Jump to content

Talk:Burma/Myanmar/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

So I come back after ages and see that the article is still named Burma.

Look, all the arguments for naming the country Burma can be trashed, but not true for the arguments naming the country Myanmar (Note that I have been following this issue for ages, and even have participated in the debate at some point prior). Myanmar is the official English name for the country. By who? Who changed the name of the country from Burma? The military junta - a junta that is recognized by not only the United Nations, but a majority of nations around the world as the legitimate government(you cannot even debate this by debating the overall number of nations in the world). In such a case where there is dispute on who is the de-jure government, overwhelming international recognition and de-facto realities on the ground should swing the argument in favor of the junta , even if the majority of the people inside the country don't recognize the government as legitimate (and this we are not sure about; the facts are disputed) because governments do not have to be democratic (or else the majority of countries throughout history have not had real governments). True, the United States and British governments call the country Burma, but officially, countries get to decide how they are called in any language and not the other way around. Case and Point: Cote D'ivoire. (Imagine being called Bob, when you want to be called Melissa - hence why laws in almost every country allow you to be able to change your official name when you become an adult. This shows ethical solidarity throughout the world on this point.).The English speaking public is significantly divided in opinion on what this country should be called, and especially in cases where popular opinion is divided, the official name should prevail.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia that is designed to be objective. Just because something is the status quo does not mean that it is proper. Status quo arguments should not be used, and should not be accepted, in a debate or as reason for a decision about what is the proper name to be used in this article. We must figure out the most objective name, the most proper name, to be used on this article through debate and analysis and choose a name based on the theoretical, logical, and physical realities, not on the status quo. This has NOT been done to satisfaction. A significant number of people believe right that the name Burma is highly inappropriate for this article and is not reflective of an objective wikipedia. I propose to put the issue to yet another vote and another round of mediation, knowing consensus is difficult to reach, but emphasizing that we must continue to try to reach a definite conclusion. JohnWycliff (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A general election is scheduled this year, and there's a good chance it will be covered by the media. I think we've pretty much reached a consensus here that it'll make more sense to revisit the debate after this event, not so much before. -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally I agree that it should be Myanmar (see the above outsiders view section for an opinion almost identical to mine), but if we have to wait, so be it. Just wondering how the debate will go then, will there be an immediate vote or a new debate to reach a consensus? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It will be like before since a straight up vote (unless massively lopsided) is useless. A month of debates (roll up those shirt-sleeves:-) then it will go to a cabal for a week or two where each person here will try to convince the 3 cabal members they have the most worthy argument. The cabal will then decide with hope that it is unanimous this time. Then in a couple years we can do it all again. ;-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Decorum

Please try to avoid blatant personal attacks, and Fyunck please stop deleting everything. Some of the arguments seem legitimate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No they are not. This person has been harassing me for months if not years and has been banned from wikipedia pretty much permanently. He jumps from open ip address to open ip address to avoid the ban, so his posts are to be deleted on sight and I will continue to do so. See User:Tennis_expert and his dozens of aliases. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Please try to ensure you only delete his. Maybe some rules should be hashed out for the vote/debate anyway. Say only autoconfirmed users? That would eliminate all but the most persistent sockpuppeters Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem there. However things are not supposed to be decided by a straight headcount on wikipedia anyways as per "wikipedia is not a democracy"[[1]]. It will wind up going to mediation where the info will be laid out and some impartial judges will decide once again. There it won't matter who signs in and debates like it would in a vote. Did I err and delete something that wasn't the blocked user's post (other than the signing comment)? I didn't mean to if I did. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but a vote is an important part, if not an essential part, of a consensus. Hopefully we can get a solid list of arguments laid out pro and con after a period of debate, to prevent people stating the same points again and again. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we really disagree on this point about voting/polling. It is not essential imho. See [[2]]. It's build consensus naturally, take strawpoll/vote to see where others stand and try to convince them with good arguments if the poll/vote is reasonably close (say 60/40) or closer. If the poll is lopsided then yes I would say a consensus is reached. Otherwise we continue to present arguments until someone calls for 3rd party mediation or a cabal. Then in 2 years I guess we do the same again because viewpoints may have changed again. It may not be the best solution but it's wikipedia's solution and it's their encyclopedia so they make the rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I think a definite consensus would be achieved about 70:30, but I think a vote should be taken after some debate just before cabal, to see if that consensus already exists. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way I do apologize for my "little buddy" following me over to this page and causing a disruption to people who have it on watch. I wish there was something I could do to stop it but I guess kids will be kids and this vindictive one will probably just keep showing up under new aliases, since this ip now appears to be blocked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly fine. Just annoying when he ends up causing me an edit conflict. Conveniently I then get to just override his edits. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Election Coverage

News coverage from November 7-8

Burma: 5,814 *
Myanmar: 11,414 *
Burma (no Myanmar): 2,736 *
Myanmar (no Burma): 7,784 *

Well, everything looks the same so far. The government of this nation is still oppressive and undemocratic. Yet, world media still overwhelmingly refers to the place as Myanmar. We can see what happens as more coverage comes in, but I again find myself wondering what it would take to convince the majority of Wikipedians here that the name Myanmar is more commonly used for this place. If not news media, then what? -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

English Language

People have mentioned before that the Junta changed the English name to 'Myanmar'. The Burmese Junta are not the Council of the English Language, they do not have any authority to change the name of their country in any language other than Burmese. It is up to the English Language regulatory body to do that; oh wait, we don't have one. So in lieu we have the British, American, Canadian, Australian & New Zealand governments who are the de facto Council of the English Language. Therefore, THEY cumulatively set the rules for the English language. Therefore, in the English Language, 'Burma' is the official word. There is really no discussion really, I don't see any valid reasons what so ever to change the name of this article to 'Myanmar'. (Umbongo91 (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

No they're not. Australia, the UK, and the USA don't even have official languages. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want official English, then you must also consider nations like India and the Philippines, along with the English of the United Nations. But Wikipedia doesn't even go by official names; it goes by common use. And if we use the media to gauge common use, then Myanmar comes ahead even more clearly (see above). If you live in the United States, look at a globe or a map right now--chances are it's Rand McNally, which means it's Myanmar. Or do a Youtube search for Burma, and a Youtube search for Myanmar; see which comes up more often. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
English is not the official language of India. It is merely a subsidiary official language of the Central government of India. Tons of Indians, 700 million plus, go through life with only a hello, bye-bye, and bon-bon (ok, the last is not english, but, ...!) --RegentsPark (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That really isn't relevant to what BaronGrackle is saying which is that there is nothing official about the English language as used on Wikipedia, and no attempt by any English-speaking authority to codify the English language changes that. What we determine to be the English language is based on usage within what a linguist would identify as the English language. It's down to the speakers of English to conform to any such codes. And not to labour BaronGrackle's point, but certainly in the instance of the US the usage of "Burma" in an "official" capacity (actually, English is only the de facto language in the US) seems to have had limited effect on how Americans actually use the English language. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

