Wikipedia

Talk:Myanmar/Archive 10

< Talk:Myanmar
(Redirected from Talk:Burma/Archive 10)
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Fyunck(click) in topic Sources
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 14

Myanmar

Latest comment: 13 years ago42 comments24 people in discussion

Discussion moved to Talk:Burma/Myanmar to avoid clutter --89.243.41.164 (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see this page still discusses Myanmar, despite the incorrect title name of a country that no longer exists.Guess mob-rule wins out over reality after all this time. Lostinlodos (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not trolling to point out a grievous factual error. The article titled Burma, a country that no longer exists, discusses a current country called Myanmar. Using (The country that used to exist and no longer exists formerly known as) Burma is a blatant, flagrant, even belligerent violation of NPOV. Was just hoping someone with a rational neutral point of view would come along and renominate this for a name change.
Hence the reason for posting it on THIS page as opposed to posting on the Real name/(we don't care if we're lying we call it burma name) page. If I nominated it once again myself I probably would be trolling. Lostinlodos (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
To some people, anyone who makes dissenting remarks are automatically labelled as trolls. A strange reminiscence of what probably occurs in the country of Myanmar.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it is not so much mob rule that's keeping us here as mob stagnation. There was never a clear consensus in favour of "Burma", but all those who would like to keep it that way have had to do is remain adamant that they are right and the result is no change. Hence the situation we're now in where the page is locked on the basis of a decision that there is no consensus. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It is an unfortunate weakness of Wikipedia; it is a public instrument that anyone can edit regardless of qualification or expertise. Sometimes we end up with these types of results. It is beyond comprehension to title the article anything but Myanmar, but emotion plays a bigger role than reality. I wonder how long Myanmar will exist as a nation before the name changes? Will it take 50 years or 100 years before those editors that hold so tightly to the past forfeit their position? Eventually Wikipedia rights itself; just be patient. --StormRider 17:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, sit tight I guess. I'm fairly certain by the end of this year not every party in the debate will hold the same position as they do now. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The weakness of this "consensus-rule" is, if it would be consensus to call the "United States", let me say, "Jesusland", simply because it is the consensus' opinion, then I am pretty sure, "United States" would be moved to "Jesusland" (for the sake of not bending the rule). The page title is a mainly political decision. --Bone1234 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
So at the risk of bringing up a dead debate, what exactly is the rationale for keeping the page at "Burma"? Looking over the structured mediation, I couldn't see any real reasons for it except "Fascists named it Myanmar, and we don't like that." That seems like it's ignoring the fact that Burma was largely a colonial name, and that in plenty of other situations (Republic of China, for instance) Wikipedia has gone with the name sanctioned by the government rather than the popular one. In my opinion, this is the correct way of doing things. "Everyone hates the SPDC, so we get to call the country whatever we like" is really not a valid justification, IMHO. Kiralexis (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The elected leader of the country refers to it as Burma (Interview with John Pilger), surely that would be more important than whatever anyone else wants to call it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.147.216 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can all agree that Bigbluefish has the right idea. There will hopefully be a Burmese general election, 2010. Then, we'll wait a little longer and see which way the winds are blowing. -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This is true... things can change in a hurry there. Right now the election rules look pretty lousy and without Suu Kyi allowed to run the UN and most other nations have said the results will not be credible. It will be interesting to see if the US and/or UK agree to a name change after the elections, and all we can do is wait and see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
For what its worth, both the country and the UN call the state concerned "Myanmar" (or "Union of Myanmar"). I think the article should follow that name. I do not feel that I am a politically minded person as regards this matter...I just prefer this to be more like an encyclopedia and stick to facts. 84.203.69.86 (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Likewise it is POV to say it is Burma, because both the country and the UN and other less-politicised bodies use the name Myanmar. Furthermore it is Wikipedia's bias to use Burma here and not Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as the latter is known. If one wants to use the official name is should be consistent, with a due redirect.(Lihaas (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)).
At the risk of igniting this ridiculousness again (this was long before I joined, but I read through the links at the top of the page), we don't use the official name of countries for their titles; click on The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and you'll find it's a redirect, for instance. We use the most common name. Please, please, let's not dredge this up again. As for the "elections"; I don't know what that will bring about, but the actual people with direct connections to the country (a few names readily come to mind) probably won't stop calling it Burma, for what that's worth... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
But we do call it United Kingdom, rather than Britain, or England (incorrect, obviously). This is supposedly an encyclopedia, rather than a compendium of street knowledge. But I guess popular opinion wins out again. 203.219.241.110 (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course, asserting that Burma actually is "the most common name" is sure to ignite "this ridiculousness again", considering that has been a hotly-contended claim from the beginning. :) -BaronGrackle (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
agreed, Burma is not a commonly used name, it is in fact only use in the media of a handful of countries that does not like to accept fact and invent their own world view. all countries in asia, refer to it as Mynamar, no country outside the west refer to it as Burma; how is that common? how long is the west going to act like it is the world? on a planet of 6 billion, where all human are equal, the western view is not "common", it is in fact a minority. Akinkhoo (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I pretty much disagree with this entire last paragraph by Akinkhool as just soapboxing and West bashing in this English wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC
you claim this is west bashing? yet can you say human are not equal? or that western view are universal? this maybe an english wikipedia but am i not speaking english? again i dare ask? do the british have monopoly of the english language and if so should the rest of the world stop using english because our input is "not welcome" and respected as "equal"? i provoke your thoughts and you will see I am in fact not bashing but pointing out a very important decision england has to make, is it going to share it's language or not? do we have to start dividing the english wiki into american english, british english, indian english and what not and turn language into national? Akinkhoo (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Na, of course not, maybe US English should just be used in Simple English Wikipedia ;) Anyway: The use of Burma/Myanmar isn't as clear cut as is being suggested. Just because Eastern COUNTRIES refer to the country as Myanmar, that doesn't mean the people do, many people in Myanmar are known to have refered to the country as Burma; mainly due to the illigitamacy of the Govt. The thing is of course, that those in control of Burma DO call the country Myanmar, i.e. Myanmar IS the country's official name. The other side of the argument of course is that Myanmar is STILL Burma: Burma is the ENGLISH name for Burma. I'm sure Germany don't rename their Frankreich article France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is silly this article should be called Myanmar because it is the official name and recognised by the UN and the majority of the world's nations. Now there are alot of people who don't like the SPDC well that's fine but the are the government and what they say counts. Wikipidia supposed to be an encyclopedia not a platform for political or ideological prefernces. It should stick to the FACTS!

