Talk:Myanmar

Archives
March 2003 – July 2006

20,000 Monks Protest

This section needs to be examined. The first paragraph has way too many differing points to be cohesive. For example, one sentence says that "Myanmar’s comedian Zaganar and star Kyaw Thu brought food and water to the monks." Although it is an interesting tidbit, it seems out of place in the abbreviated article section. Achika54 18:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

It should be called Burma. The US and UK Governments do not recognise the change of name made by the unelected military junta. Even the BBC does not use the word "Myanmar". [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOKRAPP (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's time to call Burma "Burma," and to rename Wikipedia's article accordingly. "Burma" is an English rendering of a name Burmese use for their own country. No one calls it colonialism when we refuse, in English-language documents, to call Germany "Deutschland," or to call Ireland "Eire." If there is any issue of colonialism in this discussion (and I don't see one), it's that those outsiders who comply with the whim of the country's rapacious oligarchy by assenting to their renaming of Burma as "Myanmar" by fiat are complicit in a gross form of colonialism by native elite. If Qaddafi decided to rename Libya "Earth Paradise One," must the world comply? Yes, "Myanmar" has a legitimate use by Burmese themselves, but the question is not what should Burmese call their own country. That is their business. The question is: what is the English word for this country? The answer is "Burma." English people do not object to French people who choose to call England "Angleterre." Americans do not object when Bulgarians call America "Sasht." What the people of other countries choose to call them is their business. Congress could not decree that the Bulgarians must refer to the United States as the United States, and the "State Peace and Development Council" cannot decree what English speakers must call Burma. (What would the "State Peace and Development Council" think if we decreed that its new name is "The Gathering of Pigs at the Trough"?) "Burma/Myanmar" is NOT "neutral point of view," because it legitimizes an arbitrary interference in the English language. Besides its clumsiness, it makes no more sense that a decree from London that the French must call England "Angleterre/England," as a compromise to insisting that the French call England "England." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LapisQuem (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Okkar is disingenuous by bringing in Mumbai-Bombay as some sort of justification for a spurious us-and-them argument. Read up about this and you'll find exactly the same kind of political loading there and in many other cases of name-changing around the world as in the Myanmar-Burma question. Plenty of Hindi-, Bengali-, Tamil- etcetera-speakers call the city Bombay both in their language and in English. There are well-documented political reasons why Hindu nationalists (BJP-aligned) went through the renaming exercise during their brief term in power. In a similar way, for instance, some placenames in Zimbabwe were renamed at independence. This renaming was done to "Shona-rize" names that had an Nguni bent. (ZANU, supported by the largely Shona majority, defeated rival liberation movement ZAPU, supported by the minority Nguni-speaking Matabele. They then mounted a purge of the minority Matabele, which included the well-documented Bulawayo massacres.) For example, Gwelo became Gweru. But (and this is my point) the change has been repeatedly painted, whether out of ignorance or mischief, as being a move from Europeanized to authentic Africanized forms. Think about this before getting swept along in some sort of misguided PC fervour for new names. Things aren't always as simple as they seem or as some would have us believe. Brockle 14:22, 27 September 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?

In a certain sense, it is an insult like the 'N' word, which is exactly why Bush and the British use it. It's their way of deriding the uppity Wogs who think they can use some name for their country other than what is acceptable to the Big White Guys. --Marvin Diode 22:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Until this article is moved to my:United States of America, or even my:United States, credence cannot be given to any arguments that the English WP article should be at Myanmar instead of Burma. Putting it at Myanmar to begin with was a result of someone's hypersensitivity to the possibility that they might be seen as less than 100% neutral, which apparently in their mind means "English is wrong by default". Hardly neutral. 71.87.23.22 15:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Burma's democracy movement prefers the form 'Burma' because they do not accept the legitimacy of the unelected military regime to change the official name of the country. Internationally, both names are recognised." So I can only assume that Wikipedia calling it "Myanmar" is an endorsement of legitimacy for the junta that has controlled the country for 45 years against the will of the Burmese people. --75.58.86.135 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support moving the page to Myanmar/Burma, to reflect common usage in the English-speaking world, while recognising the official name for the country. Tim Vickers 03:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually...I am a Burmese, and in our language, we call the country "Myanmar-pyay", which means "country Myanmar". "Myanma Naingngandaw" is an extremely formal name which has the same meaning. We also use "Burma-pyay" (I use this, actually, a lot of people use this). Oficially, however, "Burma" is in English, for international use (a long time back). "Burma" is actually like an ethnic group in the country, and all the ethnic groups, combined, were referred to as "Myanmar". That is why the name of the country was changed to "Union of Myanmar"; to include and unite all the ethnic groups. Just wanted to add that because I heard so many different infos about the name here. Wikipedia might have explained this somewhere, but still, I wanted to add it again.

However, people are against the new name due to the reasons Wikipedia, and some users here, noted. Even though the real name IS Myanmar, they feel it need not have been changed officially, especially because it was the regime which changed it. I have a neutral opinion..having been born and grown up in another country. However...if I were to choose, I support changing the name to Myanmar/Burma. Sumhtun 12:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The safest course is to maintain a respectful distance and err of the side of conservativeness, nomenclaturally speaking. The name in English has been and remains Burma. The renaming by SLORC is controversial. Until such time as the people of Burma make it clear that it is they and not a repressive military junta that prefer the name to be Myanmar (and Yangon, &cet.), the present name should be conserved. I agree with the many edits here expounding this view or other views that nevertheless support the conservative argument (unsigned per LapisQuem, Xinoph, U-Mos, IceHunter, Avalon, Thehalfone & mult. anon. al.) Additionally, no matter what the people decide, the English name for now is Burma. If the people do decide on Myanmar, the English name may eventually transmute to Myanmar (or it may stay as Burma). SLORC may try to change the name by diktak. Burmese people may reject or eventually accept that. But the name in other languages cannot be decided by diktak and will be decided by usage, gradually. However, to insist on calling it Myanmar at the present time is so politically loaded it makes you wonder why there's even any debate about this (and why Myanmar prevails in the wiki article). Brockle 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The US Department of State lists the country as Burma. Cmdrnmartin 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the use of "Burma" as describing the post-1989 Myanmar nation is offensive. The country's official name is Myanmar. Why should certain westerners impose their will on an independent nation? The days of colonialism are over. The Burmese government which represents the Burmese people whether you like it or not, wants the country to be called Myanmar. And the argument that English speakers collectively refer to Myanmar as "Burma" is FALSE. I call Myanmar by it's proper name of Myanmar. So does CNN, NBC, The New York Times, and plenty of other English speaking media outlets. Most importantly the United Nations, which Myanmar is a member of, calls the country by its correct name of Myanmar. --Tocino 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The United States does not recognize "Myanmar" as the country name in support of the PEOPLE that are in current struggle with the military over the country. In support of this movement the light is being taken away from Myanmar to focus on Burma. English-Wikepedia the United States Government does not recognize Myanmar! Burma for the people of Burma. A future that is grim awaits these people. All they want is your support. Will you give it? Gisela Gurdado San Bernardino, California

Who said that the people want their country to be called "Myanmar"?? They are against the name change. They may call the country Myanmar, but that's because it's that way in their language. They want the name to remain as "Burma", for the rest of the world to continue using the name "Burma". "Burma" is seen as the English name for their country, and there is nothing offensive about that. I myself use Burma only (even when speaking Burmese), and not Myanmar. On another note, CNN refers to Burma as "Myanmar, also known as Burma". Some countries, like USA for example, use Burma. The new name was created by the regime which should not have been in power at all. That's why I think the name of the article should be changed to Myanmar/Burma. Sumhtun 06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to the idea that Wikipedia should be taking a political stand by preferring "Burma." I refer you to WP:SOAP. Bush and the British government, and the media which follow their lead, use "Burma" to express their disapproval of the government of this country. That's condescending and dismissive of the nation's sovereignty. The United Nations approach is correct. Wikipedia should take its cue from the UN. Find some other way to express your support for "regime change." --Marvin Diode 06:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here, here. And while we're there, let's change all references of Germany to Deutschland, Japan to Nihon-koku, India to Bhārat Gaṇarajya, etc, etc.

