Talk:Myanmar

Current events

Might we want either a temporary hatnote or a "see also" for the present humanitarian crisis? I came here expecting to find a link to that article, wherever it may be, and couldn't find any. - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this coverage is over at Cyclone Nargis. Sadly, there just isn't a lot of information out there since access to the country is so tightly controlled, and even the assessment teams on the ground probably don't have the information we'd expect to see.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

In the article, some parts say Burma, and some say Myanmar.

As a Burmese I prefer Burma instead. The name itself has no problem. It is a political factor of who has the legitimate rights to change a country's name; citizens of the country or the regime, who oppresses the citizens and abuse the country! People have their rights. If you want to call it Myanmar in order to support the military regime backed by communist Chinese, it's all up to you.

On behalf of Burmese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.42.250.131 (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should calll it Myanmar, since it may not be recognized by many countries, but that is the official (inter)national name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbomcchoi (talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the tag at the top of the page. The name is under dispute.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese name for China is not China and the German name for Germany is not Germany, so why can the rest of the world call Burma, Burma, even though the Burmese name is different. By the way it should be Mranma, because that's the way it is written correctly and it was certainly the old pronunciation, when Burmese still used /r/ (Arakans still do that) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tocharian (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, please read the tag at the top of the page and click through its links. Though your point about the native name being "Mranma" only further illustrates the point that "Myanmar" is an English word. -BaronGrackle (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The internationally recognized name is Myanmar. In english, the recognized name is Myanmar. On wikipedia: Burmese, Name it Burma. Here, Just name it Myanmar and have Burma link. It's not like most people actually care about the name of the article, as much as they care what links to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.147.214 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

'Official' international name? What does that mean? Who makes an international name 'official'? Part of the merits of the dispute is that there is no 'official' international name; nor can there be. When, e.g., the CIA Factbook and the UN give the country different names, you can hardly say there's an 'official' international name. --patton1138 (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If the US is a more reliable source than the UN, which I think is incorrect, then that would mean that the it should be Burma. But that logic is wrong as the UN is just as good, if not better, than the US as a source. Hence why that logic to keep at Burma per the CIA factbook is wrong. Deamon138 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the name should be Burma, as it was renamed Myanmar under the military junta, which has an astounding track record of human rights violations, from mass rape to torture to just plain murder. (Not to mention everything in between.) As far as I'm concerned, anything they want us to do, we need to do the opposite, and that includes listing it as Burma and NOT Myanmar wherever possible. Don't you agree? 63.215.29.113 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I was delighted to type in Myanmar and be redirected to Burma. It's like a punch in the face to the ruling military junta. Which isn't really logical basis for naming a Wikipedia article, but whatever. It made me happy. SchutteGod (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding us that the current article title is like a punch in the face to Wikipedia conventions. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dramatic, much? SchutteGod (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, neutralitiy is a pillar of Wikipedia. Doing something to "punch someone in the face" is pretty outrageous. -- AvatarMN (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The human rights record of the military junta is irrelevant to the debate. If they are the new government of the country, than they get to choose the country's name, even if they are the most evil organization ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.11.112 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sensing that we've lost focus on the discussion. Going back to the original topic, I think the topic-starter was concerned that there's an inconsistency within the article in terms of what we're calling it. I realise that there is a dispute going on over what we should name the article, but when we can reach a consensus, we need to make sure we follow through with the decision and keep consistent naming conventions throughout the article. Until that happens, though, I'm not sure what the appropriate action would be. X-Kal (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is true. The article is Burma but there are a few instances where, within this essay, the word Myanmar is appropriate. It seems like it would be common sense where those instances would be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To American and other international news channels its known as Myanmar, while the British ones are still sticking to Burma, but then again British also call Beijing as Peking, while rest of the world 95% uses Beijing.116.71.38.74 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Shows how much you know; no one in Britain calls Beijing 'Peking', it is always called Beijing, but then again I wouldn't expect you to know this seeing as you can't even speak English correctly. Fool. (Umbongo91 (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC))

Moved the Page Move Protection tag to talk page

There isn't really a need for the tag to be on the article itself. As was successfully argued regarding the "dispute tag" previously, the tag itself doesn't help the article, and it being on the talk page achieves the same end. Beam 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Having a warning on the front page shows that the article is in a state of flux. Anyone who isn't particularly wiki-savvy wouldn't realize that there is an ongoing dispute and that the current version may well change in the near future. The "non-endorsement" of the current name of the article is a reasonable point to make. I don't particularly care for either name, but making it look stable when it's unclear is kind of misleading to the reader.Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not making a lot of sense. The first sentence of the article notes the naming of the country. I believe you were involved with the discussion regarding the "Dispute" tag, and it came to the point where the only sensible solution was to have it on the talk page. The same applies with this tag. It has nothing to do with honesty and I'd be insulted if I didn't assume good faith. Please reconsider your reversion, the last thing I want is an edit war of any sort. Beam 16:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the discussion on this page regarding the name dispute tag. I wouldn't say that there was a consensus that removing the tag was the only "sensible solution".

• The statement is true and not misleading. Neither staying nor moving are WP:SNOWBALL.
• Protection tags are usually on the front page of the article. See WP:PROTECT#Other_notes for talk page templates.
• The tag deflects mastodons: Having the tag on the article itself sends a clear message to people who might just assume that the name is wrong and move it.
• The tag shows that the current name of the article is not a consensus statement: Not having the tag implies to a casual reader that the current name is appropriate (not the current consensus because there is no consensus).