It's the SAME name: "Burma is derived from the Burmese word Bamar, which in turn is the colloquial form of Myanmar(or Mranma in old Burmese), both of which historically referred to the majority Burmans (or the Bamar). Depending on the register used the pronunciation would be "Bama" (pronounced [bəmà]), or "Myanmah" (pronounced [mjəmà])." It's just a difference in pronunciation. Even the official names uses the form "Myăma" which looks like a cross between the two. To be perfectly accurate it would have to be always spelled with Burmese letters as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.161.54 (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If that was right, then the whole issue would be just a matter of transcription?! --Bone1234 (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
If it were only that simple! No one, who's familiar with Burmese, would claim that "Myanmar" is incorrect, or that it's some name the junta just made up. The issue is not whether Myanmar is correct but who gets to make that change in English. You can read all pro and con arguments in the archives here. Hybernator (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
This dispute will end when the junta-reign is over and it will depend how the post-junta government accepted by the West will name its country. If they rename it back to Birma, then so will this article remain under the current title "Birma". If the post-junta government unexpectedly remain the country's currant name "Myanmar" then it would be awkward if the wiki-community would not move this page. --Bone1234 (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
They changed their name in 1989, I think we should finally catch up. Sometimes popular names are better, (Taiwan instead of ROC; East Germany instead of German Democratic Republic), but Myanmar is used by the gov't officially. Maybe 'Burma' will come back tomorrow, but right now it's Myanmar. We don't call Sri Lanka by its former name 'Ceylon'. The other parts of the wikiverse call it Myanmar. The embassy in the USA does not have 'Burma' on their front page at all [1]. 'Burma' is completely anachronistic. Smarkflea (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I have an agreement with the rebels, to get Burma's name back. So I wonder if the problem does not resolve itself within a couple of months.Haabet 14:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Since The Military Junta in Burma is legally incapable of passing a law, since again they aren't the legal government, aren't they also incapable of legally changing the country name? No British institution recognises the name as legal and still refers to it as Burma. A comparison would be if the White House was stormed by Republicans and Obama killed or imprisoned, would they then be able to claim his presidency by force and pass laws, including renaming America something else? It all depends i think on whether Wikipedia recognises the legal name and most commonly used or the one some army man tells people he's changed it to. Thanks Jenova20 12:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether you consider them 'legal' or not, the fact is they are in control and have been for over two decades. Whether Britain of the US recognizes this doesn't matter. The US didn't recognize the inclusion of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia into the USSR, but that didn't change the facts.Smarkflea (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Still doesn't change whether Wikipedia recognises the legal name or the illegitimate name though so well done for missing the point completely.
Whichever name Wikipedia recognises should be the one used.
Thanks Jenova20 09:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
As it says above, WP recognizes 'Burma' because no one could agree on just what to call it. We should agree to call it by its rightful name, MyanmarSmarkflea (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The Junta is the government of Myanmar. Throwing about western ideals of legitimacy does nothing, countries recognise and negotiate with the Junta. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
But that doesn't mean a thing.
Governments still negotiated with Libya right until now and are currently trying to oust Gadaffi.
Burma was still the name the country had before the illegitimate government changed it.
"Western" comments you bring up do not change that and seem more an attempt at a political slur than a reasonable debate.
Thanks Jenova20 17:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
That's because until recently they saw Gadaffi as the leader of Libya. Now they recognise and in some cases have diplomatic relations with the Benghazi government. No-one has diplomatic relations with any other political party in Burma/Myanmar. The Junta has de facto control, whether or not it is de jure.
There are pages of debate on this already, and noting "Western" is not a political slur. It is the UK, the USA, Australia, and NZ which still call the country Burma.
At any rate, wikipedia is not going to decide whether a government is legitimate or not. Some say the Junta is legitimate, some say it isn't. Decisions on wikipedia are not meant to be made based on the government's perceived legitimacy, and any comments where an argument is based on a government's legitimacy do not hold up to WP:NPOV. The current dispute about this articles title centres mainly around WP:COMMONNAME, where it seems there is still no clear leaning either way. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
This leaves a stalemate as both names are commonly used and this won't change until either the West recognise the illegitimate government or the illegitimate government relinquish power to the winning party of the last election.
Thanks Jenova20 11:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Since when do you or other individuals have the right to rename a country? Who are you anyways?? The facts are simple and clear enough: the name of the country in question is Myanmar. Burma was its colonial name until the British left. It was called Myanmar before, and it was named Union of Burma after the independence. Then it was decided that the name be (the Socialist) UNION OF MYANMAR. That is the name of the country, it's time you respect that! >>> Just the same way as you wont call Zimbabwe Rhodesia anymore, you should not call Myanmar Burma. And Myanmar is more of a functioning democracy than Zimbabwe... main point: What you are doing is spreading false information, and it goes straight against the purpose and principals of Wikipedia. <<< >>> I don't care who discussed it with who (BBC, self-proclaimed political exiles), no individual has the right to rename a country. <<< —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.171.36.26 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually the full name is constitutionally "Republic of the Union of Myanmar". People should really read the talk archives and the specific page included in the talkheader. In fact, this discussion should be moved there.--Tærkast (Communicate) 17:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree. What Jenova20 fails to realize is that his entire argument is based on whether the government is the legal government of the country - which presupposes he himself, or whatever 'sources' he quotes, have the right to determine that. Whether or not the international community has the right to determine the 'legality' of a country's government aside, the Government of Myanmar is represented in the United Nations Organization, which is about as close to an international recognition of their legality as one will ever get. 75.154.80.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC).

