Talk:Myanmar

Presidential republic?

Sure, the military junta officially dissolved but the de facto ruling party still supports it... and the National League for Democracy is illegal. 216.105.64.144 (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no official confirmation that the SPDC still de facto exists. There is no evidence to suggest that the so-called State Supreme Council actually exists, and the NLD being illegal has nothing to do with the government type. The infobox describes its constitutional government type. We're not here for rumours or speculation.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Burma → Myanmar – It's been three years since the last discussion on the title of this article and it is time to see if consensus has changed. Per WP:COMMONNAME, I think this article should now be at Myanmar. Three years ago, there was a strong case that the common name of that country was Burma but the world has changed since then and Myanmar has increasingly entered the common lexicon. The New York Times, for example, no longer even bothers mentioning the name Burma in its articles on Myanmar [1]. (Note: I strongly opposed the previous move request - on the grounds of common name but now support it for the same reason.) regentspark (comment) 13:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. RegentsPark is right - Myanmar is the most common name used today in reliable sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The rebels have had 22 years to change it. An unbiased encyclopedia shouldn't be taking sides; it should support the facts... Smarkflea (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The world has changed indeed. Lynch7 17:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose:

• "Burma" About 89,300,000 results
• "Burma 'also known as Myanmar'" About 570,000 results
• "Myanmar 'also known as Burma'" About 575,000 results
• "Burma (Myanmar)" About 7,560,000 results
• "Myanmar (Burma)" About 10,200,000 results
• "Burma Myanmar" About 32,600,000 results
• "Myanmar Burma" About 14,200,000 results

The New York Times use Myanmar, but the BBC, The Guardian, and several British sources use Burma. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll personally be happy if the article stays at Burma but:

"Myanmar": [2] last one year 577 million results

Burma: [3] last one year 273 million results

Note that Burma is the historical name of the country, so any date unrestricted search is likely to show many more instances of Burma than of Myanmar. Also, English language sources outside the UK (and possible Australia) have predominantly moved to Myanmar. --regentspark (comment) 18:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Myanmar seems to consistently come out on top in those searches. How does that cause an oppose? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree that things are changing but I'm not convinced they've changed enough. English Common name is important but I've found in tennis articles here on wikipedia that even if English common name is used 99% of the time in English sources it will likely be ignored. How I see the Burma/Myanmar dispute right now is as follows:

United States official name: Burma

UK official name: Burma

Canada official name: Burma

Australian official name: Burma

In an English wikipedia those entities carry weight.

As for the press:

United States press: I would say it's 2/3 to 3/4 in favor of Myanmar now. A big shift from 3 years ago. NY Times, CNN and AP use Myanmar, LA Times uses Myanmar (with Burma mentioned). Washington Post, Time Magazine and Voice of America use Burma.

UK Press: from what I can see it's all Burma

Canadian Press: I could only find 2 or 3 newspapers. They all used Burma. No idea what gets used on the tv news.

Australian press: The newspapers I could find all used Burma. No idea what gets used on the tv news.

3 years ago neighbors I knew from the country itself said in the interior away from areas of importation they called it Bama, while those living in areas of high exportation used Manma. I have no idea if that's changed.

Based on these items I'm not sure a name change is warranted but my oppose is much weaker now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Fyunck, to your list of usage by country, I'll add the following (under the assumption that English is a language spoken in non-western countries as well):

Singapore press: Myanmar (Strait Times) [4]

Indian press: Myanmar (Times of India) [5]

Hong Kong press: Myanmar (South China Morning Post) [6]

