Talk:Myanmar

British English tag

Why is this article written in British English? Wouldn't English usage in the country more closely resemble Indian English? Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Burmese English. But, from a practical point-of-view, I don't think many editors would have a clue. FormerIP (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If there was an article about a topic internal to a country, it could be in the local dialect. Provided that English is a majority language, or at least a major one, there. --88.112.90.114 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the tag is all that meaningful. There is no such thing as Burmese English so, I guess, all this does is to ensure that the spelling used in the article is consistently British rather than American. --regentspark (comment) 20:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Name section wording change

I'm going to reword "Various non-Burman ethnic groups choose not to recognise the name because of the association of the term "Myanmar" with the majority ethnic group, the Bamar, rather than with the country" as "Various ethnic opposition groups have also chosen not to recognize the name" because the current wording doesn't make sense. And two of the three attributed citations don't include any page numbers. (I have Myint-U's 2001 book so I can look it up.)

The current wording implies that the name Burma is somehow more inclusive. Unfortunately, that's simply not true. Both Myanmar and Burma historically referred strictly to the Bamar although many since the 30s have tried to promote one of the terms to make it more inclusive. The 1930s leftists/nationalists tried to make "Bamar"/"Burma" to be the more inclusive term--hence, many ethnics, Chinese and Indians actively participated in "Dobama Asiayone" ("We Burmans Society"). But the trend since independence has been the opposite: it's Myanmar that's been promoted as the more inclusive term. (The longevity of this policy seems to have taken hold at some level. I've seen many more non-Burmans refer to themselves as "Myanmar" in Burmese in the sense of nationality today.) From what I can see, the reason some ethnic opposition groups oppose the name "Myanmar" is the same as that of other opposition groups: they don't recognize the legitimacy of the SLORC government to make such a name change. Not because Burma is somehow more inclusive. Hybernator (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Thant Myint-U makes the comment in the context of the Ava kingdom referring to itself as Myamna Naing-Ngan. Though the Myanma and Burmese people are (as you say) ethnically the same, the connotations that the ethnic groups attach to Myanmar originate from that Ava reference and the same connotation is not attached to the name Burma, possibly (and what follows is my speculation) because of its longer history as the name used by outsiders for the region, or perhaps because the non-Bamar ethnic groups were closer to the British. But, it's been a few years since I read the book and perhaps I'm wrong about the details. It would be helpful if you can look up the Myint-U book. I had a copy somewhere and will also look for it, but I don't see it on my shelves. --regentspark (comment) 19:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recollection is correct as far as Myint-U's contention that the use of Myanma Naing-ngan as the country of Myanma people was first made only in the mid-19th century, as a rallying cry around ethnicity (and religion) after having lost the first two Anglo-Burmese wars. Presumably, if we extend his argument, the earliest extant use of Myanma Pyay (Country of Myanma), which appeared on a Pagan era inscription in 1235, may not have the 19th century connotations of ethnicity or nation-state.

As for your speculation, as far as I know, the British themselves never used the term Burma/Burmans/Burmese as inclusive terms in the modern sense. At least in the colonial era books I've read, the British themselves used the terms Burmans/Burmese interchangeably to refer to the Bamar, and the rest of the ethnic groups by their names. (Perhaps because Burma was separated from British India only in 1937!?) Also, I wouldn't make a blanket statement that non-Bamar were closer to the British. The ethnic groups were (and are) not a monolith, and the British played favorites even among the ethnics. (Only the Karen, Chin and Kachin could join the army, for example. Indeed, even among the Karen, Christian Karen were preferred.) The Burmese independence movement had many ethnic leaders, many of whom had rallied around religion. AFAIK, in 1947 aside from the Karen leadership, no ethnic group chose the British, who ironically ignored the pleas of the Karen leadership for an independent Karen state. Casual observers don't know that the Karen rebellion was the only major ethnic rebellion to the early 60s. The rest were mainly Burman political (leftist) rebellions (plus the Nationalist Chinese invasion). Per Myint-U's 2006 The River of Lost Footsteps, the army's heavy handed behavior really turned off many, especially in the ethnic regions. Most of the ethnic rebellions erupted only in the 1960s after Ne Win rejected the federal system agreed upon in the 1947 constitution.

Anyway, it's my long-winded way of saying I don't think ethnic groups prefer the name Burma because the British gave the term. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. They just don't think the government had the legitimacy or right to change it. Not because they have any real affinity to the old name for its more inclusive qualities. My two cents. Hybernator (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that the ethnic groups (perhaps) prefer Burma because it wasn't imposed from the inside. But, go ahead and change the text. I have no problems with restating it because, as far as I know, we don't really know what the various ethnic groups think about the name today. --regentspark (comment) 13:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Page transfer

The official name is Myanmar, and not Burma. Therefore, there is no reason why the country be referred to everywhere as Burma and not Myanmar (just because a few countries have refused to use the new name)

Proposing a shift of the article from Burma to Myanmar and replacing Burma by Myanmar as the actual name, wherever appropriate, and necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.96.9 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

see "all the above" + all the archives. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the government of Myanmar really made efforts to make reforms and in near future sanctions will be lifted, there is no longer any reason not to move the page to "Myanmar". 49.145.113.96 (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is at Burma because the consensus was that Burma is the English language common name of that country. Politics has nothing to do with naming. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Myanmar is the English language common name of the country. Except for a few countries (including US and UK), the country is known as Myanmar, and not Burma. Hence I support the change in naming convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOriginalSoni (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

