Talk:Myanmar

Archives
March 2003 – July 2006

Note: The original article says amphetamine is a narcotic, this is untrue.

Changes

There should be something limiting editing of this page. Many people have been vandalizing it so if it could be brought down to a few honest people who will only put in necessary edits, that would be good.

Name conflict

Since 1989 the military authorities in Burma have promoted the name Myanmar as a conventional name for their state; this decision was not approved by any sitting legislature in Burma! Therefore we should change the name from Myanmar to Burma! This is the correct name of the country. The change will reflect a neutral POV as opposed to Myanmar which infers a recognition of the military rule in Burma.

I agree! I don't think it should be listed as Yangon, or Myanmar. The renaming is not recognised by most countries, and is a symbol of the military dictatorship. Many local people still refer to it as Myanmar, and use this name as a symbol of non violent resistance to the military government. I need not mention of course, that the military government changed the name in the ninties. As Wikipedia is meant to be a symbol of freedom of speech and democracy, we should not recognise this name and instead have it as "Rangoon" and "Burma". Segafreak2 22:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is politically biased, it means it supports the West and censors oppositions. It recognises what has officially been recognised in the US. Wikipedia is not a symbol of freedom of speech and democracy, it is simply a propaganda rag, it is a political PR tool and a propaganda website. I suggest you read Wikipedia Policies and understand what it wants you to believe what it stands for. Okkar 08:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Many countries do not have democratically-elected legislatures nor any institutions of democracy for that matter (e.g. China, Laos, and Vietnam, to name a few). The military junta may be illegitimate, but that does not mean that we cannot ignore the local conventions of English name spelling (MOS conventions), which were changed in 1989. Showing "support" for nonviolent protest itself presents a POV; besides, Wikipedia is meant to be a neutr

al source of information, not a bastion of pro-democratic ideology. And you yourself said something about how many locals refer to Burma as Myanmar in English, which is correct. Expatriate Burmese are more likely to use the same terms recognised by pro-democracy movement (e.g. Burma, Rangoon, Pegu). --Hintha 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the names "Myanmar", "Yangon", etc. are in use by the United Nations and other international organisations, even though some of their members don't like the use of the name - it's in use for official purposes, so it should probably be left. Whilst I don't support the illegitimate regime and its alleged abuses, let's stick with what's on recognised internationally. JROBBO 01:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In my view even if every sngle Burmese rose as one and acclaimed the name of their country to be Myanmar we should still use Burma. It's Burma in English. I don't care what it is in Burmese. (Yes I know I'm losing to the PC advocates but I'd say the same for Calcutta, Madras and Florence.) Avalon 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You should care what it is in Burmese, because this article is about their country. Have you no respect for burmese people? English doesnt rule the world and you should stop living the dream of old colonial empire. Okkar 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Shakes head wearily.) I will try to explain once more. This is an English encyclopædia. We use English. The English word for that country is "Burma". It has a different name in Burmese and probably different names in German, Italian and Japanese. All of these are important for German, Italian and Japanese encyclopædias. I do not take offence that Germans call my country Australien or that Frenchmen call it Australie. Why should you be offended that we want to use English? Avalon 08:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, why should you have a say in what we should call our country? this maybe English wikipedia, but it doesnt have the right to insist upon calling other people country any name that is convienient in English. Do you insist that "Thailand" be called "Siam" and Mumbai be called "Bombay", because these are the English names? Isnt it a bit ignorant to suggest that "we call it what we want, cos it is English wikipedia"? Okkar 09:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Yes, No. Avalon 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is amusing to read the funny and childish discussions by some editors that to use Burmese is an insult like 'N' word. (May be they need to please their political masters. If not they would be arrested again!) We all Burmese knew that Myanmar is associated with SLORC/SPDC and most of the opposition is using Burma as a sign of resistance. Calling Burma is not an insult to anyone. If some of you think so, try to avoid using yourselves Bama/Bamar/Burmese. May be start to use Myanmarese? (I am amused that the person who said it is an insult, call himself Burmese. Is he trying to insult himself?

Wiki should stand on the neutral ground by using Burma/Myanmar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darz kkg (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I support this view. Let's use Myanmar/Burma. I will change the article if nobody have contrary views. 80.202.209.139 23:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Article name remains as it is according to UN charter. We will not allow the use of Wikipedia as a political playground. Keep your politics out of here please. Okkar 02:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree the article name should be changed. Many people refer to this country as Burma. 80.202.209.139 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

United Nation refer to this country as "Myanmar", it stays as it is. We are not here to accomodate the political divide. Okkar 10:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Accomodating political divide is exactly what we do by using Myanmar as page title158.37.149.25 14:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

According to History and treaty signature of King Thibaw , He used Myanmar and all the old kingdom use Myanmar , Burma was only use by colony governmet and Pro imperialism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.81.64.34 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

The name conflict of Burma to Myanmar becomes a popular context in the Western arena. Over here, my argument is that the Burmese made mistake and confusion themselves. Since the conversion(adaption) of Burmese language from Mon and Pali, they have wrongly pronounced about 5 alphabets File:Mon alphabet.jpg and they can't pronounce 3 vowels such as File:Mon alphabet1.jpg. In the case of pronouncing Rangoon was right because they have a letter 'File:Mon vowel.jpg' stand for 'Ra'. In the case of pronouncing Sri Lanka, they prounance 'Thiri Linka' which is wrong. The alphabet 'File:Mon conson.jpg' stands for 'Sa' in Pali. Then, Burmese language was regarded as 'writing is the correct, although reading is the phonetics'. Kwantonge 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is really a pointless argument, that has been exacerbated by various western governments. I have lived in Myanmar, and to the people that live there, and in their language the country's name is Myanmar. They identify themselves according to their ethinicity as Burmese, Mon, Shan, Rakhine, Kachin, etc. I rarely ever heard anyone, except perhaps the generals, call themselves Myanmar, in the sense of the nationality. Regardless, the name of the country now, is the Union of Myanmar. Burma is a legacy name imposed on the country by the British colonialists. No one seems to bring that up. The country's rulers (whether they are legitimate or not) want the country to be called Myanmar. Accept it and move on! I am not trying to defend the regime on this point, I am just saying that I think it is really a moot point. There is so much more to write about Myanmar, we should just drop the name issue and move on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surmuppen (talk • contribs) 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

This is an interesting conversation and it would be interesting if there were an entry on naming and colonialism. I will start off by stating that I believe "unbiased" is a myth. And people that I have met from the 'land of pagodas' have used "Burma". Their reason was that the junta, the men with the guns, changed the name and not the overwhelmingly popularly elected government. It is true that Burma was the name given by the British colonialists. The junta uses this for the reason for the name change. The thing that always bothered me about the junta's reasoning was that I had always seen colonialism as the exploitation of a land's people and resources, which is exactly what so many trans-national corporations had been doing with the junta. Too me it seemed Orwellian (in a strange twist of fate, George Orwell also happened to be stationed in Burma as a colonial ----fill in blank---- before coming to hate imperialism). Many corporations have in the last decade and a half ceased operations in the country often stating that business cannot be done there without directly benefitting the junta and the human rights abuses done by the regime, including forced slave labor. It is of course, understood all that pay attention to such things, that the reason is a business one by the corporations. Consumer boycotts and bad P.R. are bad for the bottom line. It is thus less profitable to do business in the country than to continue exploiting the people, land, and/or the general "business climate" that authorities influence. It had seemed that the junta was colonizing its own population with the corporations, which have been a historic tool of imperialism/colonialism.

If one moves their mouse over links to the various languages, some list a variation of Myanmar and some Burma, with local pronunciations no doubt, since some spoken languages do not have certain sounds. Perhaps what is the dominant usage leads? They all seem to have something like "also known as the other name". It seems like this might be the best bet. Yet it shows wikipedia's bias: to dominant power structures, but not necessarily popular. Good or bad? Just noting and important for readers to recognize the bias and perhaps for wikipedia to acknowledge this to its readers? I am not merely saying the ruling junta, but dominant power structures in general. The United Nations, the United States which has been the most dominant power structure there, corporations which are the most dominant power structure in the US (and perhaps globally), and states in general which along with corporations are the two most dominant power structures in the world today. I am not advocating for a popular vote on the name of the article on Burma/Myanmar, as this too would have biases towards those with access to a computer with internet. Here again, towards those with power; i.e. those who can use their resources on such instead of survival/food/shelter/etc.

The argument the junta uses for Myanmar is compelling and with the ability to redistribute power/respect to those who have historically been abused as less than human with colonization. Since colonization cannot happen without the dehumanization of and labelling of 'the other'. Self identity, you respect us for who we are and what we call ourselves, our land, ways we see the world, etc can/could go a long way towards decolonization. I believe Edward Said has written on this type of topic. I've never read any Said, only read about whay he has written.