It seems kind of redundant to you or me since we've been staring at it for the last couple of weeks, but to someone who is not already involved it shows that the article is not stable. I mean, I really don't care that much, but why is it so critical to take it off? Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Because disputes regarding page moves aren't what the user should be reading. Beam 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No it's exactly what the user should be reading. How can a reader make up there mind up about the name of the country if they don't know there's a dispute and aren't (as above) "wiki-savvy" to find out elsewhere? Every other page I've come across under dispute has the tag on the article page. Your reasoning resembles those who would go against WP:SANTA. Thus, "Let's protect our users from the big bad world of wiki-disputes." Well no, we don't do that, we let them know that the information they are about to receive might be wrong and is being challenged. Deamon138 (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The first line of the article states the dispute and we have a whole section in the article talking about the dispute. We're not hiding it. Beam 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet you stated, "Because disputes regarding page moves aren't what the user should be reading," which shows your desire that such information was hidden. Anyway the first line of the article you mean is either, "Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar (Burmese: , pronounced [pjìdàunzṵ mjəmà nàinŋàndɔ̀]), is the largest country by geographical area in mainland Southeast Asia," or, "The name "Myanmar" is derived from the local short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw,[1] the name used by the regime currently in power in the country," neither of which "state the dispute" as you say. As for a whole section on the dispute, actually no, there is three paragraphs talking about the dispute, and not an entire first section. It is not even the lead of that section, it seems a little hidden. Besides, I was not talking about the dispute on the political and media stage about the name, I was talking about the Wikipedia dispute that has been going on. Even if a user read those paragraphs about the name dispute, they wouldn't necessarily know that there was a dispute about the article itself. We could (in fact are: I advocate Myanmar as the new name but that's beside the point) be providing them with misleading information, and they wouldn't even know it! The tag needs to be on the article page. Deamon138 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename

In the interest of trying to knock out systematic bias, we should rename the article Union of Myanmar with Burma redirecting to that, not the other way around as it is now. Hooper (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a dedicated page for discussions of the name of the article. Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's bury it so no one can see it. Great. ☆ CieloEstrellado 10:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. We should make sure that nothing else about this article improves before the debate about its title is over unless the involved contributors read at least five pages of bickering each. BigBlueFish (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a red box at the top that should, in theory, make it easier to find the talk page. However, I do agree - the five or more pages of discussion is a bit much to read. X-Kal (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation Lost

I'm not sure what needs done about this, but I thought I'd bring it to someone's attention, citation 54 http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/international-27/1210422249176120.xml&storylist=mcyclone&thispage=3 is no longer pointing to a news article. - Nfriedly (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It was an AP story, so I'm guessing it's still floating out there on the internets somewhere. The comment is probably more important for the Cyclone Nargis article anyway, so removing it outright is probably reasonable. SDY (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well fortunately the Cyclone Nargis article also referenced that article, but managed to get labelled with a title, so being the AP was pretty easy to find an alternative host. If it's not relevant enough for summary style here though, that's fine. BigBlueFish (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Undefined acronyms

I have noticed a few acronyms that go entirely undefined in this article, and there's not even a link to the group's wikipedia entry or other quick ways to say what it is. Could these be expanded to the full title? E.g. USA becomes United States of America. That kind of revision. As it is, some parts of the article are unclear. X-Kal (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I improved a few of the most apparent problems, but if you spot more, be bold! Your concern is quite reasonable; what this article really needs when it is more stable and complete is a thorough proof-read and copy-edit, one of the general rites of passage for featured articles. BigBlueFish (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if we want to get this article up to FA standard, then it would almost certainly need splitting in some form, regardless of the outcome of any discussions on the name of the article. 125KB I think would be too long to pass FA standards. Deamon138 (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Also BBF, I think changing that section heading to "Military rule" is unnecessary, as there are two/three types of Military Government, Military occupation (which Burma/Myanmar isn't), Military dictatorship and Military junta, which can overlap with dictatorship (as is probably the case here. So I think the heading currently is unnecessarily vague, as there are different types of military rule, so changing it back to mention "junta", or adding "dictatorship" would suffice. Also, the "sidebar" says it's government is "Military Junta". Surely the heading ought to keep in line with that? Deamon138 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because these headings are short distinct descriptions of a certain time frame to divide up a part of the country's history, not specifically describing the political system in that period of time. Similarly, the section on the period 1752-1885 is currently headed "Konbaung" not "Konbaung Dynasty". I guess I felt that the longer heading unnecessarily conveys the POV that this particular political structure is especially important to the country's history compared to others. It doesn't bother me that much though. Indeed, in the long term, these headings are unlikely to keep their current form if you look at the History sections of featured countries like Israel and Japan which are much briefer.

This comes nicely back to your point about splitting the article, which is a completely unjustified reason to split the article. We should be looking at this option exclusively based on third-party historical treatment. The length of the article is very much a secondary issue which stems from the more pressing long-term need for the content of this article to be reconciled with Names of Burma, History of Burma and Politics of Burma, and for the corresponding sections to be reformed in line with WP:SS. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if an article didn't follow WP:SS, then it wouldn't get FA status anyway. The fact that an article wouldn't get through an FAC process is surely a very good reason to split it, since the standard demanded by FA articles is one we want all articles to be in. Deamon138 (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no challenge at all for an article that meets WP:SS to pass FAC based on length. In that sense, this article has already been split; into sub-articles such as History of Burma. There is no reason that this main article about the country cannot effectively summarise the content of such articles; Egypt has a history about 3000 years older and far more documented, but its History section has no subsections at all. The article is 40 KB shorter. Incidentally, Israel is almost as long as this article; Japan is about the same as Egypt. So I'd recommend focusing on quality of writing, not on page inches. BigBlueFish (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, quality is the most important thing. But article size is a part of WP:SS. I would say some sections (especially the section on the cyclone) could be better summarized to a shorter length, with any info removed and then added to the appropriate page (history, names, politics etc). For instance, there's certainly enough pages in the "History of Burma series" to add new info from this page to. (Incidentally, I prefer that sections such as "History" have subsections like in this article and Israel, rather than lumped together like in the Egypt or Japan articles). Deamon138 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Crime sentencing

Burma currently has the second longest average prison sentence length in the world at 16,616 years. This is pretty signifigant and I think it should be mentioned.