It is interesting to see how this debate has never ceased. - - When this article was named Myanmar for a long time, there was no real debate over the name of the country. When a small group of wikipedians allowed their emotions to get over their heads and moved this article to Burma right after the height of the 2007 Burmese anti-government protests (which if you checked the details, it showed that the entire moving process was pushed through before most people noticed it), the naming debate has ensued continuously for a full four years and running. - - I believe this itself says alot about this classic example of a flaw in the way wikipedia works which allows itself to be exploited by a minority group in the face of widespread opposition, all in the name of "political correctness" which goes against wikipedia's core policies of WP:NPOV. Over 90% of "Pro-Burma" supporters may not always express it outright, but it is clear politics was at play. Conversely, over 90$ of "Pro-Myanamr" supporters where hardly supportive of the current political regime, but simply found this a huge joke on the internet, or like me, were trying to defend wikipedia's core values of NPOV. And yet a value as important as NPOV is being brushed aside in favour of something as vague as WP:Commonname. - - It is such a shame that I have teenage students using this incident as an lasting example of why Wikipedia can never be trusted as a viable research source. Today, wikipedia is the only source on Earth which states that the largest city of Burma is Yangon. I can sympathise with people when they laugh at this anomaly.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much pure soapboxing here but I'll do my best to answer. Sarcasm, belittling of peer editors and fibs are evident in your post... (see yangon#1, yangon#2, yangon#3, yangon#4) so we'll move quickly from there. As far as using wikipedia as a viable research tool one must be very very careful. Since ANYONE can edit Wikipedia at any time, and there is lots of vandalism, incorrect data may be present. Heck one has only to glance at articles like Global Warming to see that in some instances one entire side of a debate is missing or quashed by those with editing power. I would never send a single student to that article for research, but merely as an extra tidbit. Printed encyclopedias on Burma are outdated seconds after they are printed and while we get to post the latest info if the Hlaing River overflows we also have to deal with misinformation creeping in by every kid with a cellphone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I wrote that without expecting anyone to answer, and you do not have to dismiss every comment which you disagree as "soapboxing". I certainly do not need you to write a rambling "answer" to tell me why wikipedia is not a valid souce of research since I am an academic myself. If you do not possess basic inference skills, I am simply demonstrating one particular failing of a site which claims it is not democratic, yet allows "numerical votes" to push through a controversial change despite many arguments from one side blatantly violating a key wikipedia policy like {{WP:NPOV]]. And nothing you say is going to change what has happened.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I only dismissed it because it was soapboxing. It doesn't belong on a talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • So, it's been years. If we were to discuss whether a move to Myanmar should take place, what would be necessary to make the change happen? I know we won't be able to slip it without consensus like the Burma move did in 2007; that was a fluke, and things have tightened since then. If common use is a criteria, would it even matter that Myanmar scores more hits on English-speaking Google News, Google Scholar, the various Internet maps, Youtube, or whatever else? Would that make any difference? How many "Don't Move" votes would it take to say that there is no consensus to move? And if most of the "Don't Move" votes have nothing to do with common name, then could they be ignored on the basis that they have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy? -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow Baron you are still around! I think things have changed in various ways over the past three years. I was quite surprised to check google moments earlier and "Myanmar" now gets 192 million hits, while "Burma" gets only 83.7 million. As I have always expected, the last "baston" of the pro-burmese camp is and will erode. I honestly do not see how the bro-Burmese camp can support that name further under current circumstances. It is just a matter of time that this be brought up again for formal debate. I am prepared to support anyone who makes that attempt, for I am currently too preoccupied with worldly affairs to initiate such a project which requires plenty of commitment.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Republic of the Union of Myanmar or still Union of Myanmar?

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

According to the New Light of Myanmar (22 Oct 2001): NAY PYI TAW, 21 Oct-The State Peace and Development Council of the Union of Myanmar issued State Flag Law with State Peace and Development Council Law (8/2010); State Seal Law with State Peace and Development Council Law (9/2010); National Anthem Law with State Peace and Development Council Law (10/2010); State Flag Rules with State Peace and Development Council Rule (1/2010); State Seal Rules with State Peace and Development Council Rule (2/2010); and National Anthem Rules with State Peace and Development Council Rule (3/ 2010) dated 13th Waxing of Thadingyut 1372 ME (21 October 2010). [2] – nothing about change of country names. We have only Reuters information, perhaps this information is incorrect (New Light of Myanmar still uses name Union of Myanmar, eg. in edition of 2 December). Did any official source confirm this name change (earlier information said that the new country name would come into force with the entry into force of the new constitution, and it probably has not yet occurred)? Aotearoa (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow... well spotted. The new name seems to have very widely caught on, but it does seem very hard to find anything from what Reuters simply references as "state media". Interestingly, the same 22 Oct edition of NLM also has a story about "The hoisting of the State Flag of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar". Perhaps Reuters seized upon this slip to prematurely announce the name change along with the other changes? Perhaps the NLM translators simply forgot to change their usage? Without a reliable source asserting that they were wrong, it would be ill-advised not to presume the Reuters story is true, but you never know... Bigbluefish (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Burma/Archive 8#Did any country or international organization recognize the new name of Burma?, where I listed links to official Burmese websites (embassies, UN's missions) on which the name Union of Myanmar is still used. Aotearoa (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I saw that but for some reason the first time round I missed the second list of links with the new flag but not the new name. This changes things somewhat, especially the CIA Factbook which is directly intended to be correct on these kinds of details and well regarded as a source. I would support a revert at this stage, and perhaps the addition of some description of the reports that the name change had in fact taken place. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Another month passed and still no official confirmation of name change. It is incredible that after such a long time only media informed about new name, and the lack of such information on the official site of any international organization or a state (where its still use the previous name). Therefore, probably the name of Burma has not yet been changed. I think that the name Union of Myanma should be restored to time to obtain confirmation of name change by the official sources. Aotearoa (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

New Ligt of Myanmar, Januray 5, 2011: NAY PYI TAW, 5 Jan-The following are messages of felicitations from foreign Heads of Govenment sent to U Thein Sein, Prime Minister of the Union of Myanmar, on the occasion of the 63rd Anniversary Independence Day of the Union of Myanmar. So, if official government newspaper still uses the name "Union of Myanmar", and this name is used on official Burmese websites, this means that this name is still official. Aotearoa (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Does anyone know when the new name of the country will enter into force? The new constitution came into force on January 31, but former name is still used (for example New Ligt of Myanmar, February 25, 2011: NAY PYI TAW, 25 Feb-Minister for Labour U Aung Kyi received an ILO mission led by Executive Director Mr Guy Ryder of the Office of the International Labour Organization at the Ministry of Labour on 23 February morning and discussed tasks being carried out jointly by the government of the Union of Myanmar and ILO and future tasks., NAY PYI TAW, 25 Feb - U Thein Sein, Prime Minister of the Union of Myanmar, has sent a message of felicitations to His Highness Sheikh Nasser Al-Mohammad Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, Prime Minister of the State of Kuwait, on the occasion of the National Day of the State of Kuwait which falls on 25 February 2011.). Aotearoa (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Will there actually be anyway of having official confirmation, though? Saying that, a google news search turns up some results, but doesn't really do much. [3] It's a waiting game, I guess.--Tærkast (Communicate) 16:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may just add a note, here, both the title page and pages 5 and 7 of the 2008 Constitution use the term Republic of the Union of Myanmar. 75.154.109.28 (talk)

This is not problem which name is listed in constitution, the problem is if this new name was officially adopted. And there are still no official sources stated that the name listed in constitution is in official use. 178.73.50.5 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The new name Republic of the Union of Myanmar was adopted on 30 March 2011 (e.i. 5 months after the date listed by Reuters), as an effect of inaugration of the new government (see: "Republic of the Union of Myanmar". New Light of Myanmar. Myanmar.com. 30 March 2011. Retrieved 2011-04-04.). Aotearoa (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

State Supreme Council

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I thimk that the leader of SSC Than Shwe is more important than the actual president. SHould he be placed in the infobox? It seems similar to Libya, where the president is less important than Gaddafi, who doesn't have any official position (Leader of the revolution isn't actual political position). HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the State Supreme Council, because there hasn't actually been news on it since it was reported to have been formed. Also, this news article [4] reportedly indicates Than Shwe's complete retirement from government in any affairs.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Burma/GA1

Civil war

Burma is now in a civil war. http://www.kachinnews.com/news/1947-civil-war-starts-after-kias-dead-line-on-monday.html Haabet 15:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Name

Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion

Why is Burma still called Burma on Wikipedia if Burma was renamed to Myanmar some time ago? Surely should it be called Myanmar?

