Jump to content

Talk:Myanmar/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2009/02/18/national/myanmar-refugees-to-try-resettling/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Major events not covered

The economics history section is (of course, the entire article is, but I won't waste time arguing about HR) in shambles. It blames economic failures entirely to U Nu, forgetting he controlled little beyond Rangoon, and argues that British rule, which sowed the seeds of civil war and communal violence today, was hugely beneficial to the Burmese. I believe it cannot be standalone and should be merged with history section.

In history section, several major events such as invasion of CIA-backed KMT which formed the backbone of the Golden Triangle should be covered. As well, the origin of several ethnic armies which were formed by the British to fight against the Japanese should be covered. SWH® talk 18:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 February 2015

I am requesting two separate changes to RCAT tags on Talk:Myanmar, which is currently a protected redirect page. (It redirects here, to Talk:Burma.)

The relevant line of code presently on the page is:
{{Redr|move|from historic name|with possibilities}}

I am requesting that it be changed to:
{{Redr|move|from alternative name}}

The first change is changing "from historic name" to "from alternative name". The latter is more accurate, and making the change on Talk:Myanmar would match changes already made on Myanmar, which is also a protected redirect page (to Burma). This same change was made on that page in two separate steps (three months apart), with the removal of "from historic name" made here and the addition of "from alternative name" made here.

The second change is simply removing "with possibilities", since the Talk: page is not a "redirect with possibilities". (This tag is in place on Myanmar, which is perfectly appropriate for that page in the main/article namespace.)

If any of this is unclear, please let me know (here on this page) and I'll try to clarify. Jdaloner (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

GDP/PPP (IMF figures)

If I am not wrong, the PPP figure, 221 billions, increases tremendously in recent years (readjustment?). That means Myanmar jumps from near bottom to 58th. Does anyone know reasons for this? SWH® talk 08:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't much faith into the GDP numbers, including those by the IMF. To me, it's still pretty much guesswork, given that there haven't been much reliable data. According to the IMF, the country's GDP tripled from 2006 to 2010. Really? This was before the so-called political reforms, and the subsequent FDI inflows. It was during Cyclone Nargis and the Saffron protests. Natural gas sales of a few billion dollars and a small base, etc. can't explain that. I have to think they were trying to readjust their previous low-ball estimates. With the 2014 PPP figures, the IMF might have overshot in readjustment. (Anyone who's been to Yangon/Mandalay lately knows how ridiculously expensive sub-standard things are there.) It may be readjusted downward next year. Who knows? I don't think anyone really knows. It'll take several years for the stats coming out of the country to become somewhat reliable. Hybernator (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. I was quite suspicious because the government couldn't even hire proper accountants and IMF figures show ridiculously high estimates. It will take long before we have somewhat reliable figures. SWH® talk 07:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Name in Burmese script not shown correctly

At least on English Wikipedia, the official name of the country shows up as "ျပည္ေထာင္စုသမၼတျမန္မာနိဳင္ငံေတာ္" when it should be "ပြည်ထောင်​စု သမ္မတ မြန်မာ​နိုင်​ငံတော်". Why? Kanjilearner817 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the translation difference between the two? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Both look exactly the same on my wiki Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Menorca

That discussion, obviously, is irrelevant to this one. Please take your request to Talk:Minorca. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 12:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm pointing out an inconsistency between a high profile article and a backwater. There's one evident similarity - the same arguments were made there as have been made here in the past counting modern (post 2000) books about "Burma" (in history) in Ngrams without discounting that counting a book in an Ngram doesn't say if the book refers to history or now. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Myanmar. Clear consensus that the newer name has become consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. Dragons flight (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


Burma → Myanmar – The last RM was back in 2012, three years ago. Right before the democracy reforms and the elections. With the current change in the political direction of the country, a new debate is warranted whether to keep the old name or go on to the new one. The current trend in popular media (BBC, NYT, WSJ, FOX, CNN, NHK, RTE, CTV, ABC, SKY) is that "Myanmar" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:Commonname. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Survey