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sen_len-crime-sentence-length —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.238.70 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nationmaster sourced the info from The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention). I have not rechecked this, but I did check that source once previously and saw that it contains the same figures reported by Nationmaster. My belief is that the figures with (apparently) over 1,000 years as average prison sentence were probably reported to the U.N. using the european convention of using a comma where U.S. english usage would be to use use a decimal point. Burma, then, would have a believable average prison sentence length of 16.616 years. See the bottom of Talk:Finland#Sentence Length for my earlier discussion about this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It also says nothing about YEARS. The US number is only close to being correct if you use MONTHS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Maybe not. I dunno. Do you have a supporting source for that assertion? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There are supporting sources for the U.S. numbers, I'll have to look for one tonight when I have a bit more time. But before someone adds a sentence they should at least look for a time-frame... this report has none. It's very strange. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The UN Report cited by Nationmaster gives data for the years 2001 and 2002. The figure of interest here (16,616 - should be 16.616) comes from the 2002 column of Table 17 on page 241 of 266 of that report, described as "Adult prisoners. Average length of time actually served in prison, after conviction, by offenses". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is one I found... Bureau of Justice Stats. Now this does not include life sentences but it also only includes felonies. 1.1 million felonies and the average was 37 MONTHS in the US. If you add in life sentences it will go up slightly but if you add in misdemeanor criminal sentences (which there are millions of) it will go down. But lets just take 37 months as a close number. The chart above lists the US with 29 something-or-others in 2001. Comparing to the BOJ stats it ain't 29 years and it ain't 29 days. It is closest to 29 months so maybe the UN includes misdemeanors in their figures? But I think it is safe to say the numbers are supposed to be in months. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence length is in days. Either way, I think that the statement should be removed until it makes sense. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I took the statement out. An average of 1384 years is ridiculous and boggles the mind and goes totally against common sense - even for Burma. Please provide a clear and reliable source for this data before re-inclusion. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 18:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sex crimes

(moved from User talk:Bigbluefish)

I don't disagree with your removal of 'State Sanctioned' but wonder if there is a better way to put this. Clearly, the state (in the form of the military) is the perpetrator of the crimes (as per the write-up). Do you know if there is an official 'war crime' name for this sort of thing? --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on war crimes or the acts committed in Burma but "state sanctioned" isn't a term that I'd use unless leaders of the state explicitly say so. The article on Abu Ghraib suggests that the US could effectively try their own soldiers for war crimes, if that helps highlight the difference. It is a little concerning that your primary agenda seems to be finding an acceptable way to describe the situation negatively rather than accurately, but I can't stop you from finding sources which describe this issue in more detail, and no doubt some appropriate WP:ASF would be illuminating on the subject. Bigbluefish (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a bit uncalled for (the NPOV allegation). All I asked was if there is a war crime name for the sort of thing described in the article - which clearly says that members of the military are responsible for rape, etc. If there isn't, so be it. But if there is, that would be a more accurate way of describing what is written in the article. Sex crimes is rather general because it includes such things as prostitution, traveling to SE Asia for sex with minors, that sort of thing. In fact, when I saw your edit summary, I first assumed that it related to the trafficking of Burmese girls to Thailand for prostitution. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 14:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, the section needs to be better sourced and reflect third-party coverage of the issue better in general. The apportionment of blame (which you effectively said should lie with the state or its military) is one of the lower priorities of such a section and depends entirely on the existence of relevant sources. My remarks are simply aimed at encouraging you to rethink the direction from which you approach improving it. No attack intended; just the section already states the facts that it is well-enough sourced to state fairly well, so this kind of discussion on interpretation is not really that useful. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In a collaborative work task, it is not a good idea to question the motives of other participants (as in the 'direction from which you approach improving it'). I encourage you to consider taking opinions, suggestions, and questions of others as representing genuine attempts to build a better encyclopedia rather than as being representative of an agenda. (That was only because we are apparently encouraging each other to think better.) About the sex crimes section. My point is that, as written, it is about war crimes of a sexual nature and the current title 'sex crimes' does not adequately or accurately capture that. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, I simply believed you were asking the wrong question, and your good faith is why I presumed you might be interested if I thought you weren't taking the most direct route towards NPOV. Take what you will from it and I will take care to continue to assume the good faith of your content contributions. Upon reflection I don't think "war crimes" is a suitable term for a state which is not at war. But again, and please, if you're interested in explaining this issue better please have a look for what other parties are saying about it. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's not worth arguing about who meant what ... so let's assume we just misunderstood each other. Meanwhile, I'm going to change the title of the section to 'Sexual violence' because Sex crimes is definitely not accurate. (UNHCR uses 'Sexual violence'.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 16:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Venerable text from theravada of Burma

"Once upon time, when the Bodhisattva was a monkey king, he encountered a brahman ho had fallen into a deep gorge. Having decided to rescue the poor fellow, the Bodhisattva threw the brahman on his back and carried him out of the crevasse. The Bodhisattva became very tired under this heavy load, so reaching a safe place, he promptly fell asleep in the brahman's lap. Now, all along the brahman had been thinking how pleased his family would be if he were to give them some monkey flesh for dinner. So grabbing a big rock he struck the sleeping monkey on the head. The monkey king, covered in blood gushing from his head, crawled a short distance and cried out, "Oh... there are still people like this in the world!" But still, being a bodhisattva, he remained determined to lead the brahman safely to his village, even though the forest was filled with lions and other dangerous animals. "Even if you see a tiger, don't worry," said the monkey, "I'll take you to your village. Just follow the path of blood dripping from my head." And so saying, the monkey king led the brahman to his village."