MrAmberGold (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)MrAmberGoldMrAmberGold (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the mediation history listed near the top for an explanation. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that we move this article to Myanmar, as almost the whole world is using the correct name for the country, (weather we like the name or not, is POV). We have to stick to facts! --Kind regards, Ro de Jong (Talk to me!) 13:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it should be moved; things have possibly changed in the last few years, and quick google searches appear to suggest that Myanmar is at least slightly more common than Burma as an English name. Combined with the fact that Myanmar is in its official name, it seems like it's time for a move. Perhaps some brave editor could start a requested move? Mlm42 (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Though not in the official name from the gov'ts of the US, UK, etc...or the gov't in exile. I would guess (and this is just a guess) that, after polling, one side or the other will only wind up with 55% where no consensus will be found to do anything and it will remain in the same place after a lot of arguing. That's what I gleam from posts here over the last year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
"Though not in the official name from the gov'ts of the US, UK, etc...or the gov't in exile." Wow, only their voices voices, but not of ASEAN or the UN? Please clarify that statement. --222.127.231.29 (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Asked that, because me as a User don't want to get a wrong picture. 222.127.231.29 (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Another catch is also, how many govs in the world do name Myanmar and not "Burma". If certain users go that way and it came out that the majority of the govs worldwide use Myanmar, than Myanmar must used as name (if you are consistent with this democracy thing). 222.127.231.29 (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, if I may also comment on the possibility of polling: Don't do that for the next five years. The other side won't accept the result. 222.127.231.29 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for international government terms, only the English-majority ones will matter. So the United Nations using Myanmar will be significant, but Burma is still going to have majority usage among most English governments such as the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and Canada. The area where Myanmar is going to shine is in media sources (other than those in the U.K.), so it'll win out in Google News or regular Google searches. If you read a newspaper or buy a map in the United States, they'll probably say Myanmar (because of the Associated Press and Rand McNally, respectively). Most of us believe that Myanmar and Burma are both commonly used in English (I know a somewhat recent episode of White Collar had both terms), so folks like myself appeal to the self-identifying English name of the government in power: Myanmar. -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this summary. They are both common names from a variety of perspectives, so it's not a big deal; but the country itself uses "Myanmar" in their official English name, so that seems to tip the scales. Mlm42 (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that even tennis experts, who have no clue about the political context of this matter, also think they have to have a say on this topic. To go to the topic again: Of course, if there was suddenly a regime change to democracy then this discussion will get obsolete though a bad aftermath feeling remains. 222.127.231.29 (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
By your comment, and edit summary, you appear to be accusing User:Fyunck(click) of soapboxing? Anyway, the policy argument is via Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names): There's no "widely accepted English name" (because both Burma and Myanmar are so widely used), so we should use "the modern official name". Hence "Myanmar".. but maybe I'm overlooking something? Mlm42 (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Official names don't have any special significance on wikipedia. Rather, policy says that we should use the name most commonly used. (See WP:Official names and WP:UCN) Whichever of Burma or Myanmar is more commonly used should be the title and, if both are equally used, then there really is no reason to change it. --rgpk (comment) 17:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
"Official names don't have any special significance on wikipedia." I'm not sure I agree with this.. consider the first point in the policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), considered as a "General guideline":

The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used.

I think there is no single "widely accepted English name", since both Burma and Myanmar are so widely accepted; and the article deals with the modern country so the "historical" name is inappropriate.. so I interpret this as endorsing the "modern official name", hence "Myanmar".. do other people have other interpretations? Mlm42 (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe that your interpretation is correct if no widely accepted name exists. When two equally widely accepted names exist, then we do not make a choice but stick with what the article is already called (because there are pov implications when you make a choice). (Note: This is strictly meant as a policy interpretation. No comment on which name is more common or more appropriate.) --rgpk (comment) 18:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
But I don't think either "Burma" nor "Myanmar" satisfy the description of a "widely accepted name" given at: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Widely_accepted_name. And I don't understand your POV argument? I understand that if there is no fair way of choosing (policy based, or otherwise) one name instead of the other, then we might as well keep things the same. But, if I understand correctly, there is a reason to choose one over the other, because the country's official name uses "Myanmar".. the guidelines suggest this as a "tie-breaking mechanism", unless I've misinterpreted them? Mlm42 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The operative phrase in your quote above is if neither of these names exist In this case we have a naming contest between two groups (a military lead official group on the one side and a pro-democracy group on the other). We have two names, one official and one non-official, both with Burmese meaning and history. Clearly, we don't have a situation where no feasible candidate name exists so the 'modern official name' clause does not apply. About the POV, if we pick Burma then we're seen as having a pro democracy group POV, if we pick Myanmar, we're seen as having a pro military junta POV. The act of choosing one name or the other is best left alone (unless one particular name predominates over the other). --rgpk (comment) 22:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
But I'm claiming that in fact there does not exist a widely accepted English name. That's how I've interpreted the policy, and apparently others disagree. For example, reading this BBC article about the name, I'd conclude that the more neutral name is "Myanmar". I would consider myself pro-democracy (and I would bet so would most other Wikipedia editors); but the way I interpret the policy, I still think the article should be called "Myanmar". I guess it doesn't really matter, though. Mlm42 (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
It gets stewy with the official name. The official name as per the illegitimate gov't? The official name as per the gov't in exile? The official name as per the US, UK, Australian and Canadian state depts.? The official name per the UN? The name the people living there call themselves whether living on the coast or the interior? There's a lot of turmoil in the official name. One thing Burma always had going for it was in common usage it was by far more preferred than Myanmar in English. That has been slowly changing over the years where it's no longer the case. A lot was also expected from the current elections. Most consider them tainted elections but the fact they were held at all...would it be enough to sway the US or UK, etc...to recognize the junta takeover? So far no, but that also could change. Anyway it's these types of things that keep good and honest editors on different sides of the fence on this issue and makes the name hard to pin down. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
To the official name, I'd say look to the infobox for consistency. The infobox lists Thein Sein as the leader of this country, not Dr. Sein Win. It lists Naypyidaw as the capital, not Rangoon... or even Rockville, Maryland. That country is covered in National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's not go there - consistency is highly overrated! Better to stick to 'non-POV and easier to deal with' common name based arguments. On that, I believe (and argued) that Burma was the more common name three years ago. Whether it is the more common name today is, in my mind, less certain. (Good to see you're still around!) --rgpk (comment) 22:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
(Heh. If that Mediation Cabal in 2008 had actually come out and said: "Two out of three of us agree that Burma is the more common name", instead of appealing to status quo, then I think there'd have been a good chance of the Burmyanmar naming epic eventually shaping into an example on that Geographic naming conventions page. Ah well.) -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Very true. But, if an RM shows up now, I suspect the result will be clearer (and different). --rgpk (comment) 23:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
You should also consider, that the naming policy should not depend on if the government is "illegitimate". (No, this is not the section and not the appropriate page to discuss and/or philosophize about the legitimacy of the Myanma government.) If you would go that far, then you must also replace the national flag shown in the article and use that of the oppositional group in Myanmar to be absolutely consequent. 222.127.231.29 (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Too long

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Isn't this article too long?? 203.81.67.182 (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

go Take a look at The Peoples Republic of China, United States of Amercia, and World War Two. then complain about length. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes they are about the same length. But, for Burma, some relevant sections are lacking, eg: Sports, Health, etc but some sections are overtly detailed.. eg. History. 203.81.67.182 (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Government and politics

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

1. Removed The majority of ministry and cabinet posts are held by military officers, with the exceptions being the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Labour, and the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development, posts which are held by civilians.[1]

This no longer applied in 2011 constitution.