I admit to disagreeing with the junta, but WP needs to either follow the "English" spellings of names, or the official ones. Mixing and matching is pointless. IanYates 08:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As I stated earlier the argument that most English speakers refer to Myanmar as "Burma" does not hold up to the facts. First of all there is no way to prove what the average English speaker prefers. Also the majority of American media call the country by its official name of Myanmar. Do the majority of American media also call Germany "Deutschland" or Ireland "Eire"... No. --Tocino 16:27, 28 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 [2] 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)

How about the lack of respect for human rights in the United States of America? You know, the whole throwing out of habeus corpus, Gitmo and the war crimes of Iraq. It's one thing murdering citizens of your own country. It's quite another to do so in a foreign war of aggression.-anonymous observation 28-9-07

"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 ([3]) as does BBC News ([4]). 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)

Use the junta and opposition capitals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.48.231 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, the notion of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a government is entirely subjective. Many individuals in post-World War I Germany thought the declaration of a republic, without the consent of Emperor Wilhelm II, was illegitimate, and that the true government was Imperial, i.e. non-democratic. The Taiwanese Nationalist Chinese government considers the Communist government of the mainland illegitimate, and vice versa. The only objectively correct statement on one government or another is whether it is, de facto, in control of public affairs. --Chr.K. 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Old 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)

Survey1

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)

Discussion1

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)

In fact, several different English pronunciations are possible and used and recorded in dictionaries.[5] And Merriam-Webster’s was obviously quoted incorrectly; US pronunciation does not drop r at the end of syllables, and modern British pronunciation guides also usually include it and add that it is not pronounced in some kinds of English. --Espoo 08:14, 28 September 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 [6] 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. [7]

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 [8] 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)

Would it not also be the case that describing (in the section "Government and Politics") the military junta as a socialist military dictatorship is surely a contradiction in terms? Soarhead77 16:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Although the military dictatorship may claim to be socialist, the World Social Website in it's article "Burmese military cracks down on escalating protests" (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/burm-s27.shtml) describes the protesters as "... students, workers, monks, and the urban and rural poor challeng[ing] the military dictatorship, demanding democratic rights and improved living standards." The article notes that people cannot afford to send their children to school or buy medicine -- both of which are free in socialist societies. The ruling military junta began decentralizing economic control in 1989. Furthermore the military junta’s slashing of fuel subsidies last month is entirely in line with IMF and World Bank’s free market policies. It is a member of ASEAN, a a free trade organization whose policies include of opening up the country to foreign investors. And various global corporations and foreign governments have financed with the military junta government to gain access to Myanmar’s natural resources and have have been criticised for profiting from the brutal dictatorship. The characterization of the military junta as "socialist" is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rczach (talk • contribs) 19:36, 27 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)

The last comment came in response to the numerous comments I've read in this thread an above seemingly claiming that only native speakers matter and that we're somehow legitimising the government by recognising that they've changed the name which a number of people have adopted. It was also a response to the unproven claim that Burma is preferred in Myanmar/Burma. The fact is, non native speaker have just as much right to influence a language as native speakers. If a Malaysian or a Singaporean or an Indian speaking English calls the country Myanmar then you have to consider their usage just as much as you consider an American or a Australia. Also, BBC is not the authority on naming countries Nil Einne 16:26, 26 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)

Al Jazeera uses Myanmar, as does Xiahua, The Star Malaysia, at least 3 Indian papers I found [9] [10] [11], Channel News Asia, 2 South African sources use Myanmar [12] [13] one uses Burma [14] (of the 3 I found). Even the New Zealand Herald often uses Myanmar; Spiegel [15] [16] & DW-World sometimes do as well seemingly (I noticed Burma was used as well sometimes by both German sources. Fact is you're not going to get anywhere with these who uses what arguments since all it reveals is what we already know. American, Canadian, British, Australian and New Zealand sources often use Burma but some use Myanmar. Some are also inconsistent or don't appear to have a clear editorial policy and the usage various (presumuably based on who wrote the story or where they sourced it from). Most Asian countries use Myanmar. Nil Einne 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, you just made their argument. English language sources most often use Burma. The argument is that since this is an English encyclopedia, we should use the common English name. You just provided the proof that the common English name is Burma. What non-English countries call Burma is irrelevant. Alyeska 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This nonsense of naming English Wikipedia articles according to the latest whims of local government is not restricted to "Myanmar", although two other examples of the ridiculous extent to which this is going can be found at Ayeyarwady River (that's the Irrawaddy, in case you were wondering), and Yangon (Rangoon, for those who weren't sure...) If a stop is not put to this, soon English speakers won't be able to find any articles about places in the non-English-speaking world...Hong Kong will be moved to Xianggang, China will be moved to Zhongguo, Japan to Nihon (Nippon would, of course, be "too English"), and South Africa to (pick your favorite from an array of bewildering names, my guess is) yaseNingizimu Afrika. Another form of the same "English is the problem" sentiment has long since gotten Bombay, Calcutta, Benares, and Madras moved to names nobody outside India uses (and in most cases, names nobody outside India has ever even heard of), and has filled Desi articles with the word "crore" which, while used in Indian English is regarded as an unrecognizable typo everywhere else. Imagine the uproar about POV and "biased preference for a regional variety of English" if someone went through and changed Soft drink to Coke or Dragonfly to Skeeterhawk. 71.87.23.22 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I'm well aware of Mumbai, Kolkata & Chennai and they would probably be the names I would use in normal usage and I've never been to India nor am I Indian. I've never heard of Varanasi but then again I've never heard of Benares either so... Just because you're incapable of learning new words doesn't mean the rest of use are. Nil Einne 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to wax nasty. I am well aware of all the "new" names for Indian cities, including Varanasi/Benares. You don't make yourself appear intelligent by proclaiming your extensive knowledge in one area and then proclaiming your ignorance in the same area...and attempting to imply that other people are stupid doesn't help your case. See vainglory. 71.87.23.22 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Doing various searches on Google News using news sources based in the major English speaking countries, one comes up with the following. This is a search that uses only one term and not the other (i.e. excludes searches that use both terms):

• US prefers Myanmar by 4.7:1
• Canada prefers Myanmar by 4.5:1
• India prefers Myanmar by 2.2:1
• UK prefers Burma by 1.9:1
• Australia prefers Burma by 5.0:1

If no exclusions are made (i.e. include hits with both terms present), the results become:

• India prefers Myanmar by 1.5:1
• US prefers Myanmar by 1.4:1
• Canada prefers Myanmar by 1.3:1
• UK prefers Burma by 1.3:1
• Australia prefers Burma by 1.8:1

--Polaron | Talk 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.85 (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Official name

Burma, unofficially the Union of Myanmar..

Officially I think it's Union of Myanmar, but many like to call it Burma (even officials).

84.202.208.245 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What happens if the junta is overthrown?

