Talk:Burma/Myanmar

Suggestion: Include Both names

Would it not be possible to include both names with one within brackets - such as Burmar (Myanmar)? I admit I have not read any of the arguments on either side, although from this page alone I can see there are many arguments. However, I was led to this page because I volunteer for a Health NGO that works in Myanmar (that is the name this particular organization uses for the country and the associated projects). While I started by wanting to read more about the country this NGO works in, when I came across the Wikipedia article I was initially confused, believing I had reached the wrong page. So my suggestion is borne out of wanting to make things clearer for the reader who isn't familiar with the Burma vs. Myanmar debate. — Jclu: talk-contribs 16:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you were confused about whether you had reached the wrong page when "Myanmar" is in bold twice in the first sentence and also the title of the infobox. However, to answer your question, having the article title be "Burma (Myanmar)" has been discussed before. The short answer is that that title would go against Wikipedia's disambiguation conventions. On Wikipedia, a parenthetical in the title helps to disambiguate multiple articles with the same title and implies the subset to which the article belongs. So, "Burma (Myanmar)" would imply that Burma is a type of Myanmar. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Except for the disambiguation use of parens as noted by Rreagan007, something like this suggestion or similar at first sounds compelling. One problem lies in the fact that one or the other name will always "come first". Whether it's Burma (Myanmar) or Myanmar (Burma), Burma/Myanmar or Myanmar/Burma or whatever, there will be those who would continue to feel that one or the other should be "first". They are both historic names for the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (which also redirects to the Burma article). What to call that article must be settled in a way that will satisfy both presently involved editors and those who will question the name of the article in the future. This controversy has a life of its own and will probably continue on for awhile. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 02:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Support a move to Myanmar; "Burma" is a colonial term, without any official status. Frenchmalawi (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wkipedia policy is to use most common name, not official name. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If it was Burma (Myanmar), that would be ok, although the Myanmar but would be unecesary, it is like renaming the Germany page Deutschland or the Italy page, Italia. It doesn't really make sense to change the name as other articles on countries retain their english names. Citing a previous article on the name change Saigon-> Ho Chi Min City, well Ho Chi Min City is in English, Ho Chi Min is a person, and he has a city named after him, it is a completely different kettle of fish, anyway Ho Chi Minh City is "Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh" in Vietnamese (although that is not the name of the article), so basically the change to Myanmar is unnecessary and would only cause confusion. The official language of Burma is known in english as Burmese, and the predominant ethnic group is Bamar, which sounds awfully like Burma anyway. Burma calls itself the Republic of Myanmar, yet we call it Burma, North Korea calls itslef the DPROC yet we still call it North Korea, to this extent Burma should remain as Burma to remain in line with other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.69.4 (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Myanmar's name at the UN

On the English Language Wikipedia, shouldn't we use the English name with which Burma (or any country, i.e. Germany) represents itself, in English, to the rest of the world, i.e at the United Nations?

Wouldn't that make the UN's "Member States of the United Nations" our general reference? Other issues to be addressed in the article, & w/redirects?

That would make Burma's article title "Myanmar"... Grye (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not the standard we use on the English Wikipedia for determining the article title of countries. If it were, then we would also have to move the United States article, the United Kingdom article, and a number of other country articles as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the standard we use on the English Wikipedia for determining the article title of countries? The US & UK examples are truncated versions of the full names, while Burma/Myanmar are 'alternate' names. Also, sure, make the US & UK articles the full name w/redirects from United States/etc. Absolutely --now that you mention it... Grye (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The standard is to use the common name as used in English language sources. --Khajidha (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Then we're just waiting for a convenient moment, to change United States of America (oh, wait, which redirects to United States) to "America"? or, more likely, "US"? Grye (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As you see United States of America already redirects to the more common "United States". US is possibly more commonly used than either of those two, but even when it is used it is thought of as an abbreviation with the longer versions kept well in mind so it is probably not a likely target for a page move. While a good case could be made for moving United States to the simpler "America", there are masses of editors (mostly not native English speakers) who would raise high holy hell over that as they conceive of America as a single continental landmass running from Canada to Argentina. There is even some lingering sense, mostly historical, of that usage in English. Given that, United States is probably the best place for that article. --Khajidha (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

rright. we are not always talking about always using the common name, but rather, sometimes, the best name. Grye (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The standard is the common name, with other names being used if that is not possible. The common name is always better than any other, but some common names simply cannot be used. Burma is the commmon name and there is nothing preventing its use, so the article is at Burma. --Khajidha (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That is provided you can prove that "Burma" is the only common name, which it is not. I have long maintained that the use of Burma in wikipedia is politically-motivated, because I personally witnessed the turn of events which first landed this article in "Burma" when it has been "Myanmar" for a much longer time prior. Wikipedia fails as a NPOV source occasionally, as is with any human-made creation, but this article is the gravest example of just how partisan this site actually is.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

more name discussion: (moved from talk:Burma)

we need to find a solution to the Burma vs Myanmar debate! (although as the article is in British english, it should be Burma, and we don't call Germany, Deutschland, so why call Burma, myanmar) (213.167.69.4 (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC))