New long name

The new constitution was adopted in referendum on 10 May 2008. In this constitution new official name of country is listed: Republic of the Union of Myanmar. But the new constitution (and with it, the new flag and new name) will come into force with the first sitting of the parliament to be elected in the 7th November 2010 election. To this date old name and old flag are still official. Aotearoa (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope there will be no attempts to move this page, Burma will remain the common English language name of this state for some considerable time. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
This being the English wikipedia, a lot will depend on if either the US or UK officially adopt the new name or not, and as the archives here will show the "common name" depends upon where you are standing on the globe. Right now it is "officially" Burma in the US and UK (and with the gov't in exile) but things can change in a hurry. All I can say is watch this page so you're around for the next cycle of Burma volleyball.:-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
This Anglo-centric approach will not bode well in the long run, given that the second and third highest number of English speakers come from India and Nigeria (both of whose governments use Myanmar), not Australia or the United Kingdom, according to your logic. Unless the argument is that English speakers from the traditionally-defined Anglosphere have disproportionate say in this matter. And the government-in-exile is purely nominal--most Burmese people don't even know it exists and I don't know any governments that actually recognize it as the legitimate one.--Hintha (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In the long run many things can happen. Each wiki, including the Hindi wiki, writes from the point of view of those people. That's the way it is. The Chinese wiki is far far different than the English wiki. The Japanese wiki is too but most there speak English. This English wiki slants more to the western english point of view, so if that's what you mean by the term anglosphere so be it. Much of the time there is no difference but when content get's sticky the UK, Aussie, Canadian and US versions will come out on top. I agree that the gov't in exile is pretty much nominal, but it does exist. The Dalai Lama has no power over Tibet but he continues on and on and on with no or few gov'ts recognizing him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The recognition of "Burma" and not "Myanmar" by another sovereign government does not validate the use of "Burma" instead of "Myanmar." These governments do not dictate usage among English speakers (for instance, Burma and Myanmar are evenly used in English-speaking media). And we're speaking about usage among the global English-speaking community (English speakers from India, China, and everywhere else alike), not simply Britons, Australians, Canadians and Americans, as you would like to have it. To say that there is an inherent "western english point of view [sic]" in the English Wikipedia is simply chauvinistic. Nor does the existence of the NCGUB validate the preference of Burma over Myanmar. Looking back at the arguments made for keeping the article at "Burma," I wouldn't mind rehashing an argument for using Myanmar. It's vital not to let emotional arguments (and refusal to reconcile expectation with reality) run against the grain of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. --Hintha (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Neither can a nation dictate what the english version of their name will be. I'm not getting into another tit for tat as this has been done over and over through the years here. I was simply telling Britishwatcher that the common name is variable all over the globe, even inside of Burma, and he/she can bring up his own points if another mediated cabal happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
lol tell that to the government of the Ivory Coast who have some how managed to introduce their french name into the English language and we are stuck with a country name that many of us can not even type on our keyboards, despite the media clearly using its English name Ivory Coast. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not accept that the English speaking media uses Myanmar as much as they use Burma. But even if it was, id strongly oppose renaming this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Look through the old discussions. Do some media searches. The only part of the world in which the English-speaking media overwhelmingly uses "Burma" is within the United Kingdom. In every other part the world, including the United States, "Myanmar" is more prevalent. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

?^^^? - I still reckon English English should prevail. Does Spanish Wikipedia have trouble with Catalan, Latin American, Canary & Standard Spanish etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"english english"? if asian were to decide british should be referred to in their respective media and language as "red fur", would you be ok with it? i do not think the ownership of ones language entitles one to make stupid decision on what should be the name. i believe the country in question is entitled the right to determine it's own name for any particular language. else i would start refering to english people as angmo(red hair). respect the rights of other to determine their name in all language, and we will do the same, if you want to be bitchy about making the language "yours" and the rest of the world will learn to do the same... i don't see the point of a name that isn't own by the one it is referring to, do any of you think not? Akinkhoo (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Burma vs. Myanmar

There is a renaming request on the Commons [3] to move from Myanmar to Burma, per this article here. Please contribute your thoughts. Gryffindor (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The official name is Myanmar. Anything besides that is a direct attack on the neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by
Unless you claim that the Germany article should be titled "Bundesrepublik Deutschland," the above comment is basically nonsense. The official name of the country is not remotely the issue. 98.110.175.105 (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
By your logic, Zimbabwe redirect to Rhodesia and Nambia to Southwest Africa. I just don't understand the steadfast refusal to acknowledge the name the country has used for 20 years. *shrugs* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.121.20 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
You guys are arguing about different things. "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" would be equivalent to "Pyidaunzu Thanmăda Myăma Nainngandaw", or--more accurately--those Burmese characters I can't type on my keyboard. "Federal Republic of Germany" would be equivalent to "Union of Myanmar"... or, "Union of Burma". And that is where our argument properly is. -BaronGrackle (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Burma is only used by those working to end the authoritarian government. Activists refuse to acknowledge the regime's hiding of its own burmanization policies with the inclusive "Myanmar" name, instead using the Burma name, which refers to the Burman ethnic group. Wikipedia is not a platform for activism. It should be changed to reflect the official name, perhaps with a corollary describing the dispute.93.137.47.141 (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Should be Myanmar. People in Myanmar, speaking English, call it Myanmar. People in its fellow ASEAN nations, speaking English (which is an official language in some ASEAN countries, eg Singapore), call it Myanmar. I suspect the comment made somewhere above, that the English-speakers of India call it Myanmar, is correct. It's not clear what reason there would be for insisting on still calling it Burma, other than as a protest against the regime - but if that reflects some kind of conception that people who live in non-democratic countries aren't allowed to select the name of their own country unless and until they achieve democracy, then it would seem pretty odd. 210.10.106.195 (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If wikipedia wants to be consequent, why not putting the old flag instead of the new one... and the capital city is still Rangoon.... --112.205.7.91 (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Another reason to prefer 'Burma' is that everyone knows how to pronounce it. The article now gives the new name as /mjɑːnˈmɑr/ (myANN-) but CNN and Al Jazeera both say /ˈmiːənmɑr/ (MEEən-). Rothorpe (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not that hard; it's /mjəmɑː/, non-rhotic. Hybernator (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

See? Rothorpe (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That argument is terrible. 1) Multiple pronunciations are possible for different words 2) WHY ON EARTH DOES SOMEONE NOT KNOWING SOMETHING JUSTIFY REMOVING IT FROM AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA?!? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

How many pronunciations do you recommend including? Rothorpe (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Whichever are commonly used, as shown in sources such as CNN and Al Jazeera. This is not the only occurrence of this, Malaysia, for example, has 2 common pronunciations, which even have different numbers of syllables. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Did any country or international organization recognize the new name of Burma?

Did any country or international organization recognize the new name of Burma? USA, UK, UN, EU, etc. still use the name Union of Myanmar/Union of Burma, not new one. Aotearoa (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
UN still use Union of Myanmar [4], [5], [6],. Aotearoa (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I see, misunderstood the question. I'm not sure they'd have to recognise it, give some time for the effects to filter though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the only dated publication at un.org which mentions Myanmar since October 21 is a procurement notice which does indeed use the new name. They certainly haven't retroactively corrected any other material but I don't know of any express role of the UN in standardising the names of member states, so there wouldn't appear to need to be. Bigbluefish (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


New name - whats the problem?

Please feel free to add to the below list of places which have had a name change and are "recognized by Wikipedia". Please advise if there is any reason why Myanmar should be the exception.

Old name New Name Recognized by wikipedia
Calcutta Kolkata YES
Bombay Mumbai YES
South West Africa Nambia YES
Rhodesia Zimbabwe YES
Pietersburg Polokwane YES
Burma Myanmar NO

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.121.20 (talk)

The following are all at the modern name with the old name as a redirect:

Old name New Name
Persia Iran
Siam Thailand
Kampuchea Cambodia
Ceylon Sri Lanka
Ivory Coast Côte d'Ivoire

The following have the present state at the modern name with the historic state at the old name:

Old name New Name
Zaire Democratic Republic of the Congo
Dahomey Benin
Upper Volta Burkina Faso
Tanganyika Tanzania