As noted above, you'll need to make your case over at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. Good luck with that; God knows I (and many others) have tried. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@DoctorJoeE: Why is this the case? This is the page being moved after all.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cpt.a.haddock: Because this discussion has been ongoing for ... well ... forever -- and I think they are trying to keep it centralized, rather than have one dialog going on here and another there. FWIW, I strongly support the proposed move, but there is a small, tenacious group that opposes it, as you can see for yourself at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 12:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Yunshui: Is it really inadequate indicator in this case? We are not using it here to gauge the notability of a term. We are using it as a metric to compare the usage of two different terms on the same playing field. The same applies to an extent for the Trends results.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually I stuck that in there just to dissuade the almost inevitable "but WP:GOOGLEHITS!" oppose that nearly always follows such a rationale. I'm well aware that WP:GOOGLEHITS is part of an AFD essay, and doesn't have much relevance here. Yunshui 雲水 11:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It's also interesting when noting that in the previous RM discussion, a contributor noted that they were, "getting "About 44,900 results" for Burma in Google News, while Myanmar fetches about "About 166,000 results". The ratio has shifted significantly more in favour of "Myanmar" over "Burma" in the intervening period (from c. 1-4 to c. 1-12 by my maths). WJBscribe (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking at online dictionary entries, AHD, Collins, Longman, and Merriam-Webster all prefer Myanmar and redirect Burma to the entry for Myanmar. Encyclopaedia Britannica too prefers Myanmar.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's focus on the case at hand, rather than drawing out "other stuff". However, I would argue that pronunciation is a deal breaker for article titles, when one has the option to choose between a readily pronounceable title and one that is less so. This is in line with the recognisability criteria of WP:AT. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Pronounceability should not trump WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:COMMONNAME, should it? It's not even mentioned as a consideration under WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
If you think Łódź is the common name in English you're crazy. Except here at Wikipedia or doing Polish genealogy work, I've never seen it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The situation of pronunciation is complicated by the fact that the word was coined by the Ne Win government; the Burmese-language pronunciation of the spelling mranmā is "Bama", hence the non-rhotic British "Burma" and the name of the ethnicity the country is named for, the Bamar people. It's hard to say Myanmar in Burmese, just like if the US government insisted on everyone pronouncing initial kn- as spelled. It's extremely artificial. Its artificiality runs directly in the face of the spirit of the rule we usually use, which boils down to "respect local languages and autonyms" as in Vietnamese place names, Chinese place names, the country of Kenya (kehn-yah, not keeeen-ya) and the like. It makes it hard to swallow. Ogress smash! 18:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ogress: It wasn't the word which was "coined", but the rationale behind it. The word has been in existence for centuries. And, in my experience, Burmese/Myanmarese pronounce the word Myanmar/Myanma just fine.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Cpt.a.haddock: I clarified that by "coined" I meant that it was an archaic pronunciation, didn't I? Also, I can say k-nife fine with practice; it's still pretty much a dictatorship flexing its muscles for political reasons by policing speech in and outside the country. I still hold it is hard for some people because it runs against the spirit of the rule (not that the spirit is necessarily relevant, of course). Ogress smash! 20:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ogress: I appear to have misunderstood; I see your point now. And some people do consider Burma/Bama a "corruption" of Myanmar. In some ways, this situation is not unlike that of Japan (Nippon/Nihon).--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • According to Names of Myanmar#Adjectival forms and demonyms, the adjectival form of "Myanmar" is "Myanma". At least, that's what people who want to be prescriptively correct use. I do not know whether the adjectival form "Myanma" comes from the government, or from the Myanmar language, but I do know that actual real people use it. The adjectival use of "Myanma" is unfortunately hard to document as in an internet-wide search of written texts, because there is confusion about the pronunciation of "Myanmar"; following British dialect it sounds like "Myanma" so some people transcribe the noun form "Myanmar" in this nonstandard way. My unprovable hypothesis is that some people are intentionally trying to promote this confusion in order to continue using "Burmese" with "Myanmar", as a retreated-yet-still-defiant gesture against the government. Shrigley (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Guess we'll have to go tell the BBC, CNN, the New York Times and National Geographic that they don't use the proper English name. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Support Undecided. Per nom. Also, I see the initial point raised in MOS:IDENTITY as being applicable here -- with the government of the sovereign entity being treated as what is referred to there a person or group — "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC) I've talked myself out of my earlier position of support based on considerations which are described in WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT but which seem relevant here. Those say that in cases where the primary term for usage differs from the primary term for long-term significance, WP:consensus determines which to use. I find that I am unable to make that judgement in my own mind between the term most common in current / recent usage and the term having the most long-term significance. I don't want to express an opinion which might affect the determination of closing consensus one way or another. Determination of consensus can be difficult and may not be presently possible in this case. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. "Burma" is the WP:COMMONNAME in books, as per Google Ngram. Khestwol (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A more honest ngram would run from 1990 (the year that the name changed) to 2015, not from 1800 to 2008. Also, you're cherry-picking your sources to include only books, which are the only medium that don't seem to respect the near-universal common usage of Myanmar today (as evidenced by all the other discussion by Supporters of the move). Maybe try actually refuting the arguments of the Supporters? Shrigley (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Recentism refers to things in the news right now. Things like making an article about any random thing done by the Kardashians or about anything else that is clearly not notable yet. It does not mean our article titles should be required to follow seven-year-old sources. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Not similar in any conceivable way. AusLondonder (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. We have an article called Yangon, about the capital of the country we are discussing. Let's be consistent and use the name Myanmar in our article about the country. I also support all of the numerous valid reasons supporters have advanced in this survey. Moriori (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I'll play Devil's Advocate and show Google Books suggests Burma is more common (until 2008 at least): [1] though I wholeheartedly support this move as the overwhelming common name [2], [3], [4], [5]. Zarcadia (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Very weak support. I have strongly opposed this each time in the past. But in the last few years I've noticed an increasing number of the media and other sources change to using Myanmar, or "Myanmar (also known as Burma)". Whether or not they were right to do this is irrelevant, the fact is it's happening. So I think now the balance is tipping in favor of Myanmar as the English language WP:COMMONNAME. I may be persuaded with evidence to the contrary however, and in particular views from English speakers outside the USA/UK. C 1 (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Usage of "Burma" in the media I follow seems to have continued to get rarer in my estimation since the last time this came up. The lack of opposition above me on common name grounds, and notable comments from others reporting a change in common usage give me greater confidence that this is now a widely-recognised English-language convention. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. This "vote" seems to have been compromised by User:Fyunck(click)'s canvassing efforts. I went through the last move request (2012) and found numerous oppose voters who were not notified by Fyunck(click). Srnec (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    Interesting, considering that I was one of the opposers. I admit I did not go through each one this time, but that would be because I thought my list was up to date. Here is the list I used to notify people. I didn't keep track of who sided with Burma or Myanmar. Sorry if I missed anyone and certainly I did not notify anon IPs, blocked or retired users. It was certainly not my intention to canvass as I did this for the last discussion in 2012 also. Could you please notify anyone I missed and add them to my user list? As it was it took a long time to let everyone know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I wonder why this is even up for discussion. Fiddle Faddle 16:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. This is now clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. We may wish it wasn't, but I think WP:NPOV requires us to rename the article. WJBscribe (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. We should use the name official English name of the nation. And I'm an anglophone that isn't confused by Myanmar. Jpgs (talk) 00:23, Saturday, November 9, 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. "Myanmar" is clearly the more common term nowadays (https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=myanmar%2C%20burma); thus the article should be moved according to WP:COMMONNAME. In addition, using "Burma" is arguably a violation of NPOV, being a lesser-used term mostly used by opponents of the Myanmar government.Chessrat (talk,contributions) 19:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I fully support this article being at its common English name, whether that is Burma or Myanmar. My gut tells me that Myanmar has indeed grown in English language usage over the last few years, and that it is now the most common English name for this country. But I would like to see some hard statistics brought out that demonstrate this conclusively before making my final decision. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per this ngram and this article by Bertil Lintner. There is no need for Wikipedia to follow a trend and not wait for a term to become preponderant. In this case, it is also true that while Burma is the correct name for the country going back centuries and is still acceptable, Myanmar would be highly confusing in many contexts (e.g., World War II). On balance, Burma is preferable. Srnec (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Srnec - "Myanmar would be highly confusing in many contexts (e.g., World War II)" - what a fascinating comment. Ceylon, now Sri Lanka, participated in World War II. Should Sri Lanka still be named Ceylon? Northern Rhodesia? Soviet Union? Transjordan? Southern Rhodesia? Yugoslavia? etc, etc? AusLondonder (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
No. Why? Srnec (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Why? Because we don't still call Mumbai Bombay either. Nor do we insist that Beijing go back to Peking? So what exactly is causing confusion here other than one's refusal to accept reality?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Burma is still the common name. What do other cases where the common name may have changed have to do with this one? Srnec (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not the common name anymore. Almost no Anglophone sources refer to it as "Burma" anymore. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. It's hard for me to entangle what an encyclopedia should do from bias against an authoritarian government, but looks to me like usage, especially in tertiary sources enwiki policy emphasises in choosing names for major topics, Myanmar is not quite at the place where it has displaced Burma: I agree with Srnec. —innotata 04:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: It has been implied above that the British Government exclusively uses 'Burma', however it also uses 'Myanmar' on occasion anfd interchangebly see here and here and also here AusLondonder (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Indian government, wrongly excluded from analysis above, seems to use Myanmar as shown here, here, here, and here AusLondonder (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Nominator is wrong, "PRIMARYTOPIC" does not apply. "Myanmar" already redirects to "Burma", so there is no change in the status of "PRIMARYTOPIC", whichever name is used. The only issue here is "COMMONNAME" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I will occasionally still hear Burma, but it seems like the world has finally recognized that the country's name is actually Myanmar. It is time to enter the present day. --StormRider 03:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Myanmar is clearly the more common name now as shown by many users above. It also seems a significant number of those who oppose do so out of inertia (That's what it used to be commonly known) or opposition to the current government (we should not support the wishes of an authoritarian government). Also, I subscribe to the rule that if the common name is controversial with none overwhelmingly more common, we should fall back to use the official short name. --Polaron | Talk 16:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial about Burma. "Burma" and "Myanmar" are basically the same word. Srnec (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
What I meant was there is a controversy about which name to use as the article title. --Polaron | Talk 23:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, but it is a futile effort. I stop by this page about once a quarter to refresh my well-founded cynicism about the RfC concept. If you have an iron stomach and a lot of time, read the metric ton of talk pages from prior efforts (I did). Common Sense has no place in a discussion of Common Name (at least for Myanmar) and any argument in favour of the change will be met with an outpouring of vitriol or, in some cases, the actual deletion of opposing Talk Page comments. The article had been named Myanmar. It got a rename to Burma with the most dubious and tenuous of reasons. Now that they have what they want, a small group of passionate and I'm sure well-meaning activists demand a dramatically higher standard to change back to the common name of Myanmar. An editor asks above (rhetorically) whether we need to await a die-off of an entire generation before acting like an encyclopaedia and recognising the change. No, we just need to wait for a die-off of a generation of Wikipedians. User:Kevin.159.53 posting from my IP. 159.53.46.143 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not simply a compilation of media outlets and current trends. Even the article's summary of the naming situation has become biased. For example, although many news outlets have started to also use the name Myanmar because this is the name the UN and many other organizations use (not voluntarily but because they are forced to do so because of international etiquette) because it's used by the regime in power, many or most of even those news outlets still also almost always also mention the name Burma after or before. And the article no longer lists the news outlets that still use only Burma. In any case, the case should be clear once you hear what the leader of the democratically elected majority of the country calls that country in English, for example here. --Espoo (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The idea that news sources are being forced to use this name is something you're going to need to back up with evidence if you want it to bear any weight. And yes, of course many of those outlets also use "Burma" after Myanmar on the first reference, for example, BBC. But the fact that BBC usually puts it after Myanmar, not before, and generally only once per article, shows that the primary name they use in Myanmar. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