Personally I believe we should use the terminology that people living in an area call things. Like Thailand instead of Siam or Côte d'Ivoire instead of Ivory Coast. But how do we adjust when names in another language are in such popular usage? For example English speakers use Japan rather than Nihon or East Timor rather than Timor-Leste. Then again, perhaps even all these new names bow down to dominant power structures of the area? Maybe in a very rural setting someone has never even heard of the name of the dominant power structure, i.e. the country in which they live and just call "the land" where they live by some other name. Here we should not consider such people "backwards". Isn't this rather arrogant of us and kind of how colonization begins? The view that the modern day nation-state is superior to other forms of human organization is too a bias. Anyway, I still think it sad that the UN uses the name Myanmar and simply see this as bias towards the dominant power structures. Dominant in this case meaning powerful because of money and/or guns. Wikipedia too is a power structure. I'd go with Burma with a cultural/historical explanation that some also call it Myanmar because of X reasons. But since wikipedia has its biases, naming both seems like the best it can do. 68.78.215.244 00:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so we use the English name as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). As English is not an official language, the name used by the government is of little consequence to the English name. If English speakers call it Burma then Burma is, by definition, its English name. Thehalfone 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Kind of like English speakers use the words "Japan", "Germany", and "Korea", while in those languages there are different words for those countries? Makes sense. Then the words should be reversed and Myanmar should be a couple sentences in like the word Burma currently is or maybe not even until further in the article talking about Burma's form of government/unresolved political situation. I just entered the word "Nihon", the pronunciation for the Japanese word for Japan, into the wikipedia search and it redirected me to the page for Japan. User:Theralforne's argument makes a lot more sense than the "UN uses it argument". Since the UN is a political organization it is not neutral. 67.53.78.15 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. The disputed name-change of the country was for the English iteration. The major English-speaking countries in the world are Britain, Ireland, USA and Australia. The article specifically says that all these countries' governments use the name Burma. So surely the article should be moved? By the way, Thehalfone, exactly how is English "not an official language"? U-Mos 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One presumes he means it is not the official language of Burma, U-Mos. XINOPH | TALK 00:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that given this dispute over the name, this article should be slapped with an NPOV tag until this dispute is settled. How can an article using the military regime's name for the country be from a neutral point of view? All in favor?XINOPH | TALK 00:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I, uh, 2nd that. 67.53.78.15 01:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye! The countries name is Burma. Supporting 'Myanmar' is to support an illegal military junta. Wikipedia doesn't want to take a stance. Fine, but Wikipedia *is* taking a stance by calling the article Myanmar, and the stance is the wrong one! What's next? Taiwan being considered a part of China because the Chinese government fails to recognise it as an independant nation? I vote for NPOV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.160.72 (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok so a country was named (however) So the people use the name So the people are happy with it ...and they call themselves Burmese. So then (recently) an illegal military junta steps in, removes the democratically elected government, by force. They change the name, purely for arbitrary reasons, without public approval. The Burmese people continue to call themselves Burmese. The illegal military junta renames their country Myanmar. The vast majority of nations refuse to acknowledge the new name, because of the status of the illegal government. Wikipedia claims to not want part in politics, so calls it Myanmar. In my mind's eye, that's tantamount to endorsing the junta, which is tantamount to endorsing every evil thing that happens to the people of Burma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.160.72 (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The illegal military junta is hardly a recent thing. They've been ruling for significantly longer then Myanmar/Burma was a democratic republic. Heck even the new name has lasted longer then Myanmar/Burma was a democratic republic. Also, I don't see any evidence the vast majority of nations refuse to recognise the name. The vast majority of Western governments perhaps but the vast majority of nations are not part of the 'West' and I strongly suspect the vast majority of governments acknowledge the new name. Also your claim that recognising the military government as the current government, illegitimate or not somehow means you endorse or the evil things said military government does is ridiculous. If anything, refusing to recognise that the military government is the current government just makes it worse IMHO. Nil Einne 06:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So the U.S. steps in because they really like Alberta's oil sands. Our puny country of only 32 million people is easily over powered by the 300 million+ machine that is the U.S. So they oust our government and call us Kanata State. So this guy will just go - "Sure, ok. It's now called Kanata State." Even tho' every heart living here calls themselves Canadian. ...feels wrong, doesn't it? ...and that's an invasion - a legitimate reason for a name change once a war is decided. We're talking about a country whose *democratically elected government* *still* calls itself Burma. The military junta is *not* the real government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.166.15.245 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The BBC has chosen to use the proper name of Burma since it is an illegal regime who has picked a fake name - if its good enough for the BBC it should be for wikicensorpedia. --IceHunter 15:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the BBC comment. -172.216.183.174 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The European Union uses Burma/Myanmar on the European Commission external relations page as well as in the names of resolutions linked on that page. From this page is appears that the EU recognizes "Union of Myanmar" as the official name, but uses Burma/Myanmar and sometimes Myanmar/Burma as reference names. With several other states including the USA recognizing the name Burma I think I can safely say that the name Burma is recognized internationally at least as much as the name Myanmar. I suppose we could find out what name the foreign ministers of each state use to come to a consensus if necessary. From a quick search on a couple of Western countries it appears to me that both names are always used to avoid confusion. I would recommend we use the name Burma/Myanmar like the European Commission does to avoid confusion.--Burzum 23:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Capital

The capital of Burma is Rangoon (Yangon). We whould not base the article on an illegitimate military regime, but rather on the view of the majority of the people in Burma! Why should we base the article on the Junta rather than the views of the freedom fighters in the country? Change the references to the capital in the article!

Despite the illegitimacy of the military regime, the citizens of Burma do not have power. Hence, until power is transferred, what the military regime dictates is fact. It would be like replacing the name of the Head of State of the country, which falsifies information even further, because in actuality, the military leader Than Shwe is in power. --Hintha 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, This place is not for freedom fighters to do their propaganda work. It's an encyclopedia! stop bringing your political rubbish here. Okkar 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think - is this the capital or not ? See discussion here [1] I'm interested in peoples' opinions. I understand there are no embassies in the new capital, what's the significance of it. Shouldn't there be a footnote next to the capital in the infobox? Cheers, Amoruso 02:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for new Intro

Myanmar, officially the Union of Myanmar, is the largest country in geographical area in mainland Southeast Asia. Also known as Burma or the Union of Burma by bodies and states which do not recognize the ruling military junta, it is bordered by China on the north, Laos on the east, Thailand on the southeast, Bangladesh on the west, and India on the northwest, with the Andaman Sea to the south, and the Bay of Bengal to the southwest. There are over 2,000 kilometres (1,243 mi) of coastline. The country was ruled by a military junta led by General Ne Win from 1962 to 1988, and its political system remains under the tight control of the State Peace and Development Council, its military government, led by Senior General Than Shwe since 1992.

The guidelines for a "Good Article" say that the intro should briefly summarize the whole article. To that end, I suggest that we also add a second paragraph to this intro, briefly mentioning the long history, many and varied ethnic groups and the present-day domination of the Bamar as a segway into the "Origin and history of the name" section. Maybe something like:

Myanmar is populated by a variety of different ethnic and linguistic groups that have all, at various times in its long history, contributed to the richness of the culture. However, shortly after gaining independence from the United Kingdom in 1948, the Bamar took control of the government and have dominated all areas of life in Myanmar.

It probably needs some work and rewording but I think it is a good idea. What does everybody else think?--WilliamThweatt 04:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have incorporated the changes to the intro paragraph as they were mostly minor changes. I will wait for comment before attempting to add a second paragraph to the intro.--WilliamThweatt 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The minor changes are good. I've used your ideas and expanded them in the second paragraph. I've also moved the info. about the government and merged them into the second paragraph. Hintha 06:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation spot check

As part of this project, I randomly checked a few footnotes from this article. Results were as follows:

1. Footnote 3(a)/4. "Major news organisations such as the BBC and western governments, including those of the United States and the United Kingdom, still officially refer to the country as Burma."
   • So-so. From Sites: "Although the SPDC changed the name of the country to "Myanmar," the democratically elected but not convened Parliament of 1990 does not recognize the name change, and the democratic opposition maintains use of the name "Burma." Due to consistent, unyielding support for the democratically elected leaders, the U.S. Government likewise uses "Burma.""; " Britain's policy is to refer to Burma rather than 'Myanmar'. It is the form preferred by the leaders of Burma's democracy movement, the legitimate winners of the 1990 elections, who do not accept that the unelected military regime has the right to change the official name of the country."
     • This supports the US and Britain claims, but does not mention news agencies. No source is given for the news organizations that do use Myanmar. Case by case citations of states or organizations' policies is, in any event, less than ideal; could a secondary source that discusses the varying uses possibly be found?
2. Footnote 13. "Many major political parties, particularly the National League for Democracy, have been excluded, and little progress has been made."
   • So-so. From site:"The junta expels all of the NLD delegates." The "little progress" statement is clearly supported as of this article's publication in March 2004, but a more recent article would be a better source for this statement.
3. Footnote 26/27. "Dramatic change in the country's political situation remains unlikely, due to support from major regional powers, in particular China."
   • Problem. Both of these articles discuss Burma's close ties to China, but neither specifically discusses this aspect of the relationship. One article states "Second, China’s armed support may lead to militarization of the military junta who may be reluctant to contemplate political reforms which are necessary for economic development.", but it goes on to describe liberalization of Burma's regime as a relative certainty. In any event, this statement is an opinion, and should be stated as such (Scholars X and Y assert that...), with appropriate sources.
4. Footnote 40. "His administration adopted the Two-Year Economic Development Plan, which was a failure."
   • Checks out. "The Eight-Year Plan was a failure both in the sense of having failed to achieve its targets and also in that it diverted resources away from achievable goals."
5. Footnote 70. "Since the 1950s, westernised music has gained popularity, especially in large cities."
   • Problem. From site: "But young people are increasingly allured by the temptation of western pop culture that still seeps into this isolated nation through pirated videos and CDs, as well as on satellite music stations."
     • Touches on the popularity of Western music with the young, but nothing about the 1950s being the start point or large cities being the center of the phenomenon.

This seems to suffer to some degree from the great plague of Wikipedia citations--referring to sources that are related to but do not directly support the article's statements. It isn't a terribly severe case, but someone needs to sweep through and make sure that all statements needing citation are cited to a source that directly supports what the article says. --Robth^Talk 05:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Health Spending

I watched a short investigative documentary on Burma and the Regime tonight, and would like to include a fact mentioned there, that Burma spends less on health care than any other country in the world, and accordingly the health of the population suffers. I'm not entirely sure on the best place in the article for this, anyone like to advise? Thanks. 82.10.65.30 02:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I realise this is an old question but it has not yet been answered. The best place to put such a fact is probably within the 'economy' section. The only problem here is finding a reliable source to support what you are trying to say - even though most of the world would be in agreement with you - that is not enough for Wikipedia - you must find an internet link to support your facts! Not a newspaper or a book, Lol. Pigeonshouse 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Military Units in the second world war

I've made a bunch of corrections to the section covering WWII. First, the Karen Rifles were not involved in fighting the Japanese. While the unit was formed in 1945, it did not take the field until after the war was over. The same would be true for the Kachin Rifles (which were not mentioned). The Karens who participated in the 1945 uprising had been armed by British SOE teams as had many other groups in Burma. They can nomially be called Karen Levies, but no force called "Karen Levies" existed in as far as I know. (there were Karen Levies in 1942 however).

First Burma Division was mentioned but Burma Rifles is more appropriate. The Burma Rifles were in continuous existance during the war (though only one battalion in strength after 1942).

The force that fought with the Japanese in 1942 was the Burma Independence Army. That force was followed by the Burma Defense Army and the Burma National Army in succession. The Japanese also created sub-forces in the border areas. In Arakan there was the Arakan Defense/National Army and there was the Chin Defense Force (I think that was the name) in the Chin Hills. The Arakan forces of the Japanese went over to the allies before the BNA did.