2. Removed Elected delegates in the 1990 People's Assembly election formed the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB), a government-in-exile since December 1990, with the mission of restoring democracy.[2] Dr. Sein Win, a first cousin of Aung San Suu Kyi, has held the position of prime minister of the NCGUB since its inception. The NCGUB has been outlawed by the military government.

NCGGUB is not about current political climate. This applied to history section.

3. Removed Major political parties in the country are the National League for Democracy and the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy, although their activities are heavily regulated and suppressed by the military government. Many other parties, often representing ethnic minorities, exist.[citation needed] The military government allows little room for political organisations and has outlawed many political parties and underground student organisations. The military supported the National Unity Party in the 1990 elections and, more recently, an organisation named the Union Solidarity and Development Association.[3]

This is outdated. About 1991 elections. I replaced with materials relating 2011 elections.

4. Removed In 1988, the army violently repressed protests against economic mismanagement and political oppression. On 8 August 1988, the military opened fire on demonstrators in what is known as 8888 Uprising and imposed martial law. However, the 1988 protests paved way for the 1990 People's Assembly elections. The election results were subsequently annulled by Senior General Saw Maung's government. The National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won over 60% of the vote and over 80% of parliamentary seats in the 1990 election, the first held in 30 years. The military-backed National Unity Party won less than 2% of the seats.

8888 Uprising is already mentioned in history section.

5. removed Dramatic change in the country's political situation remains unlikely, due to support from major regional powers such as India, Russia, and, in particular, China.[4][5]

See foreign relations and military.

6. Removed The junta faces increasing pressure from the United States and the United Kingdom. Burma's situation was referred to the UN Security Council for the first time in December 2005 for an informal consultation. In September 2006, ten of the United Nations Security Council's 15 members voted to place Myanmar on the council's formal agenda.[6]

About Junta and UN, see Foreign relation and military. About Aung Sann Suu Kyi is no longer applied since she is freed. I will readd about Ban Ki Moon statement with recent materials. 203.81.67.182 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Chiefs of State and Cabinet Members of Foreign Governments: Burma". Central Intelligence Agency. 2 June 2006. Retrieved 11 July 2006.
  2. ^ "The Birth Of The NCGUB". National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma. Archived from the original on 18 July 2006. Retrieved 19 July 2006.
  3. ^ McCain, John (11 May 2003). "Crisis in Rangoon". National Review Online. Retrieved 14 July 2006.
  4. ^ Poon, Khim Shee (2002). "The Political Economy of China-Myanmar Relations: Strategic and Economic Dimensions" (PDF). Ritsumeikan University. Retrieved 14 July 2006.
  5. ^ Selth, Andrew (Spring 2002). "Burma and Superpower Rivalries in the Asia-Pacific". Naval War College Review. Retrieved 16 July 2006.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)[dead link]
  6. ^ Gamel, Kim. "UN Security Council Puts Burma on Agenda". The Irrawaddy, 16 September 2006. Retrieved 11 October 2006.
You're right. A lot of stuff is outdated and in the wrong place. (if you could do your edits in smaller chunks, like you're doing now, it'll be much easier to keep track!) Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago45 comments14 people in discussion

Where should this move be advertised

user:Fyunck(click) notified me of this discussion asking where it should be advertised. As it aroused so much community interest last time, I think the request should be widely advertised. I would suggest that all those who took place in the last requested move should be informed of this request. That an RfC is notified for the length of time that this RM is active and that general form such as project groups and village pump are informed. Does anyone want to volunteer to take on any of these tasks? Or have any other suggestions? -- PBS (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I just posted an RFC notice. Kauffner (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I went through as many old discussion/poll/cabals as I could find and sent a message out to those participants about the poll here. God I don't ever want to go through all those names again so I made a list of the editors just in case :-) It should take a day or two according to the bot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Note for closing admin: Fyunck(click) is manually notifying editors who have contributed to this discussion in the past. Please consider keeping this discussion open for (a lot) longer. --regentspark (comment) 21:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I got everyone. Whew... time for some visine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


