Talk:Myanmar

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that there is no clear consensus on whether the article should be named "Burma" or "Myanmar". Discussion of the country's name should be posted to the subpage Talk:Burma/Myanmar.

History of Myanmar/Burma

I noticed that "Recent Events" were placed at the top of History. I would suggest that these be placed at the bottom of history, as the rest of the history category is given in chronological order. The cyclone is a very important event and people may look to Wikipedia for information about it, but in time it will not be a recent event, nor will it necessarily be viewed as more important to the History of Burma than the other historical events listed. 128.173.82.81 (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

IPA of Myanmar

I speak of Burma but when I have to criticize the word Myanmar, I never pronounce the file r in English, not any more than in car or bar. The "r" is only there to indicate to a Brit that the tone changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.142.75 (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be from Massachusetts. The "r" in car and bar are usually pronounced. -Laikalynx (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he's from a place where they speak British English. American English isn't the standard for pronunciation outside of the USA. 141.154.126.194 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This story is especially entertaining, since apparently the "r" was added to this English-translation because Myanmar's government felt the name would be mispronounced if they just used "Myanma". Fun stuff, dialects. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Laikalynx: Actually, final "r" in standard English in the situations in question is silent. You can look it up. I taught English diction at the graduate level for 4 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.214.89 (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So your graduates drive a Ka and drink at a bah? They're not silent.Zelphi (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean caw and baa? Anyway, they are silent...under some accents. 199.172.206.97 (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, yeah, no wonder! Their silence is enforced at a graduate level of English diction! Wow. We get made fun of here in Texas, mind you, but I don't think the drawl is obligatory. Anyway... dictionary.com for some reason says that the final "r" in Myanmar should NOT be pronounced (unlike car and bar). Do we know anything about this? -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

When speakers pronounce /r/ only if it is followed by a vowel sound (see "linking R"), it's called a non-rhotic accent, and there is a lengthy wikipedia article on it Rhotic and non-rhotic accents. From personal experience, living on the outskirts of Boston, I'd note that the vowel is drawn out to compensate. Car becomes kaah, and not kă. Unlike English, Burmese is a tonal language and the non-rhotic English 'ar' may be the closest equivalent. Cuvtixo (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Extensive prior discussion

Has reached no concensus. Therefore there is no point in having an ugly macro marring the page asking for *more* discussion about whether to call Burma Burma or Myanmar. My own view would be to describe the state as Myanmar and the nation as Burma and divide discussion appropriately, but as Burma is the current default both on Wiki and in the English language and there is *extensive* discussion of the naming dispute *within* the page, this macro serves no purpose and has been removed. - jowfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.37.112.44 (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Article too long

Dear contributers,

It seems that well, you cannot avoid politics when it comes to any topic on Myanmar - I find that there is extreme politicization of any article which contains either Myanmar/Burma, in the name. In one article, I found that the related material was only one line long, while "extra" material, i.e., political related, was two paragraphs long. I am not against the writing of truthful information, but, there is a place for everything, and a format, instead of propping up posters of your opinion everywhere. These things, instead of helping the common wikipedia user on Myanmar/Burma, has, on the contrary, made the whole issue worse, and nobody ends up knowing anything definite about the country.

The main thing at hand is that, we need to make the main article (Myanmar or Burma, call it what ever you want, but as a native of that land, I prefer Myanmar) more professional and presentable. When you try the edit button, you'll see that its nearly 120kb long - one cannot get a quick info guide about the place - you are getting a whole crash course on the whole country on this page alone.

So, might I suggest that we just write some brief paragraphs, and divert about half the existing text to new articles? I dare not do it, since half the users will start jumping on me for doing it. User:Uthantofburma —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What?

