Talk:Myanmar

Mispronunciations? IPA? Why not "myan-MAR"?

Is it a good idea to list incorrect pronunciations at the end of the first section? Compounding the problem, I know that Wikipedia house style is to assume that everyone can read IPA, but that isn't true. Less than 2% of all native English speakers can read the IPA.

The BBC article cited as the source of the correct pronunciation uses "myan-MAR" to explain the pronunciation. Wouldn't this article be a whole lot better with that instead of the wrong IPA transcriptions, which so few understand anyway? 75.36.154.125 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The German version has the IPA pronunciation /pjìdàunzṵ mjəmà nàinŋàn/. I think Template:Pronounced or Template:IPA might work. Although, like most people, I have no idea how to read IPA. 130.39.188.56 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be sure to note I am not an expert in pronunciation or linguistics. I think it is misleading to put the mispronounced IPA transcriptions of Myanmar. I am not saying BBC's presentation was a bad idea. I'm just not sure if that would be applicable in an encyclopedia article or not. Thoughts, anyone, or am I just talking to myself on a dead discussion? (LOL) 98.202.38.225 (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Arms Trade With North Korea

NY Times 22 June 2009 has an article about a U.S. naval destroyer shadowing a North Korean freighter bound for Myanmar. Should this or how might this be folded into the section on Myanmar's foreign policy/military including mention of an arms embargo within the first paragraph?

Note: my original post of this discussion point included this link encased in http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/world/asia/22korea.html?partner=rss&emc=rss but does not show up (perhaps my naivete on wiki editing)

QueueNut (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

External "government" link

The external link under "government" [1] in fact leads to a commercial site with no government information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.186.229 (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Myanmar

Why do people keep calling Myanmar 'Burma' - it's not called Burma any more - it's Myanmar, and people aren't going to start calling it by its proper name if major reference points such as Wikipedia still wallow in old-fashioned names, and don't accept that it is not called Burma. If the page name is not changed, I will change it continually until you accept that calling it 'Burma' is simply incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDBalgores (talk • contribs) 09:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Threat of change probably isn't a good idea around wiki. If you read all the discussions on the talk pages you will be enlightened as to why the article is named Burma, and is "protected" as such. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A few years back there was a wave of "de-colonizing names"; stopping using the colonial names for several cities and countries, i.e. "Bombay" is actually "Mumbai". And this is well and good. The problem was that "Myanmar" is actually a name imposed on "Burma" by the military junta that seized power there after World War II. For some years, many people assumed that the shift to "Myanmar" was another anti-colonial name; it isn't. It's like calling Poland "Greater Germany", or like George Orwell's 1984, calling Britain "Oceania". Gradually more people started to realize this. (Live for nothing or die for something). --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Or called Upper Volta "Burkina Faso", a name imposed by the forces who seized power there. That one doesn't get disputed much. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

JDBalgores; you are completely and undeniably 100% correct. People at Wikipeda (and the west in general) like to impose their point of view on articles no matter what rules are in place to oppose such POV. Burma is POV, in that it is NOT THE OFFICIAL NAME, and any claim otherwise is down right fraud. I learned long ago to just ignore such flagrant POV as lemmings can not be turned away from the cliff of ignorance. Lostinlodos (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What balderdash. You need to go back and read the long and drawn out discussions on the subject before making such statements. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

While you verify those long drawn out discussions, please note that I was involved in them, at the time in a more civil manner. I gave up long ago, As I've said before, Official isn't always fair, but fairness is relative, relativity is POV, and POV is not allowed. Myanmar is official, Burma no longer exists. Those are the facts, without any other POV attached. I'll bow out again with that....Lostinlodos (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your handle sounded familiar but as you said, at the time you expressed your views in a more civil manner. POV is relative as many regard your facts as POV also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The point I was trying to drive in is that the name is POV, no matter which way you chose to go for the article. Burma is the jump-on-the-Western-Bandwagon name, Myanmar the name chosen by the Controlling government, Union Of Myanmar the name accepted and registered with the United Nations. All three work; and all three are point of view. I still believe the disputed tag regarding the name should ALSO be a mandatory part of the opening of the article, but I got shot down on that as well. Lostinlodos (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well officially Japan is Nippon-koku but you don't see a lot of that pronunciation. But hey I suggested Burma(Myanmar) but that didn't fly well so we moved on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not calling Zimbabwe as Rhodesia anymore. *shrugs* I guess it's still less ridiculous than Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I just recently found this article title and I am baffled as to how anyone would keep the name Burma. It is the common name (if we use google hits - 44,900,000 to 4,440,000 - Myanmar gets 10 times as many hits), it is the preferred name of the country, and it is the official name. The reality is that the name is Myanmar and has been for over 20 years. More importantly, it is POV to keep it Burma. I wonder if we should call the United States, British Colonies still. Does this military junta have some particularly bad government that makes us not want to recognize a name that has been used for more than a generation? Do we refuse to acknowledge the government of all countries taken by force? Naming policy, all of it, directs that the name be Myanmar. It is strange how these little pockets of stupidity continue to putz along on Wikipedia. Under what circumstances will we finally acknowledge the current name is Myanmar? Do they have to be in power for 50 years? How about 100 years? What is the criteria that the preferred name and the common name of this country be acknowledged?--^StormRider 23:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess you haven't read all the arguments on both sides of the issue on all the discussion pages, archives, etc. There you will find all you need to understand the situation. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, did that first. There are no viable arguments to have an article named Burma instead of Myanmar. To use Burma is blatantly POV and is ignorant of this country's history.