The British gave the Americans a sector of Northern Burma and allowed them to recruit Kachins in the area. They became the Kachin Rangers late in the war. But its generally wrong to say that all Kachins who fought with the Americans were part of the Kachin Rangers.

168.127.0.51 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights in Myanmar

I have created a seperate heading for this as is found the in DPRK and Iran articles given that the lack of respect for any form of human rights in Burma. A seperate section would highlight this whereas as it is currently subsumed under the "politics" section it is not immediatly obvious Cxk271 10:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"That may play in the sticks, but this is Capital City"

What's the deal with the capital? Editors keep switching it back and forth from Yangon to Naypyidaw. The only source I've seen other than Wikipedia that claims a change of capital is this Chinese "People's Daily". Does anyone have a cite for this from a more reliable source? L0b0t 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian provides an article ([2]) as does BBC News ([3]). There are many other articles if you search "Pyinmana", "Naypyidaw" or "Nay Pyi Taw". I believe anonymous editors keep on reverting the capital back to Yangon because of a bias (favouring the stances of western countries, and the exiled government) because they believe the current government is illegitimate, although it has jurisdiction within the country. --Hintha 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this is a bias attitude to take. It isn't some fringe US-imperialist stance to say that Aung San Suu Kyi is the properly elected and rightful leader of the Burmese people. This happens to be the stance of the vast majority of countries whose readers use the English wikipedia, not to mention the UN. Therefore, I see no reason why any creedence whatsoever should be given to any decision made by the illegal government. If the Chinese and Japanese apologists want to propagate the revisionism by the illegal government on their language wikipedia, fine, but not on the English wikipedia. This is just one of those cases where there is no ambiguity at all over who is right and who is wrong. So continue to expect prompt removal of the illegal government's revisionist propaganda. --130.127.121.188 16:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Aung San Suu Kyi was not elected (she was General Secretary of her party)--National League for Democracy parliament members were elected to office. Provide me with a reference that states that Aung San Suu Kyi would have assumed the office of Prime Minister in the 1990 election. --Hintha 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope-- the NLD is the ruling party. In the 1990 election, even if those statistics are right (where did you get them? I've always seen that the NLD got 60% of the popular vote), it's irrelevant, because it's not how the system works. The NLD won 392 seats in the parliament out of an available 485 seats-- 80.82% of the parliament seats. That's a clear majority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.230.130 (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

How do we proceed to name this area of land/'territory' if we take the stand that all governments are illegitimate or rather not being biased towards the legitimacy of governments? It is not a matter of one (the junta or the popularly elected NLD) being legitimate or even the defacto rulers of a land/'territory' being able to have their say on what the land/'territory' is called. Doing so gives legitimacy to governments, and thus a bias existent in wikipedia. To further attempt to reach the unreachable point of unbiased, we can say the powerful of the land, in this case being those with guns, call the territory Myanmar. Other centers of power call the territory Burma. Also, most of the people living there as well. We should not fail to note how these centers of power are centers of power. That is, how they got to be this way. In the case of the junta, by guns and by the power centers of other lands allowing it to be named as such. So, yes, other power centers, each individual person, bodies attempting to lay and legitimize the basis of conduct outside ones land/'territory' such as the UN, as well as the power center that is wikipedia. In at least not naming both as the name of the entry Myanmar/Burma or Burma/Myanmar, whichever, and instead choosing Myanmar alone, wikipedia is endorsing the name and the regime's rule. Wikipedia IS being biased, taking a POV. Whichever, it does not matter. Choose Myanmar/Burma if you wish. Just be slightly less biased. And yes, unbiased really is a myth. The seat of power from which the rulers operate should be noted, but the name of the entry should be corrected. It might also be noted what other power centers across the land do or do not recognize the change. Saying simply: the capital has moved, is a defacto endorsement of the regime. VeriGGlater 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Myanmar/Burma → Myanmar – An editor came along and unilaterally moved it from "Myanmar" to "Myanmar/Burma" without discussion. This move has been discussed many times over the history of the page and the consensus has always been to keep it at "Myanmar" since this is the official name of the country and including "Burma" in the pagename would reflect a POV bias. I can't change it back myself because "Myanmar" became a redirect when it was moved. WilliamThweatt 14:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - Myanmar is the official name of the country and it is only called Burma by some in the US and the UK where even media organizations are beginning to refer to the country as Burma.
• Speedy close, and move back - an RM re-vote is not needed to restore a consensus that has lasted a long time, especially as this move was made wholly without discussion. Get an admin to move it back to Myanmar now, and if the editors wish to change that situation they can go through WP:RM Aquilina 14:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Aquilina.--Húsönd 15:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. -- Evertype·✆ 16:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per intro. BTW, I really dislike false claims of a "re-vote" . Gene Nygaard 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move. Its still recognised as Burma in the countries that dont recognise the military junta.Infact even within the country its mostly called Burma and throughout most of its history it been called Burma.And why should we support the miliatary junta.POV i know,but forgot about the wikipedia police.I say Myanmar/Burma. DERMO 17:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose NOT including Burma is POV. Including it is more towards the unreachable unbiased. Only one or the other endorses certain centers of power over others and a POV that governments, called thus or defacto are legitimate. Acknowledging the historic, ongoing dispute between the two major centers of power at leans more towards unbiased. And we're not even getting into what the regular people have to say. Wikipedia isn't structured for that; only centers of power it is. VeriGGlater 17:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• I moved this as a speedy, given that there had already been extensive discussion of the naming issue and there had been no new discussion in support of the recent move. older ≠ wiser 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation

Could someone please change the pronunciation guide to IPA, or else add a link to whatever system is used currently? As it is, the pronunciation key doesn't help.--345Kai 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pronounced "Mee-an-mar" (got it from Seinfeld) but I'll go check. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's pronounced in 2 syllables, "meean - ma" (rough transliteration), and not in 3 (e.g. "me-an-mar").--Hintha 04:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Capital

The discussion on german wikipedia came to an opposite result than the english wikipedia: The administrative capital was moved to Naypyidaw but the capital is still the Yangon. For me this is the same with the netherlands where Amsterdam is capital but The Hague is the centre of goverment. The problem I have is that different countries come to different results and if this is the point a didputed tag should be put on all Myanmar capitals in all wikipedias until a result is found.--Stone 14:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It changed a few minutes ago so now I am really confused!--Stone 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

195.212.29.92 changed it without discussion!--Stone 15:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

the department of foreign afairs [4] think the capital is Yangon.--Stone 16:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Auswärtiges Amt (German government) is a little undesided staing in the text Naypyidaw and on the small screen to the right rangon (yangon).--Stone 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think having a footnote would work well here, stating that "Naypyidaw" is the capital, but that many countries still recognize "Yangon" as the capital. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs website is probably not updated often.--Hintha 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is similar to the discussion about Israel's capital, see above. Amoruso 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Here a clear statment of myanmar government if this is only relocation of government burocrats or more would end the discussion.--Stone 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The capital has moved, and has been recognized by the UN. [5]

Restrictions on travel to Myanmar

Does the Travel Department allow me to go to Myanmar?

---

You don't say where you are from, but Americans are allowed to go to Myanmar without difficulty. Netdance 04:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no restrictions on travel to Burma from either the US or the European Union. SimonBillenness 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no restrictions on travel to Myanmar from anywhere in the world, provided that you have a valid passport and visa. Okkar 19:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Flags of Political Parties

It appears that it is the general consensus of WikiProject Burma/Myanmar to include the flags of all political parties, oppositions groups and insurgents groups even though no other countries articles contained any flags of opposition groups. Therefore I have added a few of the insurgents flags and will be adding more flags in order to be consistance with the theme and directive from the project. Okkar 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding hundreds of flags into the article. Unless you are able to tie in the relevance of each flag into the country's history, it's highly inappropriate and would only clutter the article. If for example, the BSPP (Burma Socialist Programme Party) flag, NUP (National Unity Party) flags were added, there, the captions were explained, and they were tied into the history, I would not have a problem. But, adding an excessive amount of flags from all opposition groups only to prove a point is fruitless and unnecessary. By the way, flags can be found here [6] on Wikicommons. You don't need to upload more flags unless they're not already there. --Hintha 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no relevance of having any flags apart from state flag, however, it appears that it is general consensus to include NLD flag, so I see no point in discriminating other opposition parties, insurgent groups flags since they all have as much history with the country as NLD does. for example, BCP, KNU, KIO, they all have enormous history and they have been there long before NLD. So if you and other supporters of NCGUB and NLD wishes to include NLD flag in country article, it is entirely appropiate to include other flags too. It is neither fruitless nor unnecessary but FAIR. We must include every single party no matter how small or irrelevance they maybe, if they are opposition party like NLD, they have a right to be in the article. You cant have one rule for NLD and one for the others, you either include everyone or none at all. Dont chop and change the policy to suit your political agendas. Okkar 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okkar, please stop removing the NLD flag from the article. It is quite valid to include the flag/emblem of a political party cited in the article. If you wish to include other group's flags, make sure that they are cited in the article.SimonBillenness 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think We should remove the political flag and party in myanmar page. If you want to post about the political party and flag not post only NLD flag Post all of the political party flag and history . posting NLD party flag and party is un fair . Removing or post all the party flag and history . But i prefer remove adn start the new page for political party . Because this is encyclopaedia and not the political play ground.

Removal of cited information and ISBN numbers

I have reverted Okkar's edit, because it have removed the ISBN numbers in the citations, and because I believe that my edit was not "politically-motivated." I sourced the UN News Centre, which is more accurate than Reuters, a second-hand source of information. Your edit said that the same view held by China was held by Russia and Indonesia, which is in fact untrue. According to UN, Russia believes that the Security Council is not best-fit to remedy Myanmar's problems. And, you failed to cite most of your other claims. And you misquoted Wang Guangya, who did not in fact say "the situation in the Southeast Asian nation, one of the world's poorest, does not threaten peace and security of the region"--in the Bangkok Post article, he is paraphrased, not quoted. Please discuss what issues my edit may have (and don't focus on my political orientation, Okkar). And provide more sources--the Bangkok Post article you referenced made no mention of ASEAN, although your citation is after the sentence that says that ASEAN does not believe that Myanmar is a security threat to the region.

