove that Myanmar is an English word. Rename back to Myanmar!--Slidersv 07:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A significant point is being missed here. True, endonyms and exonyms are often at variants: Germany is a fine example of a country and language with more names than it has people. Myanmar's situation is more than a cross-linguistic variation. Its constitutional name, Myanmar, was renamed in 1989 by the recognised (though unpopular) administration. Now Britain, which until 50 years earlier had ruled Burma, chose not to recognise the constitutional name. Indeed, nobody can dictate their name on other national or linguistic communities; and the USA in turn has followed suit and also rejected Myanmar. Never the less, every other country in the world recognised Myanmar, from Israel to Chile, from Fiji to Mali and from South Korea to Iceland. It is also recognised as Myanmar by world organisations such as NATO, the EU, the African Union, EFTA, OPEC, APEC, NAFTA, CAFTA, FIFA, UEFA, The Olympic authorities, even the UN. Now, sure, this is not Greek encyclopaedia, exclusive to the Greek language community which are largely based in Greece and Cyprus: however, this is English language encyclopaedia, and English is not solely fixed to the UK and the USA, it is the language of other countries too; more importantly, organisations to which English is an official language. Here on Wikipedia, there is no rule to say that you spell words by their American or English ways (no need to replace centre with center and vice versa), likewise there is no need to replace such terms as fall with autumn. The Englishman edits a page, the American adds something to the same page, the result: something comprehensible to anyone who has learnt any form of English. If the policy of accepting all forms on the same page continue, we need to look at Myanmar/Burma on the bigger picture, and not just thorugh a narrow Ango-American lense. Otherwise, this will end up a joke, like Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Serbo-Croat Wikipedia, musn't forget Montenegrin, give that a short while, it too will be inaugurated. You'll need to have Canadian, New Zealand and Australian seperate Wikipedias (among others) for little more than language variation. On the subject of language variation, there is one more thing: whilst the BBC sticks firmly with the British government view, and calls the country Burma, and its former capital Rangoon (as opposed to Yangon) - Al-Jazeera England calls the same country Myanmar - but is transmits in English: any British readers of this message can select Channel 514 on their Sky Dish to find this channel, you'll even see familiar presenters whom you'd recognise from BBC, ITN and others. Then there is CNN, now this is based in the States, and it too refers to Myanmar and prints it on their report-maps. No English speaking news network will call Finland Suomi, Albania Shqiperia or Sweden Sverige, that simply isn't English! Myanmar is - CNN would not attempt to use it othwerwise. It may be interesting to note that although the land be called Myanmar, its language name remains the same which translates to Burmese when spoken in English. Not even Than Shwe opposes this. So it is not a case of people simply being pedantic, France-24 (in English) speaks of Myanmar and its Burmese language. To this end, I see no reason for the page title to be Burma. Evlekis 19:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is quite inconsistent. Ivory coast was renamed to "Côte d'Ivoire" and Wiki is referring to it as Côte d'Ivoire. There was a vote, and foreign name won. There is no "Côte d'Ivoire" in English language, yet there it is. 194.228.18.137 08:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no vote. There was a discussion, and Côte d'Ivoire was found to be consistent with our naming conventions, despite its lack of appeal to many editors. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The international name change is about as sensible as the rest of the world being forced to call Germany 'Deutschland' or Hungary 'Magyarorszag'. Yes, rename it Burma. That's what we the British called it and that's good enough.

And what makes a British-centric point of view good for the encyclopedia? Actually, a neutral point of view is much better. mike4ty4 03:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you still call the United States your "colonies"? When a country establishes itself as a soverign nation they have the right to change their name, and we should all recognize that. There is a difference between Germany and 'Deutschland' and Burman and 'Myanmar' Germany is the English translation of 'Deutschland'. 'Myanmar' is an entirely new name, chosen by it's government and people. Sure it's not as easy to pronounce, but there ya have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.193.10 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a country can rename itself, in its own language. But it cannot dictate the word for its country in other languages. The previous commentator is right: "Germany" is the English rendering of "Deutschland." By the same token, however, "Burma" is the English word for "Myanma" (which is not a new name in Burmese) or "Bama." Thus "Burma" is as legitimate as "Germany" as an English word. There is no reason to dispense with it.--LapisQuem 14:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Germany is not demanding we call it Deutschland. The name "Burma" has a highly charged history vis a vis the British history in the area. The United Nations recognizes Myanmar, so I don't see how the country is "dictating" anything. While there is no such thing as a completely neutral term, using "Burma" in opposition to the UN and the government's wishes is clearly a political move. Wikipedia should stay out of this and use the most simple method- the name the country wishes to be called. Again, this is not Germany and there is clearly a controversy. 218.152.32.149 05:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I xtrongly suggest we all call this country Burma as it shows we do not recognise the barbaric and inhumane idiots who run Burma. The UN should never have recognised Myanmar!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.209.165 (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, whether or not you object to the current Burmese/Myanmarese(?) government is not relevant to how an encyclopedic article should be written, or in this case, named. Wikipedia's neutrality policies require that Wikipedia not take a stand on an issue. Changing the name of the article due to some political viewpoint one holds is not neutral, as then one is pushing their opinion in the encyclopedia. The neutrality policies prohibit such opinion-pushing. mike4ty4 03:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think using Myanmar is much more proper.

1. It is the official name of the country.

2. The Burmese people are quite comfortable with it. So, even if our so-called "government" is evil and brutal, we still have our right to call our country what we want - if we are denied that right, then, what rights are we Burmese supposed to get by embracing democracy?

3. We are a sovereign nation - we owe no alligence to any foreign state or crown anymore. So, we have our own right to give the country we live in whatever we want. We have the right to be referred by the name we want.

4. It is accepted by the United Nations, the only association which includes almost all the countries of the world and is the only global body with political weight.

5. Aung San Suu Kyi is not God - true, she is a heroine of the Burmese people, but, just because she says that does not mean we have to abide by it. A lot of the people in the country accept Myanmar, and, well, isnt it self-defeating to ignore the voice of the people?

6. Most Burmese use the term "Burma" because many foreigners, especially the British, are ignorant and will not know where on Earth we come from if we said Myanmar.

7. Myanmar represents the 14 states and divisions - Burma represents the 7 divisions where the Burmans dominate only. As an ethnic minority from Myanmar, I actually feel insulted to be termed 'Citizen of Burma'. We, as a union, should politically correctly be refered as Myanmar - else, those who call us Burma are actually ignoring the ethnic minorities, whose sufferings these people are supposed to be concerned for.