Timrollpickering (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been explained to death to you. We also look at things on a case by case basis to consider irregularities instead of lumping them into a cookie-cutter mold. And just because you wanted to make nice little charts instead of simply mentioning it in a sentence or two changes nothing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Just be careful when throwing around phrases like "explained to death", when the current title lacks any evidence of majority usage, other than GoogleBooks (as opposed to GoogleNews, GoogleAnythingElse, online maps, etc). In fact... is there a way to have a discussion/vote for consensus that automatically disregards any vote that relies on what the official government says, or whether that government is legitimate? If not, should we change the Wikipedia naming guidelines to reflect that titles are in fact based on "legitimacy"? Failing that, perhaps we could find an administrator willing to rechange the article's name without consensus again. (Joking, of course. Bitter joking.) -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I guess it would have been better had I said both sides of the issue have been explained to death. It was more pointing at the fact that what was posted by TRP was nothing new here... just in cute little chart form. He dug with a new shovel but it was still the same dirt. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If you check again you will note the original post was not made by me, it was made by a anonymous user on the main talkpage and moved here. I added the rest of the list which had been brought up on the Commons category as I don't think a full list has yet been put in one place to link to. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I did miss that unsigned comment squeezed between the charts. Sorry about that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be discussed to death at all. Looks like an endless parade of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is used to beat down the actual name of the country. I just don't understand. --65.2.0.134 (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Try to read a little more (esp. the archives) to help you understand the problems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Given that your only recent contribution of substance to the discussion relates to the issue of demonyms, which has also been a well-visited topic in the archives, I recommend a somewhat more civil attitude to ongoing discussion.
There's nothing unreasonable about covering old ground when:
  1. Circumstances have, to whatever degree, changed and this may affect the worth of old arguments.
  2. The archives are full of bad arguments discredited by consensus and it is a worthwhile exercise to restate those which are of importance to those still considering a better-agreed outcome.
There is especially little need to pour scorn on attempts to organise existing information which may inform our decision. The list of other articles doesn't offer much to help decide this naming dispute because there are clear differences in circumstances in each, but knowing the scope of the closest analogies is easier (and easier to dismiss if you wish) when presented in tabular form than interspersed in nested dialogue amongst unnecessary barbs like "nice little charts" and "dug with a new shovel". Bigbluefish (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Pour scorn? You have to be kidding. Many come here and post without reading what has gone on before... in fact I'll bet most new posters do. And someone who links to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not someone who just walked in the door. Your mentioning demonyms is silly. My point on that being if someone is going to put into pretty little charts info that has been gone over before at least they should include other pertinent information. I didn't just walk into the page and say "hey, lets discuss demonyms of Burma today." Someone posted something slanted in a particular direction and it needed to be addressed. Those charts instead of saying "new name" could have said "name recognized by US,UK, Canadian authorities" with different results. So yes, it's the same stuff that we've seen before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I fundamentally disagree with the premise that old information shouldn't be restated in a better organised manner.
As for demonyms, it has already been "discussed to death", as you put it, that dominant usage of the name "Myanmar" uses "Burma"-based demonyms, and that being a commonplace convention in the English language it is a suitable convention for Wikipedia. As it was, you barged into a reasonable and present-centred discussion, fundamentally about which convention is more prevalent (since the demonyms are largely invariant), in order to argue a point which has already been visited. All I am saying is that you would do well to do to those who do the same what was done to you in that case which is to patiently extract what is relevant to the discussion today and to address it, at pain of repetition. This is not to say that every other recent post has been constructive, but if you have the energy to make a habit of deconstructing other people's efforts you might achieve more by directing that energy towards presenting a clearer argument defending the position that you clearly hold. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I barged in? Who the heck made you judge of the talk page? If someone brings up lopsided old news I'm going to add in additional old lopsided news that is also relevant. If someone brings up things that have already been discussed I'm going to tell them to check the archives. There is no need for "pain of repetition" if the archives have already been filled with that info. That just wastes everyone's time. We do disagree with bringing up old information so we won't get by that problem, but to say I barged in on a discussion page is unworthy of your usual postings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Apologies to other readers of this talk page - I was trying to steer discussion back onto the subject and away from user conduct and rhetorical style, but obviously by attempting this by asking others to change one runs the risk of generating yet another diversion. I have responded to the last comment on User talk:Fyunck(click). Bigbluefish (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Please advise if there is any reason why Myanmar should be the exception [to being recognized by Wikipedia]", consensus and common usage. When a state changes its name we look at reliable English language sources to decide what the name of the country should be, we do not take the dictates of the regime to decide this.

Sometimes as in the case of a change such as Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, the news media and English speaking governments adopt the name quickly, but in others such as Germany (which for a time was known as East Germany and West Germany) -- a designation we still use North Korea and South Korea -- because the are the common name for all three countries. We keep very few articles under the name of the state, instead we keep them under the common name of the country in reliable English language sources.

In those cases where Myanmar in reliable English language sources is use is frequently qualified with the use of Burma to explain what it is, this is an indication that in common usage Burma is still the name most familiar to English speakers. Politically the name is still in a state of flux. See this article for example: Myanmar name change, New Zealand Herald, 3 December 2010 "The [NZ] Government is to change its position on Myanmar and return to calling it Burma. ... The Government's position allows for the use of Myanmar where the country is recognised as such, including at the United Nations." -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right that clear imbalances in familiarity outweigh official changes. I think it would be a good summary of the current state of discussion to say that whether such an imbalance between the two names exists is the main remaining source of disagreement.
Your observation that users of "Myanmar" frequently note the country's other name does not, however, indicate that "Burma" is more familiar, but that both names are familiar. This much is obvious when you investigate the dominant sources which still prefer "Burma", and find that just as many clarify their articles with the same. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to suggest about Germany and Korea. So far as I'm aware, the common nomenclature has always reflected these countries' political status. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Move to Myanmar

If you were consequent in your policy then the title must be moved to Myanmar since Myanmar has more results in google. Otherwise, the use of the name Burma is politically motivated and wikipedia is not a political movement. --112.205.7.91 (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, do get off that high horse. WP:CONSENSUS is the policy here. We can use "Burma" and still be NPOV about it. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The article should be 'moved' to Myanmar. However, currently there's no consensus to move it. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Making no judgement on which name this should be at, clearly the overriding policy is consensus, so yes. If there's a consensus to move to Myanmar, then yeah, do that. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes articles can be moved without consensus. (Yes, the broken record works even after three years.) ;) -BaronGrackle (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Considering the recent elections, and the release of Aung Sun Suu Kyi, would it be worth looking again at media usage? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned a little bit above, not much has changed in terms of media usage.

Googlenews coverage from November 7-22

Burma: 6,640 *
Myanmar: 8,008 *
Burma without Myanmar: 3,921 *
Myanmar without Burma: 6,898 *

And here's something new I learned. One of the groups using the name Myanmar? Amnesty International. Even as they continue to criticize the government. -BaronGrackle (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This could be because the name "Burma" has its own (racial) controversies. Nightw 10:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Aren't Burma and Myanmar from the same root word, with similar controversies? I was under the impression neither was better ethnically/racially. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That is almost correct. Burma and Myanmar both refer to the majority ethnic group but Burma is from Bama, the colloquial term for the people of that group, while Myanmar is from Myanma, the literary (or high language) term for that group. There is no racial distinction between the two terms, neither term is a foreign invention, and both equally exclude the many minorities in Burma. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Use of Myanmar and Myanmar without Burma has decreased since your last post? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