Are we going to retitle this article, or are we going to start a new one under the Burma title, a la the Soviet Union and Russian Federation? --Hemlock Martinis 20:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Move it now, as below. The Russian Federation is not the same thing as the Soviet Union; it used to be a subset. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Template:RFCpol Template:RFChist Myanmar → Burma — The fresh turmoil in this country has apparently reignited the discussion on whether should this article here be named Myanmar or Burma. I am requesting this to be moved to Burma, as that seems to be the most commonly used name among English speakers. Furthermore, the name Myanmar has never been recognized by the Burmese opposition nor has by many countries (including the United States). —Húsönd 23:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. Burma is the correct name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.109.18.10 (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Burma is the name used by the United States government (see CIA and U.S. State Department). The European Union uses both names (Warning: PDF). We shouldn't legitimize the regime by shying away from the country's real name. --Hemlock Martinis 00:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I used the same argument to oppose Ulaanbaatar -> Ulan Bator (The US State Department uses Ulaanbaatar) but that was ignored. Note also that the UN uses Myanmar overwhelmingly. Do we want to list how every government or international organization in the world refer to Myanmar/Burma and tally it up? --Polaron | Talk 00:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• The uniqueness of this situation does not lend itself to comparisons with most other naming arguments. Also, some international organizations/governments have more influence than others, so a simple tally wouldn't really help us. --Hemlock Martinis 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• So which organizations/countries are valid and which are not? Aside from the UN, the ISO and the IOC both use Myanmar. --Polaron | Talk 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of validity, it's a matter of weight. Also, the UN and IOC's naming conventions are chosen by the states themselves. So of course the UN will call it Myanmar, because that's the name the junta wants. --Hemlock Martinis 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just as I expected. Those that don't conform to your view do not have weight. I will reply with the response I got from the Ulaanbaatar naming: Wikipedia is not an arm of the US State Department. --Polaron | Talk 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's not just the US using Burma, I shouldn't have singled it out. I should now perhaps remind that common usage is not just about something that is written but also something that is spoken. I believe that despite "Myanmar" seemingly occurs more frequently on the web for whatever reason, "Burma" is orally far more widespread. It could be a good idea if users taking part in this survey stated which form they personally use if we are to determine what's common usage.--Húsönd 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Conforming to my views has nothing to do with it. I'm just trying to tell you why the UN and IOC ones aren't helpful. --Hemlock Martinis 01:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - Burma is not more common by a long shot. Myanmar receives 42,600,000 hits on Google[17] and Burma receives a mere 7,120,000 hits[18] (note that the search is modified to only include English pages). Reginmund 00:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no evidence that Burma is the more common name. Burma is overwhelmingly used only by the UK Government. The EU uses Burma/Myanmar. The UN overwhelmingly uses Myanmar. News sources vary with US/Canada/India-based sources generally preferring Myanmar and Australia/UK-based sources preferring Burma. In the absence of evidence for the what the common name is, the name that the entity calls itself should be the fall back name. --Polaron | Talk 01:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• News sources can call a country whatever they like. I'm uncomfortable with relying on them. As for the UN, we've already established that a member country picks the name that they want the UN to refer to them as, so that tells us nothing. --Hemlock Martinis 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Also, I did a Google News search for "burma", and the following news outlets use Burma over Myanmar: TIME Magazine, The Telegraph and Reuters were some of the first ones to come up. --Hemlock Martinis 01:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• So again where should we look for common names? Only the EU and the US government count? Everything else does not count? News organizations do not count? Then who determines common names. Searches on Google Scholar turn roughly equal numbers. What about current encyclopedias? Which sources count for determining common usage? Do you want a counter list of news organizations that prefer Myanmar? --Polaron | Talk 01:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oh and while Time and The Telegraph prefer Burma, Reuters overwhelmingly uses Myanmar. --Polaron | Talk 01:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Here's something: We're an English encyclopedia. What do the governments of the English-speaking countries of the world use? The U.S. uses Burma. The U.K. uses Burma. Canada uses Burma. Ireland uses Burmese for the adjective and Burma/Myanmar for the country. Australia uses Burma. Why do we still have it as Myanmar? --Hemlock Martinis 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do English-language news sources and English-language academic journals count? Or do they not count because they can "call a country whatever they like"? And these governments don't call countries whatever they like, how? Please stop cherry-picking sources. What about modern dictionaries and encyclopedias? What about other governments of countries that have English as an official language? --Polaron | Talk 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is an international relations issue. Governmental and academic sources are far more useful to us than some cub reporter. And as for cherry-picking sources, I couldn't find anything about Burma on Jamaica's foreign ministry page and I forgot New Zealand. And I still have yet to see why we should use Myanmar instead of the country's proper name. --Hemlock Martinis 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Myanmar is currently the country's proper name. Who is it that defines a country's proper name i your view? For what it's worth, hits on gov.ie are at 1:1, gov.au at 2:1, gov.uk at 18:1, US gov at 2.3:1, gc.ca at 1:1, govt.nz at 0.75:1, gov.jm at 0.25:1, europa.eu is at 0.5:1, and un.org is at 0.04:1 (all written as number of hits for burma only : number of hits for myanmar only) Aside from the UK (which overwhelmingly uses Burma) and the UN (which overwhelmingly uses Myanmar), the results are mixed. There is no overwhelming common usage of Burma. Of course the UN doesn't count but the UK does. --Polaron | Talk 02:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• The term "Myanmar" is an invention of the junta from when they were consolidating power after the 1988 uprising. Burma is the name of the country. Besides, the links to the respective foreign ministries and their official press releases have already shown which ones officially refer to the country by what name. I'm sorry, but I have to trust their press releases more than a simple Google search. --Hemlock Martinis 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Common usage is Burma in all national news media in the UK. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. The name "Burma" is a relic of the colonial period, which explains why it is common usage in all national news media in the UK. --Marvin Diode 14:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Marvin, it does not matter if it a "relic of the colonial period" (although as the Burmese opposition use it it can't be that much of a relic), as you recognise that it is in common usage, I think you should read the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy and reconsider you position because it states "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." --Philip Baird Shearer 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Well, as I've shown, all of the English-speaking governments use it, so this just isn't some colonial throwback. --Hemlock Martinis 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not sure if there is a standard policy on this, but IMHO, it should be called what the occupying and controlling forces call it. That's Myanmar. That seems like it would be a good rule. It removes the politics from the situation. I imagine this is an issue because President Bush called it Burma at the UN. He did that for political reasons. We shouldn't introduce the Presidents politics here. This sounds like an attempt for diplomacy through Wikipedia, which I think is a bad idea. And, calling the article, or the state, Burma, would give the idea that the opposition forces have taken control and changed the name again. —Slipgrid 14:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm uncomfortable with that "king-of-the-hill" type of solution, because it would lead to us warring over a bunch of other disputed territories. --Hemlock Martinis 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• The standard is not to follow the occupying forces, but to follow the bulk of English-language sources. The appropriate argument to be making is whether "Myanmar" or "Burma" is more common in sources. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support This is the English Wikipedia; "Burma" is the English term. By what authority would we consider elevating "Myanmar" to official status in English? Its similarity to the local reference is invalid; if it were, we should rename "Hungary" to "Magyarorszag", "Finland" to "Suomi", "Japan" to "Nippon". This is EnWiki, not UNWiki. István 15:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  Having grown up and gone to school in the English-speaking world, I've learned that it's called "Myanmar". I don't see how that name is any less English than "Burma". The Wikipedia standard is to use whatever's used by more English-language sources. Very few English-language sources refer to Finland as "Suomi", but quite a lot refer to "Burma" as "Myanmar". -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Not sure if this BBC article has been brought up yet (it covers the reasons why either Burma or Myanmar is used), but according to it, the opposition (i.e. the democratically elected government) does not recognize the change, as it was imposed by the illegitimate military junta. Same goes for the US, UK etc. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - the name in day-to-day English is Burma. SteveRwanda 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  That depends which day-to-day English speakers you're talking to. I think the name in day-to-day English is Myanmar; how do we decide who's right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: There is no evidence that has yet been shown that Burma is the common English term. The most that has been shown is that the UK Government and the US State Department use it it in their official pronouncements, which they actively do so for political reasons. News agencies are mixed (some prefer Burma while some prefer Myanmar). The UN (which of course doesn't count since only the US and UK count) uses Myanmar. Most other governments have mixed usage. Please do not inject politics in naming issues. What is the most common name used to refer to the country in the English language? If that is not obvious (as is the case here), what should be the fall back name? Who should be the one to determine a country's name if the common name is unclear? Also, the arguments for naming Japan to Nippon, etc. are a red herring. The UN does not use those terms in English language documents.