Hintha's edits:

In January 2006, United States submitted a draft Security Council resolution, backed by Great Britain, in an effort to end political repression and human rights violations to United Nation Security Council. Belgium, France, Ghana, Italy, Panama, Peru, Slovakia, the UK and the US voted in favor of the resolution, while China and Russia vetoed, and South Africa voted against the resolution. Indonesia, Qatar, and the Republic of the Congo abstained. Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya stated that domestic problems in Myanmar were largely internal affairs, while Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said that the issues would be better handled by other UN organs, such as the Human Rights Council and humanitarian agencies, rather than the Security Council. The Indonesian Ambassador, who abstained from the vote, deplored the situation in Myanmar, but said that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), did not believe the problems in Myanmar were threats to security and peace in the region.

In the annual ASEAN Summit in January 2007, held in Cebu, the Philippines, member countries failed to find common ground on the issue of Myanmar's lack of political reform. During the summit, ASEAN foreign ministers asked Myanmar to make greater progress on its roadmap toward democracy and national reconciliation. Some member countries contend that Myanmar's human rights issues were domestic affairs of Myanmar, while others contend that Myanmar's poor human rights record is an international issue.

Okkar's edits:

On January of 2006, United States submitted a draft security council resolution in an efforts to end political repression and human rights violations to United Nation Security Council. This resolution was backed by Britain. 15 nations members of UN Security Council voted 9-3, however, the resolution was soundly defeated after vetoes from China and Russia, both permanent members of the council along with United States, France and Britain. All five permanent members of the Security Council wield the power to veto any resolutions that brought before the council. China's UN Ambassador said "The situation in the Southeast Asian nation, one of the world's poorest, does not threaten peace and security of the region and if the Security Council passed a resolution on the Myanmar issue, that would have exceeded the duties of the Council laid out in the United Nations Charter". This view was supported by Russia, South Africa and Indonesia, which said that Myanmar government and its people should resolve their problems without outside interference. Indonesia's Ambassador, who abstained from the vote, deplored the situation in Myanmar. But he said the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) this week did not characterize the problems in Myanmar as threats to security and peace in the region and therefore the council had no role in condemning that country.

China and other ASEAN nations on Saturday accused the United States of overstepping by seeking a UN resolution against Myanmar. The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) declined to take a position on the U.S. resolution. Thailand's Foreign Minister said in Cebu, where ASEAN annual summit was being held, "it was now up to the Myanmar's Southeast Asian neighbors to show they could handle the dispute. I think we should perhaps redouble our efforts to see what we can do to help one another in terms of keeping this matter -- give it a regional focus the way it should be -- rather than to have it internationalized".

Russia and China, which had not cast a double veto since 1972, argued that human rights violations were not the purview of the Security Council unless they endangered regional or international peace and security, which Myanmar did not. Chinese UN Ambassador said "As a matter of fact, none of Myanmar's immediate neighbors ... believe the notion that the current situation in Myanmar poses a threat to regional peace and security. If you read the United Nations Charter, you'll clearly see why China voted against."

Thank you.-Hintha 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was it necessary to remove the statement of Chinese UN Ambassador and Thai Foreign Minister? is it because it was emberassing for NCGUB? Anyway, now that you have shown me, it is possible to revert edits "if" I can find a better sourced information, I shall be editing some of the articles citing a better information source. Thank you for your pointer and I hope you will have no more issues when I edit some of the poorly sourced information in other myanmar articles. Okkar 01:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit provided misplaced citations, and cited materials that were nonexistent in the source materials.--Hintha 01:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that statements from Chinese Ambassador and Thai Foreign Minister were not in source materials? please dont try to pull the wools over the eyes of spectators. Anyway, two can play that game, and watch the space. I will be sourcing UN and other more firm valid sources to edits the articles just the same way you did. Okkar 01:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In the article "China, Russia veto UN Burma resolution", which you cited, there is no mention of Thailand. And it states

During the debate, China's UN Ambassador Wang Guangya said the situation in the Southeast Asian nation, one of the world's poorest, does not threaten peace and security of the region.

and did not quote him. A lot of your edits included information not found in the single source you provided. --Hintha 01:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you did not delete the later part of the edit you would see there there is another information source that was provided at the end of the paragraph, you would see i cited http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK270788.htm, it clear states the following and in consistent with my edit:

China, one of the five permanent Security Council members whose no-vote automatically kills a U.N. resolution, was tight-lipped about Myanmar's crackdown on pro-democracy activists and directed its criticisms at Washington's resolution, which it said did not warrant Security Council attention.

"The situation in Myanmar does not constitute a threat to regional and international peace and security," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in Beijing, according to the official Xinhua news agency on Saturday.

"If the Security Council passed a resolution on the Myanmar issue, that would have exceeded the duties of the Council laid out in the United Nations Charter."

Beijing's criticisms of it were echoed by the Indonesian foreign minister, who said his views reflected other Southeast Asian countries.

"The case would be more appropriately brought to the attention of the human rights council rather than the U.N. Security Council," Hassan Wirajuda told Reuters.

Thailand's Foreign Minister Nitya Pibulsonggram said in Cebu it was now up to the Myanmar's Southeast Asian neighbours to show they could handle the dispute.

"I think we should perhaps redouble our efforts to see what we can do to help one another in terms of keeping this matter -- give it a regional focus the way it should be -- rather than to have it internationalised," he told reporters.

Now be a gentleman and admit that you have cheated and put back the correct information. You have been caught redhanded. Okkar 02:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Reuters did not directly quote (it paraphrased) the Thai foreign minister, which you did. Secondly, my edit: "while Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said that the issues would be better handled by other UN organs, such as the Human Rights Council and humanitarian agencies, rather than the Security Council.[1]" lines up with the view Indonesia takes (Reuters: "'The case would be more appropriately brought to the attention of the human rights council rather than the U.N. Security Council,' Hassan Wirajuda told Reuters."), but you state that Indonesia and Russia all have the same viewpoint as China, which is untrue. And you wrote "China and other ASEAN nations on Saturday accused the United States of overstepping by seeking a UN resolution against Myanmar.", which is unfounded, considering some ASEAN nations have different views than others, a situation I cited. (Reuters stated the same thing: "The question of Myanmar has exposed rifts in ASEAN, an organisation that has prided itself on consensus. Some members say ASEAN should not interfere in Myanmar's domestic affairs; others say the junta's rights record is already an international issue.".)--Hintha 02:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? no you didnt, so go read it first before you say it is unfounded. Okkar 02:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

ASEAN did not say that "China and other ASEAN nations on Saturday accused the United States of overstepping by seeking a UN resolution against Myanmar.". Reuters explicitly says that "China and other Asian powers on Saturday accused the United States of overstepping by seeking a U.N. resolution against Myanmar." There's a clear difference between Asia and ASEAN. -Hintha 02:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that you read it, would you please be a gentleman and take back your accusation of "unfounded". Asian Nations = ASEAN, unless you want to say Asian Nations are Sudan, Lebanon 'etc. Need a lesson in geography? Okkar 02:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the news article before claiming - the headline says: "Asian powers say U.S. overstepped against Myanmar" - http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK270788.htm <== go there and read before you sit and insist upon it. If you have trouble reading it in English, I shall translate it for you, please do let me know. Please dont try to defend yourself stubbornly, you were caught cheating by deleting the source and claiming that it was not source. Dont beat around the bush and create excuses. It is plain and simple and the world can see what you did. Okkar 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that you have read it, please do readd the comments of Chinese Ambassador and Thai Foreign Minister. If you are neutral as you claimed to be, why were you witholding this information now that you have read the article and verified it? what possible excuse would you have now to exclude the headlines and the content of this news? Now, please show us that you are free of political agendas, if you cant, then please admit publicly that you do have political agendas and you are bias. Okkar 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you not biased? "Asian powers" does not equal "ASEAN" (You made no mention of ASEAN being unable to come to a consensus on dealing with Myanmar either, and implied in your writing that ASEAN countries all follow one side). And you misquoted officials, in any case. Don't ridicule me ("If you have trouble reading it in English, I shall translate it for you, please do let me know."). This is considered a personal attack.--Hintha 02:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go, everytime the likes of you get caught redhanded, you scream personal attack, yet you expect to get away with the misdeed by trying to overcloud the issue at hand with personal attack claims. It is truely amazing to see this form of mentality in Wikipedia. Not only people cheat, lie and do all kinds of misdeeds, they have the audicity to claim to be victim. No wonder there are soo many sorry stories about Burmese refugees, this is just one fine example of the propaganda tactics of opposition groups - hit first then pretend to be victim .. amazing, truly amazing!! Okkar 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

was your comment If you have trouble reading it in English, I shall translate it for you, please do let me know. necessary? I was merely pointing out that the article never claimed that ASEAN "accused the United States of overstepping by seeking a UN resolution against Myanmar.". --Hintha 02:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan, South Korea, North Korea, India, Japan, Bangladesh, and more countries are not a part of the "Association of Southeast Asian Nations", but they are still countries in Asia. Unless you mean to say that Southeast Asia is Asia, and every other part of Asia is something else. Response to "Asian Nations = ASEAN, unless you want to say Asian Nations are Sudan, Lebanon 'etc. Need a lesson in geography?" I believe someone else needs that lesson. --Hintha 02:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying those countries that are not in ASEAN are considered to be Asian Nations, in that case, you are saying these countries opposed US resolution? thank you for the clarification. Now I know more country believed that Myanmar's problems are internal... cool! and on a note to that, I must remember that according to you, I am not an Asian, but South East Asia is not part of Asia. What a great geography lesson! Okkar 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you mistook the article's name. I'm saying that "Asian nations" could have referred to Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan. You indicated that ASEAN forms all of Asia, hence your illogical "Asian Nations = ASEAN", not that ASEAN nations form a part of Asia, and that other countries do not. And your statement (Now I know more country believed that Myanmar's problems are internal... cool! ) indicates your biases as well. --Hintha 02:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as everyone in this project is bias, it would be out of fashion for me not to. Like I said, I followed you guys example, you have shown me today that I can edit and replace contents from articles if i can provide a better well founded source. I will be doing just that for all the articles, call it house maintanance. Okkar 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Myanmar articles often lack citations. If you find articles that lack citations, please provide them. --Hintha 02:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So you admit that you are bias? or are you still going to dodge the question and deny as usual? Okkar 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Admit what? I haven't done anything wrong, except voice my opinions. That is what democracy is about, as you once said. Although Wikipedia is not a democracy, I am obligated to voice my opinions when I see something not fit. I only tried to improve upon what you initially wrote, and strengthened the statements with more citations, and cleared up some ambiguities (like the ASEAN/Asian part, the same view held by China, Indonesia, and Russia, and which nations voted which way). --Hintha 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was improvement, why did you delete the statement of Chinese Ambassador? ;-) Okkar 03:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you lumped statements by two people into a single statement said by Wang Guangya. Reuters reports ""As a matter of fact, none of Myanmar's immediate neighbours ... believe the notion that the current situation in Myanmar poses a threat to regional peace and security," China's ambassador to the U.N., Wang Guangya, said in New York.. Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing (who is not the Chinese UN Ambassador), according to Reuters, said "If you read the United Nations Charter, you'll clearly see why China voted against," You failed to differentiate between the two persons, writing "Chinese UN Ambassador said "As a matter of fact, none of Myanmar's immediate neighbors ... believe the notion that the current situation in Myanmar poses a threat to regional peace and security. If you read the United Nations Charter, you'll clearly see why China voted against.", as if Wang Guangya had said everything above. Did you just want me to turn the blind eye and allow you to misattribute others' statements? If you would like to correct that fact and reinstate it and not misquote others, then feel free to do so following what Wang Guangya said. I believe you should should accept that you made a blunder. And feel free to cite and expand other articles in the WikiProject. It would improve the quality. Thanks! --Hintha 03:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Extinct Burmese primates