New Zealand press: Myanmar (New Zealand Herald - not sure if this is a major newspaper or not). [7] --regentspark (comment) 13:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think much weight should be given to countries whose language is not English as it's main language. Just like spelling and grammar they have their own agenda. Heck Thailand seems to use only "Burma" but I didn't list it when I originally was searching because I found it useless info. New Zealand is reasonable since I assume English is their primary language but then what is New Zealand's gov't stance on the matter? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Am amazed that Thailand uses Burma rather than Myanmar - shows how little I know! No idea about official stance of NZ but official stances should not really matter. I do think we should include English language speakers everywhere because en.wikipedia caters to all English speakers regardless of what the main language is in their home country. Of course, English is the main language in Singapore and is the main language of many Indians (more, probably than the populations of the UK and Australia combined), so those two countries definitely carry weight. In the US, I think the pendulum has swung toward Myanmar (with the Washington Post the main holdout).--regentspark (comment) 18:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

When I started pulling up articles from "The Irrawaddy" I was surprised too. But almost every country uses some English so do we include them all just because the newspapers are translated. I think no, though I didn't say don't include it, I said I give it little weight. That's why we have multiple Wikipedias to cater to the different languages and their cultural differences. An article in Chinese will be written with a completely different point of view than one from Canada. I've been told by many here at wikipedia that when spelling a tennis players name we can't give much weight to how Wimbledon, the WTA (Womens tennis association) or the ATP (Association of tennis professionals) spell the players' name because their forte is not in spelling or academics. Well those other countries forte is not English, it is how their gov'ts perceive Burma/Myanmar, and their language comes first. It gets translated to be sure but not with the same weight as UK, US, Canada and Australia. It also does matter what the policy of these states are. They are primo English sources for the official name and places like the UK and their state dept say that Myanmar does not exist. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That explains it. You can't use The Irrawaddy as representative of usage in Thailand. The Irrawaddy is run by Burmese democracy groups and uses Burma exclusively. I'm one of the few remaining subscribers of the now quarterly magazine but wouldn't use it to figure out the common name of Burma. I think it is a mistake on your part to give short shrift to non-Western English speaking countries like India and Singapore. En wikipedia is not primarily for English only speakers but serves an English speaking audience everywhere. I don't believe in counting population numbers but we shouldn't focus on official policy in western countries as a handy rule for decision making and shouldn't overstate commonality by looking solely at common usage in those few nations. That's my take on this anyway, hopefully the Baron will return and sort us all out :)