There is no need for a "fall back name" as Burma has been and continues to be the official name of the Country in the English-speaking world. Specifically, by who's authority are we to change this? Its an important question. István 16:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Who's the authority that dictates it should be changed to Burma? As I said, Burma is the name used only in official pronouncements of the US State Dept and the UK Govt. Other references to it are mixed. Other countries have mixed usage as well. The EU uses a mixed name. The UN uses Myanmar. Does the UK have more weight than the UN in what countries are called? What does the ISO say is the English short form name of this country? --Polaron | Talk 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dictating a change to Burma? Burma's the country's name. If anything, Myanmar is the name being forced upon the international community by the junta. And it's not just the U.S. and UK, as I've shown. And as I've said before, governments choose what name the UN refers to them as. --Hemlock Martinis 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment Why is the UN's usage somehow "invalid"? The UN position is that it will respect and use the name the government of the country in question uses. That's an entirely valid form of reasoning and indeed the names used for most countries have come about precisely because of people using the name the country's government uses - e.g. "Iran" rather than "Persia". Timrollpickering 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's invalid because the junta decided that in the UN, Burma should be referred to as Myanmar. Thus, the UN calls Burma Myanmar not because they decided to, but because they have to out of diplomatic courtesy. --Hemlock Martinis 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How is that less valid than the case of Iran? A major organisation opting to use the name the country's government uses itself is not just "diplomatic courtesy" - it is an act of recognising the country's autonomy. Governments that choose to use "Burma" are equally making a decision ultimately based on whether they recognise the country's autonomy or not. We shouldn't let the nature of the regime push us into POV soapboxing. Timrollpickering 09:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How the UN chooses its names and how a language evolves its words are two different things. What's getting lost here is that there is often a difference between the formal name a national government selects for its country and the word for that country in other languages. The formal name a national government selects is naturally important to the UN, since the UN, as an assembly of the representatives of national governments, must to some extent honor the preferences of any government it recognizes. But this name is not always the same as the word for that country in another language. Every government represented in the UN can insist on the formal name it prefers the UN to use, or withdraw from the UN if it is dissatisfied. But the government of no nation on earth--not the United States, not the United Kingdom, not Iran, not North Korea, and not Burma--can dictate to the speakers of any other language what the word in that language shall be for any country. Although the Burmese government's claim to legitimacy is one of the weakest of any such claims on earth, this is ultimately beside the fact. If Switzerland's legislature, through a pristinely democratic referendum, were to decree that the people of all other countries must henceforth refer to Switzerland solely as "Helvetia," the absurdity of the claim would be obvious. They may refer to themselves as they please, but neither the Swiss government nor the Burmese can decree what the words of another language shall be. "Persia" became "Iran" not by decree of Iran, but by an acceptance of the word "Iran" by English speakers. The spread of "Myanmar" as an English word, however, is based on misapprehensions: that governments choose the word for their country in foreign languages, that the UN's selection of formal names for nations is relevant, or that there is colonialism in any case where the people of one country have a name for another country that is different from that country's own name for itself. If we grant control of our language to governments (domestic or foreign), we also invite abuses. Governments could decree (and have decreed) that they represent the "German Democratic Republic" or the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea," making neutral POV impossible because the very names lack neutrality. Wikipedia wisely chose not to play along, selecting instead "East Germany" and "North Korea" as neutral terms. --LapisQuem 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes and whose lead do you think the world was following when it accepted the change from "Persia" to "Iran"? With the exception of historic names, the names used for most countries are ultimately the bulk of speakers in a particular language following the lead of the country in question. If Switzerland opted to rename itself "Helvetia" in all languages then it's likely that a lot of the world would follow suit (as they did over Cote d'Ivoire) - some media organisations would chage their style guides and call it "Helvetia", with the wider population following suit. The tourist board would market the country as "Helvetia", the national sports teams would play as "Helvetia" and again usage would follow. The UN usage is based in the idea that a country can decide what its called and that decision should be reflected. That is an entirely legitimate opinion to hold in deciding what name to use for a country. Timrollpickering 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - with redirect from Myanmar. But ultimately - unless we are trying to push a particular POV - it's not really that important what the article is called as long as it is well-written and easy to find for those looking for it. Dlabtot 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support move to Burma provided we get a rediect from Myanmar. The majority of English sources (at least all UK broadcasters that i've seen mention it) use it and, according to the beeb, Burma is used in the country. Duke toaster 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  The Associated Press prefers Myanmar. Reuters overwhelmingly uses Myanmar. Is this going to be a contest of what governments/institutions/organizations prefer? Why look only at the BBC? Why ignore other news agencies? --Polaron | Talk 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  Here's the thing: The AP and Reuters may overwhelmingly use Myanmar, but English speakers overwhelmingly use Burma. Same for most of the world. So why sticking to a few governments/institutions/organizations that decided to abid by the decision of an authoritarian regime to change the well known name of its country, especially when that particular decision has an overwhelming lack of recognition? Húsönd 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  But how do you know that Burma is much more predominant over Myanmar. Britannica uses Myanmar, Merriam-Webster uses Myanmar. The OED does not have an entry for the country but it does for "Burmese" which refers to Burma. At best, you can say that usage is mixed and Burma is not obviously the dominant name used. What do people in India or the Philippines use? --Polaron | Talk 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  I know because everybody I know, no matter wherefrom, says Burma and not Myanmar. And that's obviously a personal experience, but I highly doubt someone would now come and say, "why that's strange, because everybody I know says Myanmar!". Common English, there couldn't be a simpler argument. Húsönd 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, Whenever I hear "Myanmar" mentioned it's always quickly followed by "that's Burma", whereas "Burma" never needs explanation. That's the smoking gun... (speaking of which...) it is deliciously ironic that most who quickly adopted "Myanmar" in the early 90's did so to be "politically correct"; mistakenly assuming it an expression of solidarity with a struggling ex-colony when in fact they were following orders from a military dictatorship which is not a legitimate government. When a legitimate government does request we use "Myanmar" then this Wikipedian will consider it favourably; until then we should stick with its (English) official and common name "Burma" István 19:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  People I know call it Myanmar. Are my acquaintances less representative of English speakers than yours? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  Apparently so; I would have to remind people what Myanmar was to use it, even in a university setting. The Politics department may differ. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  Surely we can find something better than anecdotal evidence on which to base this decision? Simply asserting that "Burma" is more common is not convincing; I'd like to see evidence of this commonness. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  See #data. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  Ok... it doesn't appear entirely conclusive. I see evidence pointing in both directions. Some English-language sources favor "Burma"; others favor "Myanmar". I don't see such weight of evidence as to justify moving from one controversial title to another. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  The data shows a 2:1 ratio in favor of Burma. That's conclusive sounding to me. --Hemlock Martinis 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, if you cherry-pick the data. Other data show more than 2:1 in favor of Myanmar. If you refrain from cherry-picking, it appears less certain. Do you really think it's so clear-cut? It seems to me that reasonable people may disagree which name has greater currency in English language sources. I would say that neither is clearly the most common. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Myanmar is a well-accepted name. Coined by the regime or not, if that is what the country wishes to be called, it ought to stay there. FWIW, the language page lists the language as Burmese.Ngchen 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• On Wikipedia, articles are named according to their most commonly used forms by English speakers. They do not abid by trends or whims of a particular government. Húsönd 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support move to Burma, I have always called it Burma, people I have talked to have always called it Burma and the news media I read always call it Burma. The only time when I come across the term Myanmar is when the actions of the Junta are being discussed. Tim Vickers 17:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  That may be your experience. I learned in school that it's called Myanmar, people I know call it Myanmar, etc. Is my experience less valid than yours? Arguing from our personal experiences isn't really conclusive for this reason. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support move to Burma. This comes under the same argument as MOS:TRADE: it's a fancy spelling installed by management, which may change tomorrow. English usage is more stable, and should be followed. Wikipedia does not follow diplomatic usage; we say East Timor and North Korea. So here. (And so does the US Government, when it is discussing Burma, rather than addressing the present regime. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  English usage in my experience tends to be "Myanmar" - whose experiences is more representative, mine or yours? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Burma is the common English name for the country. As already mentioned we don't need to rename articles at the whim of governments. A common name is preferable. Alyeska 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support move to Burma. Mynamar was never accepted by the UK nor USA [19] and this wikipedia is in English so should follow the choices of the major English speaking countries. The BBC uses Burma. In addition the 1989 change to Mynamar was ordered by an unelected military regime. Plexos 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC). This survey goes round in circles and I don't think you can decide based on logical points like the UN uses Mynamar and the UK uses Burma which are contradictory. At the end of the day Wikipedia ought to do what is *right*, not what is politcal, just what is right, and it is right to oppose murderers. Therefore any prior decision by murderers ought not to be recognised by Wikipedia just like vandalism and other evils are opposed here. Crooks, vandals, and killers should have no authority. It was changed to Mynamar by force of the gun so the title should still be Burma. Plexos 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. "Burma" is an English word, just as "Germany," "Spain," and "Japan" are English words. There is no more reason to call Burma "Myanmar" in English than there is to call Japan "Nihon" or Spain "España" or Germany "Deutschland" in English. It is not colonialism because every language has its own names for other countries. Bulgarians call the United States "Sasht," and so what? It's their language. UN practice is no grounds for preferring "Myanmar," since the UN is an international body representing speakers of many languages, not a body that arbitrates English usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.34.172 (talk • contribs)