— The Tale of the Bodhisattva Monkey King and the Brahman, Ledi Sayadaw's Uttamapurisa Dipani

books.google.it/books?id=Y5jaJ7Sei9EC&q=monkey+flesh#search--Aryadeva (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

External links

I added the links generally considered to be major sources of information. I have no interest in getting into a long discussion about the current extensive list of links, but they really should be looked at. Flatterworld (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Move-protection template

The template previously used was {{pp-move}} which stated "protected from page moves until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page." It has been recently updated to become generic, and now only states "protected from page moves." The previous use of pp-move has been transferred to {{pp-move-dispute}}. I changed the lock from {{pp-move}} to {{pp-move-dispute}} just after the update of {{pp-move}}, so my edit made no visible change. Using {{pp-move}}, {{pp-move-vandalism}} or {{pp-move-indef}} would neglect to acknowledge that there is currently a dispute over the name of the article. Even though no consensus has been found to move the article and it may not be under debate right now, the name is still largely disputed. Cenarium (Talk) 17:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

pp-move-dispute states that "This page is currently protected from page moves until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page." This has been resolved on the discussion page. It was resolved by cabal... the protection has nothing to do with consensus. To be honest the protection could be removed to see how it holds up now imho and if not the protection from moving it should be set to either vandalism or indefinite, or possible even a generic pp-move which simply states "This page is currently protected from page moves." It is not being protected because there is an ongoing dispute that has to be settled on the discussion page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. The naming is clearly disputed by many. It is unlikely there is going to be consensus any time soon. The fact is, there is a specific page to discuss the name and there is continouing discussion all the time. The cabal only decided there is no consensus for a move. They didn't decide which name was appropriate. In fact, as someone pointed out, their response aptly summed up the situation, one saying Burma, one saying Myanmar and one saying no consensus. Indeed the header says "However, strong arguments exist for the use of both names and the most recent discussion has not found agreeing on which one is best to be a high priority for this article". Really the only resonable argument why this page should be Burma as opposed to something else is because it started of as Burma and per Engvar that's usually where we default to. The fact that it was moved around a bit before settling on Burma again just indicates how highly disputed it. Unlike say color, gasoline or aluminium where these is clear consensus that those pages should stay where they are, there is little consensus here, even among those who understand policy. So yes, pp-move-dispute is appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey that's fine, I disagree but I'm flexible on the issue. However using that logic this article will NEVER have that tag removed since there will always be some dispute on where it's located. The cabal is as good as we're gonna get for the foreseeable future and this article will probably remain locked in place for years. And reasonable is in the eye of the beholder as has been argued over and over and over here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason discussion has gone on so long and so lengthy is precisely because each stage has just found no consensus and trying to assert anything as definitive until something does is not going to calm things. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"until" is the key word. There is no "until" in a way that would satisfy everyone so "until" means forever. The cabal is pretty much as good as we're going to get here. pp-move-indef would fit it better but if most here want it kept at -dispute then so be it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"it started of as Burma" - no, it appears to have started as Myanmar, but a page merge confuses the early history and page moves pre 2006 do not appear to be recorded well. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, archive.org's first archive of these articles is Dec 9 2003, and the article was Myanmar. The first archive of the "Burma" article was Feb 27, 2004, and it was a redirect to Myanmar. As an interesting look back, here's the very first paragraph of the Myanmar article that was archived:

Myanmar is a country in Southeast Asia, formerly known as Burma. The name of the country was changed in 1989, and this change of name has been officially recognized by the United Nations. However, some states, such as the United States, do not recognize this change of name, since they do not recognize the military government which instituted it. Today, many people use Myanmar, which is a derivative of the Burmese short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw, regardless of their opinion of the military government. Tempshill (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tourism

The Tourism part seems to be actively discouraging tourists from going to Myanmar. I believe it infringes Wikipedia's NPOV policy, but well, what the heck - the whole article is dominant of one point of view.

I do not say it is right or wrong to advocate for democracy - I do it myself, but the Wikipedia article on Myanmar looks like an advertisment board rather than an encyclopedia entry. Every detail is stuffed onto this page - which makes the page extremely bulky and un-scholarly.

Quote - Any tourist visit will provide some income to the military junta - unquote. This is true for any country, and is not a unique thing limited to Myanmar. Please refrain from using such manipulative writing, as it distorts the situation: it presents a common fact in a tilted manner.

And the "majorty opinion" only represents those of the activist groups. The opinion of the people of the country, whom the activists and everybody else supposedly represents, is completely ignored. The number of activist groups supporting one notion does not necessarily reflect the popular opinion of the Burmese people on the topic. Uthantofburma (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The example you choose: "Quote - Any tourist visit will provide some income to the military junta - unquote. This is true for any country..." is of course in accurate. Most countries are not ruled by military juntas. If there are legitimate examples of biased content please present them so they can be addressed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

perhaps he meant any tourist visit will provide income to that country's "government?" That would be true for any country. Maybe it was just a poor choice of wording on Uthanto's part. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course that statement would also be misleading. Whereas authoritarian government officials profit directly from trade and businesses such as tourism (government officials directly own and control these businesses), in other countries there is no such profit to be had by public officials.

I didn't say public officials...I said government. Tourists provide tax money for most governments so I don't think my statement is misleading however I might add it was only conjecture. I have no idea if that is what was meant in the original statement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I admit I did not use pinpoint meaning to state what I meant. So, to clarify what apparently is a loophole in my statement - every government - note GOVERNMENT - not public officials - ultimately draw money from taxation - of which, as far as I know, hotels and tourism businesses are not exempted. The military junta, even if it consists of a raving bunch of babboons, is still a government - however illegal it is. True, those rich businessmen and all the cronies get income from lucrative business deals, but the original statement - that of profitting the junta - it presents the entire Burmese tourism industry in a black and white manner.

