Talk:Burma/Myanmar

Title

I think the name should stay Burma, just like how the article about Japan is Japan, not Nihon (日本). Burma is essentially an English word used to represent the country, just like Japan is an English word used to represent Japan. The way the pages are set up now is probably the best way to have it set up for the English Wikipedia. 58.6.47.105 (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Really doesn't matter what English speaking nations recognize or not. The official name of the country is Myanmar. It is what the country refers itself with and is recognized by the United Nations and most countries of the world. Politics of the moment should have nothing to do with a name of a nation. If at a future date a future government of Myanmar decide to change their country's name to "Burma" we will refer to it as "Burma." As of now, I strongly favor the name to be "Myanmar." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.81.70 (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article should definitely be renamed to "Myanmar" or possible "Union of Myanamar" with a redirect from "Myanmar." It is no longer Burma, people have to get this into their minds. The best way to do this is to clearly point it out by the article name, then in the first heading have a little (Formerly known as Burma) bit. It is about the proper name of a place, and educating people about this. Many people I know still think it is just Burma, therefore cannot even look it in an Atlas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163S (talk • contribs) 10:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "Malomar" Most everyone likes Malomars, delicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.160.223 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There shouldn't really be a dispute about this - this country is actually called Myanmar, not Burma. Country names change, somewhere in the world, on a reasonably regular basis. It doesn't make sense for an encyclopedia to refer to a country by a defunct name or a "commonly refered to name". It is supposed to simply state the facts, surely? When I consult my atlas I do not see Ceylon or Zaire for example anywhere on any page! Yet I know one or two people who do think of these countries by their older names. That doesn't mean they are suitable for an encyclopedia article title. Dazza79 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While you both make a very good point, there is still the issue that English speaking nations do not recognise the name "Myanmar" as the official name, so technically in English (and this being the English version of Wikipedia) "Burma" is the currently recognised name of the country. Any textbooks, maps, official documents and such produced in nations such as the US, Canada, the UK or Australia will use the name Burma, not Myanmar, so English Wikipedia should reflect this usage. The article, as it stands, is a fair representation of the situation. More in-depth information on the name of Burma/Myanmar can be found at Names of Burma. Also, the usage of Burma and Myanmar has been discussed extensively in the past. Please read the archived talk pages, starting from number 2, so see past discussion. Ka-ru (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave up after my last move proposal. The persistence on Burma is beyond my understanding, but there's not much to do. Another move request is out of the question, at least for some months. --   Avg    02:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The name of the country is Burma in English. The whole "Myanmar" thing was just a misunderstanding :) Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the name should be "Myanmar," given that that's its official name. Josh (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Myanmar" is the country's official English name in Burma. "Burma" is the country's official English name in the US, Canada, UK, etc. Kaldari (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

- Failure to recognize a government does not equate to non-existence of said government. Like it or not, Myanmar is ruled by a military dictatorship and the name was officially changed by that government almost 30 years ago. The "protest" argument for Burma has no place in an Encyclopedia. Furthermore, with respect to the "this is the English Language version of Wikipedia", I'd argue that Encyclopedias should reflect reality, rather than the political fancies of governments that happen to use the same language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.227.8 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

- I agree; politics has no place in Wikipedia and I think there should be one -neutral- standard for naming countries. Neutral would be: 1. The name recognized by the United Nations or; 2. The name the current government of that country says it is. (in which the 'current government' should mean the government that is actually in charge of the state apparatus, whatever the nature of its power or of its legitimacy. Otherwise, since powerless 'governments' can rise up anywhere, each with their own names, legitimacy etc., there would still be disputes, which is what needs to be prevented)

In fact, ANY standard would be neutral, as long as its applied for every country named in Wikipedia. One final comment: The name dispute should be described (in a neutral way) in a seperate section of the 'Myanmar' article and not be influencing the making of the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.212.214 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard is "If you are talking about a country, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article... Some cases are less clear cut... One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article." That is the standard that gives us "East Timor" instead of "Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste". In the case of Burma, the English-speaking world seems pretty much evenly split between using "Myanmar" and using "Burma" so there is no mandate according to Wikipedia policies to change the name of the article. Nor is there any kind of consensus among Wikipedia editors to change it (see all the past polls). Saying that one name is "official" and the other one isn't has no weight in Wikipedia-world. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your final comment, the name dispute seems to be well-described and contained within the country's article, and it also has its own separate article at Names of Burma. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The country's name is Myanmar. It doesn't matter what the english conversion of the word is, the country is called Myanmar. Myanmar can be said in English, therefore, it is good enough. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 11:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. It can be argued that Japan's real name is "Nippon"; however, the English conversion is Japan. Even though Nippon is easily said in English, the article's name is still Japan. Why can't that reasoning hold here? Mouse is back 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the big difference is that there has never been a drive to use "Nippon" in English (and so there hasn't been any success in getting the name in use), and "Japan" is even what the country's government uses in English. That's a very different situation from this country where there has been a drive to use "Myanmar" in English and it has been taken up quite widely. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. My bad. Mouse is back 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to the first poster I'd like to direct you to the issue of Macedonia. In this case there is a single neighbouring country which challenged the name of the country and it has become a significant controversy within the European sphere. Quite a few nations dispute the renaming of Burma as Myanmar. Burma is the appropriate name. 64.201.173.189 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that in Japan you can use both Nippon (used by the conservatives mostly) and Nihon (which is the more common term nowadays). So I don't think that will fly. Also, given the movement in the English language of Peking to Beijing, Bombai to Mumbai and more of such linguistic changes, a change from Burma to Myanmar follows a similar pattern. asmodai (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Those changes all reflect changes in the country's official name for those places. Burma to Myanmar isn't such a change. All it is is a change from the common English name to the official name. Please stop posting unnecessary comments that show untrue relationships between different situations. I direct you to Google where you can learn the difference between Cantonese and Mandarin. 58.6.47.105 (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If we call this country Myanmar when the ordinary English name is Burma, why isn't there the same clamour for us to talk about Deutschland, Norge, Italia, España instead of Germany, Norway, Italy, Spain? The truth is that countries are sometimes known by different names, or different versions of the same name, in different languages. So are cities (the French have Londres, Edimbourg Douvres instead of London, Edinburgh, Dover, and we don't worry about that. We have Munich and Rome instead of München and Roma... 6 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.85.147 (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In English it's know as Burma, and as this is the English page of Wikipedia it should remain Burma. Otherwise we would have to go to the French wikipedia page and remname Australie to Australia, because that's what Australia calles itself, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.182.39 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not an issue of an English name vs. a local name. The country previously had the name Burma, but switched it to Myanmar, therefore Burma is not an English name. This is different than the use of Germany to refer Deutschland, as that is just an anglicized version of the name. A similar name was not in place for Burma, implying that we stuck with the county's local name back then, so we should do the same now. Calling Myanmar Burma is akin to referring to modern day Russia as the Soviet Union75.152.155.135 (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say that the most common English name today is "Myanmar." On the news, in the press, everyone seems to be using "Myanmar" now, however some say both names. Also on most maps shown, it is Myanmar. The use of Burma, was logical, when it was "The Union of Burma," however now it is officially "The Union of Myanmar" therefore, wikipedia must change accordingly. Reference should definately be made to Burma and a redirect from Burma. But we must keep current.--Coffeegirlyme (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If these Asiatic Chinamen-like people want to be "Myanmar" then what is the problem? Call the country what these folks want it to be called... Myanmar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.192.210 (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to decide whether it wants be a more like true encylodedia - or a "community blog" (as many think of it) where people "decide" what is true (think Colbert) by majority rather than by the facts. This is a done deal that simply needs to be reflected in the article. Are NBC, ABC, CNN etc all wrong? This is why most teachers do not allow Wikipedia to be used in research papers. 13:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.4.157 (talk)

And I guess the NY Times is wrong as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/world/asia/10myanmar.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

And yet the day Miley Cyrus's name change became legal - it was up there on Wikipedia. Time for a priority check. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The page should be called "Myanmar." Much as I dislike that name (mostly owing to unfamiliarity--I grew up knowing the country as "Burma"), here are compelling reasons to use "Myanmar." (1) The country's government took special pains to try to correct what English-speakers call their country. They recommend "Myanmar." It is only condescending colonialism that would make us ignore the request of the country. (2) Arguments based on tradition or sentimentality ("It was always called 'Burma' in English...and thus always shall be.") are unconvincing. We don't call the capital of China "Peking" anymore; rather we adhere to the Chinese preferred "Beijing." If we made that change (although I'm at a loss to know what to call the dish "Peking Duck"--is it now "Beijing Duck?") we can make the change from the British-Imperialist "Burma" to the Myanma-Requested "Mynamar". (3) Consider the following allegory.