I Thought that Rangoon was the capital of Myanmar! Oh well,did they change it? Fila934 (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. New government, new name, and new capital. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Nope, "Rangoon" much like "Bombay" or "Burma" is an outdated and incorrect term. --Tocino 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "outdated", shouldn't we say that the traditional term is either closer to the Burmese spelling, or, more likely, based on a dialect from western Burma which the early British were more familiar with? And I don't see anybody changing Madrid to Mathreeth, or Paris to Paree. Are we so worried about being politically correct towards a dictatorship that we have to change our own language in a way that is not appreciated by many Burmese? (I have been told by Burmese that the change to "Myanmar" etc. is simply a ploy of the junta to have a brand new start for everything and distance itself from the 1990 election won by the "Union of BURMA").Jakob37 (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll find people that will state ploys on both sides. Either way, it is recognized by the UN as "Myanmar" and I gave an official UK geographic names resource that states reference to "Union of Myanmar". Rarelibra (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"And I don't see anybody changing Madrid to Mathreeth, or Paris to Paree." The crucial difference being that Neither Madrid or Paris were British colonies!!!! Referring to Bombay as Mumbai is a gesture of respect, for the wishes of inhabitants, as well as prior tradition. Unfortunately, the name changes in Burma seem to have been imposed, rather than reached by a consensus. So please, while Jakob's points about Burma and Rangoon are consistant, comparison to non-colonial cities is wrong, and Tocino's comparison to Mumbai is not quite the same. I also think that it is fortunate that Wikipedia does not have to conform to Unite Nations or "offical" UK geographic names. Usage in scholarly (or peer-reviewed) publications (in English) is a better standard, although in disputed Wikipedia articles, naming conventions are usually deferred to what is written in the original article. Cuvtixo (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the junta moved away from Yangonas it has been the center of many protests since colonial times. Rds865 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blatant pro-Burmese propoganda in this article

Extracted from the "Religion" section:

"Myanmar enjoys religious tolerance and since the ancient times, there has been full freedom of worship for followers of different religions. So different religions can be practiced in Myanmar. The religious edifices and religious orders have been in existence and religious festivals can be held on a grand scale."

See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90131.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.173.189 (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by pro-Burmese propaganda? The stupid government's accused of every bloody thing - yes, it commits horrific acts of brutality - but as a native, I do not find religious persecution in both the towns and in the villages. It might exist in the border areas, but the average Burmese is extremely tolerant of difference in religion. From my experience, they're way better than many Americans when it comes to religious tolerance. Do you believe 100% of what the state department says? I have only one line: where are the WMDs which were supposed to have been documented??? Where where where???

Wikipedia has somehow become a tool of advocacy by many parties - and in Myanmar's hyperactive rumour mill, many facts get tangled. And nobody seems to be talking about the Christian missions' attempts to win converts by opening Christians-only free clinics in rural Karen state. Freedom of religion is the freedom of practice one's religion - not to evangelize - and because evangelists are complaining about the place, religion's nolonger free?

Its way more better for religion than many countries I have been to - it's the truth, and if you don't like it, then, too bad. You care to complain about this single line - when the whole article's already made a good job of the people? You see the white spot on the black board.

But well, I guess wikipedia's okay to remove things which you don't like, and try to justify it with the world's most professional liars department. —Preceding unsigned 18:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean things you don't like, such as when autosigning bots try to attribute your own writings here to you, and you remove the attribution, as in 2008-03-23T13:26:35 ? Just asking...you seem to know a lot about professional lying? I'm not even a party to this dispute but find such tactics to be counter to the spirit of transparency and accountability that I thought Wikipedia was based on. User:scbomber 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening a Christian only clinic is not a good method of winning converts. the Karen people were looked down upon before they were Christians. Also, I believe there is a saying "to be Burmese is to be Buddhist." Surely no one denies the crack down on monks, so perhaps one could argue that the government persecutes everyone. Rds865 (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

While it did not quite rise to the level of propaganda, this could be easily rewritten to be more neutral. For example "Myanmar enjoys has religious tolerance and since the ancient times, there has been full freedom of worship..." This gets across exactly the same information without instigating those who might disagree. Cuvtixo (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag and coa in the infobox

Why is there no interwiki link to the Flag of Myanmar and the Coat of arms of Burma in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfQ (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed now. It had to do with the common name being Burma/Myanmar. Technically the infobox code didn't know what to do with that entry; so it did not link. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I apologize for the copy not move

I know this is quite old and outdated at this point, but I apologize anyway for an older edit from the improper unrecognized name Burma to the proper recognized Myanmar as the poster who scolded me was correct as I now see/notice that it was a copy and not a move. That "copy" page was supposed to be a /sandbox page, not a real page. Again I apologize....Lostinlodos (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Forced display