So you're basically saying that how one democratically elected leader's opinion is more important than various news sources, it's like saying because another American democratically elected leader referred to Czechoslovakia as a country in Eastern-Europe despite this country no longer existing for over 20 years, It's WP:COMMONNAME, and not WP:SOMERANDOMAMERICANPRESIDENTCALLEDITSOSOLETUSCALLITTHATONWIKIPEDIATOO, as I've listed both above and below most English-speaking news sources anno 2015 refer to the country as "Myanmar", and though I might call it "The country formerly known as Burma" to my friends that doesn't mean that I have to use this non-neutral term on a neutral encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be first and foremost neutral and unfortunately that battle has been lost on a lot of articles, and this article shouldn't fall victim like the others. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: I have no doubt that previous move requests failed with sound reason. But within this three years, majority of sources were in favour of Myanmar. As it is Wikipedia, we should not consider who changed the name of the country in 1989 or the opposition leader's opinion. PhyoWP *click 16:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: I have maintained the same view since this page was renamed without obvious consensus back then, that as long as it remains at where it is now, it will remain a reminder of how wikipedia fails as a neutral source of information. All the more so when all claims of WP:Commonname are non-conclusive at best. It is about time it actually adheres to its own WP:NPOV policy and discard all considerations over Myanmar's political status or who endorses either version of the country's name.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Iron-hard Support, per WP:COMMONNAME and I can fetch a lot OF MODern/MODERN English news sources that will name it so. Even this one on World War 2 can we please stop pretending that most mainstream Anglophone sources still refer to it as Burma, in fact most of the sources I've listed don't even state "formerly called Burma", Wikipedia is the first hit you'll get for "Burma" and I've seen the name used here more than on any other English language site, the name simply isn't as common anymore, in fact though people still listed Iran as "Iran (Persia)" until the 1970's, the process has sped up on the internet as people are aware of these name changes faster and have complied, seriously I just listed quite a lot of Bing News sources and I don't think that "Burma" is a WP:COMMONNAME in 2015 anymore. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Note - I let editors from past discussions know about this rm. I thought it only fair and proper. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I guess things to look at would be changes to any of the old arguments. Usage among USA press has certainly shifted to Myanmar vs Burma. I think the US, UK, Australian, and Canadian State depts still use Burma. Not sure. I assume the gov't in exile still uses Burma? On last check the people of Burma/Myanmar are still split down the middle depending on where they live... either Bama or Manma. I think all (or most) US newspapers use Myanmar. What about the British press such as the Guardian? Anyway these are things to look at in making a decision along with common English usage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    There are some holdouts (The Guardian) but the broad consensus supports "Myanmar" over "Burma". Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    Ok I just checked and the Guardian usually uses Burma. If we check the sources you listed in the RM will we also find splits in usage? I just want to be fair to those seeing this for the first time and want them to have accurate numbers. Ngram only goes to 2008? Google books show 1,770,000 myanamar to 9,960,000 burma, but that's historical stuff too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    If only to change to "Myanmar(Burma)," at least as a start. That should be reasonable for those who cling to the term "Burma". --Jeffmcneill (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    I've noticed the state owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Australia is starting to use Myanmar, especially of late in regards to the recent flooding events. eg. [6] [7] and [8] all used Myanmar in place of Burma within the past week (Burma isn't mentioned in either article).Ljgua124 (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Has there been any recent statement from Aung San Suu Kyi or her party about their intentions as regard the country's name? Whilst not the only consideration, if the opposition now has no plans to change the name back to Burma should they gain power, it would seem rather pointless for Wikipedia's article remaining titled Burma. WJBscribe (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    It seems lately that Aung San Suu Kyi tries to not say the name of her country. When she does I think it still tends to be Burma. So the population of the country tends to use Burma and the gov't in exile uses Burma. Other than that most of the world press now uses Myanmar. Wikipedia tries to use the common name (unless the foreign spelling has diacritics, then we use that) regardless of what the natives people use, and that is increasingly looking like Myanmar. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    Exactly - as I have attempted repeatedly to point out, over at Talk:Burma/Myanmar, with minimal success. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    But that was mainly with one editor, plus the fact that you tried to make your point with false information. False info tends to hurt an argument. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    What did I say that was "false"? I am trying to agree with you. Now I'm confused as to your position -- are you supporting the move or opposing it? I don't see a vote by you, either way. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    I told you on the other page where your facts were wrong in your previous attempts. As for voting, I'm not required to vote (there actually is no voting on rm's). But I let people know about it that had given their opinion in past discussions. Sometimes I just watch the process work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    Intriguingly noncommittal. I will stand by everything I've written, as well as my vote, since no persuasive arguments in support of the status quo have been submitted. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 04:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    Which was why we threw up our hands over there when we realized you would never grasp it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm not going to rise to that bait. As this discussion shows, I'm not the one who is failing to grasp. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 05:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    More fabrications I see. When will it stop? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    Spoken like a user who has run out of arguments. Let's stick to the discussion, shall we? If you have something better than WP:IJDLI, bring it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 12:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Burma is Burma. A new government is in charge and wants to rebrand the country. They can feel free to rename it themselves. But they don't control the English language. I find it very strange that so many organizations just used the name for no apparent reason. But how often do you see Republic of China, People's Republic of China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or Republic of Korea used? Sure, they get mentioned. But in common language its always Tawain, China, North Korea, and South Korea. Why on earth did Burma warrant being erased from the English language while we still use unofficial names for a ton of other countries? What next, we rename the Sears Tower? Alyeska (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    The issue, @Alyeska:, is WP:COMMONNAME. I don't want to change the name for a lot of reasons but I'm not sure I can vote against what is clearly policy. "Myanmar" is this gross neologism created by a fascist government, but the media and scholars overwhelming have gone along with it, so we are pretty much stuck AFAIK in terms of common name. Also, Sears Tower redirects to Willis Tower now, so ... yes. Ogress smash! 02:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    Why Burma is being abandoned as the English name is not really Wikipedia's concern; our concern is only to determine what name fits our policies and then use it. We're not going to right any great wrongs, naming-wise or otherwise. We just go with sources. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    Take your fighting rhetoric about "fascism" back to the US State Department, User:Ogress. We accept the name China for a 'non-democratic' socialist state. Should we insist on Outer Mongolia or Qing Dynasty? What about the United Arab Emirates? You are viewing this all through Western eyes anyway. Most people in Myanmar aren't fighting battles about its "fascist" name. They care about the government improving infrastructure, assisting them in floods, ensuring a adequate food supply. Why is the British Colonial name more valid anyway? Was colonialism democratic? AusLondonder (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    @AusLondonder: Nearly everything you wrote was wrong or missed the entire point. "China" isn't the indigenous name of China. You comments about Mongolia and Qing dynasty are nonsensical. I've lived in China and all over SEA so I'm fully aware of the situation there. The entire point I made was we use WP:COMMONNAME. Your condescension towards the people of Burma/Myanmar is rude: they're not simpletons in the mud, but have been involved in political struggles for the last 100 years at least. I did not argue for Burma, so your rude comments aimed at me are irrelevant and demonstrate only that you did not read what I wrote. Ogress smash! 04:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point re China. I read very clearly what you wrote, you started banging on about "fascism" and "gross neologisms". Most if not all governments in the South East Asia region use Myanmar. I do not accept that most people in Myanmar are concerned about the "fascist" implications of their national name and have greater priorities, such as improved infrastructure. I did not suggest people living in Myanmar are "simpletons in the mud", neither would I ever. Those words came from you. I did not personally insult you or call you any names. AusLondonder (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Me & Ma? My & Ma? My Ann Ma? All with optional final -r. At least people know how to pronounce Burma. Rothorpe (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
True, but that doesn't really matter. Pretty much every US person will pronounce it Mee-ann-mar or My-ann-mar... no matter what anyone tells us to the contrary. It's not like Ivory Coast where no one can ever figure out how to say Côte d'Ivoire where you hear everything from coat-rack to cot-of-eyeballs. Most don't even try and it's why everyone uses Ivory Coast. It may not be as forthright as Burma, but Myanmar is doable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The worst part is that the hypercorrect archaism version is pronounced as two syllables, myanma; that y is more like the sound in British "tune" tyoon. This combination of sounds has become a plain b in modern Burmese: banma "[name of this country]", also the name of the ethnic group it is named for, the banma (the Bamars) and the name of the city of Myeik, Burma, pronounced roughly bey and usually spelled Beik. That y was originally an r, and the words are still written with an r: Mranma banma, Brit beyʻ. Ogress smash! 19:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think that Heimstern nailed it above with his comment saying, "Why Burma is being abandoned as the English name is not really Wikipedia's concern; our concern is only to determine what name fits our policies and then use it. We're not going to right any great wrongs, naming-wise or otherwise. We just go with sources." I would add that everything else is just some variation of WP:JDLI. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, let's say we "usually go with sources." If it's something like Lodz, even if 99% of English sources have it as Lodz, we are required to use Łódź. So Wikipedia does not always go by sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the place to introduce off-topic sidebar discussions. I think that Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) would be a better venue to discuss what considerations apply and/or ought to apply, and Talk:Łódź#completely unwarranted move would be a better place to discuss whether the titling of that other article grew out of appropriate application of those considerations (vs. out of application of WP:JDLI consideratons). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Understood. Might I also point out that when someone (even an administrator) brings into this discussion "our concern is only to determine what name fits our policies and then use it" and also "We just go with sources", and those assertions are not always true... I feel it's fine to point that out to editors who might actually take you at your word. So if I'm wrong to point that out, then you were also wrong to make (or really repeat) those statements of Heimstern. Perhaps it would have been better had I first asked you on your talk page to retract, correct or strikethru the problem sections instead of my posting it here? If so, my apologies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I take your points. I'm not normally activist as an admin -- I'm just a guy with a key to the mop closet. Perhaps I was overly brusque from exasperation with this overlong discussion and the similarly overlong one going on simultaneously at Talk:Tagalog#Requested move 25 July 2015. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
After a bit more consideration, I don't think I'd retract or strikethrough, but I would say that what I had in mind was probably more like "follow the damn guidelines" than the "follow the sources" remark which I picked up and parroted because it resonated with me. "Follow the sources" is an oversimplification of the guidelines, which themselves necessarily oversimplify the underlying policies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem at all with "follow the guidelines" or "follow the sources", as they tend to resonate with me too. But I know that sometimes wikipedia ignores those things and simply goes with what the consensus wants, ignoring sources or guidelines, for good or bad. So we have to be careful in what we tell folks and the word "usually" often helps cover the bases. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Burma_(Myanmar)#Requested_move_19_August_2015 In ictu oculi (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Some articles should not rename to Myanmar