  Quite a lot of English speakers say "Myanmar" - very few English speakers refer to Germany as "Deutschland". I haven't seen any evidence that "Burma" is more common among English speakers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  Exactly. English speakers don't say "Deutschland." But "Deutschland" (or "Bundesrepublik Deutschland") is Germany's official name, as decreed by the Bundestag in 1949. Now suppose the Bundestag decreed tomorrow that "Deutschland" was now the official name of the country in English too. Would English speakers comply? Of course not. But this is exactly what the "State Law and Order Restoration Council" did in 1988, and (I think we all can agree) with far less legitimacy. So why do English speakers--who would laugh at such a decree from the Bundestag--comply? Some apparently imagine that there is something "colonial" about having a name for a country that is different from the name the people of that country use for themselves. The absurdity of this claim is exposed by the numerous cases in which the former colonial powers themselves are called by different names in different lands. "Myanmar" exists in English only out of a misguided assumption that a country's name in any language is determined by the government (however illegitimate) of that country. The proof lies in the fact that almost no Enlish speaker called the country "Myanmar" before 1988. But if use of "Burma" is wrong, then for English speakers to persist in calling Deutschland "Germany" should offend every German. Shall we then have a discussion about renaming Wikipedia's article on Germany "Deutschland"? The claim would be just as legitimate. Until SLORC's decree the English word for Burma was "Burma," so, because SLORC is not an arbiter of English usage, the term already in use before the decree should stand.--LapisQuem 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Bush uses the term Burma and we all think that's what this article should be called? I think not. How about we delete the article on Israel, a lot more don't recognize them than Myanmar. — 68.90.211.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

• Israel has nothing to do with this. And the United States government uses Burma regardless of which party is in control. Clinton was the one who first started sanctions against the junta, after all. --Hemlock Martinis 21:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support move to Burma, per Husond and István. K. Lásztocska 22:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support move to Burma per nom. Jooler 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Burma is the common English name, used much more frequently than the artificial "Myanmar". See anything from Burmese Days, to Burma-Shave, to Mission of Burma. (For the same reason I'd also suggest moving Yangon to Rangoon.) Biruitorul 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Those names and products are historic though - it's rather like "Peking Duck" still being used, even on menus in Beijing. Timrollpickering 23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose "Myanmar" is used heavily in English and there is no evidence that Burma is used overwhelmingly more for the country today (novels and products have the names anchored). The various media and foreign government usage is split on this and citing one over another is not the best way to show one term is preeminent. The nature of the regime that made the name change should not influence the article naming - that would be to indulge in POV soapboxing. There's no clear evidence that "Burma" is overwhelmingly the common usage in English and "Myanmar" a name that hasn't caught on (compare to say the failure of "Czechia" to catch on in English) and as the article is currently at "Myanmar" I see no clear case to move it. Timrollpickering 23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  Your assertions are good, but you've overlooked the fact that Burma is the name recognized by the English-speaking governments, as I've shown. Since we are an English encyclopedia, I don't think it gets much clearer than that. --Hemlock Martinis 00:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  It gets a lot clearer than that. There's no sense pretending this case is simply open-and-shut. We don't base our usage on what English-speaking governments do - we look to all kinds of reliable English-language sources, and such usage is clearly mixed for the nation we're discussing. If there's one thing this decision isn't, it's obvious or clear-cut. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  Well, this does have a lot to do with international relations, so governments are very important to this discussion. Google Books and Google Scholar have a noticeably higher Burma to Myanmar ratio. Those facts tip it pretty heavily in favor of Burma in the grand scheme of things. --Hemlock Martinis 03:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  I agree that governments are very important to this discussion; I would add that other English language sources are also very important. We try to reflect English usage, of which the English of international relations is a very important part.

  That said, Google News seems to favor Myanmar pretty heavily, and the English news outlets of the world cover a pretty large and diverse audience.