Discussion

User:Soewinhan This move has to be discussed and decided on the usage in reliable English language sources not unreliable sources. Unreliable sources tend to be retuned by a general Google search. Your Google surveys to date in this RM are not useful as they include both reliable and unreliable sources. I suggest you try doing things like restricting them to government domains in English speaking countries and other similar searches that will return a highet number of reliable sources and fewer unreliable ones. -- PBS (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I performed searches accordingly.SWHtalk 06:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Genearl searches on org or Edu do not return a preponderance of reliable sources. What makes you think that .org is any better than say *.uk or *.com? Edu contain many student and advocacy pages. A better search for reliable academic sources would be searches of Google scholar and more generally Google books since 1986 (although again one has to check the books returned as many will be travel books and books about the Burma Campaign etc). You will find similar problems with scholar. Also .gov and .edu are US sites the equiv for the UK is .gov.uk and .ac.uk and there are similar one for Australia New Zealand etc, but .ac.uk will suffer from the same problem as .edu. -- PBS (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Taking .gov.uk as an example (why that domain? It was the first one I tried!) There is a tendency for it to include many local government sites which in the case of international relations can not be seen as very reliable. In fact looking at the first page or returns on a Google search of the gov.uk domain, for Burma -Myanmar site:gov.uk, -Burma Myanmar site:gov.uk and Burma Myanmar site:gov.uk the first ten retuned by the last search seem to be a sample of the more reliable British Government papers (eg the departments of foreign office and treasury). To see whether the papers lead with one or the other as this article will do will have to be done by viewing the papers (or some clever regular expressions) . -- PBS (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
the brit govt is ot the global barometre and the empire is dead.
not much more RS tha thisLihaas (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
PBS. Why do you think government sources are reliable? No government would say "We should call it Burma because it is the most used term in English". They say the government is a military junta, not democratically elected, therefore, the gov doesn't have a right to rename the country. .Edu contains student activist groups. But, most activists prefer Burma rather than Myanmar for the same reason that western governments do. As well, since I have already included .gov domain, I have to include .org domains. Although it can be registered by anyone, prominent international organizations such as UN, use it exclusively. (UN and its programmes pages use Myanmar) As far as I see, only Books tend to use Burma over Myanmar. But unknown number of books are reprinted books. Google also has deals with several online publishing groups that scan for pdf version of old books. SWHtalk 11:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. Which part of this sprawling mess of a debate inspired the solicitation of yet another round of unstructured, uninvolved, single-line opinions on a blank sheet? Surely some people must be less interested in editorial progress than having the same long-winded arguments over flimsy logic over and over again. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To focus this, can we look at the numbers SWH posted above? It's the part above with the phrase "My searches in English language news, scholar, books, .gov domains, .edu domains and .org domains return the following results." When I look at this list, it seems that GoogleBooks is the only place where Burma is the obvious majority. I think we should focus on whether this information is accurate, and if it is, then whether it has solid weight over which name is commonly used. And if it does not have solid weight, then can we agree on what does? -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Of those addresses, I'd say only books and scholar are worth looking at, and they show Burma to be the common name. News will contain a lot of blogs, a lot of hyper-minor sites and a lot of syndicated content (so that if, for example, AP has a particular house style, that will get massively overrepresented in the results). I was going to say the .gov, org and edu sites are country-specific but okay that's not true. What I have noted, though, is that there are a lot of Burmese English language sites included, which surely ought to be excluded if that is possible. --FormerIP (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do agree that the Associated Press's house style results in Myanmar getting way more exposure than it would otherwise. But I wouldn't see that as a reason to exclude it as evidence; I'd see it as further evidence itself. WP:Commonname places GoogleBooks and GoogleNews on relatively equal platforms. Is there a reason in this scenario to prefer one over the other, as more indicative of what's in common use? -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as just stated. A hundred articles produced by the New York Times, the Guardian and and Sydney Morning Herald gets you a hundred returns on Google News. But a hundred articles produced by AP, FP and Reuters could get you thousands of returns. So, lets say the first three prefer "tomayto" and the second three prefer "tomahto". Google news would tell you that "tomahato" wins by many hundred percent. But that's not a real reflection of the reality that the sources are split fairly evenly. It's actually a wildly unreliable place to look, at least in cases where house style is likely to be an issue. I might just go and copy-paste this comment over on the commonname talkpage. --FormerIP (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
OK I did that on the Search Engine Test page and at commonname. --FormerIP (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Remember also these are guidelines, not rules. From numerous battles in tennis articles I've found that one persons great source is another persons Paparazzi blog. It's also not just a numbers game. If 80% of the English speaking country population and sources say it's one name you might think it's a slam dunk. But if countries 1-20 all favored one name while country 21 was the only one favoring another name and that country #21 had 3x the population of the other countries combined, it would be a lot blurrier as far as common name. Sort of like a house vote vs a senate vote in the US. From the books and magazines and news I get from the UK I don't doubt that Burma is more common. For the US I also don't doubt that Myanmar is more common. The other two big English language areas, Australia and Canada, I don't read enough on a regular basis to know what is taught in schools and how the general population feels. The newspapers in both seem to favor Burma. Published magazines and books in Canada and Australia/NewZealand I really don't know about. We don't even know really what people in Burma/Myanmar use on a day to day basis from the coasts to the interiors... 3 years ago they seemed to use other names more frequently than either Burma or Myanmar. We pretty much had to throw out common name last go around because of this uncertainty so other sources like official gov't agencies came to the forefront. That's why we talked UN or UK official recognition. I said before that I think Myanmar has gained considerable usage in three years, but I'm not convinced from these posts "thus far" that we require a change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. In all our years of arguing, can we agree on these things?

(1) official names don't matter, neither the UN, the English-speaking governments, nor the way its government identifies itself. And,
(2) both names are commonly used, and finding the "most common" is dependent on the type of source and the part of the world it comes from.

Can we agree on that? If not, we can keep at the Common Name debate. But if so, then we need to find a policy on what happens if there are multiple common names in English. I don't think Wikipedia has one for that. The Multiple Local Names guidelines give Liancourt Rocks and Londonderry as examples, but those solutions don't seem to apply here. At this point, I think I'd be able to handle "Burma" if the decision were made in a way that could be described as an example on one of those guideline pages. I'm not sure if any other Myanmites agree, of course. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

When we are talking common name I agree that #1 doesn't matter. But if common name fails then we have to look for other things according to wikipedia. They want us to be "concise" and use "precision" and come to a consensus. What are we going to use to do that barring common name? If you start saying Encyclopedia Britannica says Myanmar then certainly we can also say things like the UK State dept and all official records say Burma. So depending on what's being argued #1 can be valid or invalid. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with item 1 above. This debate should focus solely on common name. However, I do think that English language sources of all sorts matter and disagree that we should be looking largely at sources from the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We should also be looking at English language sources from India, Singapore, Hong Kong and other parts of the world that have vibrant English speaking (and reading and writing) communities. I also think that FormerIP is correct and we should give a little more weight to books than to google results. But, there are a couple of caveats to that. First, we should only be looking at books and articles published recently (I'd say 2007 - 2011). Second, and this is the big problem, we need to exclude books and articles that talk about the historical Burma (because they don't refer to the modern nation) (unfortunately for my !vote above, jstor brings up 1258 Burma articles since 2007 versus 859 Myanmar articles - I'll scan them to see how many refer to the historical entity). So, here are my three principles:
  1. Official names don't matter (stolen from BaronGrackle)
  2. The search for the 'common name' should include English language sources from all English speaking parts of the world
  3. Books, academic articles, and major news/media sources should be weighted slightly more than google searches but we (somehow) need to separate references to the historical entity from the current entity).--regentspark (comment) 13:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I didn't think #2 was in line with our policy, but I suppose I was mistaken (I thought it was something about English being a minority language, even if it is "official"). With #3, you compare books and academic articles against google searches, but you don't mention news/media sources one way or the other. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I've added major media sources above. About #2, WP:COMMONNAME refers to English language reliable sources. I assume that The Straits Times, South China Morning Post, The Times of India all qualify as English language reliable sources. I'm not sure about #3. The purpose of using the common name is because it is recognizable and natural, in which case we should be over emphasizing news and media sources and under emphasizing academic ones. --regentspark (comment) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a lot of leeway as far as English language sourcing as I've seen in countless debates around wiki. Everyone's entitled to weigh things as they see fit. I will never give weight to the South China Morning Post as to being an English source. Almost all countries learn English but they are not reliable in that they will follow the mindset of the non-english population of the area and will simply be a rehash written in English. And if you are going to use an academic article I will certainly use something written by the UK State dept. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "following the mindset of the non-english population" of the SCMP? Do you mean to say that Hong Kong, despite English being an official and widely spoken language, is not a legitimate (for Wikipedia) producer of English language material because its people are not ethnically English? Quigley (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
SCMP is certainly a major English-language paper, 100,000 circulation. Bangkok Post has 75,000. This "mindset" stuff sounds pretty snooty to me. Kauffner (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think "official names don't matter" misses the head of the nail. Clearly they can matter. Consider Republic of China and Republic of Ireland, for example - a rule-based approach blind to official naming would give us "Taiwan"/"Ireland" per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and then "Taiwan (island)"/"Ireland (island)". In this case, in the hypothetical scenario where all world governments suddenly decided "Myanmar" was the way to go, we should probably change quite quickly and not wait for Google Books to catch up with the new reality. All that said, I don't think its likely to ever be decisive for this article, so maybe the discussion is academic.