If you believe you have the intellect to edit wikipedia, and still see the world in a black and white concept, well, I suggest you redo your education. If ever things were so clear cut, then the world would probably be a better place. Not all tourist operations in Myanmar are government owned. The major hotels have links to the ruling military (well, more of Army, rather than the other branches of the Tatmadaw) elite. But, there are small guest houses and other establishments which, small they maybe, are clear of the junta's pockets. Ofcourse, if you count taxes as "profiting the junta" then, please do tell of a modern economic system where the government does not collect taxes (apart from the gulf states which practically sit on oil barrels). I think even Bhutan collects taxes one way or another. There are many independent institutions which operate in the tourism market. And it is through these that tourists can visit the country and still help the people. But this arguement is clearly pushed aside in the article. The definition of "benefiting the junta" itself is extremely wide. And please do not give me a lecture on how much the junta manipulates the economy and the tourism market. I come from that poor country. I have seen things from myself, not through secondary sources like those who sit comfortably abroad and think by reading a few blogs, that they know how the system works. I might be inaccurate, but I sure damn have seen the stuff on the ground.

Uthantofburma (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To give some examples - Yangon has many hotels. The arguement that the economy is in shambles does not mean or include the point that only large hotels exist. Luxury hotels exist, and it is the free choice of anybody to use their money freely on what they wish - so, I will not be saying anything about these luxury hotels. There also exists many other small and medium size hotels. I can list them out, but a) they do not have websites, b) I do not want to be a salesman for them. Believe me if you want to - denounce me if you feel I don't conform to a certain tone. In downtown Yangon, there are many small guesthouses, some are really unhygenic, but some are rather good too. Also in the outlying areas, independent companies, which do have to pay taxes but are not run by state officials, still exist, though may not be as confortable as those with "links".

Tourist destinations in Myanmar charge fees - this is the same in neighbouring Thailand, where i remember they charged me 500 baht to enter Wat Phra Kaew - thats about USD16 at that time - which is higher than what the Burmese sites charge (around $5-$10) as far as I know. These tourist sites are not hovering in the air, which means they are accessible by car and river ferry, not just the airlines. Even amongst the airlines, there are a few which do not really get that much support, compared to a certain airline set up by a certain businessman. So, tourists, if they can endure it, can take the 6h plus bus or train ride to the north from Yangon. Or take the ferries - there is a foreign owned cruising company, and also other ones. But I saw on youtube tourists' accounts of travelling on these boats being attacked. It seems people must conform to supposed rules, or be condemned. There are many private tour operators and tour guides - the tour guides are not like North Korean minders, or those portrayed by "Emma Larkin" in her (or his?) book, Finding George Orwell in Burma's Teashops. I know a few tourguides myself, and they are not brain washed to "say only the nice bits".

Smart spending is possible. Unfortunately, such information is not represented on the internet or popular media, as it goes against the views of certain interest groups. I am not being a tour guide of the country, nor a salesman. But, I won't put my hands around your eyes and tell you what I want to tell - what ever side it may be. The only single way to find out about things is to go there by yourself, and see the things - and spend smartly.

Last of all, I do encourage cautioned approach to any topic concerning Myanmar. Credible research is rare, and is always contested. Acadamia is heavily influenced by political situations, and is molded to fit the demand / view. So, please be careful of every piece of information related to Myanmar. Emotions run high, and these emotions spill over into many areas. Until one sees things on the ground, do not believe anything. This is based on personal experience.Uthantofburma (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am troubled to see a mass of content being removed including an awful lot of cited and notable content. It also looked like discussion of the Karen people was removed. What is going on? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms

Currently there is no image for the coat of arms of Myanmar. I removed the coat of arms from the infobox, and just undid a replacement of it. One editor wanted to retain the giant "?" at the top of the infobox in order to preserve the link to the Coat of arms of Burma article in the infobox.

The "?" doesn't add any information to the article and is very ugly — to me, it looks like an error — and I removed it because it has no value. I believe if a Wikipedian goes ahead and draws the coat of arms, that is the proper time to re-add the coat of arms to the infobox. Tempshill (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tempshill on this. Sure it's nice to have a link to the Coats of Arms wiki but only if it also enhances the entry it's placed into. That "?" is ugly and detracts from this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It also reminds editors that the image needs to be made. It's like the same thing as a WP:Red link, it will ultimately help Wikipedia in the long run creating articles or images that need to be made. I think red links look pretty ugly too, but most people think the good ones are helpful, and this coat of arms obviously needs to be made or uploaded at some point. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I looked and there weren't any in the public domain, so I drew one that's kind of sloppy but it's better than a question mark. I saw a couple in another encyclopedia but they looked like the same one that could be copyrighted elsewhere so I didn't want to add those for fear of infringement. I hope someone will look at and improve upon my version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort, it's nice to at least have a free image of the coat of arms available now. Did you notice this image of the coat of arms on Commons: [1]. It was just marked for deletion on March 8 for not having any licensing information. A little coincidental too because I have noticed that on March 8 a good number of other countries' coat of arms have been marked for deletion too. So it looks like a lot of countries may be losing this image unless someone that is good with copyrights can fix this problem. At least this article will still have a coat of arms image, but it would be nice if the copyrights of coats of arms could be looked into by someone knowledgeable. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I did and it's the same image I've seen hundreds of times around the internet. Some guy even sells it on t-shirts but Coat of Arms seem to be a tricky deal with copyright infringement so I was really worried. After doing some research I think most of these so-called "public domain" coats of arms are really dicey and could easily be infringement. Descriptions of them are fine but the actual picture is not. I looked at that one and 3 others to make mine. We need someone to go to Burma and take a snapshot of one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Military dictatorship or stratocracy?