True. And I'll admit to not understanding the niceties of Google News... if you click on the old links I provided, they do have slightly lower numbers than the ones visible when I posted. And, I have no idea how the number can be higher from the day of the election two days forward, than it is from the day of the election 15 days forward. But still, Burma's about 2-3 thousand below Myanmar. If it starts showing up on an equal footing, then I'll reevaluate my position! -BaronGrackle (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Google read your post above and rejiggered the stats :) --RegentsPark (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to expect the stats to be unstable in the immediate wake of the election. The two main forces in play that I would guess at would be the higher proportion of international sources reporting on the country relative to local sources, because of an event of international significance, and the higher proportion of sources mentioning the country in the course of reporting significant events relative to those mentioning it in the course of promoting a cause or agenda, because of an event of relatively higher national significance.
It is an interesting (and perhaps unanswered) question what weight is given to different types of source in terms of determining usage. Is the choice of name made by people who talk every day in English about Burma more or less important than the choice of name made by sources writing for an audience who may have hardly heard of the country before? Perhaps more interesting is that now that Burma is largely out of the international news again, the usage has become closer to even but has not swung in the other direction. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Since multiple parts of speach will be used in prose it's not just about Burma vs Myanmar frequency, but also Burmese vs Myanma/Myanmarese frequency. Maybe those numbers should also be plopped up here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Although renaming of the adjectives is indeed part of the scope of the junta's 1989 renaming spree, I don't think it's disputed that this has not caught on. It's more common than not to see "Myanmar" and "Burmese" in the same work. Since "Burmese" rarely literally means "of or pertaining to the country" but usually refers to the country's population, culture or language, there isn't really a problem with this kind of combination. A similar but not identical situation exists in the US where it's not unusual to call more or less anything within the country "American" but (certainly from outside the country) it is considered somewhat ignorant to refer to the country as a whole as "America" rather than one of the names which distinguishes it from its continental neighbours. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
But within an article it is far more cumbersome and confusing to the reader to keep switching between Myanmar and Burmese than to switch between Myanmar and Myanmarese. To have both variations sprinkled throughout would be a bit silly so you would want to keep the same combo: if Myanmar then Myanmarese, if Burma then Burmese. If we are making a note as to usage of the noun, even if it's just to give us some frame of reference for discussing here, it is also pertinent to note the usage of other parts of speech that would change in the article. So using the same date range as before,
Googlenews coverage from November 7-22
Burmese: 1,395 *
Myanmarese: 81 * Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Um, well, "Myanmarese" is not a word. The demonym is "Myanma". Nightw 02:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Um, well, looking around Wikipedia and the internet you appear to be wrong. Myanmarese is used more often to refer to the land and people than Myanma. There are a few more hits with Myanma because of the fact the newspaper is the 'Myanma Ahlin' and there is also the Myanma Oil and Gas Co. But when used instead of Burmese to me it looks like many neighboring countries use Myanmarese. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Well I guess that's what you get for trusting Wikipedia. I was just going off the infobox in the article. But there appear to be a number of demonyms in use, like just "Myanmar" or "Myanmese". I'm not supporting a change to Myanmar, by the way. Nightw 05:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No prob... I also see the word Myanmese is in use in some locals but it had only 4 hits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The correct demonym of "Myanmar" is actually "Myanmar" despite that sounding counter-intuitive.Bamar-Tawthar (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not about demonyms, this is about the name of the country. --112.205.7.91 (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed the point that was being made. Nightw 08:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this section. And I'm going to call correlation with the Netherlands/Holland and its Dutch demonym. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And you won't be the first. But I haven't got that far in my table yet. (Feel free to contribute! Christmas is busy!) Bigbluefish (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting how dutch is only used in English when the other countries use Hollanders and Nederlanders, etc. And dutch has been around for 800 years is not remotely the same as Burma/Burmese, Myanmar/Myanmarese/Myanma and the confusion it will bring about if they are detached. At least imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about other languages, but in French while the adjective is "néerlandais", the noun is "Pays Bas", yet another politically inaccurate term. In both cases the terms have stuck where politics have changed and language has moved with it in areas where there is less attachment but remained where the familiar is harder to change. Whether or not it's confusing is way off the subject. We're not in the business of influencing language, only reflecting it, and lo and behold the "Myanmar"/"Burmese" combination commands at least as much use in present-day English as "Burma"/"Burmese". Bigbluefish (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting point but your lo and behold "at least as much" is not confirmed by google. Last week less than half as many hits for Myanmar/Burmese as for Burma/Burmese. Now that's just google which is a poor source and can vary week to week, but to say "at least as much" might be really stretching it. And as someone else has pointed out some use the term Myanmar/Myanmar which may skew the google numbers higher unless compensated for by including Burma/Burmese in the Burma totals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think Google is an especially poor source to use to judge derived form usage because such terms appear in discussion of the country less frequently than the name itself, and arguably subject to more complex conditions. To appreciate the scale of the nuances involved, consider that (for the last week, at time of checking) there is more use of the word "Burmese" where both names are also present (where presumably one is used and the other offered as a clarification) than where "Burma" is used exclusively (or for that matter where "Myanmar" is used exclusively); all of which are outnumbered by those using both names without the use of "Burmese", again outnumbered by the use of either name exclusively without a mention of "Burmese". I agree that "at least as much" was over the top, but this is from my informal impression, open to be corrected, of the various influential English language media sources - of which I am confident that "at least as many" use "Myanmar" as "Burma" and none of which I have noticed a policy of not using "Burmese" - again, correct me if I'm wrong.
I still think the diversity of application of main names and derived forms is an unreasonable basis to choose the main name on though. We have numerous reliable sources discussing naming at Names of Burma and none factor anything to do with derived forms in the discussion of how usage has come to where it is now. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a comment of Counselor of Yangon US Embassy,DINGER, according to wikileaks [Reference ID:09RANGOON205, Created:2009-04-02 07:07 ]- "We could consider accepting the country name "Myanmar." "Burma" is a vestige of colonial times that actually elevates the Bamar majority over other ethnic groups. Practically everyone inside uses the term Myanmar, as do all countries in Southeast Asia, though the NLD has thus far refused to bend on that topic.". NLD refused? OK. Please see how US Embassy comment NLD Old Farts here - http://open.salon.com/blog/virginia_m_moncrieff/2010/12/09/wikileaks_burmese_opposition_stifled_by_old_farts Yarzaryeni (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Kinda interesting post. I haven't read any of the wikileaks myself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why Burma? Why not Myanmar?

I would like to know, "What points make to keep 'Burma'?" and "What points make not to accept 'Myanmar'?" Yarzaryeni (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That all depends if you want all the points, or the good points, or the points which only some people think are good, or the points which only some people think aren't bad, or only the points that people know whether or not everyone thinks they're good. If you want the first of these, then reading through the archives should more than satisfy your curiosity. If you want any of the others, you or someone else is going to have to read through those archives anyway and make that list, because it doesn't exist yet and it's not trivial to produce. My unfinished list below is one step towards that, and some time I will get around to finishing it if nobody else does first. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I only want to know the reasons by the people who are managing this page and who decided to keep the page's name as Burma so that we can better understand and better discuss "Burma Vs Myanmar". Yarzaryeni (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Then that is the problem with your question. There is nobody "managing this page" any more than you are. The last time it was decided to keep the page at "Burma" the reason was that that was where it was when we last failed to reach a consensus on which name it should be. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Guide to past discussion

Well, practising what I preach I decided to make it easier to understand what has and hasn't come before, and what consensuses have been reached. So I'm indexing the full archive of this talk page sorted by topics discussed. I'm working in reverse chronological order and have finished archives 4 and 5. If anyone wants to contribute to this wiki-style before my next pop at it, go ahead - I suggest posting a note here if planning to cover any substantial ground. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic Commented on Discussed New agreement reached

Reasons for determining the article name

  • English language
  • Usage
  • Determined by Google counts
  • Google News
  • In historical literature
  • By Burmese people
  • Differences and priorities between groups of English-speakers
  • In Batman
  • Definition by bodies of authority
  • The SPDC (and whether this is "self-identification")
  • Authority of English-speaking governments to determine authority of the SPDC
  • English-speaking governments
  • The UN
  • Other encyclopedias
  • Similar naming dilemmas
  • Other Burmese places like Yangon
  • Where the old name redirects to the new name
  • Where the old name has an article for the historical entity
  • Where an official name redirects to a more common name
  • Where a common name requires disambiguation
  • Where the English name is different to the name in the native language
  • Wikipedia policy
  • Political reasons
  • Support of the democratic opposition

From a critical stance:

  • Opposition to colonialism
  • Ease of pronunciation
  • Compromise titles
  • A separate article for historical Burma
  • Status quo
  • Existence of consensus

Demonyms

Articles with titles containing the name

The 2010 name change

Manner of discussion

  • Structured dispute resolution
  • Impact of the election
  • Repetition of old arguments
Wow. Well it'll sure be easier simply to point to this rather than just say "research the archives." And when this hits the archives itself we should keep a link at the page top for easy access. I have to say it's way more than I would have done. I don't think it will stop somewhat frivolous postings, but it'll sure be easier now to point rather than answer. Good effort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't get it. What's the point of this? A look at how great our debate has been over the past couple years? To discourage people from making the same points all over again? There are only so many points to be made in this discussion, in any discussion - by no means is it wrong to repeat points, especially when a discussion has taken this long and not been resolved. JohnWycliff (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename this article "Myanmar."

This article should be named Myanmar because Burma changed its name to Myanmar in 1989. The articles of countries that changed their names in the past on this website go by their current names: Iran goes by Iran, not Persia, and Thailand goes by Thailand, not Siam anymore. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Canaan, and Palestine go by separate articles from their current names and countries they were divided into. So therefore, this article should be renamed Myanmar. It should not go by its old name. It is wrong to do it.--User:CalicoCatLover January 17, 2010 9:26 AM (PST).

If Myanmar-gov becomes pro-USA, wikipedia will immediateley change the lemma, believe me. --112.205.7.91 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Nah, as soon as Aung San Suu Kyi calls for the world to use Myanmar, Wikipedia editors will change it. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are completely right.--Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article STILL called "Burma"?

Wake up, people. The name change was more than twenty years ago. Nobody is insisting on calling modern countries Persia or Mesopotamia, so why "Burma"? Myanmar is the more generally used term in the West for this country, Wikipedia is aligning itself with a minority by persisting in its preference for the colonial name. This fact alone is proof that maintaining the article as "Burma" violates Wikipedia's own neutrality policy.