Just because a group of editors get together and say "this is the way it should be" does not make it correct or proper. It means that a group of editors chose a specific name for an article at a point in time. One of the great weaknesses of Wikipedia is the fact that anyone can vote, which includes the ignorant of history, those devoid of an understanding of Wikipedia policy, and those with an axe to grind. Most importantly, ignorance does not breed knowledgeable decisions.

It is true that Wikipedia is attempting to raise the bar on some editing, but that does not mean it will ever get to the point where these short episodes of poor decision making are rightly and properly prevented.

This name will exist until a more knowledgeable group of editors comes along and is able to either instruct the ignorant or overwhelm them in sheer numbers. Although the last would be nice, it is seldom the case. I am not saying we don't have exceptionally bright editors, I am saying that we cannot control those who are devoid of expertise from voting. Given that they vote we will continue to have these types of silly decisions. --^StormRider 02:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read all the backlog of arguments and still don't understand the controversy then there's not much I can say that will help. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Though one can read the arguments of those who support Burma, one can still understand that there is no legitimate argument to use the name. It comes down to the logic used to support Burma; in my opinion, it is full of holes. I also realize that at the moment my opinion or anyone else's that understands the importance of using the current name of Myanmar is not worth a plug nickel. This is just a weakness of Wikipedia where stupidity rules the day. The title will change back to the original title and it will change for the right reasons, but it will take time. In the meantime, we are forced to deal with it. --^StormRider 05:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And it's terms like "stupidity" that never further an argument, hurt wikipedia and shows disrespect to people who have differing opinions and have worked hard on an article. In time it may change to Myanmar, or in time a legitimate gov't could take hold and make it something else that Wikipedai can haggle over. We have but to wait and see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now we arrive at the crux of the matter. We do not, and never should, place Wikipedia in the position of determining a "legitimate" government. If it has existed over 20 years then it is stable and it is the de facto government. It is error to think we are capable of saying what is and what is not legitimate. In fact, that is the content of the article; it has nothing to do with the reality of the name of the country. More importantly, it is overwhelmingly POV to enter into the debate. Wikipedia does not make judgments. We report facts and the evidence from reliable sources is overwhelmingly clear that the name of this country is Myanmar. There is no moral torch to carry; that is the stuff of personal blogs.

The reason I use such strong language is because this is so obvious it boggles the mind. There is not legitimate argument. There is moral superiority, there is "I just don't like it", there is ignorance, and there is just plain stupidity, but there is no legitimate argument for this article to be named anything but Myanmar.