Looking at the stratocracy page, wouldn't that be a more accurate description of the state of government than military dictatorship? Specifically, I'm looking at this explanation:

A stratocracy is a form of government headed by military chiefs. It is not the same as a military dictatorship where the military's political power is not enforced or even supported by other laws. (italics added)

Seems to me to be a more accurate description of the current situation in Burma/Myanmar. Also, the stratocracy page specifically mentions Burma/Myanmar as an example:

The closest contemporary government to a stratocracy is the SPDC of Myanmar, which is arguably different from most other military dictatorships in that it completely abolished the civilian constitution and legislature. A new constitution due to come into effect in 2010 cements the military's hold on power through mechanisms such as reserving 25% of the seats in the legislature for military personnel.

Thoughts? Baeksu (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A stratocracy IS a military dictatorship as per all dictionaries I could find. Both Websters and Bouvier's Law Dictionary say the same thing too: STRATOCRACY-A military government; government by military chiefs of an army. I think that fine a detail of a rarely used word is not needed in an article that frankly has too many fine details already. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

or Myanmar

"officially the Union of Myanmar," who says? The British Foreign Office say "Britain's policy is to refer to Burma rather than 'Myanmar'. The current regime changed the name to Myanmar in 1989. Burma's democracy movement prefers the form ‘Burma’ because they do not accept the legitimacy of the unelected military regime and thus their right to change the official name of the country."[2] The phrase "officially the Union of Myanmar" with the more neutral phrase "or Myanmar" --PBS (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

""officially the Union of Myanmar," who says?" To the right of the article is an infobox that details specifics about this country. It lists the nation's capital as Naypyidaw, its government as a military dictatorship, and its leader as Than Shwe. This is the government that says it is officially the Union of Myanmar. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In other words it really shouldn't say "officially" it should simply say "or", which is less pov. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how "officially" is at all pov. It's a fact, unrelated to the observer, that the government of this country calls it "Union of Myanmar". Wiktionary defines "official" as:

2. Derived from the proper office or officer, or from the proper authority; made or communicated by virtue of authority; as, an official statement or report.

We may feel that the government of Burma is not legitimate, but most countries recognize it as the legal authority.

I would say that ignoring the "official" stance in this case would be pov, because that would be consciously trying to push a specific view point, i.e. the government does not have an "official" status. Baeksu (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And that's just it...some countries do not look at it as a proper office or authority. It's not a question of "feeling" as some countries recognize the junta dictatorship and some do not. "Official" works for those who recognize and is POV for those who don't. "Or" seems like a much better choice to me but as I said it's not important enough to change it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with just using "or Myanmar" in the lede. The problem now is that the infobox calls it "Union of Burma", while the lede has "officially the Union of Myanmar". Let's pick one option:

1. "or Myanmar" + "Union of Burma" in the infobox
2. "officially the Union of Myanmar" + "Union of Myanmar" in the infobox

And then let's stick with that. Personally, I'm fine with either option.Baeksu (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we want to go that way, then (I've said it before), change the infobox's leader to Prime Minister Sein Win, and change the government's capital to Baltimore, Maryland. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because of "or?" I never liked the "officially" word in there but it's a minor dysfunction so I wasn't going to change it. However I do trust Downing Street and Penn. Ave much more than the UN. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I’m just saying, look at all the facts listed that are disputed by the democratic government-in-exile. The government in Baltimore, Maryland doesn’t recognize the existing regime’s capital at Naypyidaw, the regime as a military dictatorship, Than Shwe as chairman, Maung Aye as vice chairman, Thein Sein as prime minister, its May 2008 constitution, or the name "Union of Myanmar". So, why is it less point-of-view to say that Naypyidaw is the official capital? (The CIA world factbook still lists “Rangoon” as the nation’s capital) The unelected, illegitimate government is the entity that makes those claims, so should we avoid POV by citing the CIA World Factbook and saying that Rangoon is still the nation's capital? -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was easy because consistency in government matters is like lumpy gravy. Some officially call it Burma and some call it Myanmar and all I'm saying is that it would be less pov to use "Burma or Myanmar" than to use "Burma (officially the Union of Myanmar)." Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "officially" actually means "because I said so". In other words, if someone has the authority to say something, it becomes "officially" whatever they say. In this case the dispute is over the government of Myanmar having legitimacy, and if they have no legitimacy, they have no authority to rename the country, and Burma is not "officially" called Myanmar. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What's your definition of "legitimacy"? The SPDC executes all the other functions of a government including international relations. Making unpopular name changes is as much within the scope of their power as it has been in other more politically stable countries where the same thing has happened. Bigbluefish (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Burma (Myanmar)

Moved to Talk:Burma/Myanmar#Burma (Myanmar). 199.125.109.126 (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC pronunciation

At present, the article contains the following passage:

Confusion among English speakers on how to pronounce 'Myanmar' gives rise to pronunciations such as /ˈmjɑːnmɑr/, /maɪənˈmɑr/, /ˈmiːənmɑr/ and /miːˈænmɑr/. The BBC recommends /mjænˈmɑr/ (followed by source).