Four species of Early Cenozoic primates have been found in Myanmar: Amphipithecus Colbert, 1937, Bahinia Jaegar et. al., 1999, Pondaungia Pilgrim, 1927, and Myanmarpithecus Takai et. al., 2001. They are all known from the late middle Eocene Pondaung Formation of Central Myanmar, also famous for large mammals. The presence of early anthropoids in Myanmar adds evidence to the assertion that anthropoids originated in Asia.

Pilgrim, G. E. (1927) Mem. Geol. Surv. India 1-26.

Colbert, E. H. (1937) Am. Mus. Novit. 651, 1-18.

Jaeger, J.-J., Thein, T., Benammi, M., Chaimanee, Y., Soe, A. N., Lwin, T., Wai, S. & Ducrocq, S. (1999) Science 286, 528-530.

Takai, M., Shigehara, N., Aung, A. K., Tun, S. T., Soe, A. N., Tsubamoto, T. & Thein, T. (2001) J. Hum. Evol. 40, 393-409. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Wildlife of Myanmar

Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Muslims in Myanmar

I read and reverted a contribution by Abc.aggaon Muslims in Myanmar. I appreciated Abc.agga's hard work and good intent but the contribution was far too long and contained too much material that was off-topic or advocating a specific point of view. (It also contained a few comments that might be regarded by some as anti-semitic.)

I left a message asking Abc.agga to consider instead adding material to pages devoted to Muslims in Burma. I also urged Abc.agga to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines concerning editing with a neutral point of view (NPOV) and to try to be more succinct! SimonBillenness 17:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

Abc.agga, just be sure to say NCGUB and USCB is great in the first few lines of your article, I'm sure Simon will leave your articles alone after that. Okkar 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

IP Adresses?

I'm not sure if anyone can help me with this, but is it true there are only 4 usable IP addresses? 24.6.118.254 16:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not true, but what you are seeing is the ip addresses of 4 proxy servers from Bagan Cybertech, which most internet users use to browse the web 'etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Okkar (talk • contribs) 13:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Information on Tourism

I've twice edited Okkar's contribution on tourism in Burma in the Economy section. I felt that the original edit read like a tourism promotion instead of an encyclopedic entry. I also edited out numerous mentions of commercial airlines that fly into and within Myanmar because it made the entry seem too commercial as well as overly long and repetitive. I'm open to discussion by others, including the original contributor, on how to edit this better. I just reverted the edit made by Okkarthat reincluded all the above extraneous information. However I would prefer to discuss this with the whole Myanmar editing community rather than engage in a revert war.SimonBillenness 09:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you pay attention, you will no doubt realise that those were not my contributions. They were contributed by other editors. If you would like to keep this article as a pure encyclopedic entry, perhaps you should start by removing your political propaganda materials - such as NLD flag. It is you who started this precedence of turning this article into NLD promotion page, and now everyone is following your foot steps to promote various things for various reasons. This article has become too commercialise and too political that it now looks like a propaganda leaflet handed out by opposition groups at the rallies instead of being a simple encyclopedic article regarding the country. I whole heartedly understand that there must be a great conflict of interest for you to keep your contribution to Myanmar article purely encyclopedic and factual since you are the Director of US Campaign for Burma and as such you do have a duty to promote NLD/NCGUB, however I do not think Wikipedia should be use for political propaganda purposes just as it should not be use for commercial promotions. If you start leading by example, then perhaps it would be eaiser to bring others in line according to Wikipedia policy. Remove the flag and show the "whole Myanmar editing community" that there is no conflict of interest. Okkar 13:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just re-checked the history of the tourist information that I edited. It was added by you in the "Revision as of 23:08, 10 April 2007." You later re-added it. The history record seems quite clear unless I'm reading it wrong. In any case, if the tourist information was not added by you, I'm sure you won't include it again.SimonBillenness

If you check properly, you would see that it was 203.81.161.154 as per Revision as of 11:37, 9 April 2007 added the Tourism information. Perhaps you dont read quite well! I shall include the information as long as you insist upon including NLD flag. It is only fair to allow both side to promote what they see fit as you, personally, as the Director of US Campaign for Burma, turned this article into propaganda material. Okkar 14:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. My apologies. The language in question on tourism was originally added by 203.81.161.154. When another editor removed it, you re-added it. You've now re-added it twice. If you are re-adding bad content as part of a dispute over a different edit, that constitutes bad editing practice and may even be vandalism. Please refrain from re-adding poorly written contributions in order to serve your personal agenda.SimonBillenness 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you should also refrain from re-adding politically motivated materials which are clearly in breech of Wikipedia NPOV policy in order to serve your organisation's (US Campaign for Burma) agenda. I readded those commericial materials simply to give other the same chance that we have given you. If you have the right to include NLD flag (which ofcourse have no relevance whatsoever in the main country article) then they also do have the right to include their commericial materials. We cannot have one rule for NLD/NCGUB promoters and one rule for the rest the world now.. can we? and ofcourse it is only fair and "democractic" ... dont you think? p.s. you should practice what you preach before you complain about others. Okkar 23:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

NLD FLAG

Once again, I re-included the emblem of the National League of Democracy (NLD) in the Politics section. I feel that it is appropriate to include the emblem of the party (the NLD flag) in an an article that cites the party and its 1990 election victory. The emblem has been part of the Myanmar article since before I joined Wikipedia as an editor. Okkar has continually removed it. I have replaced it on numerous occasions. Rather than continue this edit war, I'd like to start a discussion over whether the emblem is appropriate in the article on Myanar in the Politics section.SimonBillenness 09:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we turning wikipedia to NLD/NCGUB propaganda page? I already told you time and time again that there are no other country articles that include the "flag" (what you included is a flag, not an emblem) of opposition parties in the article. It has no place in it. However, your staunch insistance upon including the opposition flag in the country article along with your position as the Director of US Campaign for Burma does raise the questions on whether there is a conflict of interest. In any case, this article is a country article and should adhere to wikipedia NPOV guidlines and should have the same format as any other country articles. I suggest you move your "flag" to a more appropiate article such as NLD article. Edit war will continue if you keep using Wikipedia as a political propaganda tool. Okkar 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. As I have said numerous times, I feel that it is appropriate to include the emblem of the party (the NLD flag) in an an article that cites the party and its 1990 election victory. The emblem has been part of the Myanmar article since before I joined Wikipedia as an editor.

It is not an emblem, it is a flag. This article is not about NLD nor it's 1990 election victory. I am sure it would be more appropiate to include in NLD's own article. I have no objection to that. The country article as a whole is not a suitable place to promote for NLD (as if they needed promoting), if we have to include any political parties emblem, we can start by including KNU, KIA, BCP (all of which has relevant parts in the article just as much as NLD does) and all other 1001 political parties and insurgent groups. You cannot have one rule for NLD and one rule for the rest. We either include all the "emblem" or "flag" of every opposition groups or none at all. Deep down you know that it is wrong, however, you are insisting to include it simply because you, as Director of US Campaign for Burma have a "duty" to ensure that this article remains a propaganda material for NLD/NCGUB. Okkar 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about politics and it cites prominently the NLD's victory in the 1990 Election. That makes the emblem relevant in my opinion; you are entitled to your views. And please stop making personal attacks on me by imputing (incorrectly I might add) bad motives on my part. Your are violating Wikipedia rules so please cease. Thank you. SimonBillenness 14:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is NOT about politics, it is about the country. If you would like to make prominent point about NLD victory, I suggest you use the article Politics of Myanmar. This is the main country article and it's not just about politics or who win which election, as such NLD flag has no relevance to this article at all. I am not making personal attacks here but it is hard to accept that there is no conflict of interest when you insist upon including NLD/NCGUB propaganda materials and being the Director of US Campaign for Burma. You are violating Wikipedia rule for Conflict of Interest and also breaking Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy, so please cease using this article to lobby for NLD/NCGUB on behalf of US Campaign for Burma. Thank you. Okkar 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we are dug into opposing positions on this point, I'm requesting a discussion with contributions from others. That will be productive than an edit war. SimonBillenness