  I really can't tell which is more common. In the absence of compelling reason to move, I would tend to support staying still, until such time as a genuine consensus forms. Otherwise we'll just see a request to move it back to Myanmar a few months down the line. (We may get other requests if we stay here, but the inevitability of further move requests is not an argument to go along with them.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  I dunno, currently we're hovering at about 75% consensus to move it to Burma, so we may not have to wait a few months after all. --Hemlock Martinis 15:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support move to Burma. This article encompasses a geographic location ("Burma", in English), rather than simply the current government (kind of similar to the article on Tibet, rather than the Chinese govt). As many nations still refer to it as Burma and as there is a government in exile the region should be referred to as Burma. --LEKI (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support or better yet move to Myanmar (Burma) there seems to be some doubt over the validity that Burma is more popular usage then a mixed approach, but I see no argument at all for Myanmar to be perfered, by any orgainazion besides the UN. And while the UN counts it is vastly overshadowed by the other nations, news sources, etc... I feel that Google searches can't be representative in this argument due to the fact that the vast majority of web pages will use both terms at least once... --T-rex 05:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Qualified support for a move to Burma. Generally, I'd be the first to want Wikipedia to move articles to new names when organisations or countries decide they want to be known by a new name (I'm all in favour of Côte d'Ivoire, and have tried to get East Timor to be moved to Timor-Leste twice now), but in this case, the name change is not universally internationally recognised; thus, a case could be made to have the article at Burma. —Nightstallion 08:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support per "It's general practice at the BBC to refer to the country as Burma... because most of its audience is familiar with that name rather than Myanmar". Number 57 09:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support for a move to Burma because as a native English speaker who grew up in the United Kingdom that is what most people understand, especially those over a certain age. My school dictionaries all date prior to 1989 and Myanmar is completely absent from them. My various newer bilingual English dictionaries (Cassels, Collins) always include Burma with Myanmar as a new addition. In 1992 when speaking with British expatriates (over 30s) in Germany and the subject of Burma came up, we were aware of the new name but always used Burma. Those asking for evidence for this online will be disappointed. However I can well believe that certain circles of English speaking people would use Myanmar over Burma but these would tend to be the young, in my opinion. Also Wikipedia needs to not neglect the older who are not so vocal. In any case whatever happens I would like to make a small plea that whatever edits are made do not change the actual words people are quoted as having said with the various Burmese articles.-Wikianon 09:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support for a move to Burma. This is indeed the English language Wikipedia, with both the UK and the USA officially recognising the name "Burma". All the UK news media (most notably the BBC) refer to the country as Burma, in fact most UK citizens will have never even heard of "Myanmar" (I had not until recently).C 1 09:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support- move to Burma, common English language name for the country, and even used by the citizens. Astrotrain 10:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support Common usage among reliable sources is what governs Wikipedia's WP:NAME conventions, not "official." Gizza^{Discuss ©} 11:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Nightstallion's reasoning is similar to my own. I think when there's no clear-cut preference between two names, we should go with the older name, because the newer cannot be deemed to have supplanted the older (my rationale within the confines of WP:COMMONNAME). PLook at it from another angle: If the article were at Burma, would there be consensus that the article should be moved to Myanmar? If not, then perhaps the new name is not so established. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes but equally would there be positive consensus to keep it at Burma beyond the "no consensus to move" and "if all else fails, use the name used by the first major editor" rules? The problem is that both names are used in English and the balance varies quite considerably between different English speaking countries (to say nothing of its use amongst English as a Seconfd Language speakers). Timrollpickering 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support move to Burma for reasons of clarity, consistency and accuracy. --71.42.142.238 12:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose- the current regime, linguistics, and a steady history of reverting old colonial names of places are all on this side. I guarantee that, had the Soviet Union not fallen, the Wikipedia page for that country would be "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" instead of "Russia", regardless of the fact that "Russia" is more recognizable. -BaronGrackle 13:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps this is an irrelevant comment, perhaps not. My old mobile phone had the option to have language set as "portuguese, english, blah, blah, myanmar". Not burmese. I am inclined to leave it as Myanmar, but there's no real documented strength on either side of the discussion so i'll have no final opinion on this subject - i am sure whatever comes out of this discussion, if i look for either name on wikipedia i'll find the other too. :) So, enjoy your slightly POV-ish discussion, and make a nice decision for me. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.135.10 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - on the grounds of "Myanmar" not being any less valid than "Burma". ASEAN uses Myanmar, for one. Singapore uses "Myanmar" exclusively, both in the media and in the education system, as does English media in Malaysia. All I'm saying is that there's no justification for the claim that "Burma" is the "proper name" of the country. -ryand 14:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support moving the article to what the country is actually called. dcandeto 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Didn't notice this section until just now so I will echo my comments posted above in the ==Name conflict== section... "IMO, the use of "Burma" as describing the post-1989 Myanmar nation is offensive. The country's official name is Myanmar. Why should certain westerners impose their will on an independent nation? The days of colonialism are over. The Burmese government which represents the Burmese people whether you like it or not, wants the country to be called Myanmar. And the argument that English speakers collectively refer to Myanmar as "Burma" is FALSE. I call Myanmar by it's proper name of Myanmar. So does CNN, NBC, The New York Times, and [the majority of American news media]. Most importantly the United Nations, which Myanmar is a member of, calls the country by its correct name of Myanmar." --Tocino 16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:Examining these arguments carefully should lead the unbiased editor to decide for "Burma". Firstly, the Burmese government does not represent the Burmese people. The colonial legacy argument is fallacious; most Burmese favour using Burma over Myanmar in English, and do not find it offensive. Use of "Myanmar" is more AMBIGUOUS than "Burma" as the former normally begs explanation whereas the latter does not. Moreover, what is then the adjective derived from "Myanmar"? Myanmarian, Myanmarese, Myanmarish, Myanmartian? Myanmartial (as in "Myanmartial law?) Burma/Burmese is established, well known and unambiguous. Finally, preferred usage among news wire services are hardly authoritative, as they are decisions taken by editorial boards and I would suspect that some might change in the near future. The UN will use whatever the member requests, regardless of common usage. In Burma, both are used, either "Myanma" (formal, literary) or "Bama" (colloquial, familiar). WP:NAME mandates the name most commonly used by english speakers, minimizes ambiguity, and prefers a general (public) understanding over a specialist understanding. That being the case, it is a difficult decision yet "Burma" is clearly the least ambiguous, most used colloquially - even by the Burmese themselves, and therefore preferred. István 17:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Most Burmese [favor] using Burma over Myanmar..." The Burmese who favor "Burma" over Myanmar, favor it just to spite the current government. As for the overall population, I do not believe there is an independent study (without a pro-democracy bias) that supports your conclusion. --Tocino 18:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• First, a junta that held elections and then imprisoned the winner does not represent the Burmese people. Second, how is it "colonialism" and "certain westerners imposing their will" if Aung San Suu Kyi and the rest of the opposition calls it Burma as well? --Hemlock Martinis 17:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, why do you have to comment after every single Oppose or Strong Oppose statement? I don't see the users who Oppose doing the same to the people who Support. The PRC government represents the Chinese people. The Vietnamese government represents the Vietnamese people. These countries don't necessarily have free elections. It doesn't matter what form of government the country has, it still represents the wider population. It's colonialism because the people who are leading the anti-Myanmar charge are the British. The British who invaded Myanmar and created the name Burma. --Tocino 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. In Burma, usage is "Myanma" in formal language (literary) and "Bama" in the familiar (colloquial) language. Neither were invented by the British or any other outside entity, neither bear negative connotations in the country. István 19:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose In my mind the issue is not what is most widely known, or which term has the most number of Google hits. An encyclopedia should be up-to-date, not reflect prevailing beliefs simply because they are prevalent. It is very easy to have a redirect from Burma to Myanmar, and as far as I can tell, Myanmar is the current (english) name chosen by that country. If it changes in the future then move it to Burma. "A Modest Proposal" -- if this issue continues to be so contentious, get rid of both names from the title, have redirects from both Burma and Myanmar, and have the title of the article refer to "The Region Bordered by Countries X, Y, and Z" 209.242.154.132 17:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, since Myanmar is the newer name, one could argue that it is the prevalent belief. --Hemlock Martinis 17:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• The "Nation formerly known as Burma" perhaps (sadly) captures reality better than all others.István 18:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The official name is the Union of Myanmar. If that was the naming goal(choosing the official name), this page should be moved there. 82.31.164.67 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I believe there is substantial movement to Burma by many news sources and governments at this point in time, and the "hit" data is already outdated. I'd be wary of claims of popularity or usage based on google hits. 38.112.153.190 19:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Burma is the most common name for the country. --ざくら木 20:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, the official short English name is Myanmar. At such time as Suu Kyi can take rightful control of the government, then rename it Burma. --Golbez 20:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as we should let the Burmese governemnt (which even in a dictatoprship is still the nearest to "the will of the people" that exists) decide their name. its a sovereign country and the legitimate government has the right to decide. No other country wants to call itself Myanmar (ie not a similar a similar situation to China/Taiwan or the 2 Koreas) nor can the oposition be considered a legitimate alternative government in this case. Similarly Yangon should not be called Rangoon. This seems very straightforward, if the government falls and another governemnet renames the country Burma we, following this logic, could then immediately change the name without debate, SqueakBox 20:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Data