I forced the Burmese characters in this article to display correctly in every browser, not just Firefox, with the new {{lang-my-Mymr}} I created. Enjoy! ☺ Taric25 (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

US involvement

The section is more about opiate trade, and not about the alleged involvement in Burma by the US and needs some fixing. Rds865 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the referenced to Bo Gritz's allegations (which are not substantiated) that US government officials are involved in opium trafficking in Burma/Myanmar is not serious enough or relevant enough to be on the main page. Perhaps a separate page called "Theories of United States Involvement in Burmese/Myanmaran Drug Trade," but not in the main article. In addition, Bo Gritz is not a reliable source. His own Wikipedia entry pretty much describes him as a fringe conspiracy theorist who is preparing a paramilitary organization to deal with the Second Coming. Anybody can make allegations about US officials' involvement in the drug trade, but that doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the main article about this country. I will make this change if I hear no objections soon.J P M7791 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WWII

there is a little information about that time, and what there is, is confusing. It says that the American-Kachin Rangers fought for the occupiers? Certainly at this time Japan had occupied Burma? There is no mention of the Burma road. There is no mention of the Japanese occupation, and the formation of the Anti-Fascist Organization. Also the BIA was replaced with the BDA, and then the BNA and when it joined the Allies it was the PBF. Rds865 (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Burma in the Dutch Empire

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire (Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes significative parts of Burma. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ square=tradingpost (Red4tribe (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html (credible source) (Red4tribe (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Hi Red4tribe, both of your above links show the connection between Portugese and Burma, which is true and significance. Burmese port city Thanlyin was held by Portugese explorer Philip de Brito for 12 years (1600-1612). But the contents from your links doesn't show anything about Dutch and Burma connection. Can you explain us which paragraph or sentences that you are referring to? --Kyaw 2003 (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Genocide

Genocide The section currently reads

Evidence has been gathered suggesting that the Burmese regime has marked certain ethnic minorities such as the Karen for extermination or 'Burmisation'.[110] This has received little attention from the international community, however, since it has been more subtle and indirect than the mass killings in places like Rwanda.[111]

I would like to suggest you somehow mention that this has recently recieved some media attention as it is the backdrop to the new rocky movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.169.163 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that this Genocide section comes under the heading "Economy". What does genocide have to do with the economy? Someone needs to move this section elsewhere perhaps. Deamon138 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma = Myanmar

I think we should name this conuntry Myanmar. The military regime has renamed Burma into Myanmar. So we should follow the new name on Wikipedia, weather other governments are accepting this new name or not. --Shorty23sin (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Politics aside, the official and most used name is Myanmar. 91.152.193.7 (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of the page and move your discussion to this page accordingly. --SMS ^Talk 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The world's largest broadcaster (the BBC) uses Burma. I think Wikipedia should do the same. --Philip Stevens (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not calling this country "Myanmar" is equivalent to calling the country that dominated Europe in the early 40s just "Germany" and not "Nazi Germany".
Blindman shady 15:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your statement wins the award for the most convoluted anti-junta statement of the year! I will look for an appropriate barnstar. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that your barnstar should help Nazi Germany, or should help South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere like such as. Húsönd 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been watching too many Ms Teen USA Pageants... 128.173.82.81 (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:-) Húsönd 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a proxy of the BBC, which in turn is not the sole indicator of popular usage. I believe this has been debated on numerous times before without a proper conclusion. I stand by my continued believe that wikipedia should adhere strictly to its WP:NPOV policy and adopt the name used by relatively nuetral parties[1], including the United Nations.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The name used to be Burma, now it is Myanmar, so the page should be called Myanmar. Everyone recognizes this country as Myanmar, its as simple as that. To politicize it and call it Burma has no place here.--Urbanz (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the page should be called Myanmar - however, I don't strongly believe that. What I do strongly believe in is consistency, and if we're going to title the article "Burma", we should refer to it as Burma in the article.--71.191.83.42 (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that redirects are cheap, so it doesn't really matter until there is consensus for the article to be moved. I also agree with the above user; it should be consistently named within the article, unless a quote or source directly refers to it as the opposing name. --Izno (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me then why Rangoon has been renamed Yangon on wikipedia, even though the BBC definatly refers to this as Rangoon and most of the English speaking world. Seems to be the same double standards on wikipedia as usual.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the U.S. Government refers to the country as "Burma." In a note in the CIA World Factbook, they state "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, and the US Government did not adopt the name, which is a derivative of the Burmese short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw." link. — Sam 11:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.121.46 (talk)