Not that I doubt it but is it not a hypocricy on the part of the BBC to make another one of its recommendations on language usage, particularly when it is one of the leading organisations to stand defiant on the naming issue. Unless I am mistaken, had the constitutional name not changed, then Myanmar wouldn't have entered the English language. The article explains that /Myanmar/ is a shortened form of Myanma Naingngandaw, so any references to cognates of /Myanmar/ will have been a part of the English language since well before the name change. Is it necessary to give the BBC variation when the BBC reject the same name? It would be like Serbia's RTS recommending a Serbianised intonation and stress pattern of Kosova (the Albanian name for Kosovo) for anyone speaking Serbian wishing to use the Albanian form. Evlekis (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not really much of a big deal. We mention the American spelling of meter, even though the U.S. rejects metric. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's a "big deal" as such, it just seems odd. The BBC will tell you how to pronounce /Myanmar/ when they insist you use /Burma/. Nothing you can add to that statement, except a note that BBC recognises Burma in which case people will be able to see for themselves the hypocricy. Evlekis (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no hypocrisy at all. They acknowledge the word exists even if it's usage they consider incorrect so there's no story here at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two different things here anyway. The BBC pronounciation guide is a very influential resource even beyond the BBC for standardising pronounciation. The BBC's use of "Burma" is an internal editorial choice. Bigbluefish (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox header

this is ridiculous. The term "Union of Burma" was created and used only by the same government who then decided it should be called "Myanmar". Nobody but nobody refers to the "Union of Burma" except in an historical sense, because regardless of your political agenda, perception of trends in the English language or views on geography versus politics, it's a descriptor of a particular political entity that no longer exists under that name. The edit summary given is like saying "Hawaii still exists. The infobox should read Republic of Hawaii.". The space in this infobox is for the full, official name, regardless of vernacular usage, and should read "Union of Myanmar". At a worst case solution, simply "Burma" is an alternative. Oh, and by the way the current Burmese script immediately below in the infobox reads "Myanmar". Hope that makes things clearer. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was under the impression that the actual name was Union of Burma before the juntanization. You seem pretty confident in the fact that it was simply Burma and nothing else (i.e. official letterheads), and on a quick check through the internet I didn't see anything to the contrary, so we'll go with the US/UK official name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, guys. I don't know what the country's official long name was before the junta, but no one currently says the long name is just Burma. The government controlling the nation says it is currently "Union of Myanmar". The government in Rockville, Maryland says it is currently "Union of Burma" (so does the CIA World Factbook, right before it tells us that the capital is still at Rangoon). I'd rather have the long name as "Union of Burma" than just "Burma", since the latter isn't a long name at all. Of course, I think it's silly to let Maryland tell us the name of a Southeast Asian nation... -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have the cia book at my disposal nor did I know the exiled gov'ts full title. I assumed it was Union of Burma but I knew it was not Union of Myanmar. Sorry I caved so quickly I just assumed a compromise of "Burma" was better than me continuing to revert it back. So to be consistent with this article should it be "National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma" or (what is probably better) the slightly shortened version we had before, "Union of Burma?" I'll put it back to what it was but if more people want the longer title so be it.Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, if we change the infobox to something like the "National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma", then we should change the rest of the information to describe the democratic Burmese government of Maryland. For which we already have an article. Which is why my first sentence should be understood as sarcastic. :-) But more seriously, why can we not use the official name that the ruling government gives itself? -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the junta govt is not recognized by the US/UK... Union of Myanmar is not official. However as with the opening line of "officially the Union of Myanmar" being wrong and out of place with this article, this infobox item "Union of Myanmar" is a small potato thing. I will say here that it makes the article un-uniform, and is not the official name. I think it adds confusion to a pretty good wiki entry that people have worked hard on. That said, if you'd rather the infobox long name change to Union of Myanmar I won't change it back. I will set it to say both Union of Myanmar and Union of Burma as it's infobox long name as a compromise but I'll leave it to others to decide if that works for consistency. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it intellectually dishonest that you try to imply:

1. that before the "edit warring" the infobox read "Union of Burma" when in fact it has been "Union of Myanmar" until 3 weeks ago when an anon tried changing it to "Burma" and you prompty "fixed" it
2. that the consensus is that "Burma" is an official name, when it is not

Yes it is an official English name. The consensus is split.

1. that the usage of "Burma" in this article is based on formality, when it is not

Did you forget that people can still read the Mediation Cabal discussion that the current naming convention bases itself on? Back then you seemed perfectly happy to base a defence of "Burma" solely on common English usage, when the overwhelming consensus that this is the only acceptable rationale in favour of that name was still apparent. If I have got you wrong, then I apologise. But the fact that you really ought to remember that the above arguments have already been rejected makes it appear like you said whatever you had to at the time in order to push a moral-political agenda, and that discredits what else you have to say.

There were many reasons given by many people at the time. I was one of many. I always let it be known that I was in the Burma camp but I also took a middle ground. I mentioned split articles and Burma/Myanmar and they were shot down. Did you offer any middle ground back then or did you just attack as you are doing now? Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The modern usage of "Union of Burma" is by and large a politically charged invention. It's hard work trying to find serious uses of the term in Google searches, where most are historical accounts or talking about the exile government. Compare with "Union of Myanmar" which plenty of those who use "Burma" like the BBC declare to be the official name and there's no contest.

I think the above is sound enough reasoning that the infobox should be put back how it was, and unless BaronGrackle has changed his mind, I'm not alone; but I'm not going to add to the pile of edits without knowing that it's going to be accepted, so please somebody else weigh in. Bigbluefish (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In my opinion, Union of Myanmar is the better entry for the 'conventional long name' parameter of the infobox. Though 'Union of Burma' is also acceptable, putting both names is not a good idea. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Because? Goodness it goes by both, this is an encyclopedia, can't we show both? Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We can. But it is unnecessarily confusing to use both names. (Plus, the parameter is expressed in the singular form.) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that someone could be bewildered by seeing two formal names in the infobox, and the parameter is not visible to the casual viewer so they don't look at it as singular. It seemed a fair compromise to show both but I realize that compromise hasn't exactly been the rule of thumb around here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The Union of Burma is just as much a current regime as the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma, the Republic of Hawaii, the Third Reich and so on. Most if not all of the sources I've seen using "Union of Burma" in reference to the current nation are doing so as an implication that the junta is not the current government of that country. That is not something this article tries to pretend and if that's what you're proposing then do make that clear. You might get more "compromise" if you left the agenda over legitimacy at the door, since contrary to your continued insistence, not one participant brought up the political position of Western nations as an argument in favour of the name "Burma" in the MEDCAB case and was taken into account. To keep pushing that point that long ago lost consensus makes it difficult to find merit in the rest of the argument.