Some on this page argue that they are paralyzed from moving the article by the lack of consensus, but this is a weak excuse. Consensus on Wikipedia is frequently interpreted to mean 51% of the respected users, so it should be no insurmountable obstacle in this case. When will an administrator with a conscience take matters into his own hands on this issue?

I don't see how the continued usage of the name "Burma" be construed as anything other than a political agenda. (Personal attack removed) 207.207.126.218 (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify my thought on the subject of consensus before it is reverted again. While there is clearly no universal agreement here on how to deal with the name of the article, the article at WP:CON states specifically that consensus does not need to reach that point to be considered as such. I have seen many issues similar to this one resolved over the heads of very vocal minorities on talk pages and even based on the biggest plurality of user opinion when there was no majority. I am not trying to imply Wikipedia's policy of consensus is flawed. The way it looks to me, these are precedents that clearly point toward moving this country's article to Myanmar. Clearly I can't do that myself since I don't have a registered account: What I'm trying to do here is encourage a reader who can to take action.
If anything, maintaining the article at "Burma" goes against the grain of Wikipedia policy in so many ways that it is very troubling that there is no consensus behind that continuing action. 207.207.126.218 (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Theoretically it's due to more common usage in English sources. You may of course argue that point. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
This point has already been argued to death over many years, or at least that is my understanding based on the archives on this page. I also understand based on the statistics there that "Burma" is very clearly not the more common usage and I think any honest person will say the same. (You don't need an account to be honest, anonymous users feel free to back this point up because your assent only strengthens it.) 207.207.126.218 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Burma is the more common usage by most people I talk to and in the material I read - and I'm not British, much less a British Imperialist. (I rather agree with the US splitting off from the UK, for instance :-}) Allens (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see this article at "Burma" since I have always known the country as "Myanmar". A quick google reveals that Myanmar is more widely used (Myanmar 45,900,000 results, Burma 19,300,000 on Google US; Myanmar 238,000,000, Burma 103,000,000 on Google UK) and I agree that this article should be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.185.231 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You are late to the party. It just went through a move request and failed. cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
good point, I have read through the move request. Here's a compromise- the article Association football has two widely used names, so it goes at the official name instead. With that in mind would it be a good idea to move this article to Republic of the Union of Myanmar and the article starts with The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, usually called Burma... ; alternative article start- The Republic of the Union of Myanmar, usually called Burma or Myanmar... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.185.231 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Some people in the West still feel that the name "Mayanmar" should be avoided because the country was given that name by dictators. When I travelled in South-East Asia I noticed that the country is always called "Mayanmar" in the region. Saying "Birma" (or "Burma") is like saying Rhodesia to Zimbabwe or Ceylon to Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the name "Union of Mayanmar" acknowledges that there are other people than ethnic Burmese who live in the country. Being "politically correct" in naming countries is a hopeless endeavour: for instance, "Siam" was renamed to "Thailand" in 1939 in order to support territorial claims on regions in Laos where ethnic Thai people live. Rbakels (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

While I support a move to Myanmar, I must say your reasoning above is faulty (to put it mildly). (1) This is the English language wikipedia so it doesn't really matter how people in South-East Asia refer to that country. What matters is what people in English speaking countries call it. (2) Myanma and Bama (Myanmar and Burmese) refer to exactly the same ethnic group. Therefore so do Union of Myanmar and Union of Burma. Neither name particularly acknowledges the presence of Kayin, Kachin, Chin, Nagas, Shan, Palaung, or any other ethnic group in that country. (3) Burma has a long pre-colonial history as a name for the country and is not a mere colonial creation as was Rhodesia. So this is nowhere near "like saying Rhodesia to Zimbabwe". Sorry, but none of your reasons are valid ones. I suggest looking at WP:UCN instead. --regentspark (comment) 11:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Time for a move request?

Unless I'm mistaken, it's been over three years since the last move request and the mediation case over this were closed. Certainly a new dynamic has developed at Wikipedia since then, but is it time to gauge what its sentiments are over this naming dispute? Is it time for another move request? Rennell435 (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have initiated a move request at the article talk page. --regentspark (comment) 13:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree also. The news this morning talked about Myanmar and I had forgotten that it was ever called Burma. Had to search on wiki for the country and found it was called Burma here. Why is Sri Lanka not still called Ceylon by this reasoning? KennethSides (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
It's actually been less than a month since the last move discussion - 26th October 2011; see the top of the page. Allens (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry! I've not been following the discussion. I was just so amazed that the article is called Burma, since I read and travel widely and I have not heard Myanmar called Burma for at least a decade. I read the "poll" and was not convinced by the "Opposes". Besides, polls are not votes, and should not override Wiki policy. KennethSides (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the situation might change in this new year. Myanmar is becoming very much more opened, so we will see. Rennell435 (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

An interesting summary of where we're at

The Financial Times switches its naming practices [7] 101.116.186.155 (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Bangkok Post has also switched to Myanmar. [8] --Globe-trotter (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
German Foreign Office has been using "Myanmar" instead of "Burma" for some time now. I am of course aware that this is the English part of Wikipedia... -- megA (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain the rationale for the consensus?

The table at the top is an incoherent mess that I couldnt make any sense of at all. I am curious as to the rationale behind this. I have a contrary opinion, but find it interesting that there is substantial resistance to it. I am not requesting a move at this time (and I doubt any time soon, I have enough arguments already to bothre with haha) Thanks. Pleast talkback me--Metallurgist (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Easiest is to read the discussion at the latest move request (here). What it amounts to is that the reasons to keep at Burma or move it to Myanmar are equally persuasive and therefore there is no reason to move it. The status quo is maintained in such situations. Hope this helps. --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I can understand why you have trouble reaching consensus on the name of the article. My talk page post calling into question the reasons used to retain the title was immediately reverted by one of the people who seems to me - a literally uninterested observer - to be the most stridently POV on the recent RM request. Actually, it's not even a talk page post; it's a post on a sub-page devoted solely to the discussion of the article's name. AND it was in a section headed with a question on how such a very odd 'consensus' was reached. Just... wow. Even in the midst of the Jesus Wars I had never had a talk page post removed by someone who didn't like my viewpoint. I have no horse in this race. Luke 10:11, live long and prosper, and (most appropriately) good night and good luck. Kevin/Last1in (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

