Jump to content

Talk:Myanmar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.189.114.163 (talk) at 03:47, 12 August 2012 (→‎Requested move (Burma → Myanmar) August 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Former featured article candidateMyanmar is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 16, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 24, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate


Page transfer

The official name is Myanmar, and not Burma. Therefore, there is no reason why the country be referred to everywhere as Burma and not Myanmar (just because a few countries have refused to use the new name)

Proposing a shift of the article from Burma to Myanmar and replacing Burma by Myanmar as the actual name, wherever appropriate, and necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.96.9 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see "all the above" + all the archives. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the government of Myanmar really made efforts to make reforms and in near future sanctions will be lifted, there is no longer any reason not to move the page to "Myanmar". 49.145.113.96 (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is at Burma because the consensus was that Burma is the English language common name of that country. Politics has nothing to do with naming. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Myanmar is the English language common name of the country. Except for a few countries (including US and UK), the country is known as Myanmar, and not Burma. Hence I support the change in naming convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOriginalSoni (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
‘A few countries’. Haha, you mean almost all English-speaking countries, including Britain itself, consider the English name to be ‘Burma’, as it always has been. It’s irrelevant what some fascists in Rangoon think about how we should speak our own language. — Chameleon 14:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly soapboxing. Its irrelevant what some guys in Britain think what the country should be called. The name has been Myanmar since 1989, but somehow Wikipedia seems to think its better to call it Burma just because the country was ruled by a military government, and the US calls the country by its former name. The name is Myanmar, and it has been so in all countries except US, UK and Canada TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the country is still Burma for many sources that use the English language and this is the English language wiki which means its the common and right name to use. And its not just British, Canadians and American people that use it. I heard an inspiration woman use the name Burma in a speech just a couple of days ago which was on the tv. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (June 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Procedural close – The original nominator needs to provide a reason for such a proposal, and not just merely slap on the {{requested move}} tag.[1] This is because the title of this article has been heavily disputed, and has been the subject of numerous mediation cases and Request for Comment discussions. More importantly, as a result of these disputes, further discussions of the title need to be kept at Talk:Burma/Myanmar, not here. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated}}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

pronunciation

Although in the US perhaps the "r"s in Burma and Myanmar are pronounced, the "r"s are actually only a lengthening mark, from a transcription system based on British, non-rhotic, English. So the British English pronunciation are [bɜːmɘ] (perhaps [bɜːmɑ] and [mjɑnmɑː]), which approximate the native pronunciation of [mjəmà] and [bəmà] (which shows that natively, only the initial consonant differs). In American English, we may expect a pronunciation of [bɝma] and [mjænmɑɹ]. The "pronunciation" (double quotes since it has // instead of []) given though, is /bɜrmə/ and /mjɑːnmɑr/ which I think is misleading, and not at all what the sound clips (apparently by a British person, even though the filename has "us" in it) sound like. I therefor changed the IPA to something reflecting the sound clips. I also have some doubts to the stressed final syllable of Myanmar, but I'll leave that to someone else. Jalwikip (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That obviously makes sense, but there are too many Americans on Wikipedia for us to do sensible things like that. Even placenames in England have the silent r rudely inserted into the transcription. — Chameleon 14:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Undo" blatant, uncited propaganda

I undid the extensive edits "documenting" things like "the CIA operative Dali Lama." While I'm no expert on Burmese history, the items added had no citation. Wikipedia is not a place for "original research," and certainly not for things that don't even pass the laff test. Why not document the Dali Lama of being a "Killer Klown," sent on an advance mission to taste-test Muslims?Weyandt (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

What is the best title for this article? It has already been listed in WP:RM, but due to the potential controversy, it is desirable to gather as many participants as possible to the discussion, to try to get a definitive resolution. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The requested move discussion is in the next section below.