   I meet a man on the street, clearly a foreigner.  
   "Hello, what is your name?" I ask.  
   He answers, "My name is Myanmar."  
   I grow excited.  "Oh, I have heard of you from my British friend who called you "Burma."  
   He frowns.  "I know of your British friend... actually, he held me in captivity for many years, and as such, I dislike the name he called me.  I would greatly prefer if you called me by my real name, `Myanmar'."
   For some reason I feel stubborn.  "But... `Burma' is what I am used to.  Can't I just call you that?"
   "You could call me what you want, but if you want to be considered my friend, please call me what *I* want.  Please call me `Myanmar.'"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.23.40 (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 

Textbooks, atlases, and encyclopedias

"Any textbooks, maps, official documents and such produced in nations such as the US, Canada, the UK or Australia will use the name Burma, not Myanmar".
At least part of that is inaccurate. "Myanmar" downright kills "Burma" in terms of online English encyclopedias. Even Britannica, the English one. As I posted at the very end of the most recent archived discussion, "Myanmar" also beats "Burma" in several American atlases and textbooks. I can't speak for whether it has the majority, either in the U.S. or elsewhere, but it might be interesting for anyone who has access to a modern encyclopedia, atlas, or textbook to look it up. I'll bet the majority have "Myanmar (formerly Burma)" or just "Myanmar". Prove me wrong—because I really don't know for a fact! :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's see. Closest to a textbook on Burmese history I can find is the recent history of Burma/Myanmar. Thant Myint-U. The River of Lost Footsteps: Histories of Burma. Farrar Straus 2006. I'm not saying don't call it Myanmar but you must recognize that Burma is the more recognizable English name. Neither of the two Burmese restaurants in New York, for example, use Myanmar in their name. As I've said before, even in Burma, most people use Burma when speaking in English. Personally, I switch between the two often enough that either is fine by me though Myanmar will almost certainly go the way of Kampuchea in a few years. For a historical discussion on the Myanma identity, I refer you to "The Making of Modern Burma" also by Thant Myint-U, specifically pages 83-90. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: restaurants: Peking Duck will always be Peking Duck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll acknowledge that "Burma" creams "Myanmar" on books about the country itself, as it does on Google Scholar. Burma wins among academics. But few students in English-dominant countries will study those books. What about generic textbooks, like the world history or world geography books that a student will use? From the ones I looked through recently, it was called "Burma" up until the regime change, when it was called "Myanmar", and the latter was the one listed in the indexes. -BaronGrackle (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That might be the case. Google maps, which were pure Burma about an year ago, has switched to Myanmar (Burma) recently. (Though, oddly enough, it sticks to Rangoon rather than Yangon.) However, I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar that a poll of 18-24 year olds will find a higher name recognition for Burma than for Myanmar. I do recommend reading the pages referenced above (if you haven't already). You'll see why my Kampuchea analogy makes sense. In the meantime, the confusion goes on ..... --RegentsPark (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I just looked it up in my world atlas printed in 2006. It lists Myanmar on all the main maps and in the index. The name Burma appears in parentheses and in smaller font underneath Myanmar on the maps. Furthermore my atlas was printed in Slovakia and seems to have a German version, from which mine is a direct translation it seems. So the name Myanmar, at least from this sole indicator, seems to have found favour on the European continent. 62.31.183.230 (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar is recognised by most countries around the world, including many European countries, so it's no surprise your map says Myanmar. Unfortunately all major English speaking countries, and by that I mean those country's governments, do not recognise the name Myanmar, but instead recognise the name Burma. I think I agree with most people that Myanmar is probably the more correct name, but while no major English speaking nation officially recognises the name, the English article on this country should be named "Burma" while stressing the Myanmar name in the article. Perhaps "Burma (Myanmar)" would be a more appropriate name? Ka-ru (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the most compelling evidence for usage is HERE. That is the official United Nations member states list, and lists the country name as Myanmar (19 April 1948). For anyone else to ignore this fact and continue this nonsensical insistence on using the name "Burma" would be to insist upon using the name "USSR", "East Germany", "North Vietnam/South Vietnam" and many others that have been cast into history. The title "Burma" deserves a HISTORICAL article. The title Myanmar deserves the proper, official usage for the article on the COUNTRY. Period. (similar to the article on "China" historically and the actual country of "People's Republic of China") Rarelibra (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Rarelibra, The UN recognises the name "Myanmar". That is not in dispute. Many nations recognise that name. The issue here is that this is the English-language version of Wikipedia, and the guidelines for Wikipedia clearly state that we should follow "common usage". Though the UN recognises the name "Myanmar", the US, the UK, Canada and Australia do not, and they are the main English-speaking nations. These nations recognise the name "Burma". By this fact alone the "common usage" name is most definitely Burma. It is not "nonsensical" but, whether you like it not, fact. Media outlets like the BBC use the name Burma for that reason. These nations do not recognise the names "USSR", "East Germany" or "North Vietnam/South Vietnam", so your argument is invalid. The name Myanmar, while in the majority usage internationally, is in the minority usage in English speaking countries. You may consider this a backward attitude by these nations, but it doesn't change the fact that that is how it is. Over time I, like you, hope that these nations will adopt the name Myanmar, but until then Wikipedia should reflect common usage in English speaking nations, which is Burma. If you have issues with this attitude, write to the governments of the US, UK, Canada and Australia imploring them to recognise the name "Myanmar". Until they do, "Burma" will continue to be used and issues like the one being discussed here will continue to surface. Personally, I think the article name "Burma (Myanmar)" is more appropriate than "Burma", but that is just my personal opinion. Ka-ru (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I will provide another critical reference HERE. Even this states