But I also didn't list Thailand. There were other sources from Thailand (mostly magazines and journals) that used Myanmar/Burma and Burma/Myanmar and others that were run by democratic organizations that also used Burma. What is it with all the democratic publishers in Thailand? I read two South Africa news articles that used Burma. I do not think it a mistake to downplay non-English first nations. Everyone at wikipedia when expressing opinion has sources they find strong and sources they find weak. It's argued about all the time here because no one agrees on anyone elses sources. The same thing here I would guess. I will never give an English version of an Icelandic newspaper the same weight as the Toronto Star, as far as an English sourcing goes. I know others will disagree but that's why we have the ability to support or oppose. And official policy does come into play because as it has been pointed out it's not just about "common name." Its official name, what it's called by the indigenous population, common usage, exonyms, etc... all these things get looked at. Everyone here will give different weight to different categories. I may think you are dead wrong in giving so much weight to a Chinese paper written in English, but it's your opinion, and you will use it to determine whether to say yea or nay here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - per some of the common name and official name facts stated by Fyunck. Also, what is the language that is spoken in that country? What does one call someone from that country? Answer: Burmese. Not Myanmarese (or something else). Roxi2 (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that they are called Myanmas. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Names of Burma. Although "Myanmar" is the official and the common name in the world, this is the English Wikipedia and, as per Fyunck, Burma is the "common name" in English. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I still am stunned when I hear somone say Burma, which I don't hear or read very often. I do hear it on BBC, but that is the exception for me. Although I have read the reasoning for the above votes, I still think the real reason individuals prefer Burma is a political stance against the current government and yes it is still petty. It never ceases to amaze me that if I call myself Mike and everyone else prefers to call me Jerk, do I have to be called Jerk because they prefer it? That makes no sense; my name is Mike; use it. The name of Myanmar is Myanmar; get over your preferences and call the nation by the name it has chosen. -^StormRider 19:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The nation has made chosen it? No. The gang of criminals currently running it has chosen it. I understand the desire to avoid taking political sides in Wikipedia, but to say the nation has chosen the name is just a gross distortion. --Trovatore (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As Nippon gets Englishized to Japan, and US gets changed in South America. Happens all the time. Munchen to Munich, Genova to Genoa, Deutschland to Germany, Novak Đoković to Novak Djokovic. So if 90% of the major English speaking countries call you Jerk StormRider, and you become famous, you can pretty well bank on it that you'll be listed as such here:-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas, how many decades need to pass before minorities accept the name? If we used your standard would the USA be the USA? Would China be China? We are 30 years into this nation being Myanmar. Wikipedia is not a political judge for the world; the nation's name is Myanmar. Keep your protests to personal blogs or as a nation maintaining a political agenda. Wikipedia is neither.-^StormRider 11:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Burma is not an Englishized Myanmar. The English term for Myanmar is Myanmar. That is just pure silliness; and it is a terrible excuse for a red herring. -^StormRider 11:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support It's claimed that Burma is a more common name, but the statistics above and the ones gathered post election on one of these talk pages seemed to show that the balance had tilted in the direction of Myanmar being the common name. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support It is a fact that the government of this country officially changed its name from Burma to Myanmar more than 20 years ago. This change was also recognized by the United Nations. So Wikipedia should reflect this. In my opinion, it seems that the persistent usage of the old name "Burma" is due to political reasons. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 07:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Burma" is certainly more common on Google Books, according to this ngram. It's the more common search term in all the English-speaking countries, including Britain and the U.S.. It is the usage of the CIA, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Bangkok Post, BBC, Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail. This is an odd time for an RM. The country just got a new president who is likely to change the name again soon, at least according to this article: "Myanmar is Becoming Burma". Kauffner (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  Let's say it wouldn't be as surprising as it would have been a year ago if Myanmar changed to Burma. However, that's something that can be dealt with if and when it happens. Meanwhile, this has been a niggling issue on the talk pages of the article and I think it is always worth revisiting consensus after a reasonable period of time, whatever the outcome. --regentspark (comment) 12:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  I think we do not title article based on "the most common search term". Obviously, shorter search term is more preferable than the longer one. I do search using "Burma". If you compare United Kingdom and UK, number of searches using United Kingdom is almost non-existent. But that doesn't mean we have to title UK rather than United Kingdom. SWH^talk 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

  You think that readers are typing in "Burma" rather than "Myanmar" because they want to reduce the number of keystrokes from seven to five? Reducing keystrokes is certainly not as obvious a reason here as it is in the case of "UK" for "United Kingdom". "Burma" the most common search term readers in English-language countries use to refer to this subject and it doesn't really matter why. Unlike "UK", "Burma" also works as a formal name. Kauffner (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  I just wanted to give one example of what might influence on search term usage. And it does matter because search term, unlike webpage, [it] is not a tenable source. For their own reasons, many people, myself included, might use Burma in searching although they prefer Myanmar in writing. WP:AT states that prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. I performed English language search, Myanmar without Burma 183,000,000 results. Burma without Myanmar 107,000,000 results. SWH^talk 10:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  You realize that Web pages do not count as RS? Kauffner (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry. Spelling errors. Excuse my English. I mean Search terms are not tenable sources to title an article. I think English-language reliable sources do not include search term. SWH^talk 14:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You haven't read that article properly. It doesn't say that Myanmar is considering changing its name back to Burma. The title is using the names as a metaphor to allude to democratic reform. Nightw 21:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed the bug on the top that says, "This article is written in British English". That seems an odd thing to put on an article that has that very little to do with Britain. But if we are taking that seriously, "Burma" is British usage over "Myanmar" by a decisive margin. Search term usage is 11-5, The Times is 2065 to 192, and the BBC is 3,329 to 653. Kauffner (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Just an aside on the British English thing — this probably relates to the WP:RETAIN section of WP:ENGVAR. There are no "strong national ties" to Britain, but it's not desirable to have editors fighting back and forth between different linguistic varieties, so articles are supposed to remain in the variety they're written in unless there's a consensus to change it for some reason. Someone put that tag there just to document which variety it was in. I'm not sure why there's not a corresponding template for American English. --Trovatore (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as it's the country's current name. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per regentspark. I think we shouldn't compare usage of specific news agencies. Country by country comparison can also be misleading since it ignores the fact that Wikipedia titles articles based on English sources rather than sources of English speaking countries. Since general search results are already in favor of Myanmar, I perform searches within each country. Although I can't search for results from specific country, my searches based on country code top-level domain show in favor of Myanmar for all countries.