8. Many have drawn comparisons to Finland (Suomi), Germany (Deutscheland), Hungary (Magyarország) and Japan (Nippon). Those are different cases. They are Romanized names of their respective languages. They did not push for the UN to recognize them, nor did they say that they changed their official name from X to Y. Their official names are Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Hungary and Japan / Empire of Japan, not Republic of Suomi, etc. Our official name, in English, as defined by the government, is the Union of Myanmar. Our government pushed for it, got it, so, we should use it. Those four does not request other nations to do so, so, we don't call them. Its simple.

We have our right to be called what we want, and, I have already asked many liberal and politically unalligned Burmese - in large cities and abroad - we prefer Myanmar. The problem is, the only people doing the talking abroad are members of the opposition. Moderate and neutral people are attacked and not given room for sharing their opinion ( I feel that I will be getting the same treatment for expressing my opinions (my freedom of speech and thought, which I am supposed to get with democracy).

Just because comedians call George Bush Jr, Douchebag does it mean that he has to be called Douchebag in all publications? When he stands at the UN podium, is he introduced as Douchebag? Or, because the Jihadist call Americans Infidels, does the Americans call themselves Infidels? Do these "authors" of the article, when they have to go through Immigration, want to be called their proper name, or things like (...words which your vocabulary permits...). Bullying us to accept your term, isn't really what I would see as democracy and freedom. True, we are using the English language, but, that does not mean that because some snobs who rule a tiny corner of Europe have the right to make other people call something what they want.

I must say that, the article has deformed a lot over the recent month. I agree that the regime is evil, brutal and is illegitimate, but, the action in defacing this article is horrific. You are not helping my people a single bit by writing those portions or deleting others. True, the suffering and inhumanity must be made known, but the manner in which it has been made on this article is deplorable. All other opinion have been neglected, and only one side of the picture is presented. Is this what you call democracy? I thought only dictatorships like SPDC did that, not free-press democracy. Wikipedia's policy of neutrality has been violated with callousness, and what is supposed to be a neutral wiki has become a slaughtering ground for Myanmar. If you wish so much to express your ideas, I do not mind, in fact, I would prefer you all to set up another wiki. This is wikipedia, not Amerikipedia or Britipedia. True, we all want democracy and development, but, by ignoring the Burmese people or their wishes, or labelling us or targetting us, you all will never succeed. We lost democracy in the first place due to xenophobia. Do not make us develope that mindset again.

Note I am not inside the country (with the internet servered by the idiotic government, many will accuse me of being a government cronie with privileged access to the internet, if I don't clarify things) - I am not writing for any political institution or government. I have my right as a citizen of Myanmar to say what I want about my country. Attacking me, I would say, is rather paradoxical for the proponents of democracy in my country. My user name includes Burma because of the book I read, "U Thant of Burma" - it does not reflect my standing. User:Uthantofburma 11:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I just saw the Signpost article on this and have read some — but not all — of this talk. Like the junta or not (and I don't), the name of the country is Myanmar and this move smacks of a political statement. While that may not have been the intent of the move and of those advocating it, it is inherent in the action — especially given the timing of it re recent events — and such an appearance should have been avoided. --Jack Merridew 08:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Signpost article took me to this interesting renaming debate. It is really unfair to rename a country from the "English point of view". Moreover this renaming is simply against the "neutral point of view" of Wikipedia and it can be seen only as politics. The editors should be sensible enough to look at United Nations documents(Not United State's or United Kingdom's). The UN uses Myanmar.Manjithkaini 14:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the name Myanmar has got U.N recognition Burma can be replaced with Myanmar, the recognized name. Chanakyathegreat 13:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm normally the first to call for adopting official uses (I'm 100% in favour of Côte d'Ivoire, and would love to see East Timor finally moved to Timor-Leste), but in this case, there's a difference: a large number of organisations, including states, does not recognise the name change. —Nightstallion 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the democratically-elected government of Burma has never recognized the name change. This alone makes the situation vastly different from the Timor-Leste or Ivory Coast cases. It's not simply a "British/US" point of view, parties within the country have never recognized the name change either. Junta POV =/= Burmese POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisblue (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the non-democratic military government of Myanmar does not recognize the democratically-elected government of Burma. Out of the two, the former is the one we have listed in the Government template at the side of the article. Should we list this democratically-elected government instead, as the one that rules the country? -BaronGrackle 15:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Basing reasoning on the legitimacy or not of the regime is entering into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory and also inconsistent. To take one example, are the articles on the "country" covering what is now Zimbabwe between 1964 & 1979 entitled "Southern Rhodesia" - the formal legal name of the colony under the law of its owner - or "Rhodesia" - a name change made by the colonial government which subsequently made an internationally unrecognised Unilateral Declaration of Independence? Because Ian Smith's regime was not exactly "legitimate" in some people's eyes?

Or do we accept that Wikipedia is not the place for POV and soapboxing and consider in terms of the names actually used, not what we personally think of those making the name changes? Timrollpickering 19:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that since ISO 3166-1 uses MM and MMR as the alpha-2 and alpha-3 codes for this country, this article should be under the name "Myanmar". --  Denelson83  03:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

By that logic the United Kingdom should be renamed as its letters are GB and GBR --Philip Baird Shearer 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the same thing. The UK is the short form for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the code is simply taken from one section of the long name, whilst the short form comes from another part. Myanmar and Burma do not form parts of a single text, nor are they variations of a single name, and they are not cross-linguistic calques either. Without expressing my preference for Myanmar, I'm saying that the article's title can be one or the other. Evlekis 12:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So what should they use in Northern Ireland then as their part of the name is not included? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not my problem. Obviously in the world of sport, you have 3-letter codes, Northern Ireland can be NIR whilst England is ENG, then there is WAL, SCO etc. But as for international codes, it is down to Northern Ireland's population to kick up a stink over that issue. Because the national demonym is British, maybe it doesn't bother them, not atleast those who believe in the Kingdom; those who don't will not be any happier with anything. If they are happy to identify as British at a national level, leaving Irish as a regional affinity, GB and GBR should be fine. Evlekis 16:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the change to Myanmar was chosen by a totalitarian regime, and not by the people itself. That was to count as something. --The monkeyhate (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Searches

Google-fighting Myanmar vs. Burma shows Myanmar ahead, supposedly just on English language websites. The way I, an American, learned it was that Myanmar was the geopolitical nation and Burma was the geographical place (like Asia, or the Indian subcontinent). Even the Wikiproject for their citizens list Myanmar as their nation's name. English Wikipedia mentions of Burma vs. Myanmar are about even (12,900 vs. 12,500, which is surprising). Maybe Burma should cover the history and geography of Burma as a whole, with Myanmar covering just the present government (sorta, but not quite, like the China/People's Republic of China situation).--Tim Thomason 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a look on JSTOR and this gets more complicated. A basic search "(burma) NOT (myanmar)" yields 15859 results. "(myanmar) NOT (burma)" yields 381 results. BUT Jstor includes journals that go back a long way. Indeed all of the top 25 results for "(burma) NOT (myanmar)" predate 1989. Conversely every "(myanmar) NOT (burma)" result postdates it. Restricting the search to 1990 to 2007 gets "(burma) NOT (myanmar)" 1999 and "(myanmar) NOT (burma)" still 381. But if the name change takes time to settle in, perhaps a more recent start date is a better indication of what current usage is.