• ... official UK policy for state titles is to reflect the will of the authorities in the country of origin, which in this instance means using “Union of Myanmar” as the state title in official UK usage. Rarelibra (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rarelibra points out something significant: the major English-speaking governments may not "recognize" Myanmar in the sense of using its term informally, but they "recognize" Myanmar in the sense that they publically address the name and officially reject it (except in the case of the above U.K. release linked above, apparently, which states they DO use it officially). Even though the governments of these countries do not officially use Myanmar, their people identify the name; disapproval of a regime and public usage/knowledge of it are two completely different things. BBC may use Burma, but many other English media outlets do not. That has been established in the archival discussions. Nearly all the official sources who use Burma use it because they reject Myanmar's politics; not because Burma is "more English". This section, however, was specifically to call into question encyclopedic and reference material. It's not something that makes or breaks the case for Myanmar, and I don't pretend it is, but I do still think there are many people here who just don't believe that Myanmar dominates this area. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note - that is from the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use, from the UK government. Rarelibra (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick point: I'm from the UK and have always heard people (the general public) say Burma when discussing it, never heard Myanmar. Also, BBC News uses Burma. --Joowwww (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rarelibra you have been very selective with your quote if you had quoted the whole paragraph other conclusions can be drawn: "(para 14) Official practice in the United Kingdom is to use as country names those names which are in common informal usage in British English. In this instance, that name is “Burma”, and hence “Burma” is the country name in official UK usage. But official UK policy for state titles is to reflect the will of the authorities in the country of origin, which in this instance means using “Union of Myanmar” as the state title in official UK usage." Wikipedia policy is to use as country the country names those names which are in common informal usage in British English. Further if you had included the 2 paragraphs before para 14, it might have shed some light on the situation inside Burma "(para 12) Politics have entered this debate very forcefully. To the SLORC/SPDC, use of the word bama may be indicative of subversion. Conversely, the National League for Democracy have largely eschewed all reference to “Myanmar” and have continued to use “Burma” and its derivatives. Indeed, it can be argued that it is difficult to make a choice of country name without, in so doing, delivering a political judgement on the current authorities. The NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi has certainly delivered her verdict: No-one should be allowed to change the name of the country without referring to the will of the people. They [the SLORC/SPDC] say that “Myanmar” refers to all the Burmese ethnic groups, whereas “Burma” only refers to the Burmese ethnic group, but that is not true. “Myanmar” is literary word for “Burma” and it refers only to the Burmese ethnic group. Of course I prefer the word “Burma”. (para 13) Thus the seductive argument of inclusiveness, employed by the authorities to promote the use of “Myanmar” at the expense of “Burma”, and to demonstrate their patriotic goodwill for the entire country, is in reality a false argument. “Myanmar” is not a neutral and all- inclusive term. If anything, it is less inclusive than “Burma”, since in the minds of all non- Burmans “Myanmar” is a word inextricably linked to the majority Burman ethnic group." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For me, I am for the use of Myanmar. Not being Burmese, I do not feel that my country is my home when its called "Burma". The name Burma and Myanmar are both politicized. Burma, btw, came from our dialect group, the Arakanese. Its like calling the whole of UK as England - you leave out Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland and the Channel islands. Its like saying Edinburgh is an English town, etc. There were many ethnic rebels, who wanted autonomy, and one of their claims was that "Burma" was for the "Burmese", not them, so they had the reason to revolt. The military junta changed the name, so that the rebels will have one less reason for taking up arms, and now, people ignore the name change. Its either balkanization or international rejection - I think the Serbs would know a great deal on this subject.

Many people will go around in circles trying to justify Burma over Myanmar - some say because the body which made the name change was illegal - but the UN accepts it - but they say because Wiki is in English, we use what the UK uses, and if some people want the name "Myanmar", they are wrong because Aung San Suu Kyi favours the name Burma. The best thing is to ask ALL the people, not just the political activists - just because they fight for democracy does not mean they are representing 100% of the people's desires.

The whole article was great a year ago. Some immature people thought they'd do something when they saw the monks protesting for the people - rather, they have vandalized a nice piece of work, making it into a piece of politics. I appreciate their concerns, but that act of rabid name changing did bad than any good - like most of the sanctions being imposed. Just like smart sanctions, people who want Myanmar to be democratic must also use smart means, not that of a 3 year-old. This is an encyclopedia, not your scrabble pad, nor your webpage - the only intent is to give the article as it is officially named, and to give the best picture there is, not to spread one's ideas and thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthantofburma (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A Piece of Logic...

We call Deutschland Germany
We call Zhongguo China
We call Nippon Japan
We call Bharat India
We call Ellada Greece
We call Österreich Austria

But for some reason, because Myanmar is their official name, we should use that term despite hundreds of years of using Burma. Why don't we change all of the article names above too? Or can someone explain why Burma should be an exception? Obviously some have taken to using the name Myanmar, but this usage is far from 100%. Until that time, I believe the status quo should be kept, especially considering the relative instability in the country. DJLayton4 (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Its different - this topic is being reportedly raised by many people - read the whole arguement section - they do not insist on being called those names, and in Myanmar, the name change effected the English change too - like Cote d'Ivore, Timore Leste, Siam. What about them? What makes them so special that we call them that, but not other countries when they officially change their name. Do you want to be called Baby Joe or Joe when you are working in your office? The Burmese, btw, use Burma when we refer to our country because most people are too damn ignorant to know where countries are around the world. It is like when you talk to a Brit, and have to refer to the United States as "The Colonies".

Erm pretty much everyone here in Britain knows where the US is, no-one requires you to refer to the US as the Colonies, since we refer to it as the US. Deamon138 (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi's opinion is another matter. What I am trying to address is the Deutschland - Germany thing.

Bloody junta's illegitimate, but the UN isn't. And if you're going to over step the UN, like some nations do, well, go ahead, leave the UN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthantofburma (talk • contribs) 09:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Both sides can play logic games:

We call Deutschland Germany
We call France France
We called the CCCP the Soviet Union, when its government asked us to
We call Tâi-oân China, because its government asks us to
We call Iran Iran, because its government asks us to
We call Côte d'Ivoire Côte d'Ivoire, because its government asks us to
We call Prathet Thai Thailand, because its government asks us to
We call Myanma Myanmar, because its government asks us to

Note that Iran is an English word as well as a Persian one.
Note that Thailand is an English word and arguably not a Thai one.
Note that Myanmar is an English word and arguably not a Burmese one.
Note that, earlier, I said "Persian" when I referred to something involving Iran, yet I still use Iran when referring to the country.
Note that all of these countries' names are noted by the U.N. and can be found to refer to their countries in English news sources, books, atlases, etc. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We call Timór-Lorosae East Timor, even though its government asks us to call it Timor-Leste.

Wikipedia is not dictated by government order. It is dictated by the usage of the English language. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• In that case, I'd refer you to an English-speaking map, major news source, or international organization. -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you mean a map published by the United Nations such as this?: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/myanmar.pdf

This body was designed to recognize the legitimacy of nations and create a standard for communication between nations (among other things). People have the right to self-author themselves. If this is what the government has asked, that the ENGLISH name change from Burma to Myanmar, then it is imperialism to insist otherwise. I strongly recommend doing as this country's government has asked, and as the United nations has officially recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmercede (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• • OK: "However it was not recognized by many western governments such as the United States, Australia, Canada or the United Kingdom, which continue to use "Burma," while the European Union uses "Burma/Myanmar" as an alternative." 137.22.25.155 (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as the action of an insecure and dictatorial government that tries to dictate what foreigners call a country in their own languages. Imagine if the German government insisted we speak of Deutschland in English conversation or Spain started insisting on España - we would consider that absurd. Wikipedia does not and should not reflect the whims of governments but rather actual English usage. Thailand is now almost universally used in English and Siam is only known historically, but in my opinion Burma still has a much wider usage than Myanmar - probably because the English-speaking world's knowledge of and interest in Burma has declined in post-colonial times as Burma's government has shut the country off from the outside world and impoverished it. It is probably simply the case that we have less reason mention Burma as the country's significance to us has declined, and therefore the opportunity to use the name Myanmar arises more rarely. The issue has also been politicised as while the Burmese government insists on Myanmar, others in the Burmese opposition prefer Burma. Booshank (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but...