Comment - I believe this is a unfair request for comment, simply directing people to a requested move below which has one sides opinion stated at the top giving it priority and preference. Why no discussion or presentation of both sides positions clearly for people to see? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is simply to bring greater attention to this requested-move survey, by putting notifications at various Asian WikiProjects, at Village pump (miscellaneous), through the RfC mechanism, and so forth. For particularly notable and controversial requested moves, we should aim for much larger and more diverse participation in the discussion. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A RFC is reasonable, my concern is the timing, with many of the points made by those who oppose change not yet being made because this RM is brand new, which means this is rather one sided points being made below so far. Rather than presenting people with the key points from both sides in a fair way. We have had no time to mention the CIA world factbook or US state department or many many others. its entirely one sided. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, it is a standard requested-move survey, according to the prescribed format, per WP:RM. The initial proposal, naturally, is made by the side that wishes a change from the existing title. However, the discussion lasts at least one week, so there is plenty of time for everyone to have a say, and to marshal evidence and arguments. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice that I avoided using government publications with the grudging exception of Voice of America. The press is a much better mirror of common use. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is this request for comment which at present is bias because it is asking people to give comments and opinions on something below which only has one sides viewpoint, without giving people any time or chance to challenge some of the points or to provide additional sources. Its one sided because people have had no time to make the case yet this happening so quickly out of the blue with no prior discussion or warning to it being staged. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the way debate works. You have the advantage of the status quo and you are free to address my point of view. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to address some of the points in the morning and im sure others will be over the coming days too. the trouble is this has suddenly sprung up without any prior discussion that a new RM would be taking place. So a RFC directing people to what is one sided sourcing selections below clearly can result in people not getting the full picture. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (Burma → Myanmar) August 2012

Burma → Myanmar – Myanmar is the preferred title as shown by Google Trends, Google Insights, Britannica, World Almanac, Google Maps, U.S. Geological Study, NOAA, Bing Maps, MapQuest, Nokia Maps, OpenStreetMap, Yahoo Maps, Lonely Planet, TripAdvisor, Wunderground, AccuWeather and the London Olympics. I'd put money on it that Apple's iOS 6 Map beta also uses Myanmar.

Weather.com uses Burma. I visited all these mapping Websites and this was the only still using Burma. Clearly Burma is not favored in the mapping industry.