Knocking the search down to 2006-2007 gets 3 hits for Burma and 2 for Myanmar - not exactly decisive. Of course the Jstor agreements means that a lot of journal articles in this period are not available. A 2002-2007 search yields 64 results for Myanmar and 132 for Burma. The Burma results include reviews of "The Burma Road: The Epic Story of the China-Burma-India Theater in World War II" and "Phoenix from the Ashes: The Indian Army in the Burma Campaign" - neither of which are referring to current usage. Indeed Jstor has a lot of history articles ("History" is the largest discipline represented with 40 dedicated journals in its archives, and many other journals carry historical articles as well) and it's natural when writing history to use the name used at the time'.

Now crawling through every single article to check whether the usage is contemporary is not the easiest thing to do. But how likely is it that an appearance of "Myanmar" in an article or google search means anything other than "name for the country used today"? And how likely is it that an appearance of "Burma" means that? To take a few Wikipedia pages, Fourth National Ministry, National Government 1935–1940, Chamberlain War Ministry, Coalition Government 1940–1945, Caretaker Government 1945, Labour Government 1945-1951, Lawrence Dundas, 2nd Marquess of Zetland, Leo Amery, Frederick Pethick-Lawrence, 1st Baron Pethick-Lawrence, William Hare, 5th Earl of Listowel and Secretary of State for India all contain the word "Burma", and will all get counted by Google, but that's because all deal with the ministerial post of "Secretary of State for India and Burma" that existed between 1937 and 1947. But none of these are reflecting current usage. Similarly I wonder how many of the results on Google and the like are measuring just the current usage? Timrollpickering (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The news says Myanmar, use Myanmar, duh! Child Posey (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming suggestion

It appears I made a mistake in assuming only the UK and the USA to recognise Burma with everyone else calling it Myanmar. It appears that Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (not sure about South Africa) do all recognise Burma, and this accounts for a larger section of the English speaking world: atleast those who speak it as a first language if not second/official. But because of the fact that Myanmar has overwhemlingly been proved as accepted in the English language as well as in English speaking organisations, here is what I suggest we do with the title: is there a way in which we can include both Myanmar and Burma in it such as Myanmar/Burma or Myanmar (Burma) or in reverse. We may also include both on the opening text in block print. The map of the world which I have in my study is in English, and prints Myanmar (Burma). If anyone opposes this for any reason, would the same person suggest switching Yangon to Rangoon with all other towns following suit for the same reason? Evlekis 12:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Myanmar/Burma" (or the other way round) is very bad technically - the / would create a subfield namespace. "Myanmar-Burma" would sound like a compound compromise actually in use (e.g. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia which wasn't created by the most democratically legitimate regime going) and creating new name forms is truly OR. "Myanmar (Burma)" on Wikipedia would imply that there's more than one Myanmar and this one is best disambiguated as Burma. And no-one would be able to agree on which way round to put the names. Timrollpickering 19:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, although I favour Myanmar, I would settle to have Burma first for alphabetical purposes. The Zimbabwe issue is totally different. The administration there is internationally recognised even if unpopular among sections of the Zimbabwean population and other specific international heads of government. The UK recognises Zimbabwe, I don't know of any organisation which refers to Rhodesia though I can imagine that there may be some people in some places; obviously Ian Smith and former colleagues cannot be expected to recognise Zimbabwe from a personal perspective, his his present-day host country South Africa does accept Zimbabwe, and is an ally too. Back to Myanmar: or going away from it slightly, I'd like to turn your attention to one other naming dispute - The Republic of Macedonia is the constitutional name for a landlocked country in south-eastern Europe. As you may by now see, that is how its title appears in Wikipedia. Disputes with Greece have led to the country being recongised elsewhere as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Although the number of countries to recognise the constitutional name are rising, the fraction was still less than a third of world countries the last time I checked. The USA is one of those countries to accept the ROM, but the other English speaking countries do not; perhaps more importantly, the UN recognised FYROM as do other world organisations. My point is that Myanmar is far more acceptable than Republic of Macedonia, so is one country allowed to have its constitutional name displayed here when it is not recognised by the UN whilst another fully recognised name is being suppressed? Evlekis 08:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong on Macedonia -- the last time I checked a few days ago, it was more than 100 states which recognised it as ROM, which makes that an absolute majority. —Nightstallion 09:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

hey I'm not wrong! I said the "last time I chekced!!", that may be more than a year ago now - and even then, the info may have been out of date. I did use the word "increasing" and I know this to be the case. Soon Greece and Cyrpus will be standing alone at this rate - don't expect them to accept ROM though. The number of countries recognising Myanmar is still greater than those who recognise ROM. This argument is in my favour, not those who support Burma. Myanmar is also recognised by organisations which do not recognise ROM...so again I ask, where is the sense in keeping this title as its unconstitutional name? Evlekis 09:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Zimbabwe example is not current but historic - between 1964 and 1980 the legal status of the names "Rhodesia" (1964-1979) and "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" (1979-1980) was dubious because a) the colonial government declared a change from "Southern Rhodesia" in 1964 but this change was not made by the UK; b) the 1965 UDI was never internationally recognised so there's a case that legally the correct name in that period was still "Southern Rhodesia" and c) the 1979 changes were part of an internal settlement not accepted by all groups in the place (due to the limitations on the franchise it's hard to make arbitary jugements about the level of support). (Today there are some who still call themselves "Rhodesians" but this is entirely an individual declaration of historic pride/dislike of Mugabe, not a claim that the country is still "Rhodesia".) I bring this example up because Myanmar is far from alone in being a country with the "legitimacy" of the name change open to contention.