I know we shouldn't get involved in political disputes, but the country in question doesn't even let its citizens access this website or the internet for that matter! Moreover, the name change didn't involve the very people who live in the country (many Burmese still say use Burma). It was done by a completely undemocratic and non-traditional government. Imagine, if one day a bunch of crazies took over England against the will of the people for 50 years and called it Cooterland and against the traditional head of state, the Crown (therefore having lacking legitimacy), would we all have to assume England was now Cooterland? Nope. It's still England. The name of a country and a place reflects more than just what the heads of government want to call it. It is its history, its people, its culture. England the land of Angles and India can be traced to the people of the Indis River, China can be traced to a ruling dynasty, even Istanbul is just a bastardization of its prior name. Kinshasa's name reflects (some would argue) the will of the people not to name their capital after a guy that cut off people's legs. Yeah sometimes names are screwy and nonsensical in other languages but it's too late to change them half the time, so forget those! Now that we're focusing on endonyms to be PC, maybe we should use the name the Burmese people want not the one the people oppressing them have created. I oppose the name Myanmar. Arthurian Legend (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Two things regarding your example of England vs. Cooterland:
  
  1. If you change "England" to "Russia" and "Cooterland" to "Soviet Union", you'll find your conclusion from the exercise to be innacurate. Pretending a totalitarian regime doesn't exist is not the answer. And,
  2. I notice you used the word "England". Indeed, England is often what people hear in everyday conversation; one might say that it's common usage (especially among those more ignorant here in the U.S.) not only for the country/province but also for the state/nation itself. In fact, I bet that—though it would be close—the name "England" is more recognizable to a majority of English speakers than "United Kingdom" is. Anyone who recognizes United Kingdom would also recognize England; the same cannot be said of the opposite. Still, we do not call the nation's page England; sometimes fact should trump common usage.
  The few people who can identify Burma but cannot identify Myanmar are, let's face it, ignorant of that country's history since the '60s. The vast majority of people/nations who choose to use Burma do so because they prefer Burma for political/human rights reasons, not because they don't know what Myanmar is. "Recognition" in terms of legitimacy is not the same as "recognition" in terms of being able to identify a place. Every English-speaking nation in the world realizes the country calls itself Myanmar, and every English-speaker who watches the news or skims a reference source knows that the country is called Myanmar (in contrast, show me an English news source that uses "Deutschland" for Germany). This name is easily recognizable, AND it's accurate. "Burma" only has one of those two. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recognition argument is interesting though still some what irrelevant since so many people don't even know what Myanmar or Burma is (unless you say it's where Crab Rangoon is from, but I jest) Language has power. When people learn about Burma (which is why someone may be researching it here) they should know that this is NOT the name of the country according to the legitimate opposition government, which was elected and is legitimate and it is not the name of the country in the people use.

As for England, yeah probably many people outside of the UK use England synonymously with the UK for Britain. To quote Dick Cheney, "So?" They are wrong. TEACH THEM. This relates to my earlier point. Reference materials such an encyclopedias, teach people, and the England article does that, it shows that England is a country but it's part of a larger nation, the UK. The same applies for the Soviet Union and Russia, Russia was just a part of the USSR, and yeah, by far the most important and powerful part, but it was not Russia. (Stalin was Georgian, not a Russian.) If people don't know the difference, they should. They can find that info here. Wikipedia should teach people, if they're looking for Myanmar, it's actually called Burma but despots took it over and changed the name and now you're smarter (and therefore better) for knowing that. Arthurian Legend (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Your comment is sensible and noble, but it is not Wikipedia. You want this page to be called Burma not because of common usage in the English language, but because: "When people learn about Burma (which is why someone may be researching it here) they should know that this is NOT the name of the country according to the legitimate opposition government". When this page was moved to Burma, the "winning" argument said it was because Myanmar was less known in the English language. That was not the real reason; the real reason was because the majority of people believed what you have so clearly stated. Myanmar is the name of the article if we want Wikipedia to reflect reality; Burma is the name of the article if we want Wikipedia to "teach" people how reality should be. And, despite what our policies might say, Wikipedia is a democracy—which is sometimes good. In this case, though, I believe "Burma" won the bulk of the original vote and tied the second vote only because the majority of its supporters (not all of you, of course) purposely or unknowingly voted contrary to Wikipedia "policies". If you disagree, then glance through the different votes. Read why each person voted, and see how many voted for each name because they felt it was common use... and how many voted because Burma was the "legitimate opposition government". -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think like most controversies in Wikipedia, this reveals the problem with Wikipedia, it attempts to democratize truth through opinion. Truth and Opinion don't necessarily go hand in hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.191.211.54 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Example against the Wikipedia notion of naming articles according to the most common nomenclature. See Brown vs Board of Education, most people know this case as Brown vs. THE Board of Ed, yet the "THE" is omitted in the title because legal cases do not include articles. Here Wikipedia uses the OFFICIAL name which is not the name used by most people. So... there.

I've always heard Brown versus Board of Education, without any "the." BirdValiant (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't all about politics!

Burma captures the name of the country throughout its history. The Myanmar name is restricted to recent events. If the page is only about recent history, then Myanmar is better, but it is about the whole country, including its long history and culture, so Burma is better. The top of the page tells all readers that the official name is The Union of Myanmar, so I don't see what is wrong with the page - about the country's geography, history, demographics &c. - being called Burma. Mjb1981 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Add a section about the naming dispute, that will inform readers about the different opinions a lot more than re-naming the page...(talk) 10:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen. 64.191.211.54 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with the above: the Burma article covers Burma throughout time, and so the vast majority of what is covered is about a country called 'Burma'. If you want to write an article covering Burma/Myanmar only in the past 19 years, only then is there a controversy. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Common names vs official names

I stumbled onto the Burma page and am surprised to note this disagreement. Wikipedia clearly uses the common name of countries as the title of their article pages. The official name of the country should simply be inserted in brackets after the common name as is the case for Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, Slovakia, Germany, Russia, Indonesia, France, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, India and many others. We do not use Kingdom of Saudia Arabia, the Swiss Confederation or Federal Republic of Germany even though these are the official names of those countries. Even the United Kingdom page goes by its popular or common name rather than the eight words that its official name constitute. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is referred to on wikipedia as Soviet Union. Need I go on? China is a notable exception since there's more than one entity known by that same name. If we change this article page from Burma to Myanmar, why then should we not change Switzerland to the Swiss Confederation, Germany to the Federal Republic of Germany, Iran to the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and so on and so forth? We use the common name here on wikipedia because this is a popular encyclopedia and not a guidebook on international diplomacy. --Bardin (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is yet another red herring. You're confusing the issue of long and short names with common names. "Germany" is that country's official "short" name in English so there's no issue there. Ditto "Switzerland" etc... The issue is whether the common name is the short official form "Myanmar" or the old and politicised term "Burma". Timrollpickering (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe what I wrote is another red herring. Where exactly in the Switzerland article is it indicated that Switzerland is the "official short" name in English? Ditto Germany and the others. This discussion clearly would not even be taking place if Myanmar is the common name for Burma. --Bardin (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The big difference is that those other names (Germany, Switzerland, etc) are what the authorities in those countries would use if they were speaking in English in an ordinary conversation. There's no dispute with those, any more than when I say Angleterre when I (try to) speak French. FWIW I don't see how the Burmese government has any authority to say what other people call their country, and I wonder how many of the pro-Myanmar supporters would've agreed with the USA if (entirely hypothetically) they'd decided to rename Irag to Georgebushland after the invasion... -Riedquat (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see what relevance authorities have in this discussion but you hit it on the nail when you note that they would be using those terms when speaking English in an ordinary conversation. They would also use the word Burma in ordinary conversation because that's the common English name despite whatever the authorities in that country might otherwise prefer. --Bardin (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No if they were speaking English in an ordinary conversation they would use Myanmar. The authorities issue is relevant because the name change has been driven from the top down - this is not unusual. The name "United States" is also one chosen by authorities and usage following that. As for the common English name, if this epic discussion has shown anything it is that there is no single common name for the country and usage varies wildly across different English speaking countries. Hence the looking to the official name as a means of a "tie-breaker". Timrollpickering (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Both Politically Incorrect

either choice will offend someone. Both are considered correct, why can't we use both? Often name changes with the change of government. Myanmar is still Burma, but the government calls itself Myanmar. The reason for the change is often given to be more inclusive of non Burmans. Rds865 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

But "Myanmar" is a politicized term, implying an endorsement of the illegitimate regime, whereas "Burma" has been used for centuries. 137.22.15.103 (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