These are reputable news organizations that use Myanmar: CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post via AP, Reuters, New York Times, NPR and Business Week. Organizations that don't: ABC News (Australia), Voice of America (Note this is a U.S. government publication),Sydney Morning Herald. These lists will be added to later. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Burma press usage includes: Time magazine, Toronto Star, The Irrawaddy], The Guardian, Radio Australia, The Telegraph, BBC, Washington Post, USA Today, Mizzima news, Arab English Times, Global Post International (uses both), Huffington Post, Democratic Voice of Burma, The News International, even the good old Western Farm Press. Heck their political leader Aung Sang Suu Kyi calls it Burma. So that doesn't really get us anywhere and it's why we should be waiting till/if more organizations change their tune. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here are some English speaking governments using it.. CIA world Factbook, US State department, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, New Zealand Foreign Affairs and Trade(note NZ Government actually returned to using Burma in 2010, so its not like the traffic is just all one way in recent years)BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is much point in making these lists. In the English speaking world, British and Australian media use Burma while US and most other countries (Singapore, India but not - oddly - Thailand) use Myanmar. Journal articles use either (jstor is divided on recent titles). Clearly, either is a candidate for common name with Myanmar having a slight edge because it is increasingly in use and because US media is dominant. Though, on the other hand, Burmese is clearly more common than Myanmar (for the people) and so the naturalness of going from Burmese to Burma over Burmese to Myanmar should be a consideration. The question is more what are we going to do about it. What does policy say when you have two good candidate names, one of which is "official" and gaining, the other is historical and declining. --regentspark (comment) 01:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What should be added is that Myanmar probably has the edge in the US and some other English speaking countries, but is almost never used in others, such as the UK. Although we have no specific policy that says so (although maybe we do), the need not to completely alienate a large part of the English speaking world outweighs our need to reflect majority usage in the US. Formerip (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I was hoping that perhaps later next year when the new gov't has been operating for awhile and we were a little further distant from the last huge debate, plus with possible policy changes at UK, AU, US and Canada... that time span might be just enough to sway towards Myanmar. This just seems like it'll be the same thing over again and waste my time informing all the others about it. I'm not sure the headache has left from last time or even from the recent Taiwan move. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Moly...Didn't we just go through this huge ordeal? I hate to have to inform all the last participants once again. My typing fingers still haven't recovered. I think this request should be tabled. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Burma is the commonname of this state and almost every country is at its commonname rather than full / official name. I also believe this should be speedy closed due to a debate happening on the renaming not that long ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There goes our summer holidays then. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Admins can do quick closures for rm's when we just had one huge one. Probably under disruptions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you need evidence of the power the ability of consensus to change see Talk:St. Louis#Requested move. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow...13 people voted there. But of course consensus can change. Look at all the foreign diacritic words now in usage as more and more non-English editors join this English wikipedia. But we just had a huge discussion on Burma with no consensus... and to do it again so soon seems like a waste of editor's times. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Follow the usage of reliable sources. Also, the Trends and Insights data suggest that this authoritative usage has become the most common name, and is only becoming more so. I remember during the last RM, some user said that they would only reconsider their opposition to "Myanmar" if the government becomes a liberal democracy. (This political reasoning appears to lurk behind users' assertions against the evidence that "Myanmar" is the "common name".) However, the politicking about the name by Western governments is rapidly changing in response to the 2011–2012 Burmese political reforms (e.g., Australia[2]). Shrigley (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So one foreign minister uses the term and suddenly its rapidly changing situation. I see they have not changed what they put on their website [3] BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually came here looking to "Burma-ize" some of the articles that still had Myanmar names. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did no one notice the warning at the top of the edit page: Please note Discussions of the current title should be kept at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 22:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves go on the talk page of the main article that is getting moved. This article has more watchers too. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A notification was placed at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. In any case, that page is probably not on a lot of watchlists, because Burma/Myanmar itself is just a redirect to Burma. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent. Myanmar is now a well used term. Far more than it was last year at the time of the previous move request. But, Burma is also well used. Particularly in academic departments and in British, Australian, and Thai media. Which is the "common name" is probably a toss up. --regentspark (comment) 23:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per everything I've written in past discussions on this. Myanmar is at least as common as Burma if not more so. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on Trends and Insight data. High time to move it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is a shame that we would seek to appease a regime by renaming this article to comply with their demands. Of course if they are successful in their attempts to bully people into not using the name i guess it will no longer be the "commonname" and will have to be changed, but at present they have been unsuccessful. If in the future the situation changes, then so be it. but there are plenty of sources such as the BBC and Guardian for quick examples which use it. Will link more sources in the morning. it is a great shame this new RM has been opened, and it is most unfortunate we have a biased Request for comment which benefits those seeking change, as at present only one side of the argument has been put and its at the very top. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Country names change all the time and often the regimes are less than perfect. Opinions on the regime are POV and should be irrelevant to the decision. Without looking can you say if perfect regimes came up with the following names: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ghana, Malawi, Mali or Zimbabwe? And that's just a selection of African countries. As for the BBC their usage is more mixed - during the Olympic opening ceremony Myanmar turned up under that name and the commentators stated it's formerly Burma in the same way as they did with several other countries whose names have changed without this sort of dispute, rather than a more nuanced explanation such as with "Chinese Taipai" aka Taiwan. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like i said if the regime was successful then it would become the commonname, but that has yet to happen with numerous sources still using Burma making it the commonname in the English language. The BBC always use burma, but the official name is what takes part in the olympics which is why it is used for that.Their country profile article and most news articles say Burma. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and move to close. I think there was a consensus that this should be revisited no more than annually. In any event, nothing has changed since last week or whenever it was. Formerip (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am here in response to the request posted at WT:IN for the Indian point of view on this issue. The Indian media (Times of India, Hindustan Times, Zee News, Economic Times), textbooks used in Indian schools and the Indian government (as already mentioned in the article) all use Myanmar rather than Burma. Since common name is determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, the prevalence of Myanmar in Indian sources should be factored into the final consensus. Regards. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet she, her opposition, and many media organisations still use Burma. Yet as the source linked above showed they are threatened not to use the term.BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is your second sentence relevant to existing policy? Our attitudes to the government and opposition of the country or their methods should not be factors in this discussion at all. Per 76.189.114.163 below (although more politely) it is dispiriting to so much of this discussion apparently dominated by political posturing. Ben MacDui 15:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I guess the problem came with British not able to pronounce names in their native tongue, making Bharath as India. but as we know ' India ' is the well known name for the country , I support because having a single article including both the names in them will give clear representation of facts rather than having two different articles for same country, closing is not a solution as it will again delete data out. A merger is best solution. but a single persons or parties statement should not be a deciding factor as with time everything fadesShrikanthv (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? Merger? There aren't two articles and there is no merger required. Did you post in the wrong place? And both names are mentioned right up front and in the names section. But throughout an article only one name can be continuously used. It's looking more and more like nothing is being done about this ridiculous waste of time rm. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly states the Myanmar is the official name, but explains that many use Burma still making it the commonname because the military dictatorships change is not recognised or endorsed by many. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I dislike having Wikipedia used as a political pawn. The name of the country is Myanmar; I see no valid argument other than a political statement about the current governing regime, which has been there for decades. -11:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Suu Kyi, who as of July 3 was still showing grit in the face of the regime's continued thuggery on this issue: "The State Law and Order Restoration Council...didn’t bother to consider what the public opinion about the new name was. They didn’t show any respect to the people.”[4]. Usage in the U.S. is evenly split, according to Insights. I note that the bug above specifies that the article be written in British English. British usage is overwhelmingly "Burma", as you can see here. GBooks is well over 2-1 Burma, according to this ngram. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends the World Factbook for "country names," and this source gives "Burma." Kauffner (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It leaves a rather sour taste in the mouth that wikipedia would capitulate by appeasing a regime that is using clear threats and intimidation to try and prevent the use of the common english language name Burma. This article has been at this location for years and if it is changed will have massive implications for use of the name throughout wikipedia. Im not entirely sure this out of the blue RM to last just 7 days is a reasonable way of determining something with serious implications for 100s of other articles and usage in articles, not to mention the success for a regime intent on wiping out a name they dislike. Despite clearly failing to accomplish their aims as the opposition still call it Burma along with so many media sources and some of the main english speaking governments. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason it has been at this location for a few years is a highly contentious RM that took place before there was a proper review process. Just about everything since then has ended in "no consensus" which just builds on the mess. And political opinions about the regime should be irrelevant to determining the best location for the article - the fact that so many of the Oppose !votes raise political matters is telling. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We must go by what is the commonname, i believe Burma is still the common English language name despite attempts by a regime to prevent that being the case. Whilst the decision should be based on policy such as going with the commonname rather than the official name, it is impossible to ignore the political dimension to this considering just over a month ago people were being threatened by the regime for using the name Burma. No matter what peoples motives and reasonable positions, there can be no doubt that a name change favours the regime and goes against the opposition and people. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Timrollpickering is right. "Per Suu Kyi" is not a valid argument. This is not a political forum. Please restrain yourself from ascribing political motives or intentions to fellow editors. That is very unproductive because it detracts from the real encyclopedic issues which we must discuss here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly correct, but let's not be naive. What's being discussed is essentially a political question about whether the junta has the right to rename the country. That's true for both sides. Even once everyone has been persuaded to wear a Google n-gram fig-leaf, we will still only be engaged in an exercise of counting fig-leaves. Formerip (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Both names are equally common (give or take a source or three). The question boils down to what the consensus political belief or personal preference is. No point in pretending otherwise and generating long lists of who uses what name. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically said we must go by policies and follow things like Commonname, something i believe is still Burma. I was not trying to claim anyone had bad motives, its why i said no matter what motives and reasonable positions people have. My point simply was its impossible not to recognise this is a very politically sensitive issue and if the name of the article is changed, it favours the regime over the people and opposition who are threatened by that regime to not use the name burma but still do. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clearly still known as Burma to most except for the totalitarian regime in charge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose news orgs seemed split, but most countries (especially western, English-speaking ones) use Burma. So let's keep it here. Hot Stop 19:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Most of our wikipedia users have heard of Burma but not Myanmar. Burma has wider coverage in books than Myanmar.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Heavens no. If we don't go along with the Ivory Coast government's request to use Côte d'Ivoire, we certainly shouldn't take directions from the Burmese junta. A reading of Names of Burma provides plenty of sources that use either form, so I don't buy an argument based on a list of the sources that use Myanmar. While I agree that discussing the political motives of editors is quite counterproductive here, I would argue that it is impossible to separate politics from this issue: the use of Burma or Myanmar is a political statement, and inasmuch as we must make such a choice, it's a clear one to me. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With mixed media usage it is difficult to justify a change to the status quo. It's worth noting that this dispute relates specifically to the English name of the country: the native language's name for the country does not appear to be in dispute. Thus, the usage of English-speaking governments is relevant, although of course it should be just one of many considerations. —WFC— 22:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Marcus Qwertyus's comment here: The result of the proposal was This has been withdrawn. Clearly this topic is too political to discuss in any meaningful way. Thanks to all those who didn't let personal convictions get in the way of improving Wikipedia. You know who you are. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I have reopened the discussion to allow it to continue. Political preferences of Wikipedia's editors should not be allowed to undermine encyclopedic integrity. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 02:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]
You've missed the point, political preferences are the only way to choose between the two titles.
  • Oppose (strongly), as per common name. Myanma is the official name since 1948, but in English we always used Burma, even after 1989 (when "R" was adde to the name). On Italian wiki has recently been decided to use the Italian exonym "Birmania" as per WP:commonname and to avoid any political position using a name which a dictatorship tried to impose abroad. --Theirrulez (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am completely neutral on this issue and only want to see the title be whatever is encylopedically correct, with no bias and no political considerations. How or why the country's name was changed from Myanmar, or who changed it, should absolutely not be a factor in this debate. Also, the literal definitions of the two names should not be considered at all; whether they are precisely the same or not should never be a factor in this discussion. The only thing that matters is: What is the current name of this country? Whenever I see disputes about article titles I always like to do both a Google search and a Google News search - particularly with subjects that are in the news alot - so I can see how many results there are for each option. The Google News search is always the most telling. Here's what I found. Google search: Myanmar 319,000,000 and Burma 111,000,000. Google News search: Myanmar 194,000 and Burma 37,100. Clearly, this has been a very contentious issue here, and in the world, for a very long time. Has everyone read Names of Burma? By the way, I noticed that the title at the top of the infobox there is "Burma (Myanmar)". But the reverse is shown in Flag of Burma, which uses "Myanmar (Burma)" in the infobox. So is a compromise possible? Would anyone be satisfied if this article's title were changed to "Myanmar (Burma)" or "Burma (Myanmar)"? Keep in mind, though, if this article's title is changed, then it will also have to be changed in all of the many other Burma articles. If I were allowed to choose any title I wanted, right now I would say "Myanmar (Burma)". If I was forced to choose between Burma and Myanmar, I would choose Myanmar, based on both Google searches. If anyone can convince me in one or two sentences why I should change from "comment" to "support" or "oppose", I will be happy to do so. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unaware of any articles that use curly brackets to indicate Wikipedia doesn't give preference to either. Maybe it is time to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to display the title as Burma/Myanmar without actually moving the page. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - as it has always been on this article and is evidenced by almost every single oppose vote, there is no regard for Wikipedia's policies; this is only a political question for those who oppose the change to the most common name, Myanmar. I despise these type of shenanigans. It uncovers one of most glaring weaknesses of Wikipedia. It is not what is best or in keeping with policies, but it is what the most rabid group screams the loudest. Every two-bit, political agenda rules any discussion and good sense and forum polices are discarded because some group hates the "regime", the "junta", etc. It richly earns Wikipedia's disrespect by academia and will continue to do so until topics are approached from an objective position rather than those pushed by agenda, emotion, and silliness. -StormRider 07:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a load of bunk This is completely false and WP:SOAPBOXING to boot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you on the naming issue, please remember your wikiquette. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was very close to simply removing SR comments as soapboxing and mean. These types of comments are routinely removed as not being constructive. Instead I left it but made sure to note it's falsehood and policy skirting. I nonetheless changed the wording. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding the use of various Google searches etc. There is a basic problem here that you can get different results depending on what exact search you run (itself a sure sign that majority usage is unclear. So, for example, as user above point to Google Search and Google News results in support of Myanmar. This is fair enough for starters, but if Google Scholar or Google Books had been used, the result would have come down in favour of Burma.