Sub-articles (before 1989) should be Burma. For example

Any suggestion? PhyoWP *click 03:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate for certain article titles that refer to historical uses to remain "Burma". You've listed several of them where I think it is appropriate to retain the historical name. But the vast majority of sub-articles, ones that refer to the country generally and not to a specific historical time period, should be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but Burma is not merely the historical name. It is also the contemporary name used by many reliable and official sources. In fact, "Myanmar" might go the way of Zaire. We should not propagate, even implicitly, the idea that "Burma" is merely historical, a word out of the past. Srnec (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Well @Srnec:, it looks like that's exactly what some are trying to do with a move request at Wikiproject Burma (Myanmar). Trying to make Burma not just less used and less common, but discarded as historical only. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Upper Burma and Lower Burma are historical names that should not be changed. Ogress smash! 19:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, the actual project name of "WikiProject Burma (Myanmar)" should now (and actually was) changed to WikiProject Myanmar (Burma) to reflect the fact it is now commonly called Myanmar but is still called Burma in many official places. But it should not be changed to WikiProject Myanmar. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Whenever the name "Burma" was used historically it should be the title of the article, Myanmar is the name of the modern state, for the same reason we don't replace all "Siamese" with "Thai", although an editor did tell me that WP:ASTONISH applies where you mandatorily have to use the modern name even in historical context (in which the editor replaced all the "Nokia" in the article with "Microsoft" even if the name wasn't used at the time, nor would anyone suspect its future usage in contemporary lines),my argument there was that we should use the contemporary name whenever possible, I don't know where I can contest WP:ASTONISH because it's a stupid rule, but whenever something was called "Burmese" it should still be called "Burmese", it's not like people will completely rewrite literally every article about the "Chinese Empire" as the "Taiwanese Empire", or we suddenly start replacing the "Soviet Union" with "Russia" or something, Burma should stay where it's relevant.
--Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 25 external links on Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rename

I completely oppose this rename, but as it's been done at least cleanup after the page moves and ensure Burma is changed to Myanmar in the hatnotes. Also all of the settlement infoboxes still have Burma like Bhamo♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A great deal of work has been done to rename hundreds of related articles and categories. Feel free to help rather than further advancing the failed opposition to the name change. AusLondonder (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Demonym of Myanmar

What demonym should we use for Myanmar in Wikipedia?