The problem has been raised time and time again, and gets the same answer every time. It depends on what name is used the most across the English-speaking world. The reason the Germany article isn't called "Deutschland" is simply because the Anglosphere says "Germany" more. If, in fifty years, "Deutschland" is used 80% of the time and is used by various governments, then sure - that might justify a move. In the case of Myanmar/Burma, we have governments that either refuse to recognise its name change, or otherwise continue to call it "Burma" because it is familiar to them. But, we also have cases where "Myanmar" is recoginsed as a name, leading to problems over just how "familiar" either name is to the majority of the Anglosphere.-- OsirisV (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The military government of the country would, I am sure, like nothing better than to see Wikipedia fall in line with its policy of calling the country "Myanmar". In this way, the situation is very different from using "Deutschland" to refer to Germany: Germany isn't currently ruled by a junta torturing its civilian political prisoners in an attempt to reconstruct a new contrived national identity and using a new national name to do so— Myanmar is. Germany also does not care what English speakers call it in their own tongue— Myanmar wants you to call it "Myanmar" in order to solidify its legitimacy on the world stage. To cooperate with this plan would be a mistake, just as much as the cooperation that Neville Chamberlain believed he had from Hitler regarding Poland. I see no reason to do so: to the people of Burma, their country is "Burma"; to the English speaking world, it is "Burma". The only people pushing "Myanmar" are the leaders of the junta, and they are doing it after having tortured, shot, and killed thousands of political prisoners under what Wikipedia itself states is one of the most oppressive and violent regimes in the entire world. I for one think their demands for legitimacy in any context, however petty, should be utterly ignored. Let the article remain called "Burma" and the redirect from "Myanmar" go there. Soon enough I suspect it will really be called "Burma" again anyway (and at long last). KDS4444^Talk 05:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please keep talk on the article title as it says in the box at the top... Talk:Burma/Myanmar. This whole thread should probably be moved there for consistency sake. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I've started the thread (which countries officially use Burma and which countries use Myanmar) in Etymology section, and we are not discussed the title. Now other editors are discussing about the title in this thread. Their discussion should be moved to Talk:Burma/Myanmar. PhyoWP *click 08:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I moved it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

And there you go. Yet another politically-motivated attempt to use "Burma" over "Myanmar". If "the only people pushing "Myanmar" are the leaders of the junta", then I suppose I must be a leader of the Junta.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion of changing the page name to 'Myanmar' from 'Burma'

Hi Admins,

I would like to suggest that the admins change the page name from 'Burma' to 'Myanmar'. Increasingly, news media and international world is using the term 'Myanmar' ,especially in formal occasion. United Nation, IMF, World Bank and all the other international organizations are now using the name 'Myanmar'. Moreover, all the other Myanmar related topics for example, uses the term currently using instead of colonial names: for example, Yangon instead of Rangoon, Bago instead of Pegu and Rakhine instead of Araken and this article should not be left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thettin684 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Trust me. This page will not be renamed until a certain lady becomes president of Myanmar and she declares Myanmar as the correct name of this country. All those claims of "Burma being a more common name" is just going to be brushed aside, because it is not a solid argument to begin with. Wikipedia has made a name for itself as being the only major international source of information which calls a particular country by its former name.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia also insists on calling Ireland the "Republic of Ireland" which is not even its name (current or former name for that matter). I've asked on the "Talk: Burma" page for support to rename the Zimbabwe article as Rhodesia. I thought I might get support there. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes of usage in the media

"That country" has been mentioned quite a lot in the British news (historically one of the most prolific contemporary English-language users of the name "Burma") quite a bit recently, mainly because of two Burmese men who are accused of murdering a British couple who were murdered in Thailand. It caught my attention that the BBC, frequently cited in old discussions as evidence of the common usage of "Burma", has at some point recently switched to using "Myanmar". I was interested if this is part of a larger trend in English-language publications so did a review of the most recent list of sources that use "Burma" that I found, compiled by User:Fyunck(click) in the most recent Requested Move:

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.

Of the publications listed above, the following appear now to be using "Myanmar": Time magazine, Radio Australia, The Telegraph, The BBC, The Washington Post, Mizzima news, Arab English Times and News International. Additionally, the Huffington Post seem to be using both.

I'm no longer active here so am not proposing any course of action, but those who are may wish to review any decisions that were based on the usage of those publications. I couldn't find an official comment on the change at the BBC, but this blog post makes the uncited claim that the decision is based on the rationale that "Myanmar is now becoming recognisable and familiar to BBC audiences". In particular this may be of interest to User:BritishWatcher based on their comment here. Bigbluefish (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)