When policy trumps common sense

I love Wikipedia and almost everything about it. This, however, is one of the rare instances when I don't. As the section title indicates, the least bit of common sense would surely dictate that the article title be changed. But alas, policy is subjecting us to call a country by a name it stopped using four years ago. How this is even being discussed is simply mind-boggling. TonyStarks (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely you mean 23 years ago. However, there is nothing particularly mind-boggling or non-commonsensical about this. The choice of Burma would be mind boggling only if it were an unrecognizable name, which it clearly isn't. According to the most recent move discussion, the common name of the country in English continues to be Burma. Would you title the article Myanmar if the name were official but unknown to most English speaking people? Now that would defy common sense and be a mind boggling "use official name only" policy prescription. Debating whether Myanmar is more common than Burma is a legitimate occupation but the your comment is, um, mind-boggling. (BTW, before you go off on a predictable 'this is just political' rant, I support a move to Myanmar and was, in fact, the maker of the most recent move request.) --regentspark (comment) 14:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not advocating an "official name" policy, obviously it wouldn't make sense across all of Wikipedia .. but we are talking about a country here! If people continue to call it by its previous name, all they are doing is making a mistake and is certainly not something that we should be using as a reference to justify keeping it at its current name. It's like people that insist on referring to DR Congo as Zaire, them doing simply doesn't make it right. The country changed its name to Myanmar, the article should do the same. Sorry but there is absouletely nothing mind-boggling about it, it is very common sense. Now, I know how Wikipedia works and I understand there's guidelines and policies that need to be followed .. but this one of those times where those things really do more harm than good. (And no don't worry, I know it's not political, I've ready the discussions and understand why the article title hasn't been changed yet ;)). TonyStarks (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This case is quite different from other country name changes. Wikipedia follows, not leads, common usage. Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
How is it different? The country itself officially changed its name right? Plenty of sources refer to it by its new name, why are we still waiting to change it? TonyStarks (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Well lets say Montana was taken over by a group of terrorists and they proclaimed it the State of Canopener. That doesn't make it so. That's an extreme example of course but many countries do not recognize the group of thugs that took over Burma. Neither does the gov't in exile. And other countries are under no obligation to use the English term that the country wants anyways. The usage is common both ways though I don't deny that Myanmar is getting more and more popular in the US. Of course even those who live in Burma/Myanmar are split on what they call it... and it's not split 2 ways, it's probably 4 or 5 ways. It's a very complicated issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Well counter example using your logic, many countries do not recognize the existence of the state of Israel. Ask a Palestinian what he thinks about the situation and I'm sure he will tell you that is Israel is just occupied Palestinian land. However, that doesn't change the fact that Israel exists as a nation and merits its own article (as opposed to naming it something like "Occupied lands" or whatever). Politics aside, what I'm trying to say is that an encyclopedia should not take sides. If a country changed its name 4 years ago, the article should be updated to reflect the new name. The rest of the article can explain the issues that you mentioned with regards to its name/history. Also, WP:COMMONNAME states that "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." You, as well others, have said that the name Myanmar is becoming more and more common in English language media. I just did a quick search on Google news and got back 10,000 hits for Myanmar, that's 10,000 different articles (assuming they're all different), calling it by its new name. In comparison, only 5,000 hits came up for Burma. Surely, a move can now be justified if we're giving more weight to reliable sources after the name change? TonyStarks (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok lets try this. China will call a country by one name and the US will call it by another. Which should we use here in this English wikipedia? For me it's the English version. Just like I call her Serena Williams but in Czech it's Serena Williamsova. Also I said Myanmar is more and more common in the US... not the UK, Australia or Canada. Officially in those English 1st countries it's Burma. And companies here in the US that do business overseas...most REQUIRE their employees to use the term Burma. There is a lot going on here in this English wikipedia when it comes to Burma and I really don't want to get into another discussion when we had one just a short while ago. Things are changing there, hopefully for the good, and we have time to wait it out and see if recognition comes or the gov't changes its views. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Who cares what the US, China, UK or any other country calls it?? Why aren't you asking what Myanmar/Burma calls itself?? That's the only question that matters, what the country calls itself. In this case, it's Myanmar, so the title should be Myanmar. The rest is just politics. What American companies tell their employees to call a country should have no bearing on an encyclopedia .. because again, that's politics, they have their motives for doing it. And yes we are on English Wikipedia, and plenty of sources do call the country Myanmar, including The New York Times, AFP, Chicago Tribune, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press. Is that really not enough sources? TonyStarks (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
And just to add, the US/UK and whatever other English-speaking countries being thrown out there as "references" do not own the English language, which is universal today. If we were to pick one government entity to use a reference, it should be the UN and the UN lists the country as Myanmar. TonyStarks (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Well we have a big disagreement there. They call themselves Nippon and US call them Japan. Other countries call it Deutchland...US calls it Germany. There are all kinds of English names for countries. Burma populations calls itself 5 different things. Burma gov't in exile calls it Burma....the junta calls it Myanmar. There are also plenty of sources that call it Burma... this has all been gone over and over and over. We call it Taiwan, they call themselves ROC, China mainland calls them something else. Politics is everywhere. US gov't UK gov't, Australia, Canada officially calls it Burma. Look, I was simply answering a quick question as ALL of this is in the archives. I'm not debating it, we just did that. I was only explaining it. Sorry if that's not enough and sorry if you missed the huge debate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know its all in the archives, I read them before posting. Also, I wasn't even looking to debate myself, just felt like getting it off my chest. Funny part is I had no idea which is right prior to stumbling upon this discussion, it just started when I saw their new flag on another website and couldn't tell which country it was. That took me to the Burma article, and I told myself "Wait, isn't it Myanmar?" and it just took off from there. In any case, I enjoyed going through the previous discussions and I get the point that both sides are making .. but I'd still support a move to Myanmar. Maybe time for another discussion? Google News results return 2:1 hits for Myanmar versus Burma. TonyStarks (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
How do these nonarguments keep coming up on both sides. Germany and Japan aren't called Deutschland or Nippon in English, even by Germans and Japanese. Those aren't English words or loanwords. What the Burmese population calls it isn't important either, unless they're speaking English. Not sure why any government in exile matters at all, the supported party is the National League for Democracy, which isn't in exile. The opinions of English speaking governments matters only in that it is likely the population follows that pattern. Much of Taiwan calls itself Taiwan too.
That said, the last conversation ended up with no consensus that Myanmar was now more used and recognisable than Burma. If another discussion is started, it needs to be headed off with a good summary of a firm range of statistics that show which name is the more WP:Commonname, which is the only criteria that really matters here. CMD (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand this hangup that people have about official names. One of the (many) good things about Wikipedia is that it uses common English names as titles rather than official ones and we shouldn't go around trying to change that. Official, itself, has many meanings (depending on who is being officious!). For example, one can argue that, since it is the official position of the governments of USA, UK, and other English speaking countries that the name of that country is Burma, then the official name is Burma. That said, I do think that when two names are more or less equally common, it makes sense to go with whatever the entity chooses to call itself. If Myanmar were official and esoteric, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I agree with chipmunkdavis that, if a new move request is to be initiated, then it should start with a good summary of the statistics. Google hits are not good enough and it'll have to be backed up with newspapers (I note that the BBC has added a "also known as Myanmar" [9] on occasion and that the EU used "Myanmar/Burma" in a statement on sanctions [10]). The difficulty in moving this article is that Burma is equally recognizable and well used in English sources. The evidence has to be good. --regentspark (comment) 13:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, like I said earlier, The New York Times, AFP, Chicago Tribune, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press all call it Myanmar. Google News hits returns double the results for Myanmar compared to Burma. The United Nations calls it Myanmar. Factor in the fact that WP:COMMONNAME states the following: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change", I think we have a good case in making the move. And again, I really don't understand why people are mentioning the fact that the US/UK/other English-speaking countries' governments call it Burma. I'm from Canada and I call it Myanmar. There's plenty of others users in the discussion from English-speaking countries that call it Myanmar. Just because politics and bureaucracy are forcing certain governments to take a stance on the name doesn't mean that an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia should follow. TonyStarks (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Tony, yes it is a frustrating thing. But people who follow this page are more or less evenly split on whether they think Burma or Myanmar is more commonly used, despite the current trend in global media. There is no consensus one way or the other here, and no consensus means that the article will remain at Burma. Because Wikipedia will never again allow a counter-policy move like the one that changed this article from Myanmar to Burma in 2007, riding the political fumes of the 2007 monk protests, succeeding in the change when other attempts failed (such as the Yangon article) despite the move lacking consensus even then. And yes, I do feel obligated to bring that up constantly. One of my major regrets is that I didn't know enough about Wiki policy at the time to challenge the move; otherwise, the article would still be Myanmar, we wouldn't have such a large template at the top explaining the history behind the article's name, and this separate talk page wouldn't exist. Ah well. ;) -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Whose Name?

The wikipedia article referred to in the surrounding controversy is not about an area defined by language, geography, geology or other 'non-political' criteria, the article is about the modern Nation-state. The Government of that nation-state uses the short form Myanmar. So, should we listen to others to define the name of nation-state? If so, should we respect such organisations as the UN, the IOC and FIFA, all of whom use Myanmar? Perhaps it is American (sorry, should that be US, or USA) and British (I am a British citizen, I strongly oppose the use of the terms "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain") governments choice to use Burma, but who are they to determine the name of another nation-state. In naming a nation-state, which nation-state has the 'right' to do so? POV conflict is crawling all over this debate, almost all the opposition to the name Myanmar explicitly state that it is for POV reasons, for political reasons, that they oppose the renaming of the article to Burma. The exception is the "traditional English" proponents. They are wrong. English is a language, it changes. English is the language of a minority of people in the world, why do their names for a thing have precedence? "This is an English wikipedia" Yes, it is written in English, that does not mean that the words that some English speakers use have total precedence over all else. An encyclopedia is about knowledge and exposing debate, not setting in stone the language-use of a few individuals at a particular point of time. Finally, from my perspective, this debate, like so many on Wikipedia, is about SYSTEMIC BIAS, the belief by a few that their perspective is the correct one no matter what, the belief that what middle-class US computer nerds believe and discuss is more important than all else (GOOGLE as an AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE for god sake, it is a commercially run search engine, with almost complete English language bias and reflective of the US dominance of internet production) Brunswicknic (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Burma → Myanmar requested-move notification