‘A few countries’. Haha, you mean almost all English-speaking countries, including Britain itself, consider the English name to be ‘Burma’, as it always has been. It’s irrelevant what some fascists in Rangoon think about how we should speak our own language. — Chameleon 14:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Mainly soapboxing. Its irrelevant what some guys in Britain think what the country should be called. The name has been Myanmar since 1989, but somehow Wikipedia seems to think its better to call it Burma just because the country was ruled by a military government, and the US calls the country by its former name. The name is Myanmar, and it has been so in all countries except US, UK and Canada TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The name of the country is still Burma for many sources that use the English language and this is the English language wiki which means its the common and right name to use. And its not just British, Canadians and American people that use it. I heard an inspiration woman use the name Burma in a speech just a couple of days ago which was on the tv. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Procedural close – The original nominator needs to provide a reason for such a proposal, and not just merely slap on the {{requested move}} tag.[1] This is because the title of this article has been heavily disputed, and has been the subject of numerous mediation cases and Request for Comment discussions. More importantly, as a result of these disputes, further discussions of the title need to be kept at Talk:Burma/Myanmar, not here. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated}}

• Assuming that you meant to say "Burma -> Myanmar, and your reason", please refer to Talk:Burma/Myanmar. If you want the page moved, you should give a (good) reason. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 16:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

pronunciation

Although in the US perhaps the "r"s in Burma and Myanmar are pronounced, the "r"s are actually only a lengthening mark, from a transcription system based on British, non-rhotic, English. So the British English pronunciation are [bɜːmɘ] (perhaps [bɜːmɑ] and [mjɑnmɑː]), which approximate the native pronunciation of [mjəmà] and [bəmà] (which shows that natively, only the initial consonant differs). In American English, we may expect a pronunciation of [bɝma] and [mjænmɑɹ]. The "pronunciation" (double quotes since it has // instead of []) given though, is /bɜrmə/ and /mjɑːnmɑr/ which I think is misleading, and not at all what the sound clips (apparently by a British person, even though the filename has "us" in it) sound like. I therefor changed the IPA to something reflecting the sound clips. I also have some doubts to the stressed final syllable of Myanmar, but I'll leave that to someone else. Jalwikip (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That obviously makes sense, but there are too many Americans on Wikipedia for us to do sensible things like that. Even placenames in England have the silent r rudely inserted into the transcription. — Chameleon 14:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"Undo" blatant, uncited propaganda

I undid the extensive edits "documenting" things like "the CIA operative Dali Lama." While I'm no expert on Burmese history, the items added had no citation. Wikipedia is not a place for "original research," and certainly not for things that don't even pass the laff test. Why not document the Dali Lama of being a "Killer Klown," sent on an advance mission to taste-test Muslims?Weyandt (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments

What is the best title for this article? It has already been listed in WP:RM, but due to the potential controversy, it is desirable to gather as many participants as possible to the discussion, to try to get a definitive resolution. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The requested move discussion is in the next section below.

Requested move (Burma → Myanmar)

Burma → Myanmar – Myanmar is the preferred title as shown by Google Trends, Google Insights, Google Maps, Bing Maps, MapQuest, Nokia Maps, OpenStreetMap, TripAdvisor and the London Olympics. I'd put money on it that Apple's iOS 6 Map beta also uses Myanmar.

These are reputable news organizations that use Myanmar: Wall Street Journal, Washington Post via AP, Reuters, New York Times, NPR, Business Week and World Almanac. Organizations that don't: ABC News (Australia), Voice of America (Red Flag), Sydney Morning Herald. These lists will be added to later. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Holy Moly...Didn't we just go through this huge ordeal? I hate to have to inform all the last participants once again. My typing fingers still haven't recovered. I think this request should be tabled. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Burma is the commonname of this state and almost every country is at its commonname rather than full / official name. I also believe this should be speedy closed due to a debate happening on the renaming not that long ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Contradiction is not argument. Also I am making the case that the proper name is the common name. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree...this should be a speedy close. I can't believe it was opened again so soon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as a speedy close for move discussions. You are thinking of procedural close which obviously doesn't apply here. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There goes our summer holidays then. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Admins can do quick closures for rm's when we just had one huge one. Probably under disruptions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you need evidence of the power the ability of consensus to change see Talk:St. Louis#Requested move. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow...13 people voted there. But of course consensus can change. Look at all the foreign diacritic words now in usage as more and more non-English editors join this English wikipedia. But we just had a huge discussion on Burma with no consensus... and to do it again so soon seems like a waste of editor's times. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Follow the usage of reliable sources. Also, the Trends and Insights data suggest that this authoritative usage has become the most common name, and is only becoming more so. I remember during the last RM, some user said that they would only reconsider their opposition to "Myanmar" if the government becomes a liberal democracy. (This political reasoning appears to lurk behind users' assertions against the evidence that "Myanmar" is the "common name".) However, the politicking about the name by Western governments is rapidly changing in response to the 2011–2012 Burmese political reforms (e.g., Australia[2]). Shrigley (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So one foreign minister uses the term and suddenly its rapidly changing situation. I see they have not changed what they put on their website [3] BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually came here looking to "Burma-ize" some of the articles that still had Myanmar names. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Did no one notice the warning at the top of the edit page: Please note Discussions of the current title should be kept at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 22:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)