As for Macedonia it's now 118 or 61% of the UN, including some English speaking countries such as the UK and Canada though Australia and India use fYRoM - Macedonia naming dispute#The current situation. And "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is strictly speaking not a name in the eyes of the UN but an explicitly designated provisional description pending a settlement of the naming dispute. Timrollpickering 11:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish to get back to this naming issue before this goes off-topic any further (Northern Ireland & GBR), what were the reasons if one may list them that this page was moved from Myanmar to Burma, and more importantly, why now all of a sudden? If it were originally Burma, I apologise, I started reading it a short while ago. Evlekis 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The original article was created under the page name Burma on at 14:04, 17 October 2001 eleven days later another article was created under Myanmar at 05:59, 28 October 2001 both pages existed until user:Conversion script made the Burma page a redirect at 15:43, 25 February 2002 -- This particular edit was deleted from the history when the recent page move to Burma was made (along with 27 other edits) the first of which I recovered to show you the content of the first page created for this country was Burma, (the rest of the edits would just confuse the edit history and provide no additional information). --Philip Baird Shearer 10:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether we should be using the names as recognised by the United Nations, at least in the English form, since I feel they are in many ways the central point at deciding what is officially recognised. There may be other names or consideration of identy, used by different languages and countries, but on an international basis, I would tend to refer to the United Nations. For a list consult UN Geographic Names. At the same time it may be worth noting in the entry the context for using one or another. BTW the BBC seems just as confused since they use Burma in news articles and yet list it as Myanmar in their weather site (note mixing of Rangoon and Mynamar, instead of simply Yangon and Myanmar) --AJ Mas 15:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Wikipedia now uses "Burma" for the country, but "Yangon" for the city. Isn't this inconsistent? Both names were changed by the junta. If you recognise the junta's name changes, you'd use "Myanmar" for the country and "Yangon for the city. If you don't recognise the junta's name changes, you'd use "Burma" for the country and "Rangoon" for the city, but I'm not sure when you'd use a mixture of junta and non-junta names ("Burma" and "Yangon"). (Stefan2 10:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

It's completely irrelevant whether Wikipedia's choices agree with the junta's or the UN's or whether some WP choices are the official ones and others aren't. The only thing that counts is which forms are used most in English in reputable sources. Rangoon should be Yangon on the basis of the evidence provided, but it will take a while before a new move request can be made and a better informed move decision can be made.

Most of the above new discussion seems to be unaware of what was discussed in great detail before and, more importantly, unaware of the basic principles of WP's naming convention. Please take some time to read at least part of WP:COMMONNAME before wasting your own time and that of others. --Espoo 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As was said above, UK, USA, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa name it as Burma. I think all this countries gather the majority of people whose native language is English, so I think it is fair enough. --Tonyjeff 01:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

English-speaking countries do not necessarily happen to constitute the largest number of English speakers, unfortunately. Practically the entirety of Asia, where there are a far larger number of individuals literate in the English language, recognise this country as Myanmar. I was actually rather shocked to discover this name change last night, only when someone attempts to rename an individual article elsewhere. This reminds me of the East Timor-Timor Leste naming issue, where the later is actually the official name, yet the former is selected for "popular usage" reasoning. These two countries will be about the only two with names which are unofficial in wiikipedia and reflect badly on wikipedia as a reasonably consistent source for research.--Huaiwei (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yangon/Rangoon

Why is the topic called "Burma" and the capital is "Yangon"? It's like saying "Harare, Rhodesia" It should be either Yangon, Myanmar or Rangoon, Burma. Reading WP:COMMONNAME], I think Rangoon would be "searched for" more than Yangon. Speedboy Salesman 12:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

For the simple reasons that that is how the two recent move discussions ended. There was a Requested move on this at the same time Myanmar was moved to Burma and the outcome was no consensus, particularly as this is not as clear cut as some make it out to be - media usage is quite split for a start, so it's hard to determine that one term is overwhelmingly used more than the other. Timrollpickering 15:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well can somebody make a requested move from Yangon to Rangoon? I don't know how to do it. Speedboy Salesman 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page but it's been only a month since the last move discussion and another is going to feel like "let's keep going until we get the desired outcome". Timrollpickering 00:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

VOTE: Burma or Myanmar

There was a very long and comprehensive discussion on this very same issue just over a month ago, the result of which was in favour of the move to this title. Consensus can change but there need to be good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated. --bainer (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate subpage for naming issues?

I recommend that naming issues, particularly debates on the name of the article, be kept on a separate subpage to tidy things up. The name of the article is an important thing, and editors have made many comments about naming issue on this talk page. There is certainly enough to warrant a separate subpage, and this will prevent other issues from being choked out.

One of these other issues: should the entire article be written in past tense? Also, there are statements such as "in recent weeks" within the article - these could have been helpful for people reading the article not long after these sections were written, but would not be appropriate even a month after such statements are added.

Thanks, 60.242.0.245 13:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From "democracy" to military rule

On another note, does anyone know the details of the events which led to the military take-over? The article seems to jump from Democracy one day to Emergency Law the next. These things don't happen overnight, and they are not without reason. The article does not mention whether there were economical problems at the time, or allegations of corruption or fraud. And if so, how long had it been going on, and is there any information on the popularity of the Militray-backed socialists; such as what portion of the population supported them, and why they didn't follow the "democratic" process etc. Any info? Evlekis 12:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Ne Win and U Nu article provides some additional background but not that detailed Nil Einne (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Move request

There was a very long and comprehensive discussion on this very same issue just over a month ago, the result of which was in favour of the move to this title. Consensus can change but there need to be good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated. --bainer (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute

A respected and experienced user emailed me suggesting we take this to arbcom. The issue is clearly not closed, any comments to me personally re arbcom would be appreciated, I haven't made up my mind what to do right now but this issue simply cannot be closed thus. Does anyone care for mediation? Thanks, SqueakBox 21:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't think it was that big of a deal. If it'll help, you can delete my above comment regarding the googling and my personal take on the issue. Before my comment, there was no discussion on this page regarding the name for over a month, so it doesn't seem like a "never-closing" ongoing dispute to me.

I thought this was the proper place to discuss (rather than suggest) such things. We should probably archive the previous discussions after a set time, or as the user above suggests, move it to an additional talk page. Hopefully, that would help keep it away from any committees.--Tim Thomason 21:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

a lot has happened but both my point and that of the user who emailed me is that the only issue is the name of the article, while certain edits can be considered related to this issue the only thing that is of any interest to me is the name and how we are dealing with that. I got briefly blocked for my contribs here and, for the record, I am not disputing the block or acting as I am because I am pissed about the block (which I am not), this has nothing to do with that, it is about the name of the article and any arbcom case would base itself on the name and how the pure issues with the name are being treated here. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, ArbCom lacks jurisdiction. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea to discuss the issue here, but to keep it as far away from a vote-format as possible. (I'm not saying that anybody was suggesting a vote; I'm just thinking aloud.) A good idea would probably be to compile a list of sources, being sure to cover a cross-section of the English-speaking world, and see who uses what.