You would also do well to take a less belligerent approach to a content discussion. "Compromise" is not about two "camps" digging their heels in and settling with some middle ground between them. If one aspect of the article doesn't contain "both names" it does not mean that democracy has won or lost, and no moral wrongs have been committed. A Wikipedia compromise requires people to understand and accept the position of others, play devil's advocate with one's own position, and not just push harder in the scrum. Bigbluefish (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Belligerent? I plop in something that was middle ground and you attack me? You pick on and apologize to me in the same sentence and then lecture on high about My approach? Wow lol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask for a response that differentiates between content and user conduct? A content decision isn't immune from criticism just because it's "middle ground". I'm at a loss what else to say if you have no challenge to the fact that neither "Burma" nor "Union of Burma" are "official" names and nor has the consensus when this was a high-traffic topic ever held it to be. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isn't immune from criticism. I guess a lot depends on what one means by "official." The hoodlums in control of Burma now are nothing "official" by a lot of people's standards, and if they are not then what was the official name of the country before they grabbed power? I said back when that I wasn't sure of that "official" name except it wasn't Union of Myanmar. I was told the gov't that some recognize use Union of Burma and their website confirmed it. The CIA source only has Burma and does not go into detail on what is it's official name. So I've seen Union of Burma, Burma and also Union of Myanmar. It seemed fair to me to have it Union of Myanmar/Union of Burma to satisfy the politics involved. I'm going to assume that we come at this thing from a different perspective....I don't call the country Burma because that name is popular, I call it Burma because from my standpoint that is the legitimate name today. I know that Myanmar is used by a lot of people so that name should be there also (heck I even put it first), but I don't recognize it as legal. Neither do three acquaintances of mine who are recently removed from the country. They used Burma (actually it sounds more like B'uma) but said they did use Myanma (sounds more like M'unma) when they were close by anyone official looking, for their own safety. I'm only writing this so you see my point of view. As I alread said, I'm not going to change it back so we really needn't argue the point anymore but I'm guessing that's why we don't see eye to eye on this issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Because the junta govt is not recognized by the US/UK... Union of Myanmar is not official." The the various international groups that govern over international law and handle international issues, including treaties, pacts, and agreements, as well as SOVEREIGNTY issues can just be ignored? The US/UK rule the world and everyone else doesn't matter? As an american, I am appalled that such ignorance is rampant. The UNITED NATIONS and the current government call it Union Of Myanmar. That makes it official. If I invaded the UK or Hawaii or any other named country above, took control, and renamed it Land Of Wankers, and the UN accepted that name in official documentation, then that's the new name. No amount of crying or chest thumping, or biteless barking, or any other such nonsense conducted by said non-related governments will change the fact that they have no control over another country's choice of name. One's government, {or even one's self} can delude themselves all they want, ignoring reality, revising history; but over in the real world, the name has been changed by the ruling power, and accepted as the official body of international law, The International Court of Justice, and the international body of political governing, The United Nations. It's official. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Heck, This is an English wiki and you can put all the faith you want into the UN. I have little. And that's the difference... if some nuts took over Your country and named it wankers it wouldn't surprise me that the UN would verify it. It does make me sad that you would cower and readily accept it though. To each his own I guess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinions like this have no place in Wikipedia editorial decision-making. I've lost all faith that you're seeking to write this article under any guise of objectivity. Long may you understand that something can be official and yet unjust. Bigbluefish (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My choice to go along or become a rebel and fight back isn't the issue. What is "official" is. This being an English Language Wikipedia doesn't make any difference at all; English is the second most spoken language in the world, and one of three international languages of business. This site has visitors from all over the globe, many, if not most, of whom DO accept the UN's decisions. The UN's choice to recognize the current government has nothing to do with being fair. LIFE is not fair. In the end, no one disagrees that there is a new government in power, that that government chose Myanmar as the name, and that that government is conducting international relations. And since that controlling government is THE controlling government, that's who is currently official; like them or not.

My personal feeling have nothing to do with it (I didn't like the last government and I don't like the new one), as an editor on an Encyclopaedia, my DUTY to the commons is to point out the facts, free from opinion, personal belief, and bias. Lostinlodos (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did the Coat of Arms of Burma go?

Why was this deleted. Coat of arms of countries are public domain anyway. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually in looking up the legalities a case can be made that they are not public domain. I didn't remove it but I see the warning was up for quite awhile that it needed an official source, so I guess the bot finally swept the image into the trash. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just use the Russian or Chinese wikipedia's version of the coat of arms? Azalea pomp (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure those are just as iffy in the legal dept but I have no problem with trying it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Usage across Wikipedia

Just wondering, is there any prescription about the usage of the name Burma and/or Myanmar throughout the project? Can editors freely choose between the two in other articles? --Avg (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. In the tennis articles (100's of them) there is no consistency with items that many dispute, but I have no idea what the actual protocol is. With tennis, people don't have time to make (rewrite/argue) 100s of corrections so each entry just sort of stands on it's own merit and with Burma/Myanmar I guess I just assumed it was the same way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that there is a lack of consensus on what to name the article for Burma/Myanmar which does not mean that there is some sort of official wikipedia decision on the name of the country. My interpretation of this is that it is up to individual editors to choose (and defend) whatever name they consider more appropriate in other parts of the project. In a sense, wikipedia reflects the ambiguity that exists on the name of that country and that's a good thing. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both for your answers, do you think we could try to formalise this and mention somewhere (perhaps at the top of this article?) that irrespective of the country article title, Burma and Myanmar can be used interchangeably throughout Wikipedia?--Avg (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)