  • Myanmar
  • Myanma
  • Myanmarese

Please suggest. PhyoWP *click 03:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we should continue to use Burmese since that's the common English usage. --regentspark (comment) 03:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • sigh* Here we go again. Most places use "Burmese", not to be confused with the Bamars. Does the NYT style guide have one? They seem to avoid the word in their articles, simply saying "the people of Myanmar" or "Myanmar's people". I am reminded of Mr. Burns: "Yes, I’d like to send this letter to the Prussian Consulate in Siam by aero-mail. Am I too late for the 4:30 auto-gyro?” Ogress smash! 03:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Are "Myanmarians" or "Myanmarites" possible choices too? Rreagan007 (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
... I think you are being silly, but "Myanmarites" seems to be used for those supporting the country's decision to change the name to Myanmar. Ogress smash! 06:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I actually was being a little facetious, but I don't see why those would be any less valid. Obviously we know there is an official name of the country in English prescribed by the country's current government, but is there actually an official English demonym? Rreagan007 (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I think Burmese is probably OK, as it seems to be common usage presently and there does not seem to be a rival term which has more long-term significance.
Some digging around turned up info indicating that the Chinese historically spoke of the P'iao people.
  • O'Reilly, Dougald J. W. (2007). Early Civilizations of Southeast Asia. Rowman Altamira. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-7591-0279-8.
  • Aung-Thwin, Michael (1998). Myth and history in the historiography of early Burma: paradigms, primary sources, and prejudices. Ohio University Center for International Studies. p. 184. ISBN 978-0-89680-201-8.
One source points out that that P'iao was an exogeneous term, compares it to the term Burmese, and asserts that the ethnonym corresponding to P'iao was T'u-lo-chu.
One modern (though not very authoritative) source asserts that Myanmar and Bamar are both current ethnonyms.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Burmese. For those who say Myanmar, it is Myanmarese, but that's not proper English. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Renaming

Please assist in renaming appropriate sub-articles and nominating appropriate categories for speedy renaming per WP:CFDS from Burma to Myanmar AusLondonder (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:MMR

Can someone please fix Template:MMR, as I am not a Template editor? ... Which reminds me I should do that thing. Ogress smash! 04:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Wow, that template sure leads down a rabbit hole of wrappers and subtemplates. I put in a quick and dirty fix, but the long-term solution should be to switch Template:Country data Burma and Template:Country data Myanmar. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This is disruptive. Jenks24 (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


Myanmar → Burma – The name of this country is Burma. This is the name in English and it is the name used by the opposition against the present unlawful regime. Wikipedia should be politically neutral and use the name Burma. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Can an administrator SPEEDY CLOSE this as disruptive? We just did this two weeks ago. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support speedy close for reasons given.Pincrete (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as disruptive User:Snowsuit Wearer you can withdraw this yourself. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and support Speedy Close - Strong Consensus was reached to change it from Burma to Myanmar, and hundreds of articles, templates and categories, and even the WikiProject for the country was renamed to reflect this new consensus, reverting this page would mean changing everything else back, which would be extremely time-consuming and disruptive. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    I agree it's disruptive, but not because of time-consumption or having to change things. If that was the case it would not have been moved from Burma in the first place. It's simply the right thing to do after only 2 weeks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    What's disruptive? Am I not allowed to think this article should be renamed? What was done two weeks ago? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    USER:Snowsuit Wearer, If you took the time to look back two weeks there was a massive move request to move the article from Burma to Myanmar. After much arguing and discussion in was moved to Myanmar. Sorry you missed it but it was a landslide. Now two weeks later you want to do it again... and that's disruptive. That's why you should remove this RM yourself. If you still feel the same way in a few months, or 6 months or a year you can always try it again. But two weeks is not a long enough period. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    No, it's not disruptive if it is not done on purpose, which this wasn't. I thought the article had been under this name for years and couldn't imagine there could have been a move request with a consensus for the name Myanmar, since this goes against the Wikipedia principle of neutrality. I still think the page should be renamed to Burma and please don't say that's disruptive. If I had known about the move in August, if I had taken part in that discussion, making this move request could of course have been deemed to be disruptive, but I did not know about it. Don't go around assuming that others are out to disrupt, you should assume good faith. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    The RM itself is disruptive, not you. However, now that you do know the fact it was just done (as you just acknowleged), this RM request should be removed by you lest it be deemed that you are acting in bad faith. Bring it back up again in 6 months. That's just my advice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    So you think I did this request in bad faith? I did not. I swear. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    Maybe I'm not making myself clear... my bad if so, sorry. In reading what you have written, I do not think you brought this up in bad faith. The request was still disruptive since we just had this discussion two weeks ago. So we are letting the administrative closer know the reason it should be closed speedily...it is disruptive to the article since we just went through it. It doesn't matter if you were doing it in good faith or bad faith. It is disruptive since we just did it. I assume it was good faith on your part since you didn't realize it was just discussed and decided. However, now you are in a position to know about what happened two weeks ago. We have have told you and you acknowledged and understood we just went through this in a big discussion. So now you should withdraw this RM by closing it yourself or you would now be acting in bad faith. Is that clearer? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And a change made I don't know - years ago? - can always be reopened. I can't imagine this article has ever been under this name in Wikipedia. It has been widely known for years that the neutral name for the country is Burma. Only the military regime uses the Myanmar name in English. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, now I see. There was obviously a requested move made as late as in August this year. From Burma to Myanmar. How strange. I didn't notice that and couldn't imagine there would be a consensus for such a move nor that it was made so recently. Well, I am still for a move back, since I find that to be the sane thing to do. You may call it disruptive if you want to, I call it freedom of expression. I support democracy in Burma, whether you like it or not. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No, but the common name of this country is actually Burma and the name Myanmar is only used in English by the authoritarian regime, which is also deemed illegal by the UN if I am not mistaken. So in this particular case, even if that is not generally the case, common name and democracy is tied together. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

also known as Burma

Suggestion, the lead says 'also known as Burma', I appreciate the name issue is contentious, but stating briefly WHEN it was known as Burma would be informative. I found out that if one hunts around the article, one can find out the 'poss. origin' of the word Burma and find out when the name changed. I suggest in the lead 'also known as Burma (its name from year ABC - XYZ/its name until XYZ )', though I leave it to editors to sort out a precise wording.