A requested move survey has been started (by Marcus Qwertyus (talk)) at Talk:Burma, which proposes to move:

Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


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)

Let's do this quickly. It's getting ridiculous now. Myanmar is the official English Language name. Despite what other commentators have said. there was never any consensus to keep it. In fact, if you look through the archives, you'll find that most arguments were broadly in favour of changing the name. Can someone with more knowledge about wikipedia than me, make this name change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
‘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)
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)
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)
In the London 2012 Olympics, during the athletes parade they used the name Myanmar. This may or may not be because they were using the native name for the country.79.67.227.29 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Leave the name as it is and see how current political events pan out, many Burmese people do not accept the name Myanmar anyway because of its association with the military government. Also why change the name as the Germany page is not called Deutchsland and Burma and Myanmar is exactly the same concept (Fdsdh1 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC))

Move review : Burma

I have initiated a move closure review for this page here: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 August 26. Please feel free to participate. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. have we not had enough? The closing admin didnt even take into account this article has been at this location for 5 years, nor did they take into account the biased canvassing which benefited the move camp. But there was still not enough to justify the move. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I've seen some strange closing reviews asked for but this just makes things go on and on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Given the history of the issue and the high involvement in the discussion it was inevitable. If it had gone the other way I would expect a review to have happened as well. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a tad disappointed that the closing reviewer referenced "Google Insights and Books" and not the news media, but that's how it goes. At least it feels like the closer put more effort into his decision than the 2007 closer or any closer since, and that goes a long way. -BaronGrackle (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree with closing the process; however, the only conclusion that I can draw is confusion. If we place everything on what is the common name, this article will never change. I cannot conceive how one demonstrates that the common name is sufficiently in favor of Myanmar over Burma. What does that look like? Does England have to call it Myanmar officially? Which groups must "officially" call it Myanmar to qualify? As I have said for the last few years, this is one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. As long as rules can be used to support these kinds of decisions Wikipedia will never be accepted as a valid source. What we have now is an article about a country that does not exist and has not existed in decades and that will always require a qualifier: "Burma, not the real name of the country or even the most common, but is the one used on Wikipedia and by those people who reject the current government of the nation of Myanmar..." Democracy, the form of government that will always degenerate into serving the lowest common denominator and three cheers for Wikipedia for keeping people ignorant of facts. -StormRider 08:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
First of all it would be the United Kingdom not England a non state, but i think the evidence will be very clear one way or another. If the opposition started using Myanmar, western governments would and some major media outlets would too, there would be a chain reaction in all media usage and it would happen over a very short period of time. If that happened those recent changes would be given more weight in any future decision than past sources from previous years. It really depends on what happens in the country. Either the opposition will get into power and continue to call it Burma, resulting in it becoming even more widespread, or the opposition will accept the name Myanmar, which if happened usage by others would follow. As someone that thinks it should remain at Burma, if the Opposition, Western governments and media organisations such as the BBC used Myanmar, id fully accept its no longer the commonname and support a move to Myanmar. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
As all the references given above have already demonstrated, all media does use Myanmar. They also use Burma. What the "opposition" does and thinks is a nice sidenote, but it is meaningless. This is a prime example of the absurdity of using Burma, the "opposition's" preferred name rather than the most commonly used name. We will end up bending so far backwards to accomdodate this absurdity that Wikipedia's collective head will be put so far up....I digress. -StormRider 10:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Although i haven't exactly been the most involved in this i'm inclined to back BritishWatcher's argument as the best way to avoid warring over this. If one party calls it a different name from the other then there isn't a consensus on the name and so we don't have a concrete name for it either. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

@pro Burma term faction: Just a hypothetical question: What would you do, if Aung San Suu Kyi asked the world community to adopt the name "Myanmar"? Would you still insists on the (colonialists'?) term "Burma"? Datu Dong (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Burma/ Myanmar

What exactly is the reasoning behind staying the article at Burma, and not Myanmar? In all the arguments I have seen, people go by just personal interpretations and biases to judge validity of arguments, and not actual reasons. I propose that anyone who has any reason to give regarding their choice of name in bullets, with no more than 2 lines to support every point for their argument. And facts will be a lot less biased than arguments. Should you not agree to a point in the 'unchallenged facts', please move it to the 'challenged facts', and provide your rebuttal to it.

The following are the arguments -

Unchallenged facts-

Challenged facts -

[Please add below the stances of the particular governments and news agencies; and the search results history]

All anyone has to do is read the: September 2012 Move review, August 2012–26 August 2012 Requested move, October 2011–26 October 2011 Requested move, July 2008–17 July 2008 Attempt at structured mediation, July 2008–11 July 2008 Request for mediation (discussion), June 2008–25 June 2008 Mediation Cabal case (discussion) and the May 2008–8 June 2008 Request for comment. Everything is in those discussions which include three in the last year alone. It's been synthesized many times in those discussions and is not needed here again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly my point. I have read a part of those discussions, and I very much disagree with most of the statements there. And to ask anyone to read those discussions before giving an opinion is unjustified due to the vast amount of statements one has to go through, many of which are futile. All I want is a proper cohesive way to judge whether it should be Burma or Myanmar, which does not depend on people's personal biases on the topic, but actual facts [I am pretty sure i read half a dozen search-history documentation on both sides of the argument, most of which was self-contradicting] {Off-record, I believe that placing Myanmar as Burma is totally unjustified, whatever the circumstances be; and the only reason its still there is because of some people's silly biases. And such requests shall continue to come up until a real solution is reached.} TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah. If only life was as simple as to have a proper cohesive way to judge things! We wouldn't need courts (use the cohesive way to judge and string up the bad guys!), angry divorces - things of the past - the cohesive way perfectly allocates blame, and money. Kids upset - no way - kids use the cohesive way and figure out that their parents are right about everything. I know i'm being facetious but you're just bringing your own personal bias into the whole thing. There are many good reasons for Burma in the discussion and many good reasons for Myanmar in the discussion. This is just the way the cookie crumbled. (Note: I personally think that the reasons for Myanmar are a bit stronger but there is that dratted WP:CONSENSUS thing that gets in the way of my supreme control over Wikipedia!) --regentspark (comment) 16:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If you ignore political issues, the practical value of a title depends on it being recognizable to as many readers as possible. I didn't think there is any question that "Burma" is the more recognizable name. Numerous sources confirm that the country is "better known as Burma," or use similar language. If a writer calls the country "Myanmar", he must explain somewhere that he is talking about Burma. But no one has to write "Burma (Myanmar)". Kauffner (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe the world is in the process of shifting towards Myanmar which is why we see things such as news articles say "Myanmar, also known as Burma" instead of just outright calling it Burma. When does a name become "better known" I don't know it seems everyone has a different opinion in that matter, but Wikipedia is rather conservative when making name changes. JoshMartini007 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL. It's not the job of Wikipedia to anticipate changes, or actively work towards effecting such changes (the promotion of controversial views – POV-pushing – and activism is frowned upon here, Wikipedia is only for informing the reader without trying to influence them to change their behaviour). Myanmar, due to its association with the military government, is equally non-neutral and problematic as Burma, which is burdened with being a reminder of the colonial past. But then, so is India instead of Bharat, or Ireland instead of Éire. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
"Better known". I'd wager more people would recognize Siam over Thailand, if only because of The King and I. I bet if you pointed people to Serbia on a map and asked if it was Serbia or Yugoslavia, most would guess the latter. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
For the U.S., searches for "Thailand" outnumber those for "Siam" 33-6. I think you lost your wager. Kauffner (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but where do you live that you believe more people would recognize Siam than Thailand? -- tariqabjotu 23:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Folks, I recommend that you just give up on the name change. I was a bit shocked to find Burma as the title here and asked about it. After a rather snarky response, I actually DID read the entire archive of name change requests. I do not recommend the experience. At times in the past when the title was Myanmar it was “critical” to move the page “immediately” but any time it’s Burma we are supposed to “wait and see what develops” because there is “no compelling reason to change the status quo.”