An indefensible statement. I do not support the current illegitimate regime in Myanmar, but I support using the name "Myanmar" because it describes that current regime. The same goes for almost all editors here who use or support Wikipedia using Myanmar. Conversely, most editors who support using "Burma" do not support the current regime (though that's hardly a fair accessment, since who wouldn't support democracy? :-) ). Like you said, nations like the U.S. and U.K. can use "Burma" to show they do not believe the current regime is legitimate. They hope tactics like this can change the nation's government. Bravo for them. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a medium that tries to bring change to reality; it is meant to describe what is reality. Look at the infobox on the Burma article. Is Senior General Than Shwe really the leader of a democratic Burma? No. He leads the dictatorship government of Myanmar. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Political leanings of editors here should have no say whatsoever on what goes on here on wikipedia. If "Myanmar" is what the ruling regime calls it in English, then "Myanmar" it is. Whether the ruling regime is a democracy or a dictatorship or a tribal outfit is inconsequential. We are not here to fight for democracy in Burma or China. We are here just to report facts. Sarvagnya 21:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We ARE reporting facts. The FACT in question is: In the English language, how is the state in question referred to? And the study of English uses a DESCRIPTIVIST, not a prescriptivist convention. That means, it doesn't matter if the country had a democratic revolution, established a beautiful utopian society, and issued a directive to the whole world that the official new English name of their country is New Myanmar. Neither the government of that country (nor, for that matter, the United Nations) is the arbiter of the English language. Perhaps over time, as the English media use "Myanmar" more often and if (this is a big if) enough public attention is focused on the nation to cause those references to displace people's common usage of the term, then people will start saying Myanmar. When that happens, change the title. ---65.33.130.49 (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Descriptivist, huh? If Myanmar is so obscure, why does every other online encyclopedia call it that? Why do other Wikis such as wikitravel and uncyclopedia (not an authority on information, sure, but it says a bit on cultural perception) still use it? When I type "Burma" in Google maps, how is it that the only thing I find is a street in Juárez? When I type "Burma" in Yahoo travel, why is it that the sponsor results keep mentioning Myanmar on the right side? Why is it that when I type "Myanmar" in the same engine, I get almost twice as many results and no mentioning of the word Burma for my clarification? Is it because Google, Yahoo, every major encylopedia except this one, and every Wiki except this one is being prescriptive instead of descriptive? This article was called "Myanmar" until the monk controversy, after which a majority vote (and no consensus) changed it... a majority vote that completely collapsed in a matter of months. The support for Burma's common usage comes from (1) English-speaking government prescriptive use, and (2) historical books and articles (in which I'm sure Persia also contends fairly well against Iran). Things may change if the government changes someday, but even I know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -BaronGrackle (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Burma

This is the English Wikipedia, so I think it should be Burma since thats the official name in English (plus no one knows what Myanmar is, since all media {including video games} refer to it as Burma.) If the Burmese want to name it Myanmar on the Burmese Wikipedia, they can do that, but plz dont change it to Myanmar just because 1 or 2 English speaking Burmese natives say they want it like that.--4.244.36.56 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry where does it say Burma is official in English? English has no equivalent of the Académie française to hand down rulings on high and it's not the name the country's government uses in English, which is the only thing that qualifies as an official name. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus to move the article to Myanmar (regretfully). Therefore, it stays Burma. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

When was there ever consensus to move it from there in the first place? Timrollpickering (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to observe the common usage of the name Myanmar, just go to google news and search for "cyclone". The vast majority of english language media outlets are reporting this tragedy as originating from Myanmar, not Burma (although some still do use it). Panamajack (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Res to Timrollpicking: I don't know, I haven't gone back that far (Wiki archives). PS- When was there ever a consensus to fill English Wikipedia with Diacritics? There's plenty of Wiki mysteries. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just add that I oppose moving the article to Myanmar for historical reasons; it is significantly less confusing to use historical terms which have been in use for centuries. Additionally, Burma is still in common usage, despite the efforts of the current regime to rename the nation (perhaps as an attempt to gain legitimacy?) While either name may perhaps be "correct", there is certainly no need to rename this article, IMO. The Jade Knight (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My two cents worth is that we should call the article Burma. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I challenge opponents to show that Burma is more commonly used across the english language press currently; a simple google news search on the tragic cyclone clearly demonstrates this. Panamajack (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How does the United Nations recognise it? --G2bambino (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What's even more tormenting, my 2 fav newscasts CBC news (Burma) & CNN (Myanmar) use both names. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

UN recognizes it as MYANMAR. I think there are a lot of illogical arguments, such as "we call Deutchland Germany", etc. There was a very logical explanation - Myanmar government asks us to call it Myanmar, period. Recognized by the UN. Pretty simple conclusion, then. Stop the semantics and realize that in some cases, such as this one, proper name is the best fit. That is why the article is "Gdansk" and not "Danzig", "Beijing" and not "Peking", "Mumbai" and not "Bombay", etc. Rarelibra (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll support moving Burma to Myanmar. Frustratingly, previous page movement requests have failed. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I support moving it to Myanmar too. Can the champions of "Burma" show me an ounce of evidence that Burma is "more popular" than "Myanmar". As I flipped channels in the last day or two, I heard "Myanmar" far more often than I heard "Burma". And Myanmar is, to boot, the official name. That is what they call themselves and that is what the world recognizes them as. Seriously, what is the debate here about?! Sarvagnya 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I also support. There seems to be little use of Burma, especially when it's in the focus of the English-language media. Even our front page uses Myanmar! --Jedravent (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One could make the argument that press could refer to the country differently than the general populace, especially considering that the military junta actually runs the press. See Reporters Without Borders for their low-ranking press freedom.

I'd say that the name used here should be one that reflects what people think of the country in the particular language. In English, we refer to the political entity to the south of Denmark's land border as "Germany," not "Deutschland." If the government suddenly ordered that everybody in every language should call the entity "Deutschland" instead of their native equivalents, I seriously doubt that anybody would make any effort to abide.

Germany is obviously well engrained in the English language, but this isn't true with other countries, especially ones with little history in Western minds. For example, we don't continue to call Zimbabwe "Rhodesia" because most Westerners probably haven't even heard of its historical name (and because Rhodesia was just the name of the conqueror and not indicative of the country's heritage). "Germany" could be considered the historical name once it demanded everyone to say "Deutschland," but it would be this historical name that everybody would know and say.

"Burma" didn't come from any foreign colonization, it was just an attempt to say "Bama" in an English tongue. They could have chosen the other native name for their country "Myanma," but their choice of "Burma" stuck for decades in the Western mind. Why should we switch over to the old alternative if people aren't familiar with it? If people say Germany, then call it Germany. If people say Burma, call it Burma. If people really call it Myanmar, then call it Myanmar. Personally, I, my friends, and my family think "Burma," (if they are aware of its existence) so I would advocate this usage. BirdValiant (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when do we give a shit what some undemocratically elected military Government tells us to do? It's Burma, period. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Refusing the government would be POV. --Jedravent (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

PPoY - One, despite your bluster, this is not about "giving a shit" to an "undemocratically elected" (whatever that means) govt.,. Secondly, and out of curiosity, which policy or guideline on wikipedia prevents us from "giving a shit" to an "undemocratically elected" government? Thirdly, why dont you first try to impress on the United Nations and the media, among others, not to "give a shit" to the "undemocratically elected" government. Fourthly, since when do we give a shit to empty rhetoric devoid of any semblance of both sources and intelligence? Sarvagnya 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to report fact. Fact says it's Myanmar. I mean Hitler wasn't voted Fuhrer (he was voted Chancellor) of Germany yet that is how history refers to him: as the Fuhrer of Germany, regardless of the fact that he was the most evil c**t ever, it's fact and still POV to do otherwise. Deamon138 (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