That's good enough for me. 70.128.104.143 (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for what? That wikipedia should adopt the name "Burma" because it agrees with United States govenment's view that "Myanmar" was illegitimate for being an undemocratic name change? Has wikipedia become a proxy of the U.S. govenment?--Huaiwei (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I vote for Myanmar. Every country has the right to call themselves whatever they want.205.246.153.217 (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use this page to discuss this issue. It has a long talk page to which you can argue your points. --Coffeegirlyme (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

opinion statements in article

the following, and some of the text around it, under United Nations section, reads like an opinionated magazine column.

"While there will always be competing strategic interests by the various players, it would be a mistake for some-the United States, UK, China, Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia-to hijack the process from the UN. Gambari, a Nigerian, is a seasoned negotiator with a track record to match the Myanmar military's 40-year reign, and he remains the best hope to break the political deadlock that has spanned two decades."

also, several protests are written about in detail twice in the article.

in the introductory section, the date of british rule is mentioned twice also.

i'm not a member who edits on wikipedia, but looked at this article for info about myanmar after the cyclone hit. i think these changes, and perhaps a little more cleaning up, would help out everyone looking for info about this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.11.2 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyclone death toll

Both CNN and BBC report death toll to be at "more than 22,000"; where is source for the figure currently cited in article? Suggest it be changed to figure supported by credible sources. 81.132.41.159 (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyclone

I'm sorry, but I don't see how a recent natural disaster warrants a section on the page of a country. HanBoN (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the re-write (not by me I should add) justifies its inclusion - it is a significant event in the country's history, regardless of how recent it is. 81.132.41.159 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not in its own section, though, as Indonesia doesn't have a whole section about the 2004 tsunami. Just a suggestion. HanBoN (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a current event with news changing the nature of its impact every minute. Perhaps the event can move into the history section down the road but, for now, it is not yet history and it should probably have its own section.

Redundancy

I know there are a number of problems and a number of hands stirring the pot here (and I am not going to add mine in addition), but there are two separate sections on the 2007 monk protests and also for the recent cyclone. Combining those will help with your article length. PerlKnitter (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. With the article being the size that it is, it is harder to grasp what is already there I suppose. But seriously! the Cyclone has two sections which pretty much say the same thing. Someone wanna use the delete button? --Coffeegirlyme (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

I don't think I'm the first person to notice but it isn't uncommon that people take the name of this article as justification to reword other articles or move them. Is it worth adding something to the header about this, something like, "Although this article uses the name Burma, other articles may refer to the country as Burma or Myanmar and this should not be changed without consensus. Remember that we don't require consistency across wikipedia and considerations like WP:ENGVAR may come into play"? Given the lack of consensus for even this article, of particular concern of mine is when people make changes which don't make any sense e.g. changing Myanmar to Burma in United Nations member states or South East Asian Games (I don't know if it's actually been attempting in these pages but I'm pretty sure I've read about it before in some other cases and I wanted clear cut examples) Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In wikipedia it is convention that for disputed terms (such as between British vs. U.S. terminology), the original name (or spelling) used in the article establishes precedence for each individual article. Therefore, new notable articles (with verifications such as citations) can be written using "Myanmar" or "Burma," as the author sees fit. This encourages the research and creation of good articles (although it also might encourage frivolous, unneeded articles; these are be weeded out) Cuvtixo (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So accidents of fate, timing and circumstances will determine what wikipedia considers to be the name, if it's not overruled by a random crowd of passerby throwing out a yea or nay? No wonder it's such a bloody mess. 141.154.126.194 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tay Za

Does Wikipedia have an article on Tay Za? Under some other spelling perhaps? PiCo (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I was looking for an article to link to Air Bagan but couldn't find one (even under several alternate spellings). I think its worth putting one together, though it is hard to get hard facts on him. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)