We could note which sources follow AP usage, for example, and which ones follow the BBC, and which ones make their own decisions. Also of interest would be what is taught in schools, as this is certain to have a strong influence on what most people recognize, especially as more time goes by. We can talk about the different sources and about how to weigh them, et cetera.

We can talk about possibilities such as splitting the article into separate ones describing the country at different times.... the list goes on. A lot of discussion can happen outside of the structured format of a move request, and the lack of a tally to worry about means we can be a bit more relaxed and deliberative about it.

If nothing else, such use of this talk page would establish a pool of clear evidence to use in mediation or abritration, and it could help some future editors finally arrive at a consensus someday. What do people think; does that sound worth a try? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You are invited to comment on this matter on a similar current ArbCom case regarding naming of Macedonia articles. I've opened a paragraph asking ArbCom to decide on naming conflicts. Click here --   Avg    20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent) Interesting - to my knowledge Wikipedia:Naming conflict has hardly been mentioned in the debates here yet. And the section on how to deal with the conflict for the article name includes the following:

The three key principles are:

* The most common use of a name takes precedence;

TRP: Which is damn near impossible to determine in this case.

* If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;

TRP: The problem being that it's not clear if "Burma" is the more common name, but there's no dispute that "Myanmar" is the official (short) name, is there?

* If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.

TRP: Well again "Myanmar" is definitely the name the current government of the country uses to describe the country - it is getting somewhat into POV territory to start making judgements as to whether we accept their right on this point.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:

* Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)

TRP: The problem is both are in "common usage in English".

* Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)

"Myanmar" definitely is. "Burma" takes us into POV territory.

* Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

TRP: Again "Myanmar" is definitely the name the government of the country uses.

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

* Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?

* Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?

* Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?

* Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

TRP: Am I alone in thinking that all the "Using Myanmar is accepting the current government and so wrong" line of argument falls under this?

Oh and a few further bits of advice there:

Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing POVs. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.

TRP: Well that puts a crimp on "Myanmar-Burma" constructions.

A distinction should be drawn between a self-identifying entity and an inanimate entity. An inanimate geographical feature such as a sea or mountain does not have its own name for itself (obviously). Thus the English name Mount Everest is just as arbitrary as the local name, Qomolangma. The use of "Mount Everest" as the definitive term in Wikipedia is simply a matter of convenience, as the mountain is far more widely known by the English name than by its native Tibetan one.

A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.

TRP: This says to me that a city or country does have the right to change its name. This is not a case of "rewriting the English language".

Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.

TRP: Again this says to me that all issues dealing with the legitimacy of the current government should not be a factor in determing where the article should be located. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim, thanks for that rundown of the how that guideline applies to this dispute. I think that's very helpful, and I wonder whether Wikipedia:Naming conflict would be read differently by an editor on the other side of the dispute. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Most definitely. That's why this thing will never end, I guess. I'm for Burma, for the record, though only in a passing fashion.. I know an immigrated Burmese family and they all refer to the country in English as "Burma". Just food for thought, but I suppose others could be different. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly not a content dispute, see [2]. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record I was opposed to the move when it happened and still feel the original move was against policy. Moves require consensus. There was clearly no consensus in the move discussion but the closing admin moved anyway because of a large majority. But a large majority is not consensus especially when both sides have valid arguments and when at least some of the people supporting the side with the majority appear to be ignoring policy anyway (some wanted to move because they didn't like the government of Myanmar which while understandable is not policy) Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Capital City Change?

Capital of Burma/Myanmar change from Rangon/Yangoon to Napidauw Yudiweb (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the same place, just a different name. I am thinking that both are still used, just one is used locally and the other internationally. Like Peking and Bejing. I don't know which is which, though.

RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Naypyidaw is a different settlement some 320 km north of Yangon. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. They are two entirely different cities, with the new capital proper only about two years old. And meanwhile, Beijing/Peking is not to be compared. "Beijing" is used widely the world over today, and can hardly be considered a "local" name.--Huaiwei (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal dispute: Title

The title of this page does not match the content from a legal standpoint. The article discusses the country of [The] Union Of Myanmar, and its history including the time the local was called Burma, yet the title states Burma, a country that ceased to exist in 1989. Not only is this title factually incorrect for the content, given that [The} Union Of Myanmar is a member of the United Nations, it opens Wikipedia's site host and administrators to international LEGAL action by the government of The Union', a government that has shown it's willing to flex it muscle in the legal field after filing suite against various groups and nations as of late. Lostinlodos 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Raising the spectre of legal threats is not a constructive way forward on this matter. And making a Copy & Paste move to "Union of Myanmar" is wrong on so many different levels and again is not a constructive measure. Timrollpickering 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The two articles were identical BEFORE I made my change. Check the history of both articles to verify that. I also made a minor change in the opening paragraph. However I saved over the old article with a redirect inadvertantly and kept getting blocked out "another change has been attempted" or something to that matter first. When notice from User:Corvus cornix came up on my talk page; I thought to hash it out with that user directly before coming back and explaining my intention and maybe asking for a temporary freeze (lock) on everything related to Myanmar until I (or someone) can get the redirect issues worked out. Many, if not most, redirects to this article, regardless of which title is currently being used for the actual text; come up dead because of all the changes. Honestly I could care less how the article reades (see below) but the interlinking and double and tipple redirects cause a lot of dead work here.

RE legal threats: I'm not making the threats; I'm pointing out the news as it comes off of the BBC; one of the more reliable sources. It is apparent that there are a few "moderators" of sort that pay attention; and it is something of immediate and real issue to be taken note of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostinlodos (talk • contribs) 07:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

First off if there are problems with redirects arising from moves the best thing to do is to fix the redirects, not use them as an excuse to start moving things around (and since the RM a few months ago the article location has been stable). And the articles were not identical - your changes to Union of Myanmar turned it from a redirect to a copy & paste of the text here [3] whilst redirecting the article here [4]. Copy & paste moves detach an article from the history of its construction and are deplored on all levels. On any move it helps to discuss it first or at least reference long standing naming conventions (but when the move has already been discussed it's not enough to just move the article and cite them).