• Google Scholar: Burma 60,400; Myanmar: 48,000;
• Google Books: Burma 41,000; Myanmar 3,800
  • This is not a typo. If it is restricted to recent books, there is still a 2:1 ratio in favor of Burma (and some evidence, btw, that Myanmar was not invented by the present regime). Many of the hits on Myanmar, including two of those on the first use "Myanmar (Burma)" in the title, additional evidence that Myanmar is not English, but requires translation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Snowulf's BBC article says: It's general practice at the BBC to refer to the country as Burma, and the BBC News website says this is because most of its audience is familiar with that name rather than Myanmar. (my ital.) This is the reason for WP:UE also. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Presumably their main audience is in the UK where the government uses the name Burma for political purposes. Note that Reuters uses Myanmar. --Polaron | Talk 22:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The BBC's audience is worldwide; there's a reason they call it the World Service. And do you really believe that the BBC News is at the service of the Labour administration? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • But why single out the BBC? My point is, looking at the whole picture, usage is mixed. Some prefer Burma and some prefer Myanmar. And it appears neither is dominant in news reports. --Polaron | Talk 22:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Because it's an explicit statement, by a reliable source, of which name is more recognizable (and therefore which name satisfies the purpose of WP:COMMONNAME). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Google News: Burma without Myanmar: 3,551; Myanmar without Burma: 6,777. It is about 1:1 if hits where both terms are present are included.
  • And the difference appears to be largely datelines. The Burmese government may well check that stories filed within Burma spell according to their desires. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. The Associated Press uses Myanmar and USA Today edits the dateline to conform to its manual of style which uses Burma. [20] --Polaron | Talk 22:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

While Google searches are misleading, a search on English language pages for "burma -myanmar" gets 4.6 million hits (6.1 million for "burma" only) while "myanmar -burma" gets 34 million hits (39.8 million for "myanmar" only). Similar searches on Google News for the news sources located on the largest English-speaking countries are shown above. At a minimum, this shows that "Burma" is not the most common name in English. The question is, when the common name is not obvious, which name should we fall back on. --Polaron | Talk 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Google searches are not an accurate metric of actual English-language usage by any stretch of the imagination. dcandeto 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Google News results (copied from above for reference):
• Doing various searches on Google News using news sources based in the major English speaking countries, one comes up with the following. This is a search that uses only one term and not the other (i.e. excludes searches that use both terms):

   US prefers Myanmar by 4.7:1 (actually though President Bush refers to the country as Burma, which is correct)
   Canada prefers Myanmar by 4.5:1
   India prefers Myanmar by 2.2:1
   UK prefers Burma by 1.9:1
   Australia prefers Burma by 5.0:1

• If no exclusions are made (i.e. include hits with both terms present), the results become:

   India prefers Myanmar by 1.5:1
   US prefers Myanmar by 1.4:1
   Canada prefers Myanmar by 1.3:1
   UK prefers Burma by 1.3:1
   Australia prefers Burma by 1.8:1

I would like to point out that disregarding the news agencies because they "can call a country whatever they like" is not a valid argument. The governments of countries can also call countries whatever they like. In fact, governments are probably less reliable because they may have political motivation to use one name over the other. And please don't assume that the country names news reports use are due to some "cub reporter". News agencies have a manual of style that they follow for these things. There is still no evidence that, looking at the entirety of English language usage, Burma is the undisputed common name. Burma is only common in UK government sources and US State Department sources. Even the whole US government taken as a whole has mixed usage. --Polaron | Talk 02:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's a mischaracterization of my evidence. I've posted links for multiple English-speaking governments, and all of them referred to Burma by its proper name. It's all for the same event (the protests going on right now) so that should indicate the cohesion of the usage. I see no evidence of any mixed usage among the U.S. government - the Clinton and Bush administrations have always taken a hard stance on the regime in Burma, and the CIA and State Department links reflect that. The U.S. government refuses to legitimize the military junta by calling Burma "Myanmar", and we should do the same. --Hemlock Martinis 04:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Not only are you advocating that Wikipedia take a political stance via the naming of the article, you're advocating that we take the political stance of the United States government? -ryand 13:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

One point I'd like to make is that the analysis of Google News, or any other news survey, will be badly distorted by newspapers' utilization of the AP Stylebook. If the AP Style Guide has decided, on whatever evidence it wishes, to standardize on the name Myanmar, then virtually all newspapers in the United States will follow. This doesn't mean there is a consensus among 58,000 newspapers that Myanmar is correct; it's a consensus (or maybe just a majority vote? Who knows?) of whatever few individuals write the AP Style Guide. Tempshill 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

---

In my experiance, if Myanmar is prefered by an English language publication they usually qualify the first usage of Myanmar with Burma by way of an explanation. But if an English language publication uses Burma qualification with Myanmar is less common. It seems that most publication expect their readers/listeners/viewers/ to know what Burma is, but do not expect them to know what Myanmar is. I think the article should be at Burma with a redirect from Myanmar. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If we do rename this article, should that carry over to the rest of the encyclopedia? --Hemlock Martinis 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ref U Thant - there is no mention of Myanmar in the article (as of this moment), only "Burma" - it may not be such a daunting task at all. István 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the categories aren't going to be fun. --Hemlock Martinis 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Take them to CFD; which has a bot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Okay there are several examples of other countries flying around this discussion. I don't think Germany is a valid comparison because "Germany" is what the country calls itself in English - for example the embassy in the UK will have "Germany" rather than "Deutschland" on all English language material, English language versions of international treaties will say "Federal Republic of Germany" not "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" and so forth. A more appropriate case to compare Myanmar to is Côte d'Ivoire, which is the name used by that country in all languages rather than "Ivory Coast" in English (or, say, "Elfenbeinküste" in German). The Wikipedia article is at Côte d'Ivoire - should we not follow the "official short name form" convention, rather than getting into arguments about who's media or government uses what term more often? Timrollpickering 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No, because it's not our convention. The argument at Côte d'Ivoire was that English actually uses it; by comparison, East Timor is not the official short name, but English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Deutschland" is an apt analogue. Timrollpickering notes that Germany itself agrees that its English name is "Germany." But to make the English word for Germany dependent upon what the German government chooses as the English word for its country is strange indeed. By this argument, if the Bundestag decreed that Germany's English name was "Deutschland," the English-speaking world would have to comply. This would of course be absurd. Nevertheless, many English speakers complied when the State Law and Order Restoration Council issued an analogous decree. To let this stand would open a most dangerous precedent. We would have to call North Korea "the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea," a name that would defy NPOV. If another junta somewhere else in the world ruled that its country is now called, in English, "Blissful Abode of the Master Race," we would have to comply. The fact that "Myanmar" happens to be a neutral Burmese word in no way removes this difficulty, because the use of "Myanmar" in English remains based upon a governmental decree, and to accept the name on this basis opens this door.--LapisQuem 15:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not an appropriate analogue because Germany is not and never had pushed for such a change. If it did then the English language usage would change at the high level - for example all English language output from the country's government would use "Deutschland", the country's tourist board would market it as "Deutschland", the football team would come to be called "Deutschland" in matches and wider usage would follow on - I suspect a lot of media outlets would change their style guides in line with the country's decision. But the point is that Germany has not done this so it is not a valid comparison. Cases like Côte d'Ivoire are because there has been active decisions and demands for renaming.
    • Most extraordinary. The analogue, incidentally, was not what Germany is called in English, but what it would be called if the Bundestag decreed that its English name is "Deutschland." It had not occurred to me that there would be English speakers who imagined that such a decree would have any force. Why it should have any force is very, very hard to imagine. Of course, no one expects Germany to issue such a decree, because the German government respects each country's right to use a word in its own language for Germany, and would not have the effrontery to try. The State Law and Order Restoration Council did not hold this respect. Apparently, however, we must comply anyway. "Yes, sir, Senior General Than Shwe"--LapisQuem 16:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I find it surprising that anyone would doubt that the German government would follow the Bundestag's lead in such a situation when it came to what is used by the tourist board, visa forms, press releases, English language texts of treaties and so forth. Or that some media organisations would amend their style guide to use "Deutschland" instead of "Germany", in the same way that style guides changed from "Rhodesia" to "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" to "Zimbabwe", or "Ivory Coast" to "Cote d'Ivoire". And this is frankly a straw man as "Myanmar" is a word used in English to describe the country. Timrollpickering 20:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The names used in the English language for most countries are ultimately what the country has decided on with the rest of the world following its lead. A few years ago the country called "Zaire" changed its name to "Democratic Republic of Congo" and the world followed suit. "Persia" was renamed "Iran" in the 1930s and the latter name is now the most commonly used for that country (although some London restaurants serving its cuisine still use "Persian"). Opinions on the current regime in Myanmar/Burma are POV and we should not let soapboxing on it determine the name of the article. Timrollpickering 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The current regime in "Myanmar/Burma" decreed the English name change, and not the Burmese people. Abiding by its decree is a recognition of the legitimacy of this regime, and thus POV. Neutral POV would be to desist from name changes barring extraordinary reasons, and a decree from SLORC's generals is no such reason. Morevoer the issue is not what the Burmese people wish to call themselves, or what the Burmese regime wishes to call the nation it rules, but rather what English speakers shall call the country. The answer should come from the practice of English speakers themselves, with the self confidence to use their own words until they have compelling reasons of their own to change them.--LapisQuem 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The problem is that both words are used in English for this country - it's not a case that chosing one over the other is "taking sides", but unfortunately too many people advocating using "Burma" seem to be doing so on the basis of a POV about the country's current regime. The names for countries do change quite a bit - why don't we use "Bohemia" for the Czech Republic? It's not because of technical quibbles about whether "Bohemia" covers all of it... Timrollpickering 20:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Was the government of Zaire legitimate when the name change occurred? I suspect neither of us knows without going and looking it up. I'm not a fan of the Myanmar change, but I don't like the idea of Wikipedia editors judging the legitimacy (according to what standard?) of a country's government in deciding whether to abide by name changes. Is the People's Republic of China legitimate by your standards? Should we listen to anything they say? Tempshill 21:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• An alternative is to use Myanmar/Burma as the page heading. However, in general, staking a position between two opposing sides pleases nobody and just gets you shot at from both directions. Tim Vickers 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And is likely to produce a move request to Burma/Myanmar, than which few things would be more frivolous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Very true! Tim Vickers 00:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd much rather have it be just Burma or just Myanmar than have both names there. That would just look sloppy. --Hemlock Martinis 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth considering. This country's naming situation is rather unique, I think, and a dual heading would more accurately reflect the reality. As far as everyone on both sides complaining they are being treated unfairly: in a lot of journalism fields, this is considered a sign that you have written the article perfectly. Tempshill 21:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• To anyone who is interested, I have also requested a vote to change Yangon to Rangoon. Reginmund 03:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Are there any other cities that were renamed by the junta? --Hemlock Martinis 03:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