In other words, you are canvassing for other supporters of opposition to step forward to help in your crusade? I hope you do realise that this kind of canvassing can be attributed to "sock puppetry". Okkar 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not canvassing for support for my position. I'm asking for input pro and con. That's not "sock puppetry." That's free discussion.SimonBillenness 14:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Canvassing and Meatpuppets and then digest whether or not your "free discussion" contribute to Sock Puppetry. Okkar 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is when you recruit your supporters to back up your position. I'm asking people to weigh in on whatever position they see fit. Again, that is just free discussion. It is not meatpuppetry.SimonBillenness 15:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse you would say that, but in the view of public it's certainly is Meatpuppetry and canvassing, quite apperent by your choice of wording such as "free discussion" as if to potray this pathetic disagreement for the inclusion of NLD flag to somekind of democractic struggle against good and evil, thereby canvassing other opposition supporters to join in the debate. You lobbyist are amazing, but I guess anyone with brain can see through the usual rhetorics and tactics used by opposition lobbyists. Okkar 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I think we've both done this discussion to death. Anyone else care to comment either way or a third way?SimonBillenness 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean "anyone else who work for US Campaign for Burma or who support/lobby/promote for NCGUB care to comment?" - if that is not canvassing and meatpuppetry, i dont know what is. Perhaps you should just come clean and admit your conflict of interest here instead of beating around the bush for this stupid flag which has no relavance whatsoever to the country article as a whole. I do understand that you find the need to lobby and promote NLD/NCGUB some how, but that doesnt mean you have to keep insisting to include that flag, I'm sure there are other more subtle ways of doing your propaganda. If you are going to use the main country article for lobbying purpose, then you must accept that other people will start using this article for the commercial and political purposes too. That is the reason why I am always against the idea of including this kind of propaganda materials in the article. I knew it would become a precedence for others to follow, however, you and your fellow NCGUB partisans stubbornly refused to heed my warnings and insisted upon inclusion of NLD propaganda materials. Please remember, as a member of WikiProject Myanmar/Burma, you are setting an example in editing the project articles. If you include your own lobby materials, other people will think it is a right thing to do and they will follow suit. Okkar 23:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As a third party and politically neutral entity, I would suggest to include the NLD flag ONLY in the article "Politics of Myanmar"; NOT in the main article "Myanmar". Okkar has a point there. The article "Myanmar" should only cover an abstract of the political scenario in Myanmar and the article "Politics of Myanmar" should cover more in depth sense on main oppositions, major parties, elections etc, thus making it relevant to include the NLD flag there. (And I think the concerned editors here should self-restraint a little more. One maybe working for the government, and the other for the opposition but the continuing war here on Wiki edits is really unproductive in my point of view. Please don't mind me saying. You guys are battling far too long and getting personal.) Kyaw 2003 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Kyaw 2003's suggestion to include the NLD in the "Politics of Myanmar" article. However, I see little difference between doing that and including the flag in the "Politics" section of the main "Myanmar" article. But I could probably live with that as a compromise. You are correct that this discussion has become personal. however I think it's clear that almost all personal attacks have been made by Okkar on myself. I decline to attack him personally. Perhaps he should consider doing the same.SimonBillenness 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your continued insistance for inclusion of NLD flag in Myanmar country article even though it is entirely irrelevant does raise the question on whether there is a "conflict of interest" on your part, since you are the Director of US Campagin for Burma, a lobby firm for promoting NLD/NCGUB. With this in mind, it is perfectly reasonable for me to question your motives, especially when you constantly insisting that this particular flag (flag of the party your lobby firm has been signed up to promote) be included regardless of warnings and suggestions from other parties. It should not be consider as personal attack to raise relevent questions during the discussion. Beside, if you have acted entirely in good faith then you have absolutely no need to feel that this have been a personal attack. Okkar 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what i have been suggesting all along. I have repeatedly tried to beat some sense into the likes of SimonBillenness and other political lobbyists that it is entirely inappropiate to include NLD flag in the main article and warned that this would set a precedence for others to include their own political and commericial materials, however, all my suggestions and warning goes unheeded. To make it clear for everyone, I can categorically state that I do not work for the government or nor am I on the payroll of the government as it has been suggested by SimonBillenness and his gang. Unlike SimonBillenness, I do not have any association or affiliation with any political, government or NGO organisations that would raise conflict of interest for my contributions to Wikipedia. I would like to ask SimonBillenness and his followers to produce any solid evidence, not just hearsay and rumours, that I am indeed working for the government if they want to continue their accusations and be desruptive about the contributions I am making to Wikipedia. If they cannot, I suggest they stop all these childish accusations and move on in constructive manner and keep their political orientation and affiliations out of Wikipedia. Myanmar article may not be a big deal for SimonBillenness who just want to use it to promote NLD /NCGUB, but for those of us (regardless of whether you are pro-government or pro-democracy) - it is our country's article and it means a great deal to us. It deserves to be treated with same dignity and respect that every other country articles have on Wikipedia - this means not to include flags of opposition groups and parties in the article simply for political propaganda purpose. Political and economic issues of our country will always be a subject for debate and disagreement, but Wikipedia is not a place for this debate nor is it a place to lobby/promote/campagin for certain causes, so please have a little respect and let our country article have the dignity it deserves. I hope it is not too much to ask Okkar 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Simon has requested opinion and suggestions from neutral parties. Kyaw 2003 has made a very constructive suggestion. However, it seems Simon cannot practice what he preach and still insisting upon including NLD flag in the main country article even though he has been told time and again that it is not appropiate. I do believe this has gone way beyond "acting in good faith" and started becoming a vandalism based upon conflict of interest. I am supprise to see the leader of US Campaign for Burma and Director of Amnesty International acting like a vandal on the internet. This is truly amazing. Okkar 12:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I recognize Kyaw 2003's constructive suggestion. In fact I stated on 04:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC): "I appreciate Kyaw 2003's suggestion to include the NLD in the "Politics of Myanmar" article. However, I see little difference between doing that and including the flag in the "Politics" section of the main "Myanmar" article. But I could probably live with that as a compromise." The appropriateness of including the NLD flag in the "Politics" section of the main "Myanmar" article is not settled; it remains a matter of debate between only three editors: me, Okkar, and Kyaw 2003. I'd appreciate input from more people, preferably of different opinions than we three. I believe that in this debate I continue to act in good faith, being open to compromise, and respecting the views of others. I appreciate [[User:Kyaw 2003|Kyaw 2003] for acting in the same appropriate way. SimonBillenness 19:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How many more people do we have to wait? lets put a limit on this here so that we can all move on constructively, rather than waiting for 1001 people to come. Okkar 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How about ten people, excluding sockpuppets and meatpuppets of course? SimonBillenness 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we agree to just let people notice this request for input like Kyaw 2003? Or should we contact the other Wikipedia Project Myanmar (Burma) team members? I'm open to either idea. SimonBillenness 19:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say we remove the flag, let the people notice the absent of the flag and have them come here looking and have a say on the subject? I think it's a jolly good idea. Dont you think? Okkar 20:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Discussion first, then action. SimonBillenness 21:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See, you just cannot accept constructive suggestion. With staunch refusal to accept any meaningful suggestion like that, how can you blame me for saying there's a conflict of interest on your part? Okkar 22:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing Neutrality and Political Motivations

Okkar has cited my affilation as board member of US Campaign for Burma, an organization that campaigns for the restoration of human rights and democracy in Burma. I would also add that I am also a board member of Amnesty International USA. I edit Wikipedia under my own name and I am open about my outside affiliations.

I do not believe that my outside affiliations affect the neutrality and quality of my work as a Wikipedia editor. I'm open to constructive criticism of my editing work. I do object to personal attacks on me based purely on my outside political affilations. I believe that those attacks violate Wikipedia policy on civility that stress editors to confine criticism to contributions not contributors.

Since Okkar believes that outside affiliations are relevant for Wikipedia discussion, I feel that he should be open about his own previous associations. I have received emails from Okkar in which he cites his identity as Col. San Pwint, a former Burmese military junta spokesman.

I'd invite Okkar to be open about his past in the same way that I have been about mine. That is the standard he applies to other editors, such as myself. I'd request that he adhere to his own standard.

When we are all open about our past and present affiliations, then we could have an informed discussion as to whether these backrounds affect our ability to edit with a NPOV.

I believe that I do edit impartially. Okkar disputes that. Let's have a civil discussion about this in which all participants are open about their personal backgrounds.SimonBillenness 16:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Simon, I'm sorry if it left a bad taste in your mouth when you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar, but the issue still remains - whether or not you are having conflict of interest - especially in the case of your excessive lobbying for NLD and NCGUB. This is quite apperent by your staunch insistance to include NLD flag in main country article, even though you were quite openly told by a third party that it is not appropiate. So please do explain to use why are you so staunchly insisting upon the inclusion of the flag if it is not for purpose other than simple lobbying.

Your details were public knowledge and as such it is nothing wrong in questioning your motives based upon the information. If you have nothing to hide, then theres no need for you to feel that it is a personal attack or otherwise.

I do not see the point of disclosing my personal details on a public forum unless if it is already in public domain (i.e. like your information). However, since you have insisted that I come clean. I am happy to share the following relevant information with you and any other interested parties.

I have not been impartial with my contribution to Wikipedia nor have i insisted upon including irrelevant propaganda materials which are in line with my political orientation or affiliations (i.e. unlike SimonBillenness). I have not lobbied, canvassed or campaign for any political organisations or the government. I contributed facts based upon materials that I have researched and sticked to Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. I questioned and disputed those articles which are deem to be campagining for particular political party or written in such a way as propaganda materials. I have no affiliation whatsoever with any governmental, non-governmental or political organisation - as such my slate is clean and there is no conflict of interest on my part (it is a shame the same cannot be said about Simon).

Should anyone would like to dispute any of the facts above, I suggest they do so with supporting evidence and proof. Not just hearsay or made up stories, as they will only get exposed in the end. I welcome any person who can come forward and prove that I have any such association or political motivations.

SimonBillenness , Could you kindly disclose the supposed emails that i have sent to you (please do not create fake emails, it would be emberassing for you as Director of US Campaign for Burma and Amensty International to be faking emails to score some points). I have kept all the email correspondance I had with yourself and no where in any of such email have I ever claimed to be anyone other than myself, and I definately did not claimed to be Col. San Pwint. So please, do us all a favour and disclose this supposed email. I know opposition lobbyists are known to create fake instruments in order to support their claims and I would have no doubt that the same would be apply here too. But in any case, I would welcome the disclosure of these emails as "proof" to eithe expose me or expose typical fabrication tactics being used by opposition groups. Okkar 16:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

One email that I received was from "Okkar <phargaung@gmail.com>." Is that your email account? At the end of that email it read:

"My details are as follow:

Name: Okkar

Real Name: Col. San Pwint (retired)

Contact Details: avilable [sic] upon request."