I think any English language sources from anywhere in the world where there is a significant English FL population not only can, but should be included in considerations. However, there is a need to be sophisticated and flexible in weighting. Obviously, the Trinidad Guardian should not carry as much weight as the Manchester Guardian. I also think we should be slightly wary about countries such as China, where house styles may be decided by state bureaucrats (particularly if we are, on the other hand, avoiding official naming conventions). --FormerIP (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Just plain "Ireland" is official.[5] The Irish government does not appreciate being called "Republic of Ireland". But pro-IRA Irish opinion and anti-Irish British opinion combine to trump both common and official name. There an active RM here. Kauffner (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK I stand amended, although it should be noted that the official name really is Republic of Ireland: [6]. In any event, the example shows that the approach generally taken does not simply follow commonname with blinkers on. Here we have two other factors being cited: official name and the politicised nature of the naming debate. --FormerIP (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been a lot of links to Google Books in the votes and comments made above. Could someone respond to RegentsPark's musing that "The purpose of using the common name is because it is recognizable and natural, in which case we should be over emphasizing news and media sources and under emphasizing academic ones."? Because right now I'm more sympathetic to the argument that British media has a global influence, as opposed to the argument about Google Books. And it'd be really cool if this thing could end in something other than "No consensus, so no change." -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually think we would ideally look at new usage, academic usage, diplomatic usage and so on and make a reasoned judgement, rather then looking at any one thing in particular. The problem with news, though, is that I don't think we have a reliable way of assessing it with metrics. For the reasons I gave above, Google News is reliable way of assessing commonname. --FormerIP (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone mentioned above that Gbooks is used instead of just general Ghits because of technical limitations of the Ghits counts which make the actual numbers of dubious utility for these kinds of discussions. SDY (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Our guidelines say to follow the RS. But you prefer popular use, Google Insights tells you what our readers are typing in. Kauffner (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
That's interesting, because it seems to suggest people search for Burma, except when it is in the news, then they search for Myanmar. How is that explained? --FormerIP (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
AP style is "Myanmar", so that's no mystery. When Americans see the name in the news, they wonder, "Where is this country Myanmar?" So they Google it up. Kauffner (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The AP
  • has reporters inside Burma
  • knows that the Burmese junta is petty, spiteful, and determined
  • and so has reason to believe that if they don't comply on datelines, their reporters may be expelled, and not impossibly jailed.
Their position is inglorious, but reasonable; if the Burmese news is valuable enough to the world, it may even be ethical. But it does not create American usage; the advantage of being a tertiary source is that we don't have such pressures. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
[citation needed] or you are making assumptions of the reasons for their choice without evidence. (It seems fairly obvious they wouldn't say that since if they really were afraid, they would be afraid to tell people they only chose the name because they were afraid.) I could just as well say that the BBC and those who use Burma are afraid they will lose their contacts with Burmese anti-government groups if they use Myanmar. Heck I can cast the net wider and say that they are even afraid alienating other non Burmese groups and people sympathetic to the cause of the Burmese anti-government groups and those who reject the legitimacy of Burmese goverment, which there's a lot more then those sympathetic to the Myanmar government. (Even those like say the Chinese government who are close to the Myanmar government aren't going to be much different to you solely because of you choosing Burma over Myanmar.)
BTW I somewhat agree with FormerIP here. In particularly as I pointed out in the discussion I see the common usage argument as rather flawed since the evidence all suggests it's impossible to clearly demonstrate either way, it depends on how you spin the sources. Really it seems to me a lot of people when saying either one is 'common usage' are mostly just going by their own preference. Therefore we can either go by first contributors preference, which is the stock answer for when we can't decide by other means or we can go by official English usage which IMO is a more logical way to decide things then first contributors preference.
Nil Einne (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Adopting "official usage" is adopting the POV of the officials (and the POV that they are the proper officials, also a significant issue here). Anybody who supports that opposes WP:NPOV, and should be treated accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Another thing I would add for consideration is that we may well have a situation where Myanmar has a slight advantage in the US (and possibly elsewhere) but is very rarely used in the UK (and possibly elsewhere). Surely there's a case for saying is is parsimonious that we should go with the version that is universally understood, rather than the version that will leave some corners of the globe confused, even if it is the most commonly used (although it appears to me that is isn't in any case). --FormerIP (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

And Myanmar has an advantage in AP datelines; that's not at all the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A little on POVs

Reading the move discussion above, I think it might be good to think explicitly about what is not relevant to the decision.

We know that some think the country should be named Burma, and others that it should be named Myanmar. These are both POVs, and irrelevant.

And we also know that some are putting forth these POVs as arguments one way or another. But that's not relevant either. I mean, just because someone argues that it should be called Burma and we discount this argument, that doesn't itself count as an argument for naming the article Myanmar. And vice versa.

What we're interested in is simply the best title to enable readers to find the information they want. It's an article title. No more, no less. Andrewa (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The discussion should hinge around common name (and other ancillary policy or guideline based arguments if common name is ambiguous). I'm bemused by the number of 'official name' or POV !votes (oddly, mostly on the support side). Both Myanmar as well as Burma come with their own POV baggage so I don't see the point of those !votes. The way I see it, the move boils down to:
  1. Burma is the clear common name in English language usage
  2. Myanmar is the clear common name in English language usage
  3. Neither is the clear common name in English language usage and so we should stick to Burma because that's where the article is or that's the recognizably English historical name of that nation
  4. Neither is the clear common name in English language usage and so we should move to Myanmar because that's what is recognized as the official name by most nations the government of that country chooses to call itself in English or because Myanmar is where the trend is going
Those are the possible choices that we face here and the discussion should focus on providing evidence for whatever option a !voter believes is correct. --regentspark (comment) 02:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree a bit on your choices 3 and 4. In choice 4 if you use the phrase "recognized as the official name by most nations" then to be fair you should also add into choice 3 the fact that it's recognized by English speaking nations as the official name (not just historical). I understand what you are trying to do in simplifying it for everyone, I'm cool with that, but I don't quite agree it's as simple as you just made it. I do think that pov votes have always been a part of wiki and probably always will be but any good admin who reads the pros and cons of this poll before closing it will weed out what is truly useless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I clarified in my phrasing that we're only interested in English language usage. I don't want to use 'English speaking nations' because the definition of that is a bit unclear.
The phraseology "recognized as the official name" holds no water on either side. Governments only determine their own usage and even the US and UK don't go as far as suggesting that "Burma" is the de jure name for the country. The UN might be an exception, I'm not sure. Since the de facto is usually presumed in linguistic convention, one might say that "Myanmar" is not challenged by most states, but that's about it. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that. I've modified the statement above to clarify that 'official' really only means that this is a choice made by the Burmese/Myanmar government.
I personally lean toward the #4 above, along the lines of "Both are clear common names, so we should stick with Myanmar, which is what the article title was before the 2007 move that even admitted there was no consensus to move." But yes, I do have preference to the common name that has grown in English use and only continues to grow, as opposed to the former name whose common use comes mainly from history. And no, I don't have the same "passion" that so many of us had four years ago when this happened. But perhaps the festering mess that this article's title discussion has become will serve as an example to future administrators before they decide to Move articles, while still knowing that there is no consensus. Look at the archives above; your article talk page will turn into this. :-D -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Latest comment: 13 years ago30 comments10 people in discussion