A very small but extremely committed group of editors takes umbrage at any attempt to change the name, to the point of reverting Talk Page edits that they find unsettling. The page itself is policed vigilantly to ensure the use of Burma, but that also ensures that the article is up to date and accurate in other ways. Other than the bizarre title and acrid Talk Page churn, the article’s health is excellent and the quality is very high. Anyone searching for Myanmar will get a redirect to this article and get accurate and encyclopaedic information, so other than the reader’s momentary puzzlement at the archaic name and arcane reasons for keeping it in Wikipedia, there is no real harm in appeasing the editors for whom the Imperial name has such strong, emotional importance. Further, fighting this battle over and over simply drains energy that could be focused on improving other articles.

I drop by whenever Myanmar is back in the news cycle (right now, the US President is preparing to visit). I find it sad the number of editors who waste time trying to correct this name when they could be working to enhance Wikipedia. My advice is to move on. Last1in (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As one of the above-maligned advocates of "Burma", I could take umbrage. Instead, I'll heartily agree that there are more important issues, even on Wikipedia, than whether the archaic and arcane names of the articles on Libya or Africa or Egypt or Germany [or dare I say Danzig?] reflect some presently-maligned imperial past instead of the sensibilities of self-appointed guardians and would-be dictators of English usage. Tomertalk 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The government of Myanmar, on its British embassy page, does use the words Burma and burmese, but this is not their official name. Why does Wikipedia persist in using the out-of-date term Burma? Why such a dragging of feet? There has not been a similar problem with Beijing replacing Peking. Rwood128 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikitravel uses Myanmar:<Myanmar [11], or Burma, officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar is a country in Southeast Asia. It lies on the Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea coast with Bangladesh and India to the west, China to the north, and Laos and Thailand to the east.> Rwood128 (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Google News results

  • Burma 44,700 results [12]
  • Myanmar 243,000 results [13]

Per WP:commonname, Myanmar should definitely be the title. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Number of page watchers at Burma/Myanmar: 66. Number of page watchers at Burma: 439. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
That's good. Fewer people will be pointlessly disturbed by this recurring every six weeks. Formerip (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on here. I've never been to this page before, but today I got a message from the RFC bot to comment as part of the feedback request service. Anyways I reposted my comment at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. This article already had three much larger discussions in the past year so this one is kinda strange. An administrator should have made this a quick close but they must have missed it. Sorry the bot randomly picked you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Argument by Analogy—Burma:Myanmar::Saigon:Ho Chi Minh City

I support renaming. There is no dispute on the name of Ho Chi Minh City, although many Vietnamese call it Saigon, and Yangon isn't titled Rangoon... By this analogy, and for other reasons, I support moving Burma to Myanmar. Jackstormson (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:ANALOGY is a policy based naming argument. :) Regardless, I believe that the annual Burma/Myanmar namefest is conducted sometime in July or August. --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Name of Page -- Burma vs. Myanmar

This page should really be titled "Myanmar" and a Burma page should redirect here, not vice-versa. No matter what our thoughts on the politics, the reality is the country's official name is Myanmar and not Burma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.229.130 (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC) *note - moved from Talk:Burma to keep things in a similar place

Burma or Myanmar?

Even though the country is officially known by a few countries, such as the United States as Burma, the government still recognizes itself as the Union of Myanmar. I contend that this is valid rationale for changing the page name to Myanmar. Opinions? Regards, smileguy91talk 21:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed and discussed, the most recent to be found as a Request for Comments (RfC) on the most recent archive page. About a week before you posted your question, I tried to clarify in the Lede that both names, Burma and Myanmar, are considered to be historic names for this country. There really is no way to choose which name is best for the article other than that "Burma" is more recognizable in English-speaking countries, and this is the English Wikipedia. This has been a controversy from the beginning with good arguments on both sides of the question. In a case like this, it's usually best to preserve the name of this article as it is. Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 23:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
It should be changed to "Myanmar"; it is nonsense to continue calling it "Burma". Don't know how one can make the statement like "In a case like this, it's usually best to preserve the name of this article as it is." with a straight face. But then, I didn't see you typing. Thanks guys. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe as you, Smileguy and a host of other contributors that this article should be titled "Myanmar". Then I took the time to sift through all the previous discussions that have led to retention of the name "Burma". That did not change my mind; however, when I tried to remain objective, I did see that, while I still think "Myanmar" is presently the best name for this article, the arguments for retaining the name "Burma" outweigh those for changing it to "Myanmar". Wikipedia, for these controversial issues, operates by community consensus. Thus far there has been no consensus to change the name from "Burma" to "Myanmar". Yes, this is unsatisfactory to me and to other editors who still feel the name should be changed. It does no good to battle with the present lack of consensus to change. If one feels that strongly about it, then one should simply continue to try to gather consensus for the change. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 21:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

What is there to debate?

This is exactly why colleges and Universities don't consider Wikipedia a credible source. After reading over the debate, I still don't understand what the debate is. There have been many name changes over the history of mankind. Borders have shifted. Even whole countries dividing, needing to be named. The facts are so simple yet people want to express so much opinion, that it does nothing but lower the credibility of the article, the site, and blind people into thinking facts can be debated.

Fact. The country officially changed it's name in 1989. The reasons shouldn't concern anybody when it comes to fact. Any concerns merely come from traditional fallacies and opinions. And opinions are exactly what this site should avoid. This is meant to be a site of facts. Simply put, those who still say Burma are incorrect; albeit socially acceptable, it's still wrong.

For those concerned with "doubling up information", more facts. Myanmar now redirects to Burma. Burma has a very short page, that doesn't even include information about the name change. Names of Burma is an article that explains the name change and why. I understand it's a long article in itself, but seeing as Burma's article only holds 4 paragraphs, with 1 paragraph being 2 sentences, it might give more credibility to actually have some girth to the official Burma article and combine those two. There are also at least 2 of these talk pages where it's debated/discussed. That's 5 pages of Myanmar. Is all of this really needed? The current setup only portraits ignorance and lack of knowledge within current affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinivec (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I can only think you're experiencing a very slow page load, but the Burma article is a lot longer than four paragraphs. Formerip (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Colleges and universities don't accept wikipedia as a credible source for two reasons, neither of which is related to the Burma/Myanmar debate. 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, encyclopedias collect and condense data from sources. When a student reaches the college or university level he or she is expected to be able to find and utilize actual sources, not encyclopedias. 2) As wikipedia is a wiki it is vulnerable to vandalism. Students may unknowingly incorporate vandalized data if they use wikipedia.
As for the name change, no one is debating whether the Burmese people can change the name of their country in their own language. The point of debate is whether such a name change should have any relevance to the English name of that country. As an illustrative example, the name of China in its native language is Zhongguo. The English name has no relationship to that name and is unlikely to ever be changed no matter what the Chinese government decides to call its nation.--Khajidha (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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). KDS4444Talk 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)

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)

I can't find the word "Myanmar" anywhere in the story linked at Time magazine.--Khajidha (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you're quite right. It's actually in the story's URL, but from a house style point of view they're still very much using "Burma". I'm quite sure that I examined the usage over a number of articles for the other publications, but if you'd asked me before I'd have said I'd done that for all of them including Time! Bigbluefish (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Several of the other sources show mixed usage. The Washington Post article uses Burma in the text and Myanmar in the photo captions. On the BBC site, the "More on this story", "Background" and "Related stories" links use Burma while the "From other news sites" section mostly uses Myanmar. Notably, the only such link to a source from a native English speaking country (the Scottish Daily Express) uses Burma. Radio Australia uses Myanmar when stating the official government position, but the actual quotes from MP Luke Simpkins use Burma. The Telegraph uses Myanmar with only a single "formerly known as Burma". This selection of usage in media from English-speaking countries seems to me to still support the idea that the country is generally known in English as Burma and that Myanmar is unfamiliar to many members of their target audience. --Khajidha (talk) 03:04, 25 October 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)
Agree, this should be Myanmar now. Google gives 401 million hits for "Myanmar", but "Burma" only gets 119 million, much of which must be already older material. Unless there is some need to side with a political faction this or that, Wikipedia should just go along with the most used English name. Drieakko (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
But do those hits actually indicate that "Myanmar" is the most used English name? Are those English only hits? Non-English usage is irrelevant here. How many of the "Myanmar" hits include something like "formerly known as Burma"? If the author feels the need to explain the word "Myanmar" it is not the common English term. --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burma/Myanmar/Archive_5&oldid=1251254445"