• Myanmar .ca domains -103,000 results
• Burma .ca domains -33,700 results
• Myanmar .au domains -351,000 results
• Burma .au domains -166,000 results
• Myanmar .uk domains - 1,520,000 results
• Burma .uk domains -797,000 results
• Myanmar .sg domains - 133,000 results
• Burma .sg domains -24,000 resultsSWH^talk 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I deghosted the Myanmar site:*.ca number and it went from 103,000 (above) to 304. Deghosting Burma site:*.ca gives you 378 results. There is a limit of about 450 deghosted results, so you can't deghost the larger numbers. But "Myanmar" obviously hasn't really been mentioned on the Internet anything like 577 million times in the last year, pace regentspark. I did the Web numbers for the last month (instead of year) so that the result would be deghostable. I get 37 English-language results for "Myanmar", and 43 for "Burma". Kauffner (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Why did you deghost? What function did you use for that? I can't find it in Advanced Search. SWH^talk 10:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

How Google arrives at these numbers is a trade secret, but the common assumption is that their software is focused is on producing a page of useful results, so the result numbers they give may be wild guesstimates. It is unlikely that Google counts to 600 million in 0.25 seconds of computing time. Our guidelines recommend using Google Book results, not the Web numbers. Of course, these are ghosted too, but at least that method doesn't yield these multi-million result figures that don't seem to correspond to anything real. (I used the ngram above, which deghosts automatically for you.) As far as how you do deghosting, pull up the result screen and look at the bottom where there are sequential numbers, for example 1 to 10. Then click on the last number. Do this repeatedly until you get to the end of the series. Kauffner (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. But I get somewhat dissimilar results compare to yours. For Canada, Myanmar site:*.ca returns 425 results. Search for Burma returns 424 results. It seems unlikely in that there are only 425 results for Burma in .ca domains. I think the low number of results may be caused by results limit for each query. Google acknowledges that the numbers of results are estimate. But I don't see any reason why Google would make a huge error so that total number of Myanmar results which is about three times larger than that of Burma, can be overtaken by total number of Burma results.

I also like to use book results. But most books are quite old and therefore, only mention Burma, the previous official name.SWH^talk 15:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

For Google Books since 2000, it's 20,700 English-language hits for Myanmar Yangon OR Rangoon compared to 48,700 for Burma Yangon OR Rangoon. Since 2009, it's 1,160 for Myanmar, 2,680 for Burma. Kauffner (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Update I searched within each English speaking country. Results are below.

• Canada 8,040,000 results for Myanmar 2,930,000 results for Burma
• United States 136,000,000 results for Myanmar. 63,300,000 results for Burma
• United Kingdom 20,500,000 results for Myanmar 14,000,000 results for Burma
• Singapore 2,570,000 results for Myanmar 686,000 results for Burma
• New Zealand 1,330,000 results for Myanmar 883,000 results for Burma
• Australia 5,000,000 results for Myanmar 3,450,000 results for Burma SWH^talk 11:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support and I think everyone knows why. If this doesn't happen, then I'm hoping someone parodies this until it does. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support per commonname and pretty much everything I've posted in these discussions over the years. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)