Using google, I found a Lt. Col. San Pwint who was quoted in several news articles as, amongst other titles, "Lieutenant-Colonel San Pwint, spokesman for the Directorate of Defence Services Intelligence (DDSI)." Was that you: a spokesman for the Burmese military intelligence? SimonBillenness 20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone could sign up for gmail and claim to be someone, surely as an educated person and the director of US campaign for Burma, you seriously can not be this gullable (doh!). If you use google and do your research properly, you will no doubt find that Lt. Col. San Pwint is currently serving time in jail and Directorate of Defence Services Intelligence (DDSI) was abolished in 2005. If your accusations are to be true, then I must be online from inside the prison? (duh!). Now if you do your home work right as the Director of US Campaign for Burma, surely you would know that theres no such facilities inside prisons in Myanmar. Your organisation, US Campaign for Burma, released numerous reports about harsh conditions inside prisons in Myanmar, so how can you suggest now that I am using internet from inside the prison in Myanmar? Are you suggesting you have no faith in the reports your organisation is producing?

Judging by your post, you are simply quite clueless about Myanmar Government and out of touch with current affairs in Myanmar - in other word, you have no idea about myanmar and it's government. This is quite emberassing for someone who is leading lobbying campaign against Myanmar government and being one of the director of Amnesty International. I wonder if "clueless" and "ignorant" were pre-requesite for when applying for these positions? This is just one fine example of opposition groups and their suppoters accusing myanmar people and it's government based on groundless, unfounded and outdated information - "Again". Having witness such unfounded accusations coming from the Director of US Campaign for Burma, anyone with even half a brain can work out how accurate and truthful their reports such as refugee crisis and rape stories. (grin) Okkar 21:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. You pranked me when you claimed to be San Pwint. Congratulations. Perhaps you should host the Burmese version of "Punk'd." Since you're not answering my questions, I see little value in continuing this discussion.SimonBillenness 22:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You are avoiding the questions here, but to save your face and emberassment, I will not press you to answer the questions and ridicule in public, providing that you remove NLD flag from main country article and stop using Wikipedia for lobbying purpose. Okkar 23:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Okkar, you stated above on this page that: "I have kept all the email correspondance I had with yourself and no where in any of such email have I ever claimed to be anyone other than myself, and I definately did not claimed to be Col. San Pwint." However, the only emails that I have received from someone named "Okkar" have been from the account <phargaung@gmail.com>. In the email I cited above, "Okkar" claimed to be "Col. San Pwint." It's clear that you are not Col. San Pwint. However, why did you state above that you, in your emails to me, "definately did not claimed to be Col. San Pwint." Did you lie on this page when you said that? Are you lying to cover up your prank on me? SimonBillenness 19:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about entirely different email conversation we had in the past - obviously you did not remember and seems to be confusing me with some other prankster. What proof do you have that the email address you said above belongs to me? it's general knowledge that anyone can open gmail account, it could be anybody who is pulling the joke on you. So isnt that a tad silly of you to even assume that email was sent by me? I have no reason to lie or cover up about anything, least of all for pranking you, if indeed it was me who did that to you. What possible reason would I have to cover up about making a fool out of you? I think you are beating around the bush because someone pulled a serious prank on you. It is quite funny, I would laugh out loud but I would refrein myself to save you from emberassment. Okkar 20:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The circumstantial evidence that you've lied is very strong. I recall one email from a purported "Okkar" that was sent to my old work address several years ago. The only emails that I have received in the past few years - and the only emails to my gmail address - have been from that email address: <phargaung@gmail.com>. Don't beat about the bush in a suspicious manner. Is that email address yours? SimonBillenness

You are being speculative here. Did I say I wrote to you with the name "Okkar"? everyone knows that this is just a nickname that I used for Wikipedia. It seems you assume too quick and too soon without thinking things through. Do you do this when making accusations to Myanmar government about supposed attrocities that they committed? If you did then it just goes to show you guys often accused without having any solid evidence or thinking through the rationality of particular issues. To be honest, I expect a lot more than that from the Director of US Campaign for Burma :-) Anyway, can you prove that email address belongs to me? Okkar 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you a direct question. You are prevaricating in a very suspicious way. Are you hiding something? I ask again: is <phargaung@gmail.com> your email address? Please answer "yes" or "no." SimonBillenness 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will answer your question if you answer the questions I've asked you above. It was me who asked the questions first and yet you have been doing all your best to avoid having to answer them, even trying to turn the table around. Are you afraid of potential PR minefield that you might be treading upon by answering my questions? You see, unlike you I have nothing to hide and I am free of political affliations and motivations. Okkar 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that turning tables around to avoid questions is your MO, Okkar. However, I will take your challenge and I will answer your questions above.

I have kept re-adding the NLD flag to the Myanmar page because the party is prominently cited in the article for winning the 1990 elections. Therefore inclusion of the flag is relevant information. (In addition, I might add that the picture breaks up the text nicely.)

So you agree that it is a politically motivated inclusion. I hope you do understand that it can be seen as bias towards NLD and this is in clear breach of Wikipedia NPOV policy. Okkar 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have included above the relevant information from the email that you obviously sent me. (I also have kept all the emails you've sent to my gmail account.)

If you say so... i'll let you have the peace of mind so that the rest of the world can be in peace (old myanmar saying). Okkar 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have confidence in the accuracy of USCB and Amnesty International reporting unlike, say, that of "The New Light of Myanmar".

Somehow you seems to be bending the question a little bit. My question was how can you be sure that USCB and Amnesty reports are accurate when you, the director of USCB often making wrong assumptions and conclusions. In other words, we are questioning the credibility of these reports, based upon your performance in public. Okkar 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite reasonable, based on the strong circumstantial evidence, that <phargaung@gmail.com> is your email address.

Again you are accusing without providing evidence. Where is your proof that this email address belongs to me? Okkar 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Having answered your questions, I would expect you to honor your word and answer mine: is <phargaung@gmail.com> your email address? Please answer "yes" or "no." SimonBillenness 22:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove that this email address belongs to me? if not, i suggest you stop accusing. Back up your claims with proof! Okkar 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have answered your questions, Okkar. Your silence indicates to me a lack of good faith on your part. I expect that your first contribution when you log back into Wikipedia, is to honor your word and, as you agreed, answer my question. My question remains: is <phargaung@gmail.com> your email address? Please answer "yes" or "no." SimonBillenness 11:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove that this address belongs to me? Back up your claim with proof please! Okkar 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You have failed to honor your word and answer my question. Your prevarication is sufficient proof to me that the email address belongs to you. I now have all the information that I need from you. SimonBillenness 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Was that a threat? you can assume what you want, i dont have to explained anything to you or anyone. Your intimidations and threats would have no effects whatsoever on me for my continuing participation in Wikipedia. However, it is quite emberassing to see the leader of USCB contradicting the very principal of democracy and resorting to threats and intimidation. I wonder if USCB is promoting Democracy or Hypocracy? Okkar 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't worry. I am not at all threatening you. I'm just very disappointed in your lack of honor as demonstrated above. Aside from that, I wish you well. You have my very best regards. I will wish you health and happiness the next time I meditate. SimonBillenness 22:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worry about your threats, infact, I am quite intrigued by it all, since it does show the hypocritical side of democracy activists. I thank you for sharing this with me and the public. If you think I lack honor, I shall take that as a compliment especially since it came from you. I would rather lack honor then paddle lies and be a hypocrite. For someone who meditate, you seems to have no self control and seems to be biting every bait that i dangle infront of you - goenka must be seriously disappionted! Okkar 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Okkar. You've taught me a bit about self-control. I mean that quite sincerely. I wish you well. SimonBillenness 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thar du, thar du, thar du, Phone kyee par say, Thet shay par say, Kyan Mar Par Say, Chan thar par say Ko Simon :-) Okkar 06:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. May I trouble you for an English translation? SimonBillenness 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Incredible!!! the Director of US Campaign for Burma have no idea what those words means in Burmese. Although I suspected long before that you clear have no idea about our country apart from fabricated stories and propaganda information that have been briefed to you, but nevertheless I expected you to be somewhat intelligent and have a bit more of general knowledge on Burmese language. After all you are leading the lobbying group campaigning for Burma and you must have done your home work well before you take on the job, right? I hope all other directors are not ignorant like you :-) ASSK would be extremely disappointed with your ignorance. Anyhow, i was simply wishing you well and blessing you for your good deeds since it is Myanmar New Years day, and on new years we forgive and give blessing to sinners.  :-) Okkar 21:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fighting Peacock

I believe SimonBillenness seems to be misrepresenting "Fighting Peacock" as NLD "emblem". "Peacock" represent our country's flag before we were colonised by the British, hence why ABSU flag included a peacock emblem to represent our nation's struggle to gain independance from the British. Fighting Peacock on the other hand is the emblem of the "Student Front" (Kyaungthar Tat Oo) of ABSU. "Student Front" represent a wing within ABSU that includes a group of students, who sworn to sacrifice their lives for the greater cause in the name of their country. They are always at the forefront of ABSU and student lead demonstrations and they are the ones who always take the first strike from batons and galloping horses during the colonial era. It is a fact that many students have died under the flag of "Fighting Peacock" througout the history of our country. Although, "Student Front" was officially disbanded and banned along with ABSU during BSPP era, the stories of "Student Front" with their dedication, sacrifice, courage and honour has masmerized and captivated every generation of young students.

At the beginning of 1988 uprising, it was the students from High Schools, came out carrying "Fighting Peacock" flags along with their school banners when they marched through the streets of our cities. The 88 generation high school students immidiately assume the position of "Student Front" during the 1988 uprising and it was them who paid the highest price. NLD, as political party adopted the symbol of "Fighting Peacock" into their party flag after the uprising in order to honour the students of Myanmar, who were always at the forefront of the struggle for their country and those who lay down their lives in the name of "democracy" and "freedom". Fighting Peack is not just a mere representation of courage or freedom, nor is it a mere logo on the flag of a political party, it is much more than that. It a symbol that represents courage, honour and sacrifice of the "students" of Myanmar, it represent the history of our country's struggle from both foreign invasions and tyranny, it represent our forefathers and it represent the fighting spirit of the "students" of Myanmar. NLD and ASSK would not be where they are today, if it wasnt for those students waving "Fighting Peacock" flags in 1988. If you said you are for freedom and democracy, then honour those students who brought about the change, honour those students who gave up their lives so that NLD can sit and complain about how they have won 1990 election and still not in the office.