As for threats, raising the spectre of them is almost the same as making them - and I note you haven't actually pointed to one. Timrollpickering 12:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lostinlodos Lostinlodos (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Factual info and cleanup

I've given up (and given in) on convincing other western users here to recognize reality regarding the incorrect title on this page. That aside; every editor needs to look at the Wikipedia policy on FACTS. Assuming that the majority wish to keep the incorrect POV title (in reference to an inclusive article as it stands); the reference to the term "Burma" in the present tense is factually incorrect. This article requires clean-up, specifically to correct all flagrantly false references to the current land area formerly recognized, by the only authority authorized internationally to make such a recognition, the United Nations, as [xxx] Burma [xxx], and currently recognized by that sole authority as Myanmar, need to be corrected to represent current reality. Leaving it as it is violates policies: NPOV, FACT, NEUTRALITY. I'd make the changes myself but I seem to be the only westerner not brainwashed by state-controlled US media. Everyone else reverts any edit I try to make on western-slanted opinionated subjects so I'll let a more senior editor (I'd hope there were administrators who were above such blatant ignorance and misguided lemming-like going-along) make the required changes. Pointed comment should be taken only as a display of frustration over policy and nothing more. Not pointing fingers, just pointing out policy violation at this point. Article tagged Lostinlodos (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

First statement in article is very clear:

"The Union of Myanmar (formerly Burma) (Burmese: , pronounced [pjìdàunzṵ mjəmà nàinŋàndɔ̀]), is the largest country by geographical area in mainland Southeast Asia."

Because of that article need to be moved under name Myanmar --Rjecina (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We've had a discussion about this a few months ago and there was consensus to have the article named "Burma" as that's the most common name in English. Furthermore, "Myanmar" lacks recognition by many countries. The first paragraph has now been changed accordingly. Húsönd 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar…" is an interesting introduction. If we're going to say that "Burma" is the most commonly used word for the country, then shouldn't we say that the official name is "Union of Burma", or some other piece of fiction? Pardon my facetiousness, but are we serious here? -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You may change that to something like "Burma, officially designated "Union of Myanmar" by the Burmese government", if you think the name duality is awkward. Personally I don't think it's necessary. Húsönd 03:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly is wrong with Union of myanmar, formerly Burma? Masses of wikipedia precedent. And whatever matters to you personally isn't relevant but how can you possibl;y claim that the official name doesn't mater while adhering to our neutrality poliucy.? Comments like this are hardly helpful, and indeed are indicative of why an rfc is the way to go. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not "formerly Burma". People never stopped calling the country "Burma", nor has ceased recognition of this country under that name. Húsönd 03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Husond. Also, this should probably be a move request and not an RfC. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

rfc sounds more appropriate to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there wasn't consensus, this issue is thoroughly disputed, I (a) support some action and (b) support the removal of endless unnecessary repetitions of the words Burma and Burmese and (c)support using the words Union of Myanmar when referring to the current gov. I suggest now is the time to try and deal with this issue which (barring a renaming of the country by its actual gov, whoever that is in any given moment) isn't going to go away. I welcome e,mails on the subject from anyone who agrees with me. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, asking users who agree with you to identify themselves in private e-mails is a most irregular procedure. Please be transparent otherwise you will damage the validity and credibility of your own positions. Húsönd 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay, I welcome emails from anyone on the subject. Nothing wrong with private emails though, and lets not pretend otherwise. I am coming in good faith and am not convinced that my request negates that. But there are huge issues here and I would like to see them resolved. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I wish I could pretend that nothing's ever wrong with private emails. Anyway, I'm assuming good faith. Húsönd 03:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, for me anyway this isn't about individual editors. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is astounding. Since the government on Taiwan is not recognised by the majority of countries on this planet too, shall we change its opening line with a "Taiwan, officially designated "Republic of China" by the Taiwanese government" or something like that? Since when did wikipedia hold the right to ignore official names in favour of "popular names" (the later of which was actually less than convincing in this regard) especially when dealing with country names? I hope we will not reach a day where Australia gets renamed as Down Under should the later term become a more popular terminology!--Huaiwei (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia hold the right? Using common names is a long-established custom. It's not like some weird exception has been imposed on this article.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you then explain why the Republic of Ireland is not simply Ireland, the People's Republic of China is not at the China article, and the Taiwan article is not about the country called the Republic of China? Sure, using common names has been a long-established custom, but we have always also allowed exceptions especially in politically sensitive topics, such as the above. This article has now joined East Timor as the only countries not to be presented by their official English names, and is it a coincidence that both also happen to have very low representation in this website?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not very persuasive that the naming isn't political. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

None of those examples are comparable. We do have an article on [[China], one on Ireland, and one on Taiwan. The articles on the corresponding governments are given other names for purposes of disambiguation. As far as I can tell, sympathisers of the PRC government tend to be the same people who are in favour of moving that article to China, i.e. away from its official name. The Republic of China is a particularly complex issue, since it is the name of a state which official includes territories vastly larger than simply Taiwan and a few surrounding islands; however, many people feel that its claim to these territories is no longer sincere.