Disrespect is not a given; it is earned and it is assuredly lost when the actions of editors is so blatantly wrong. This is just a sad display of bone-headed decision making. It is not unusual; we all do it at some point, but to not admit it; that is when it moves into the realm of true stupidity. Cheers and may we both never repeat this caliber of decision-making on any other article. --^StormRider 06:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Obvious is in the eye of the beholder. But heck you say "Cheers" and I think we'd probably find a way to be on opposite ends of the Kristie Alley or Shelley Long debate too. And don't get me started on Bond :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Storm, as long as we're all discussing "real" names, may I throw in that on MANY and the MAJORITY of documents submitted internationally (eg to the UN, World Cort, Tribunals of WWI and WWII, ...), the US is actually The Democratic Republic Of The United States of America?!? We don't see that one much outside of reading poorly scanned PDFs of official documents, do we? Any name of ANY country is POV. I stand firm that the UN name (Myanmar) is the one that should be used for an article here, but I've been overruled. The thing with POV is that majority rules. We're never going to get past that. Lostinlodos (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I'm going to be a broken record here again and point out that the page is not held here by a majority of editors. The most recent discussion (January 2008) ended with a dead equal number of editors on both sides. But, the page was already stuck here from the October 2007 move request (a response to the atrocities against Burmese monks at the time), which brought the page from Myanmar to Burma by an inflated majority vote. The mediation Cabal failed by giving us no answer and keeping it at the status quo. The attempt at structured mediation was shot down by a handful of editors. This page has ALWAYS had disagreement on what the nation should be called, but it escalated after the move to Burma. Look at this page's archives. #3 is the October 2007 move. After that, five archive pages were dominated by the argument until it was spat to the Talk:Burma/Myanmar subpage, which has four archives of its own. The naming issue has resolved like a knee gash, healed with a rock still inside it. :) -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) Lost, I appreciate your comments, but they do not apply to this situation. It is overwhelming that this nation is known first and foremost as Myanmar. The only reason to call it Burma is based on a POV, a POV that is outside of the purview of Wikipedia. We must hold the strictest standard of neutrality and unfortunately, in this instance some editors have allowed their heart, their sense of morality, whatever you want to call it, from just acknowledging reality...the nation is Myanmar.

Baron, it is very unfortunate that we are in the present situation. But, Wikipedia seems to always come to its senses and allow proper decisions to be made. I think the current situation exists because the very nature of Wikipedia allows all to participate. Votes take place with no control of who is voting and a determination of their grasp of policies, history, etc. In those grand old words (cleaned up for public consumption) crap happens. Also and maybe more importantly, our naming policy is so loose that this type of thing takes place. Self-identified names should and must take precedence so that personal opinion and emotion are strongly limited if not eliminated from the process.

I have added this page to my watch list and will look forward to the next vote. We can only do what we can do and ignore the rest. --^StormRider 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

While I feel averse to the tedium that is trying to review this naming decision, it strikes me that none of the above defence of "Burma" relates to the notion that it is the more widespread in the English language, as did the overwhelming majority of its defenders in the last big debate. Instead it comes down to a defence of the status quo. Does this perhaps reflect a change in this attitude. It seems reasonable to anticipate that politically motivated nomenclature can only sustain itself in popular vernacular for so long.

Another way to look at it: which title for the article would attract the most criticism? Can we expect the same kind of perennial protests of "the junta isn't legitimate" as "the name isn't official"? I think the former is far easier to deflect on the grounds of POV. The decision, first and foremost, that we are currently with does not hold either of these arguments in its fundamental reasoning. If these are the arguments that come up most in the talk pages, maybe it is short-sighted not to go with the one most compatible with Wikipedia policy. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the naming continues to be funky with this country. I mean as it stands now this is an English wiki and US and UK policy is the country is named Burma; I forget Canada and Australia's policy. The illegitimate gov't says the name is Myanmar and many (if not most) english news agencies have picked up on that... trying to be the shiniest penny with that info I guess. The gov't in exile calls itself Burma. Of course Japan calls itself Nippon but no one else does. The people of the country in question don't call it Myanmar unless they trade with foreigners and need to have a point a reference. Otherwise its Bama for the populous. It's a bit of a stew for sure. It's like using improper English... pretty soon everyone but textbooks use that improper English. Then newsprint picks of the bad grammar etc... and finally it becomes proper English even in textbooks. The same type of thing is happening with this issue as we write. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fighting and refugees

• "'Thousands Flee Burma Violence'". BBC News. 26 August 2009. Retrieved 28 August 2009.
• Fuller, Thomas (28 August 2009). "Refugees Flee to China as Fighting Breaks Out in Myanmar". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 August 2009.

Apparently some of the biggest fighting (between ethnic groups and government troops) in 20 years has broken out, and as many as 10,000 (some claim as high as 30,000) people have fled to Yunnan. This seems like a big enough event to deserve a mention in the article—would it be appropriate in the recent history section, or is there a sub-article somewhere that would work?

I think it would also qualify for ITN once the article is updated. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph. Also, I should note that this seems to be big news in China; there's a lot of web coverage on Xinhua, etc., and on zh-wiki it even has its own article (zh:果敢八八事件, "Kokang 8/8 Incident") and the article on Kokang County is tagged with {{current event}}. The zh-wiki article also has some earlier and non-western sources such as [2] [3] (the rest, for the most part, are in Chinese). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)