Thanks to a mixure of political correctness and pure ignorant, we all have forgotten the fallen heroes and the spirit of "Fighting Peacock". Instead of honouring them for their sacrifices, we sat by sideline and watch people like SimonBillenness exploiting "fighting peacock" to promote NLD and NCGUB. Is this the way their death should be honoured? They didnt die for NLD, they died for our country and now we are repaying their deaths by letting political parties exploit the "Fighting Peacock" symbol. It is an insult to suggest that "Fighting Peacock" represent NLD as NLD has done nothing to earn the honour and respect that goes with the symbol of "Fighting Peacock". It belongs to the students of Myanmar. It should be clarify in the description of NLD flag, otherwise, we are effectively rewriting the history of "Fighting Peacock" and dishonouring those students who gave up their lives during the struggle. Okkar 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This misses the fact that the NLD flag includes the "fighting peacock." Mentioning the peacock in the description of the flag is simply stating a demonstrated fact. I'd suggest keeping the flag where it is but including the history of the symbol in another article. SimonBillenness 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read properly you will see that NLD exploited the "fighting peacock" emblem in their flag. You mentioned in the description of the flag as though NLD's own fighting peacock, which constitute misrepresentation and disrespectful. I suggest you clarify the description accordingly or remove the flag all together. I'd rather remove the flag. Okkar 09:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment. SimonBillenness 15:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment and the one before, the flag should be removed since it is misrepresenting and misleading. Okkar 17:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We appear to be at an impasse. Let's figure out a mutually acceptable compromise. I would be comfortable with you creating a new Wikipage specifically on the "fighting peacock" where you could include the full history of the symbol. Much of the information is in your post above. But leave the flag alone. SimonBillenness 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Like i said before, you need to edit the flag description first else it would get removed as it is misleading. Okkar 09:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please just edit the description of the flag yourself but leave the flag itself in the article. SimonBillenness 13:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you dont remove the claims, i will remove the flag alltogether. Okkar 10:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If the description of the flag is inaccurate, then edit the description or add the information you provided above for better balance and context. The current description of the flag is: "The flag of the National League for Democracy includes a 'fighting peacock' that is generally regarded as a symbol of freedom." Please tell us what is inaccurate about that description. SimonBillenness 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fighting Peacock does not represent "Freedom", it represent courage, honour and sacrifice of burmese students, it is the emblem of "Student Front" of ABSU. Your description is not only inaccurate, but also misleading, misrepresenting and above all disrespectful. It appears that you are just using the word "Fighting Peacock" in order to promote NLD, instead of actually understanding the full meaning of it. If you dont know the meaning of it, you shouldnt include it. For someone of your standing, i.e. being Director of US Campaign for Burma and Amnesty International, it goes without saying that you should be well verse in this kind of information, after all you have been representing and campaigning for democracy in burma, right? (according to your organisation's namesake). How can you lobby for democracy in Burma and understand the struggle of our people, if you dont even know the meaning of "Fighting Peacock"? Perhaps you should change the name of your organisation to "US Campaign for NLD" instead? seeing as you clearly have not a lot of knowledge on the burmese democracy struggle, the role of students and the meaning of "Fighting Peacock". It seems you lobbyists have no idea about anything else if it doesnt involved NLD or DASSK. Okkar 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited the description of the flag as per your suggestion. In future, if you dispute the text included with the NLD flag, edit the description and don't just delete the flag. Thank you! SimonBillenness 14:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the NLD flag description, Okkar. I just edited it for spelling and grammar only. I appreciate our collaboration over this. My best wishes to you. SimonBillenness 15:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont get all cheesy on me Simon, just becase we collaborated on this, that dont mean we gonna be having cold shower together on hot summer days! :-) Okkar 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.181.122 (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Good Grief - these two dudes must have a lot of time on their hands. Far Canal 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are we insisting on Recognizing Militia Rule?

We are we insisting on recognizing militia rule in Burma, by havng soley Myanmar as the name? --Hayden5650 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The so called "government" is little more than a bunch of bullies who are defying the will of the people through overwhelming arms and the support of its neighbours. 204.52.215.13 07:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Status?

I realize that this article has been nominated for Featured Article status (and was not promoted), but has anyone nominated it for Good Article status? Usually this is required to give an article an A-class rating. If the article gets GA status, then it is definitely on its way to FA. - cgilbert^{(talk|contribs)} 12:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright error on image

The copyright for the very interesting picture of Queen Anne visiting the Burmese Pavillion says it is from the cover of a comic book. I can safely say that it is impprobable that there is a Queen Anne comic when she saves the Burmese exhibition pavillion. Author should probably correct. --NotTires May 25 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:BurmaPavilion.jpg

Image:BurmaPavilion.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Etymology section

According to the etymology section, the written/formal form of the country's name has always been, and still is, transliterated as "Myanma". Yet, the government requests that the country's name in English be called "Myanmar". Is this correct? The native language calls it "Myanma", but the native government specifically requests that English add an "r" at the end? In my little mind, that would be like Côte d'Ivoire asking other countries to call it "Côte d'Ivoira", or some such. Is there something more to this? -BaronGrackle 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's something more, from the CIA site: "local long form:" Pyidaungzu Myanma Naingngandaw (translated by the US Government as Union of Myanma and by the Burmese as Union of Myanmar)". So weird. You'd think we'd be able to agree on that sort of thing. Okay... if Myanmar uses "Myanmar" as its transliteration, while the U.S. uses "Myanma", then should we note in the etymology section that the native government has always called itself "Myanmar"? It sounds like "Myanma" is just the U.S. interpretation of how it transliterates. Thoughts? -BaronGrackle 17:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of women's suffrage - year anf flag

Hi,

Can anyone please check the entry about Burma at Timeline of women's suffrage?

1. Is this information correct in the first place?
2. The flag there is definitely wrong, but i couldn't find any other flag that will the year 1922.

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dance

Not entirely sure how this section is relevant to the article about the Country, perhaps it should be removed? It looks more like WikiTravel material than anything else Pigeonshouse 19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Myanmar

The first line under the History section reads:

"The crab people are thought to be the earliest group to mutants into the lower Ayeyarwady valley, and by the mid-900s BC were dominant in southern Myanmar.[7]"

I checked the source, it mentions the Mon people and nothing about any Mutants. Could somebody please verify.

Aaranh 01:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly comparisons

This kind of sentence "It is somewhat smaller than the US state of Texas and slightly larger than Afghanistan" is ridiculous. This is Wikipedia not Americanpedia and we don't need every non-American country, city or region to be compared to an American state just because many Americans are so stupid that they can't understand sizes quoted in square kilometres or square miles. I'm just relieved that you don't refer to London as "London, England" or Slovakia as "Slovakia, which is in Europe" (like frequently happens on US TV). Let's develop a proper encyclopaedia and not a fact book for stupid people. 213.230.130.54 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly agree with most of your points, yet you may find that the distinguishing of "London, England" would be more commonly found in Canada than in the United States. Remember that self-centrism is a common worldwide condition. :-) -BaronGrackle 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

okkar

Would you mind declearing your political stance or stance on Burma/Myanmar? I have just gone through a lot of your edits and you refuse the agree with the stance of several democratic nations and refugees, inclding the exiled politicians, on about every count. You contantly accuse others for being a spokeperson for NCGUB and revert their edits. You have several warnings for your misuse of reverts on your user talk page. Claiming that you are neutral is a joke. Zarkow 125.24.209.24 10:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Name of the Article

Shouldn't this article be at the title that reflects common usage in English? In most news articles to this day, Burma is the term used (recent example). The article can of course also reference the name used by the military government. Icsunonove 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The article gives me the impression that the UN calls the country Myanmar when refering to it in English. Since the English world is somewhat divided on the issue, we should go with what the UN says. Or we could apply our own naming conventions for the British/American difference. While this isn't the exact same issue, it is in principle. And while those conventions say to go with what the first major editor used, in principle they really just want you to leave things alone and not engage in any controversial movement. Though many English sources use Myanmar and many citizens of Myanmar use Burma, either of the most unbiased methods (in my opinion) support using Myanmar. Atropos 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your point about the UN is wrong; the UN doesn't "say" anything. They simply list what member countries ask them to list. I'm not sure what you are talking about with the major editor and the bit about "they really just want you". If most English sources use Myanmar, then that is correct usage. It is like Constantinople; Istanbul was not used in English until the 19th or 20th century. Icsunonove 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Note some people have argued the most common usage by English speakers in Myanmar/Burma is Burma but there has been no evidence for this. We know that the most vocal supporters of the democracy movement retain the name Burma and we also know that the majority of the population appears to support the democracy movement. However this doesn't prove that the majority of the population retain the name Burma. The reality is we don't know precisely because the military doesn't allow these sort of things to be known. Also, whether or not the government is legitimate is kind of irrelevant IMHO. The fact of the matter, is illegitimate or not, they are the current government. If and when a more democract government takes over and if they decide to readopt the name Burma then we can change the name. Finally I disagree with the view that only native speaker of English matter. What the country is called by non-native speakers of English is just as important. E.g. India, ASEAN etc Nil Einne 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know where the last comment came from. Soap boxing? :-) So should non-native speakers of Chinese go change some Chinese dictionaries? hah. We are simply supposed to use what is common usage in English. If it is Myanmar, or Burma, whatever. It seems that by just looking at BBC articles, they use Burma, and my own opinion is that Burma is the more well-known term in English to describe this area. We'd have to figure out how to prove either one, I guess. Icsunonove 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How does one measure common usage in English? Is there any evidence at all that Burma is predominant over Myanmar in the language? If one term is the dominant usage (by an overwhelming amount), then there is no question about what to use. If both terms have similar usage, meaning the dominant usage is unclear, then we should fall back to the one that the country calls itself. --Polaron | Talk 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You can start off by reading Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Some recommended methods are looking at what is used in major news sources (BBC, etc.), referring to encyclopedias, atlases, and also doing Google searches (for example, Google Scholar). Also, a bit of common sense? In this day and age, if you ask some of your friends if they've heard about Burma versus Myanmar, which one do you think will honestly be more well known? Icsunonove 00:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the BBC have given up and gone back to useing Burma boston globe burma The Press Association Burma sydney morning herald Burma wall street journal burma.Geni 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The junta is NOT the rightful government of Burma

and thus the movement of the capital to Naypidaw and renaming of the country to Myanmar ought not to be recognised. Sorry. 204.52.215.13 07:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is a fact. If a lunatic took over the US and renamed it KentuckyFriendChickenLand would wikipedia then change the name of the US throughout its articles?

Infiltration of Protestors

I made a change about the infiltration of protestors. I don't know how to add a link to the page, but the info came from here: http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/pm/weblog.php?id=P278