This article, on the other hand, is simply a choice between two names.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point entirely. The China article is not on the People's Republic of China, but on the Chinese civilisation. The Taiwan article is on the island of Taiwan, and not the political entity based on the island known as the Republic of China. The Ireland article is on the island of Ireland, and is not on the dominant political entity known in full as the Republic of Ireland. In each situation, a common country name is deliberately reserved for something non-political, with the actual country article residing at the full official English name. What is the common situation between all of these, and how do this relates to the situation on the Union of Myanmar vs Burma?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Today wikipedia situation about Burma/Myanmar is very funny because wikipedia is not accepting military hunta decision to change state name, but it is accepting hunta decision to change capital name from Rangoon to Yangon. We must make decision on wiki if there will be Myanmar-Yangon or Burma-Rangoon because today situation is silly.--Rjecina (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. So, naturally, different types of names will sometimes be chosen in different cases.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 06:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's odd to have this article named Burma, whereas the one about its capital is named Yangon. There was a move proposal for that one at the same time there was one for Myanmar-Burma, but the discussion there didn't reach a consensus for the move, thus defaulting into keeping Yangon. Like Nat said, this goes on a case-by-case basis. Húsönd 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar's capital is actually at Naypyidaw, but since it was again a designation by a government which is not recognised by some wikipedians here, I suppose we are forced to state Rangoon as the capital still.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, duh, I just can't get used to Naypyidaw as the capital. Anyway, you do raise a good point as a matter of fact. Why should we have this article named Burma against the junta's decision to name it Myanmar, while abiding by their decision to move the capital? Well, firstly Wikipedia is not an official entity who makes decisions of recognition. We just happened to decide that this article should be Burma due to its common usage in English, and that decision is not to be understood as political. As for Naypyidaw, there are no English usage issues. We just state as an encyclopedia that it's the capital of Burma because it has been officially proclaimed so by the ruling government which has been moving the central governance institutions there, thus making it the actual capital. Húsönd 07:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't get used to it either...heck I can't even pronounce that name properly without assistance, but the fact remains that it is our problem. The capital is Naypyidaw. Period. A fail to see how any self-respecting encyclopaedia can allow political viewpoints of individual editors to influence presentation of fact. You claim that "we just happened to decide that this article should be Burma due to its common usage in English", but just who constitutes "we"? Several apparently stated that the move itself was not exactly in full accordance to wikipolicies, and has continuously incited criticism, as it still does now. So if we as an encyclopaedia can state the capital as officially designated by a government, why the concern over stating its official name as designated by the same government? Is common naming truly the sole concern here? Is the timing of the move a matter of pure coincidence?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Huaiwei's earlier point about the People's Republic of China and Taiwan are important; despite what Wikipedia's policy says, there are many, many articles in which a place's common name is NOT its article name, and most people don't want to change those article titles. Also, let me add a citation to my previous fake-point. The official name of Myanmar, in "common English" (i.e. the United States government and probably the Commonwealth governments), is the "Union of Burma". I'd nearly bet all the English sources that use "Burma" also use "Union of Burma". So, are we foolish enough to use this "common name" in our article as the "official name", or is that too far over the line? -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We have never used the official name, which is the Union of Myanmar. We don't in the United Kingdom either. That isn't the point. The point is that we never use (except in this one case) the name that is rejected by the government. It would be like calling Sri Lanka Ceylon or Zimbabwe Rhodesia. What is unacceptable is that we are taking sides against the ruling government in an international dispute in clear violation of our NPOV policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it particularly unacceptable to take sides against a ruling government in an international dispute, but acceptable to take sides against their opponents? That is NPOV?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

An issue is NPOV when all country articles correspond to their official English names, or at least in part (with the sole exception of East Timor), except for one which was moved for no better reason then personal judgement that the government is not legitimate. --Huaiwei (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And I can bet you will get a response saying "Ceylon" isnt more commonly in use than "Sri Lanka", thus rendering your example moot. I would cite the example of the massive Indian city renaming exercise instead, where city names were renamed almost immediately in wikipedia despite the new name obviously needing time to become "commonly used". And why this happens? Perhaps one reason is that there is a significant Indian community in wikipedia. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Myanmar or Timor-Leste. Official names of geographic entities seems to be an exception which must be made in the common names policy, especially when dealing with major entities such as countries and cities.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right about why those pages were moved. However, that it was so doesn't tell us much of anything about whether it was a positive development. I was worried that the precedent of the Indian cities would start to be cited as an example for other similar moves, and here it is. That said, I suppose that if this is really the trend in Wikipedia in general, then it's only fair for you to mention it here.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 02:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Section break 1

The government is not a legitimate one; it was established through bullets and not ballots, and has kept under house arrest the rightfully elected leader of the country. I see no reason why we should use their name for Burma just because they have guns and their opponents don't. The English-speaking world uses Burma, and that's our measuring stick. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It not being legitimate is just your opinion and we cant write an encyclopedia just based on our own opinions. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out numerous times in the discussion it is not the case that English use is overwhelmingly just "Burma", with "Myanmar" heavily used in English as well. Opinions on the regime are irrelevant POV (and inconsistent, as also pointed out several times, as other past and present entities of dubious legitimacy are at their names) - what matters is a) what is the name most commonly used across the Eglish speaking world?; and b) when it's impossible to establish this (as it clearly is here) what is the mechanism in policy for resolving the tie? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it has been mentioned before that the phrase "English-speaking world" needs clear definition. Past discussions seems focus on defining this as countries where English is the dominant native language. Unfortunately, the real situation of the language is such that there are far more non-native English speakers than there are native ones, and it has been yet established if "Burma" is the predominant word used amongst all English-speaking peoples all over the world.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus, using the word of English-dominant national governments is unreliable, since many of these governments purposely avoid using the illegitimate regime's name, for the purpose of withholding moral support. If we used this criteria for, say, Northern Cyprus, the English Wikipedia article would simply redirect to Cyprus since only the Turkish government recognizes it. If we used it for Driver's License, even in a purely U.S. context, the page would be Driver License, even though this is far from common use in America. The English-speaking media sources are much more divided than English-speaking governments, yet not even they can solely be used to determine "common use". Unfortunately, Myanmar/Burma doesn't exactly come up in everyday conversation... at least not in the English world. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Burma is NOT the official English name! Lostinlodos (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because there's no such thing as an official English name, because there is no authority that could sanction one or the other.AdeMiami (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to prefer the name Myanmar except the military junta currently ruling Burma:
"Official practice in the United Kingdom is to use as country names those names which are in common informal usage in British English. In this instance, that name is “Burma”, and hence “Burma” is the country name in official UK usage..."
--An Introduction to the Toponymy of Burma, by The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use (2007), p.5
Even the people of Burma prefer that it retain the English name Burma (especially the NLD). Kaldari (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This article must be moved to Myanmar

Myanmar is the name recognized by the UN and the majority of world states. I am not aware of a single sourcebook or encyclopedia that has an entry on Burma as opposed to Myanmar. The use of the name "Burma" is a blatant political statement meant to support the country's opposition movement. This is totally inappropriate for a supposedly neutral encyclopedia. Maglev Power (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The timing of the move was highly propagandist and is a discredit to the project. El_C 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then let's be bold, help write a serious encyclopedia, and move it oursevlves. I ask that you try moving it. I just did, but was quickly reverted. You both should be given more serious consideration than I, as you two are long-time respected editors, while I'm new around here. Maglev Power (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See? Consensus, it works (some of the time). BJ^Talk 04:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then please move the article back to Myanmar. I'd do it; but I probably shouldn't make too many revertions as a very new editor. Maglev Power (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maglev: Don't be afraid to be bold!, that's what Wikipedia is all about --Astral (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, I already tried twice, and was reverted twice. I think the change will be more likely to stand if another user follows my lead and moves the page. Maglev Power (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, why are there two pages with the same content and different names? BJ^Talk 05:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to redirect this now because of the two different pages existing. Please don't do anything for a minute. BJ^Talk 05:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Now we have to move back a bunch of subsidiary articles, like history of Burma, politics of Burma, geography of Burma, demographics of Burma, etc. Maglev Power (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