All Führer means is 'leader'. It is the English speaking world that has politicised the term. Secondly, I couldn't give a toss what the United Nations has to say about anything. Burma is Burma. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you give a "toss" or a "shit" (or both) to the United Nations or anybody else, we on wikipedia do "give a shit" about what our WP:RS sources call it. And incidentally, WP:RS sources, it has been observed, treat the United Nations with a lot of respect. So would you bring your bluster down a notch and show us some evidence that "Burma" is still "Burma" and not "Myanmar"? Sarvagnya 01:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Also if you check your history you'll see that upon the death of President Hindenburg, Adolf merged the offices of Chancellor and President to create that of Führer. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly yes Fuhrer means leader, but it was Hitler himself who politicized the term, by calling himself "Führer und Reichskanzler." I think Hitler creating this POLITICAL office is what made it political not any English people. Regardless of whether Hitler created the office from two existing offices, it was still UNDEMOCRATIC of him to do so, same as with the Government of the country formerly known as Burma renaming it Myanmar. In English, we refer to Hitler as Germany's Fuhrer despite the fact that its the name he wanted us to call him. See the article on Fuhrer which says, "It is mainly used in English and third languages as the term for Nazi Germany's totalitarian ruler Adolf Hitler." This rule should apply to naming the article Myanmar. Deamon138 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What does Hitler and Yugo have to do with these little Asiatic pseudo-Chinamen in Myanmar? If they choose the name Myanmar then we should call them Myanmar, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.192.210 (talk) 03:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A fact, such as the name of a country, is never subject to opinion. Anyone who says it should be "Burma" or "Myanmar" based on their feelings is not contributing to an encyclopedic article. There is a name for this country, and it is not easily expressed in English, since it is in Burmese and uses a non-arabic script. This name has been translated into English, into what we call a "conventional name", which "Burma" has been since the very beginning. I don't care how it is translated, but to suggest that these same words are now translated into something else seems silly. I am bothered that the main Wiki article says the official name is Myanmar and quotes the BBC as proof, but the BBC does not state Myanmar is the official name; instead, suggests Myanmar is only an alternative. Read the BBC article and you will see. I am removing the word "official" from the Wiki article. Also, this Wiki article links to the CIA Factbook, but fails to mention the U.S. position as stated there, which is that no official legislative body has changed the name from Burma to Myanmar. Instead, the Myanmar name change seems to be a public relations campaign which the U.S. has not recognized as official. I say we stay with "Burma" until "Burma" changes their name officially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.135.99 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Usage in English language media

Media referring to the country as Myanmar

1. Associated Press [1]
2. Reuters [2]
3. CNN [3]
4. MSNBC [4]
5. Fox News [5]
6. NY Times [6]
7. New Zealand Herald [7]
8. Times of India [8]
9. Hindustan Times [9]
10. The Hindu [10]
11. South China Morning Post [11]
12. Straits Times [12]
13. Yahoo US [13]
14. AFP [14]
15. China Daily [15]
16. Jerusalem Post [16]
17. Khaleej Times (UAE) [17]
18. NPR [18] Jpgs (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
19. ABC News (US) [19] Jpgs (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
20. CBS News [20] Jpgs (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
21. PBS News Hour [21] Jpgs (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
22. Wall Street Journal [22] Jpgs (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
23. New York Times [23] (requires subscription) Jpgs (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
24. Los Angeles Times [24] Jpgs (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
25. Chicago Tribune [25] Jpgs (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
26. New York Daily News [26] Jpgs (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
27. New York Post [27] (appears just to follow wire services; may have no policy) Jpgs (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
28. Philadelphia Inquirer [28] Jpgs (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
29. Houston Chronicle [29] Jpgs (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
30. San Francisco Chronicle [30] Jpgs (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
31. Miami Herald [31] Jpgs (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Media referring to the country as Burma

1. BBC [32]
2. The Times (London) [33]
3. CBC [34]
4. Voice of America [35] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angstriddenyouth (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Yahoo New Zealand [36]
6. The Australian [37]
7. The Telegraph [38]
8. CTV.ca [39]
9. Yahoo UK [40] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.28.87 (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Toronto Star [41]
11. Mizzima (English-language website) [42]
12. Democratic Voice Of Burma (English-language website) [43]
13. USA Today [44] Jpgs (talk)
14. Washington Post [45] Jpgs (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2008 (UT#Guardian [46]
15. National Post, Canada [47]
16. Bangkok Post, Thailand [48]
17. ABC, Australia [49]
18. Boston Globe [50] Jpgs (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
19. CBS [51]
20. Asia Observer [52] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
21. RTE, Ireland [53]Angstriddenyouth (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
22. The Scotsman [54]Angstriddenyouth (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
23. The Herald, Glasgow [55]Angstriddenyouth (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ratios

US Newspapers: Of the 10 top papers by circulation[56]: 8 Myanmar, 2 Burma Jpgs (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Google News Hits

(retrieved 6 May 2008. All instances have gone down since then)

Myanmar cyclone: 8,604
Burma cyclone: 8,184

Myanmar: 18,004
Burma: 12,497

• Realizing this is a tragedy... so far we have curious reporting in the media. When I checked Google News this late afternoon, running Myanmar cyclone against Burma cyclone, there were about 1,000 more results for Myanmar than there were for Burma. As I look tonight, results for Burma cyclone got 4,794 while Myanmar cyclone got only 4,670. If I restrict the search to just "Myanmar" or "Burma", however, Myanmar trounces with 13,549 to Burma's 9,116. I wonder what would happen if we restrict the search to media outside of the United Kingdom? -BaronGrackle (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We call the country Burma in New Zealand. Heres a newslink from YahooXtra our main internet news provider. --210.86.28.87 (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

From a (highly unscientific) sampling of sites in various countries, this is what I got:

• Burma: UK, Australia, Canada, Thailand, New Zealand
• Myanmar: US, New Zealand, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, France, China

We use Burma in New Zealand mate. --210.86.28.87 (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well not all of it apparently [57]. Anyway, I was referring media usage rather than common usage. Shameer (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an ex-pat Brit living in New Zealand and have heard people use both Burma and Myanmar, but Myanmar seems to be more prevalent. I'm surprised no-one seems to have commented on how this is a generational thing - older people use the name that was common when they were younger (Burma) but most young people are familiar with Myanmar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.121.58 (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

'Everyone else' - care to prove that? 87.194.217.99 (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FixedShameer (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia overwhelming uses Myanmar. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

ASEAN uses Myanmar. ASEAN comprises of 10 countries, including Myanmar itself. __earth ^(Talk) 05:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Google hits

Burma = about 30,000,000 Myanmar = about 64,800,000

OK not very scientific but also not the answer I expected. It could just be bias by Google because the name change only just predates Google and the general availability of the Internet so electronic references outweight paper format and our memories (which probably pre-date the Internet). Based on this I would suggest that in the next 10 years the counts for Myanmar will even more outweight the counts for Burma and the "Burma" article title will become even more out of date. Like the metric system, and pounds, shilling and pence, are we just showing our age ? or is this a way of showing a political preference, a form of electronic boycott of a regime ?. A mixture of all I would guess.
But we're not here to report our opinion in the article but document reality. We have established certain organisations as reliable sources for many articles and the UN is one of them (e.g. if a reliable source says 'x' is a "terrorist" or a "disaster" then we can happily repeat that whereas if someone unreliable (e.g. any-old-politician or shock-jock) says it we edit that out. Aren't we being a bit biased by using the UN for one purpose that suits us but not accepting what else it says ? How can we judge what to use and what to drop from our reliable sources ? We use undue weight or the idea of neologism. The case for undue weight isn't clear and in fact of all references to Burma and Myanmar now in Google it is 1/3rd for Burma and 2/3rds for Myanmar. On the basis of trusting our reliable sources, on tipping our hat at undue weight it would seem Myanmar has the advantage.
I would suggest we do what the BBC does on its country page, [58] and do the following,
Redirect Burma to Myanmar and just state..."Myanmar, formerly Burma," Ttiotsw (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Union of Myanmar

Haven't looked through all the archived discussion, but haven't seen any thoughts on making the page Union of Myanmar. It would follow the same logic regarding China/People's Republic of China, Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia, to a lesser degree, Congo/Republic of Congo/Democratic Republic of Congo and Georgia/Geogria (country). While this uses the name of the State Peace and Development Council, it is the official name of the country, which is recognized by the United States, Canada, the United Nations, and other governments. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the long form name and would be at odds with standard Wikipedia practice which is to use the short form. The examples you give are all deliberate exceptions because the short forms "China", "Macedonia", "Congo" and "Georgia" are all names claimed by multiple entities and thus very different situations from here. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Move article to Union of Myanmar, rewrite Burma to refer to the civilisation, incorporating the history currently within that article. Add a disambiguation to the top of the Burma article, pointing to the current political entity "Union of Myanmar". Redirect Myanmar to Union of Myanmar. This solution is modelled on how China is currently being handled. --~Cr∞nium 07:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