What's more there are general reliability problems with any of these methods. There is no easy way to filter out non-English sources, sources about unrelated subjects written by Mrs Burma or Mr Myanmar, sources that discuss at length why the use of "Burma" is wrong, sources that are discussion forums, blogs etc.

A good tool to use is Google Insights. This allows you to choose a time-frame, so you can filter out sources that are too old to be reliable as to usage right here and now. Better still, it allows you to filter according to the country from which the source originates, so you can cut out all the noise of sources from non-English speaking countries.

Here are the results for the last twelve months for the main countries where English is widely spoken (BTW, you have to login to Google to see numbers):

Australia

Canada

India

Ireland

New Zealand

South Africa

United Kingdom

United States

I don't know if I need to say much more, but I think these results suggest quite strongly that Myanmar is not more commonly used that Burma, at least in sources within the English-speaking world. You can also tweak the results yourself if you like, in order to specify a different timeframe or restrict results to news sources. Formerip (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but even your own sources show that, at most, Burma is about even in usage compared to Myanmar. The Google News results tell the story... 200,000 results for Myanmar, 40,000 for Burma. That covers all the recent news coverage, which is exactly what tells us what the common usage is. So a quarter million results by news sources, with 200,000 for Myanmar. That gives a very clear indication of what the preference is. And that's what this discussion is all about... common usage. And of course a general Google search doesn't tell which sources are reliable and which aren't, but the key point is that it's an apples-to-apples comparison. 300,000,000 results for Myanmar and 100,000,000 for Burma. So even if you wipe out 75% of the results for Myanmar, you also have to wipe out 75% of the results for Burma. It's seems to be extremely clear evidence as to where the common usage is. and if you research the topic of the name usage controversy... there's little disagreement that Myanmar is overwhelmingly the preferred usage among the media worldwide, even if there are certain areas of the world that still choose to use Burma. But they are the minority. So your argument not only didn't push me towards Burma, it actually pushed me towards being confident that Myanmar is the way to go with this article's title. Sorry. In any case, I think the best title for this article would be "Myanmar (Burma)". Otherwise, just Myanmar. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the part about wiping out 75%, and your first sentence misses that I haven't actually claimed COMMONNAME for either Burma or Myanmar. What I am saying is that there is no clear winner.
What you are missing is that a regular Google search returns a lot of unhelpful results - perhaps most significantly sources that are not in English. There's no reason to suppose that this is "apples to apples", if I am understanding that right. Insight helps to deal with this by allowing you to focus on recent results from particular countries. Formerip (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the 75%, you claimed that just because there's a certain amount of results for a particular search it doesn't tell which are reliable in terms of determining common usage. And my point is that that flaw applies to both names being searched... Burma and Myanmar. So, yes, of course a Google search returns a lot of unhelpful results. But it returns a lot of unhelpful results for both names. ;) So it's an irrelevant consideration, especially when Myanmar has 300,000,000 results and Burma has only 100,000,000. If it were even somewhat close then there's no case to be made for either. But Myanmar clearly is the common English usage. And the only thing that's important in this discussion are the English results because we are talking about the article title for the English Wikipedia. Article titles here are based on the most common English usage. Period. Myanmar is the English name for the country now (whether we like how it got the name or not) and common usage has now clearly shifted to Myanmar. But, again, I think the article title should be "Myanmar (Burma)" because Burma still has significant usage even if it's in the minority now. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Myanmar (Burma) is not going to work. Neither is Burma (Myanmar) so it is a waste of time proposing them. The reality is that both statements "Myanmar is more common than Burma" as well as "Burma is more common than Myanmar" are equally wrong. Both titles are legitimate and arguing that one is more common than the other is mere useless pedantry. Apparently we're not ready to change the title as yet (though that time will come soon methinks) and Marcus had the right idea when he closed the discussion. Sometimes it is just better to leave well alone. --regentspark (comment) 02:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the title Burma (Myanmar) to be an acceptable compromise for the time being, given that the discussion above has not yielded consensus in favour of either titles. The discussion appears to have devolved into whether the current government in the SE Asian country has political legitimacy or not – which should be a non-issue around deciding a title for an encyclopedia article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark... People stating their good faith opinions on a contentious issue are never "a waste of time." So only opinions that agree with yours should be allowed? Please just state your opinion relating to the issue and leave out the insults. And it's interesting that you say using both names in the title is a waste, when a number of the articles relating to this country do in fact use both names in their infobox titles, such as Flag of Burma, Politics of Burma, Constitution of Burma and others. Obviously, if there's a huge debate among two names, and both sides have good arguments, suggesting that both be used is not an illogical suggestion. So, all you did was put down some suggestions and gave no reasons why the current title should remain, other than "it is just better to leave well alone." First, it's not "well," which is obvious by the big debate. Second, we don't just leave things the way the are simply because that's how it is. It's not how this project's community works. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the question of legitamicy of the current government has nothing to do with how we title the article, in fact our policies forbid us to do so. Our only concern is international usage. Agathoclea (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose and speedy close – the name change was already debated less than a year ago. This is English WP, and all western, English-speaking countries refer to it as Burma. There's no reason why the country should be referred to by a name instituted by a totalitarian dictatorship with no legitimacy in the eyes of the English-speaking Western world. This is evident as it was Aung San Suu Kyi and her party that told other countries to call it Burma, not Myanmar. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2012. (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the contention that "all western, English-speaking countries refer to it as Burma" is simply untrue. Even the United Nations now officially uses the name Myanmar. Many may be angered by the way the name came about, but as encylopedia editors we cannot, and must not, take personal feelings into consideration when deciding the article's title. So subjective comments such as, "There's no reason why the country should be referred to by a name instituted by a totalitarian dictatorship with no legitimacy in the eyes of the English-speaking Western world" have no place in this discussion (as much as the point may be true to many people). Just because something is "evident" to one person, doesn't mean it's evident to everyone else. But it's a moot point anyway, because our personal feelings are irrelevant. As Agathoclea appropriately stated above, Wikipedia's "policies forbid us to do so." The only issue at hand is common usage. As far as media usage, 84% of the current English results on Google News are for Myanmar: 212,000 for Myanmar and 39,300 for Burma. Clearly, this a huge debate both here and worldwide. Therefore, I cannot understand how anyone can reasonably say they are a "strong" support or oppose, or especially how they can recommend a speedy end to this meaningful and important discussion. I really think everyone should seriously consider simply using both names in the article title; either "Burma (Myanmar)", "Myanmar (Burma)", "Burma/Myanmar" or "Myanmar/Burma". --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myanmar&oldid=506985912"