BJ, please move the related articles too. I'd do it. But don't seem to have that ability to make a proper move as you just did as a new editor. Maglev Power (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets take this slow, articles that have politics involved often cause unneeded drama and I'm not in the mood for that. I'm trying to find out why the pages are named the way they are and find a higher place to establish consensus before making any more moves. BJ^Talk 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But we have to have standardization, just like any encyclopedia. (Wikipedia, to its credit, I see from the article histories, for over six years standardized all those articles correctly, using the new name Myanamr.) If the main article is named one thing, the names of the subsidiary articles must be the same. Maglev Power (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(This isn't a reply to you, I was trying to save and the server lagged) If you read the whole talk page you will see the naming is highly disputed. Before anything more is done a broad consensus for the naming convention of all the pages related to Burma/Myanmar. I'm going to file a WP:RfC to attempt to reach a consensus. (and somebody moved it back while I was typing this) BJ^Talk 05:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to unilaterally move this article and its talk page, as well as other topic related articles. Moves must be listed at WP:RM and discussions must last at least 5 days before a decision is made. Thank you. Húsönd 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this site can be so legalistic. Being factually accurate and encyclopedic must trump polls and legalisms here if this page is to be a serious encyclopedia article. Maglev Power (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As El C stated, the politically-motivated move of the article to the Burma page is a discredit to this encyclopedia. I will participate in the RfC; but the ultimate goal here must be to do what is correct and encyclopedic. Myanmar is the name used by credible sourcebooks and encyclopedias; and Myanmar is the name Wikipedia used for many years. Maglev Power (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The move had little to do with politics. It was proposed during the demonstrations back in October simply because more attention was naturally drawn to this article during those events. This article was moved to "Burma" because there was a consensus that "Burma" is a more common term used to refer to this country than "Myanmar". Húsönd 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above I think a RfC should be filed in the matter, I inappropriately moved it because I was confused by the existence of two articles (should have checked the history better) and because I didn't read the entire talk page. I don't have any objection to either name and don't really care to be a party in this dispute so I'm going stop talking now. BJ^Talk 05:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An RfC wouldn't be a good idea, that was tried not long ago. The only possible way for determining consensus at such a hot topic is a move discussion listed at WP:RM. All users may then participate and voice their opinion. Húsönd 06:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Husond, the name is not more common. This is a black-and-white matter of fact. The name Myanmar is recognized by the UN and the majority of the world's states. The name Myanmar is used by all serious encyclopedias and sourebooks. (The CIA Factbook is an exception because Myanmar is on the list of the Bush administration's targets for "regime change.") Evidence of this is easy to find even from a quick Google search. 82,300,000 entries come up in a search for "Myanmar" [5]; less than half that number come up for "Burma." [6] Maglev Power (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We've really had a lot about this in the past few months. We talked about the more common name issue, the where official issue, etc, etc... Again, new proposals should go straight to WP:RM. Húsönd 06:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a debating-society. If editors are so obsessed with procedure they will lose sight of the overarching goal of writing a serious encyclopedia. Now, that I have mentioned the facts above, I urge you to demonstrate your commitment to proper encyclopedic conventions and retract your comment that Burma is the "common name" of this country. Maglev Power (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you're new here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that's made by a debating society. You may now be properly horrified when you find out that Wikipedia is not even supposed to document the truth, but merely document what is sourced and agreed upon by its reviewing/editing community. Here, we function through WP:Consensus and many other policies. Húsönd 06:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that Wikipedia is not supposed to document the truth will not help us improve the quality of this encyclopedia article. Now, again, do you retract your comment that Burma is the "common name" of this country? Boracay Bill and I have clearly demonstrated that this is not the case. Maglev Power (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has actually read up on the supposed "concensus" on the move can see the heavy political agenda simmering within many proponents of the "Burma" name. It is clear that the said "concensus" has never been properly garnered, with a touch of boldnest to hastern the move. That you keep having people questioning this move till this day is testimony of this, and is a natural backlash. It is but a matter of time and procedures before the page gets moved back to its official English name recognised by the majority of countries on Earth.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be bold and do it yourself. You, Boracay Bill, El C, and SqueekBox, and I have made clear the move of the article to Burma is painfully obviously factually ungrounded and unencyclopedic. I'd move it right now again. But I don't have the ability as a new editor. Maglev Power (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody will be bold and do it because any move will be promptly reverted. Please cease these demands, any further unilateral move attempts will bring move protection to this article. Húsönd 06:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just some unscientific info from google searches I just did:

• about 8,320,000 English pages for Myanmar.
• about 3,100,000 English pages for Burma.
• about 9,630,000 English pages for allintext: Myanmar.
• about 3,640,000 English pages for allintext: Burma.
• about 1,360,000 English pages for allintitle: Myanmar.
• about 915,000 English pages for allintitle: Burma.
• about 2,290,000 English pages for allinanchor: Myanmar.
• about 1,350,000 English pages for allinanchor: Burma.
• about 439,000 English pages for allinurl: Myanmar.
• about 401,000 English pages for allinurl: Burma.

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to use a silly cliche, but this is a "no brainer!" We need to move this article back to Myanmar now. Every minute the pages stay the way they are, it is an extra discredit to Wikipedia. Maglev Power (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop demanding. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not about me. This is not even about you. By the way, what do you have to say about the factual accuracy of Boracay Bill's post above? Maglev Power (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not going to be moved anywhere, anytime within the next several hours, or maybe days. You are welcome to take the suggestion (WP:RM), otherwise, the discussion will continue here. I am not examining Boracay Bill's comment, so I have nothing to say about it. Please, we have guidelines in place here for a reason. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are also a new user (Aug. '07) as well and not an administrator. I have checked the histories of the accounts that have chimed in here. I see the ones that favor proper encyclopedic conventions here, such as El C and SqueekBox, happen to be quite senior contributors. I'd be more interested in hearing what they have to say about the procedures. Maglev Power (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am not going to continue to try and help you, as it isn't working. I'll just say we don't have "senior editors" here and adminship is no big deal. I've been here for 6 months, and am familiar with the policies I am addressing. You've been here 2 days, and aren't. I am sorry that I couldn't be of more assistance to you, but I tried. -Rjd0060 (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If "Please stop demanding" is your idea of "helping" someone to get accustomed to the ways of wikipedia, I am not the least surprised that it isnt working.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Users don't have any more weight because they've been here for longer or because they're admins. Again, please drop this otherwise you may eventually be deemed a troll and ignored as such. Please consider reading our policies and getting accustomed to Wikipedia. Húsönd 06:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)