China is not a good model. The issue with China is that there are two current governments that claim all of China, and each occupy part of its geographic area. As a result, the official name for China is not unique, so trying to use the official name would not decide the question - you'd still have two names, Republic of China and People's Republic of China. The unwieldy solution there is to have three separate articles. Burma is not in the same situation, so there's no need to use an unwieldy solution here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Dew (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Support 87.194.217.99 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• "...it is the official name of the country, which is recognized by the United States, Canada, the United Nations, and other governments" Actually, it isn't recognized, at least by the U.S. Check out the CIA World Factbook link below: the U.S. government's official long-form name for the country is "Union of Burma". The point they're making is that this "Myanmar" government doesn't exist. Lovely, no? I notice that no one has been mad enough to seriously suggest we follow this example in our article. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The World Factbook also makes note that the country is known as the Union of Myanmar as well, albeit as a translation of the local name. And it would seem that this is not that different from the examples I pointed out. Burma in itself can be used to describe the entire historical context of the region, similar to China, Macednoia, and Congo. Specifically in regards to China, the more recognized state is located at it's full name to distinguish it from the historical region, as well as the lesser recognized government in Taiwan. Since most western governments have stated they don't recognize the government ruling under the name "Union of Myanmar," but rather one that uses the name "Burma," it seems very similar in my view to the China situation. The Union of Myanmar is the name of the current government controlling the country, Burma is the historical name of the region, and one would suppose that "Union of Burma" (used by the US State Department), would be the name of the democartic government that is/was involved with Aung San Suu Kyi. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I personally don't have much against this, but check out the most recent archive on Burma's talk page. Simultaneous to our last survey on the name, a proposal identical to yours was completely shot down by both sides. Of course, it may have just been that both sides felt we were "winning".-BaronGrackle (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook

The CIA World Factbook calls it 'Burma'. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit of an oversimplification, but...

sometimes countries change their names. It's true. Persia is now Iran, Mesopotamia is Iraq, Turkey became the Ottoman Empire then back again, likewise with Russia and the Soviet Union, England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland became the United Kingdom, the Holy Roman Empire became Germany, Ivory Coast is now Côte d'Ivoire, Siam is now Thailand, the list goes on and on. I won't even start with the Balkans and Eastern Europe, we'd be here all day.

The article should be named Myanmar. I admittedly know very little of the country and its political climate, and therefore can say with absolute certainty that I am completely neutral here. Arguing that the name should not be changed because you don't like the current administration simply holds no water - we are a neutral encyclopedia, what we think as editors doesn't matter. Yes, Burma is occasionally used colloquially to refer to the state of Myanmar, but so too is America used to refer to the United States, Russia was used to refer to the Soviet Union, Ivory Coast is used to refer to Côte d'Ivoire; again, the list is practically endless. The article needs to be moved to Myanmar.

Before decrying any specific examples I listed, bear in mind that I did say it was an oversimplification. faithless (^speak) 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I realise it is an over-simplification, but I'd just like to point out a number of the examples cited went through not just a change in name/government, but significant changes in terretorial possesions, i.e. Unions of countries, and various countries becoming independent. --210.86.28.87 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion

Name the article Burma (Myanmar). --Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 17:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What difference does the name make ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.161.215.19 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly none to you ANONYMOUS Deamon138 (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No widely accepted name = Myanmar

This has been brought up before by someone else, but I thought I'd mention it again. From our official naming conventions: "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name." Well? Recent media coverage shows that Myanmar solidly beats Burma by the hundreds or thousands. Myanmar is in all the other encyclopedias, even Britannica. In terms of common usage, Burma ONLY wins in historical books. While it can be argued that Burma is used as frequently as Myanmar, there is absolutely no way to claim that Burma is the single, undisputed, widely accepted English name. Since Myanmar is the local official name, then it wins in the case of a draw. Can anyone show that this dispute between Burma and Myanmar is NOT a draw, that Burma is decisively used more? You can't show it through media. You can't show it through Yahoo, Google, or any encyclopedia. You can't show it through "I hear everyone use Burma", since that is original research and is disputed as a fact. So? -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You make a very valid point here Deamon138 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma was a widely accepted name before the junta. Shii (tock) 07:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; it was used before the junta changed it. Our general guidelines address that too. Number 1 says:

• "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." Again, you cannot show that Burma is widely accepted over Myanmar through media, encyclopedias, and so on and so forth. "This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used." If this article were about a country that did not exist, or if it were about former Burma (as per the proposal above), then Burma would be a fine title. "If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects." The bold is added by me. I think the case is very clear here that naming conventions recommend Myanmar. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This article does not deal only with the present. (I'm not sure how important that is) --87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• No article deals ONLY in the present; everything has a history. This article does deal with a country that presently exists. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong vs Incorrect

You people claiming that it's Burma have to realize something. Namely that right v wrong are not the same as correct v incorrect. Correctness is about FACTS which is what Wikipedia is meant to provide. Right/Wrongness is about POV e.g. it's "Murder is wrong" not "murder is incorrect." I think 99.9% of us here agree that an undemocratic system is wrong and therefore that the Myanmar government is wrong. However this is POV and should only belong in some sort of criticism section on the government and the country's name. While their government is wrong, its name change is still a fact and therefore correct. I mean since we're all so totally against this government shouldn't we then deny its existence on Wikipedia and deny that "Burma" has an undemocratic form of government? It would seem we should do that if the Burma-namers here get their way. While we're at it, since the Holocaust was wrong, we should make it incorrect too and delete all references to it anywhere on Wikipedia. Oh and for anyone who claims that Myanmar-name and the Holocaust aren't the same thing, I'm demonstrating the propositions logical fallacy by taking it to its extreme. Tell me if you still disagree that Holocaust/Myanmar aren't the same situation, when exactly does a dictatorial governments actions become extreme enough that we should document what they say rather than ignoring it like you want to? Quantitative answer please! Deamon138 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

An illegal, undemocratic government cannot change the name of the country and have it recognised. That is why the United States and Great Britain, the two most important English speaking countries in the world, do not recognize it. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And let's all remember this is the English Wikipedia, not the Hindu or Chinese Wikipedia. (referring to some Myanmar examples given a few sections above) --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Indians and Chinese use English too. The fact that the US and the UK have English as their native language doesn't given them the ultimate authority in English. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in English, it's not for the English or on their behalf. Why do we accept that the British / US government calls it Burma, but deny that the "Burmese" government calls it Myanmar? Their is a POV issue with what the US and UK call Myanmar, they don't call it Burma for encyclopedic reasons; they are politically motivated to call the country Burma. The BBC and CIA are as questionable sources as they are simply going along with the respective governments. There really shouldn't be a question with this. Encyclopedic sources use Myanmar. Zelphi (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Iran and Persia

This seems to be a bit like the Iran Vs Persia debates of the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's. Iran officially asked the English world to stop calling it Persia and start calling it Iran, but it took until the 1960's before they did so. Encylopedias were also slow to make the switch-over. I'm not going to weigh in (I have an opinion but after reading the comments and responces here I really dont think there is any attempt to get a concensus, so why should I bother) but I'd just like to point out that this has happened before. 74.13.127.100 (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Wikipedia is not out to make a political statement. The name should reflect the popular consensus, that is, the name being used by English-speaking governments. For this reason the CIA World Factbook is an excellent example. Shii (tock) 07:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I see no reason why English speaking government are the only consideration. The name used by other English speakers, native or not is just as important Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yangon