But it's also known as Burma today, not just historically... so that doesn't work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
It's still known as Burma in English. Burma is seen as the neutral name, while Myanmar is only used by the authoritarian regime. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it is known as both Burma and Myanmar in English, with Myanmar being used more frequently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Why not something like "also still referred to by it's former official name Burma" which gets across that it is a former name but that it's still used? TDL (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The trouble is official by whom. Many English nations have it officially named Burma. Once we get into official this and that we start running into big problems. It is commonly called Burma or Myanmar, with Myanmar being more common. That is why it was moved to it's present location, because Myanmar is "more" commonly used in English. That's it. It's also why sentences that used to say something like "Burma, also called Myanmar" have now reverted to "Myanmar, also called Burma." Because it makes sense to put the more common used name first. It was tough enough to get everyone onboard with the move to the most common English name. Had it been to move it to it's official name it would have been a stew. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, in that case "also still referred to as Burma, the name used in English by the country's government until 1989". An excess of pedantry shouldn't get in the way of providing readers with useful information. One way or another, the first time readers see Myanmar/Burma there should be some clue for them why there are 2 names. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with 'also known as'. Clearly, the country is known both as Myanmar as well as Burma. This article in The Guardian for example knows the country as Burma. If it is known by both names, then that's all we need to say. --regentspark (comment) 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
But what's wrong with giving readers some information explaining why there are two names. There will be readers who will be surprised by Myanmar. Let's give them a clue rather than scratching their head and searching through the article! DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Because accurately explaining it is a headache. Your formulation should read "also still referred to as "burma" the name used in English by the country's government until 1989 but also the name used by many other English speaking countries and by several - but not all - publications in those English speaking countries". A tad complicated and still not accurate. What is the point of emphasizing the association between the official decree of the Burmese government when the reason it is also known as Burma is because other entities call it that? Leave it as aka and let the explanation in "Names of Burma" do the explaining. --regentspark (comment) 21:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
No! You're extension isn't necessary. It's already covered by "also still referred to". It's only the name change that needs to be explained. DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah. But why pick that particular explanation for the alternative name over others? After all, Burma is not merely the name used by that country's government until 1989. It was used by most English speakers until fairly recently and is still used by governments and publications (and academic departments). Your formulation gives the mistaken impression that the only reason it is aka Burma is because the government used that name in English until 1989. Less but accurate, in this case, is better than more but inaccurate. --regentspark (comment) 22:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
perhaps the formulation should be improved rather than bury it. You're focussing on "justifying" Burma. Actually, it's explaining why we're talking about Myannar that is needed in the lead. I just think we do a disservice to our readers if we don't give some explanation. As I said beliw, I'm obviously wasting WMF kb's and will give upnat this point! DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
We do. We have an Etymology section, and a separate article if readers want to know the full details. It is totally unneeded in the lead. It has two common names Burma and Myanmar. The lead has three names: it has the country's official name by the gov't in charge (Republic of the Union of Myanmar) and it has two very common renditions of the country (Myanmar and Burma). Myanmar is the more common name. Because Myanmar is the most common variant in English it was chosen to be the article's placement name. Simple as that. Remember Myanmar is not that gov'ts name for the region either. And half the people that live there don't call it Mynamar. Myanmar and also known as Burma is short, tight and informative for the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
But all that just goes to support why we should reference the government's name change. Readers should get some hint of an explanation in the lead. I was aware that it's explained in the etymology section, which is why I said let's find a way that they don't have to go "searching through the article". Put yourself in the shoes of someone who just wants a quick look up of "Burma" and gets "Myanmar" - I think we would be doing what we are here for by giving them a quick indication in the lead of why they're seeing a name they're not expecting. Let's put doing something useful for our "customers" ahead of "Wikipedia logic".DeCausa (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The "hint" of the explanation is "also known as"...if the reader wants to know more, it's a short scroll or one click on the TOC to the clearly-labeled "Etymology" section - the very first sub-section. (i.e. it doesn't require this exhaustive search of the article you're trying to imply).--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you're looking at as an editor, rather than as a "customer". Anyways, I'll give up. I'm obviously not going to persuade anyone. DeCausa (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Remember too, the article itself as an encyclopaedic entry, is a summary of Myanmar. The lead is a summary of that summary. The details should be left to proper sections. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Update on name

Just another reason supporting the recent move. The US governmental media (VOA) is now overwhelmingly favouring "Myanmar". Since that same source single-handedly stonewalled the name "ISIL" here on Wikipedia, it must carry some weight.

Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myanmar/Archive_13&oldid=1133826531"