    Irrawaddy River but perhaps this article Names of Burma/Myanmar is worth reading before any other changes are proposed. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That article is entirely original research though. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No; it is (partly) unsourced, which is not the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I was referred to this Myanmar / Burma naming debate, and I read all the comments carefully and with great interest. I ended up, as it seems most of us are, with a slight preference in one direction, but without an overwhelming feeling one way or the other.

So I can add nothing substantial or useful to the debate, except for this: I find this discussion to be delightful, rational, kind, thoughtful, and respectful. And I want to thank everyone involved for handling the issue with sensitivity and thoughtfulness. It is a "borderline case" in the true sense of that word: there are good arguments for both sides, and it all seems somewhat balanced. Sometimes debates like this go downhill into flames, and this one has not. Everyone involved should feel proud about that.--Jimbo Wales 05:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Garbled English

"President Thabo Mbeki called respect for peaceful protests versus junta ruling Myanmar. Buddhist monks were at a riot police road block, as Myanmar crackdown drew outrage, protests and demonstrations worldwide against Myanmar violence. George Bush demanded end to Myanmar violence, as 9 dissidents were killed." I propose to change this to "President Thabo Mbeki called for respect for peaceful protests versus the junta ruling Myanmar. Buddhist monks were at a riot police road block, as the Myanmar crackdown drew outrage, protests and demonstrations worldwide against Myanmar violence. George Bush demanded an end to Myanmar violence, as 9 dissidents were killed." I am not sure whether this is what the original writer intended in the sentence about Mbeki. Is Mbeki supposed to be calling for the protestors to respect the juntaor for the junta to respect the protestors? Edison 13:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming controversy - something to consider

As far as I am aware referring to 'Myanmar' as 'Burma' is pretty much the same as people referring to Great Britain as 'England'. The name also pre-dates this Junta and is a term which is inclusive of all the ethnicities and not just the Burmese. If the governemnt of the day in Myanmar (whether democratic or not) wishes the country to be called and be known as 'Myanmar' then so be it, 'Myanmar' it is. This reminds me of a well written comment on the Cote d'Ivoire discussion page, where there is a similiar argument that Cote d'Ivoire is French for Ivory Coast and because this is English Wiki then Ivory Coast should be used even though the government of the Cote d'Ivoire wishes that this be the official name (in all languages). The comment made was along the lines of the following. Burkino Faso (formerly known as Upper Volta in the English language) is a native African name which means "Land of Upright People", now does this mean we should ignore the name Burkino Faso and start referring to the country as "Land of Upright People" ?! It seems that just because a country may have a name in another major international language that we think its fit to use an anglicised version, whereas we don't mind indigenous language names. Whether or not a place name has an alternative English name or not is irrelevant. True, people will still call 'Myanmar' Burma in 50yrs time, names and habits do stick. However it does not change the fact that the official name of Myanmar (at the moment, pending regime change) is 'Myanmar'. There has also been reference to the BBC calling 'Myanmar' Burma, So what? Since when was the BBC the authority on place names or even pronunciation? Christ, a lot of the time they are hard pushed to get a geographic location in the United Kingdom right, never mind half way around the world! I believe the BBC's official policy of naming convention (or it used to be) was that it referred to places etc as they are commonly called or known as, which as we all know does not necessarily mean it is correct (e.g referring to 'Netherlands' as 'Holland'). Another example I could use is the present state of Zimbabwe, should we disregard this 'African-ised term' (its not English word is it) and instead use Rhodesia, should we also do the same for Harare and revert to its original name Salisbury? One could go on and on, fact is place names change and evolve, just as countries are born and then disappear, just look what happened to Poland once upon a time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.97.173 (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Burma and Myanmar are the same word. Second, governments cannot dictate what proper English usage is any more than you can dictate that "ain't" isn't a word, and splitting infinitives is improper. People call it Burma; therefore, it is Burma, regardless of what the Burmese junta prescribes. Most people call Zimbabwe "Zimbabwe," and most people call Burma "Burma." dcandeto 15:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Except, one gets the impression from Google that most people call it Myanmar... -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

People People!

The name should obviously be Burma. It is much easier to spell and pronounce. I'm strongly opposed to any word that is difficult to say or write on a piece of paper. This is why I'm also opposed to...*thinking*...pretty much anything with a "mar" at the end of it. Or a Z for that matter. 68.143.88.2 18:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My-An-Mar is very easy to pronounce! But what's that got to do with the price of fish?! Timrollpickering 20:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

News organizations' usage doesn't count.

Sorry for repeating myself but I'll do so because I see a lot of citing of magazines' and newspapers' usage that isn't relevant.

Surveying news organizations for their usages of "Burma" or "Myanmar" is strongly suspect because most newspapers and news magazines in the US refer to the AP Stylebook for all such decisions. If the AP Stylebook says it's Myanmar, then nearly all newspapers in the US will use Myanmar. Evidence that 58,000 newspapers and news magazines use the term "Myanmar" doesn't mean that 58,000 newspapers have judged the situation and made a careful decision; it just means that a few people at the Associated Press have made a decision, and 58,000 newspapers and news magazines subsequently slaved themselves to that decision. Tempshill 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The regime changed the name but they are unelected and they rule by force. The protesters I see on the news both Burmese in their own country and the ones in exile, carry banners clearly with the name "Burma" on it. I lived next door in Thailand for 3 years and met many Burmese born people and Karens too. They refer to "Burma" as their homeland and where there from. They pronounce "Myanmar" with a scowl, which directly relates to military government.