If this city name has been changed on wikipedia from Rangoon to Yangon, even though the BBC and the rest of the English speaking world still refer to this as Rangoon. Even though i think this page should remain as Burma, how can there be double standards here?--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of English language sources refer to it as Yangon, same as Myanmar Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the point though is that the Rangoon/Yangon naming issue is largely the same as the Burma/Myanmar one. We should either have Burma and Rangoon, or Myanmar and Yangon. Having Burma and Yangon is inconsistent. Cynical (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason Yangon was not changed was because there was no overwhelming vote drawn there after the monks were in the news. The swarm of people came to the Myanmar article and, though there was no consensus, their sheer number of votes allowed it to change. Yangon had neither consensus nor a voter swarm. To make the articles consistent, we'd need either consensus or an overwhelming vote to change either article. It's not likely. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the everyday person isn't reliable on this

I've seen lots of arguments for naming the article "Burma" because everyone in the everyday world (e.g. friends and family) know it as Burma and most people have never heard of Myanmar. So what if they've never heard of it? Most people have never heard of a Riemannian manifold yet that exists. Most would be confused that triangles don't have to have 180 degrees. Besides the consensus of the layman is irrelevant when it comes to encyclopaedic topics on politics. Here, what the experts say is what matters. If you still think what "Bob"down the street matters on this issue, then clearly you've never heard of say snopes. As an idea of how wrong Bob can be, look at this example. Most people I've ever known (including myself) have believed that urban myth, but it's not true.

Besides, our job on Wikipedia is not to tell people that an undemocratic system is wrong: if we're good enough, they should be able to work that out themselves by reading a balanced article giving the fors and againsts for the Myanmar regime. We don't go "the regime is wrong," we go "here are the arguments for this regime by some people, and here are the criticisms of this regime by other people." Then it's left up to the reader to decide is opinion on the regime. Simple as.

We should make it clear that the countries name is Myanmar, but also show in the article that the name change was controversial. Deamon138 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just like to point out that the article China is about the People's Republic of China. Just because PRC is the official name doesn't mean the article should use it. The article should use the most widely-accepted name. There are many precedents for this: spelling in the English language is based on how wide acceptance is. Same with scientific facts on Wikipedia (albeit the acceptance in that case is based on people that are scientifically trained). --24.3.21.56 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

People's Republic of China IS the most widely accepted name as is Myanmar n00b. "Just because PRC is the official name doesn't mean the article should use it" Err no that's exactly why it SHOULD use it. Also, China has an authoritarian oft-criticized government yet the UN recognizes it as PR of C, yet it doesn't recognize Taiwan because China doesn't recognize it. That is how Wikipedia should present the facts: that Taiwan is an unrecognized country and Burma is now Myanmar. Criticisms of this belong in the criticism section of each article. I come to Wikipedia and the general internet for information about politics when I want a balanced viewpoint. We get the Daily Mail (right biased newspaper) and my family and some of my friends tend to have opposite political positions to me so this is where I come to see both sides of an argument. Don't ruin Wikipedia!

United Nations member states#Seat of China: "With the understanding of the Governor and the Chairman, I will briefly mention that membership into the UN ultimately needs to be decided by the Member States of the United Nations. Membership is given to a sovereign country. The position of the United Nations is that the People's Republic of China is representing the whole of China as the sole and legitimate representative Government of China. The decision until now about the wish of the people in Taiwan to join the United Nations has been decided on that basis. The resolution (General Assembly Resolution 2758) that you just mentioned is clearly mentioning that the Government of China is the sole and legitimate Government and the position of the United Nations is that Taiwan is part of China." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamon138 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Riemannian manifold thing, most people don't refer to it as that because they don't refer to it at all. However, lots of people do refer to Burma/Myanmar, and if the majority refer to it as Burma (which, incidentally, it seems they don't), then that defines what the English word for it is: we, as with dictionaries, are just here to record what people call it, not to decide. --87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason for the renaming?

Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but when scanning the article and this discussion I didn't find an answer:

Why did the junta decide to change the name from Burma to Myanmar? Is there a particular rationale behind this?

From what I gather there is precious little difference in ethnological or ideological meaning behind it, so... what gives? --Syzygy (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question! Possibly an attempt to distance themselves from Colonial Oppression? --87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The name change is briefly mentioned in the Etmology and origins section, and then discussed further in Names of Burma. To put it shortly, both Burma and Myanmar have the same origin, but through the different tones of the word, a practice common in East Asian languages, the words have become distinct. The name change happened because the government wanted to abandon the colonial spelling of the country and adopt a more Burmese spelling of the country, similar to what India has done with its cities (Calcutta/Kolkata, Bombay/Mumbai, etc.) Kaiser matias (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone summarize the sides in the naming dispute?

I was surprised to find that the article title was Burma and not Myanmar. I thought the nation had officially changed its name, but what do I know. There's a lot of discussion on this page. Can someone summarize the reasons for/against renaming the article to Myanmar? Morecromulent (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For Burma

• More people recognize the name Burma than Myanmar.
• Burma is the country's historical name.
• The country's government that changed the name was not elected and is not legitimate.
• Major English-speaking governments, including the United States and United Kingdom, officially recognize Burma over Myanmar.
• Historical books and scholarly articles use Burma overwhelmingly.
• Many English media sources use Burma.
• Both the people of Burma and their language are known as Burmese, despite any name change.
• Most international aid and Human Rights organizations use Burma [59] [60] [61] [62]

For Myanmar

• Just as many people recognize Myanmar as Burma.
• Myanmar is the country's current name.
• Myanmar is the name used by the United Nations.
• English-speaking nations that choose to not use Myanmar do so for political reasons, not for reasons of identification.
• Online encyclopedias and other resources use Myanmar overwhelmingly.
• A large majority of English media sources use Myanmar.
• There are other examples in which the name of a people is different than the name of their country (e.g. Dutch, British, in some cases Persian).
• The article was previously called Myanmar but was changed without consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BaronGrackle (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 May, 2008 (UTC)

Some people are opposed because most English-speaking governments (US, UK, Canada, Australia) don't recognized the name change as it was done by what they consider an illegal revolution. They officialy know the country as Burma, and therefore so should Wikipedia. Others feel that since the official name of the country is indeed Myanmar, which is recognized by other nations and organizations (Russia, China, UN), and Wikipedia has no place to decide if ruling governments are legal or not and have the ability to change the name of the country. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

- Both "More" and "Just as many" can't be true in the description of how many recognize each name. YAC (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct; the answer lies in disagreement. I would say that just as many recognize Myanmar; but, I wanted to be fair to the Burma position. This is one of the primary disagreements in the article naming discussion. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold off, then rename

So, according to the official naming conventions above, the lack of consensus here means we should simply use Myanmar. If you have a disagreement with that we would need to take this debate one level up, to the policy itself. Unfortunately changing the name right now would probably cause an edit war in the cyclone article, as it did last fall. The constitutional referendum is also this Saturday. How about we hold off until next week and then change the name across all Burma-related articles? Shii (tock) 22:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Suddenly changing the name of all "Burma" articles would certainly get you a warning and possibly get you banned. :-) Despite my whining, those of us pro-Myanmar folk failed to act appropriately when the article was changed without consensus (I personally thought it was meant to be an actual majority-rule vote; I learned differently later), so now the weight is on pro-Myanmar to gain consensus before the name is changed. If a constitutional referendum is coming up this Saturday, though, then perhaps the country will be in the media even more... showing off how frequently it is called Myanmar. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Or Burma, by the BBC. Shii (tock) 22:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Civilization vs. Regime

Why not include the history, civilization, and cultural information under Burma, but references to the current government under Myanmar, and have both articles? This is how China is treated, and this is essentially how Gaul (a historical term) is treated (Gaul does not redirect to France), how the Holy Roman Empire is treated (it does not redirect to Germany). The Soviet Union does not redirect to Russia; the Third Reich does not redirect to Germany; Francia does not even redirect to France. (East Francia is not even the same article as Austrasia, even though the two have been used synonymously!) There seems to be every reason to split the article in two, separating the historical from the modern government. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)