Myanmar

Burma

Discussion

The above discussion does not seem very productive, as the discussion is based on personal opinion instead of on sources. How about we take China as an example [9], and start making a table of sources with which name is used? --Globe-trotter (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to say, the PRC - China move was in itself quite controversial, and was ultimately decided upon by a three-admin panel. As I've mentioned in the RM discussion here, I didn't see any ultimate consensus either way, but the article was moved nonetheless. Still, doing a table of sources wouldn't hurt, at least then we'd know where the sources stand.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
And in case you weren't aware that's how this name was originally chosen, by a three-admin panel. That was 3 years ago... time flies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but it seems the PRC/China three-admin panel resulted in all three admins deciding for "China". The Burmyanmar panel resulted in one admin deciding for Myanmar, one deciding for Burma, and one deciding for "No consensus". Even a 2-1 decision would've been somewhat stable. But a 1-1-1 decision means the Mediation Cabal failed to mediate; it just appealed to that same controversial 2007 Move to Burma, which means a new round of fighting over this was inevitable. Heh. Fun times. -BaronGrackle (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I just didn't know whether Taerkast knew that Burma also went to a panel. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I did, or rather only vaguely. But thanks for bringing that up, now I know. Again, I still disagree with the PRC/China move and the consensus there, but we'll focus on this one now. I was also vaguely aware of the Mediation case for this.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Doing a table would also make them easily accessible and readable. Millertime246 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How does the JSTOR search work? Does it search the text of the entire articles or just the titles? If it just searches text then I doubt it's conclusive either way. A publication could mostly call it Myanmar yet refer to independence as Burma or the British colony of Burma etc., a publication calling it Burma could note that the government calls it Myanmar and that would pop up in results. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I've included the title only results above (which favor Myanmar over Burma). --regentspark (comment) 16:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding with this list of sources. I find the sources for english versions of Al Jazeera and the French Presse useless here, and one of the sources is listed as a blog. The oecd is another French organization reprinted in English. This seems the sort of thing that could get out of hand with people adding things over and over in a source mess. Or people will append notes as to which are good sources and which are not. Do we really want to go here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is? If you don't want to base common name on a list of sources, what else would you want to base it on? Like AP and Reuters, AFP is one of the largest press agencies in the English language, and AJE is a major English language news source. The OECD, while its headquarters is in France, isn't a French organization. Please contribute to the list by adding more reliable sources. --Globe-trotter (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Listing every source would be monumental and require heaps of bandwidth. And I don't care two hoots and a holler what a Chinese or French source says about an English wikipedia, just because they happen to be written in English. They should be great sources for French wikipedias or Chinese wikipedias. Right now that list is a biased joke. As has been discussed above one persons reliable source is another persons Paparazzi blog. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This is the English language Wikipedia, not the UK or US Wikipedia, so all English language sources are valid. If you think the list is a biased joke, like I said before, contribute to the list by adding more reliable sources. Of course, whether or not a source is reliable is debatable at some level, but it's obvious that press agencies, newspapers, international organizations, and science magazines should count as reliable, while Johny's Hobby Blog shouldn't. --Globe-trotter (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Well that's your opinion not mine nor everybody's. You can consider China, Qatar, France, Iceland, and Finland excellent sources for English nomenclature but many won't and when an admin looks at this whole thing he may throw most of that stuff out. I know I would. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Plus the meat of this debate is up above in the polling section. Most editors who came here to give opinion in the poll have come and gone. They aren't now going to come back and start editing this discussion and notice someone put up a funky list of biased sources. They expressed their opinions once already. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Third time I say this: this list is just a start, instead of complaining about it, complement it by adding your own sources. This is a wiki, it works by collaborative effort. This whole discussion should not be about people expressing their opinion, but should be about objectively finding sources from where we can extract the most common name for the country. Wikipedia should not have self-research or opinions, it should reflect other sources. The China article naming issue got solved this way, and we should aspire the same here. --Globe-trotter (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In regards to "people adding things over and over in a source mess", should there be separate references for the governments of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. under Burma? I see there's the CIA World Factbook and British Foreign Office, but I wasn't sure if these were counted separately from the state position itself. In the China chart Globe-trotter linked at the beginning, one of the sources for "Republic of China" was the Vatican government, so I assume English-speaking governments would likewise be listed here in some form. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the sources could be collapsed into headings. For example, NYT, Washington Post, NPR, Bloomberg could be collapsed into "US Media" with each link serving as a reference. I'll do it above as an example. --regentspark (comment) 19:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that's an improvement. Generalising into US and UK media is superficial, as it's not as clear cut as it might seem at first. I was using China as an example [10], because there a list of sources has solved the common name issue. I think we should aspire here to make a similar list of sources, which would eventually show common usage in the English language as a whole, and not just per country. --Globe-trotter (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Possibly, but I notice that the China list has only THREE sources for the "Republic of China" option and only ONE for the civilization option. Cripes, if it were that unbalanced for Burmyanmar, I think finding Common Name would be a lot easier. And looking at your link, I suspect the PRC/China question was resolved mainly by the three moderators just making a decision, without one of them opting out. That being said, I'm not bashing the idea of a source list. I just predict what I think Fyunck is predicting: a lot of us already know where the sources fall. The English-speaking governments are going to favor Burma. The U.S. media will favor Myanmar; the U.K. media will favor Burma (I don't remember on the other nations). Online encyclopedias will say Myanmar, Google Books will favor Burma, and several of the other intelligent searches get divided down the middle. The BBC has an argument for dominating English-speaking exposure with Burma, as does the Associated Press with Myanmar. We have the numbers up above; we can write out the specific sources if that helps newcomers, but there are already more sources listed than "Republic of China" had, and there are lots more on both sides. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it will turn out problematic, sure, but this is the ground work for being able to make a decision in the first place. This list should already have been made when this discussion started years ago. Without it, the whole discussion is based on original research. The reason why the admins at China came to a conclusion is because their list overwhelmingly shows that China is the common name for the PRC. Here it will be harder to make that decision, but that doesnt mean we shouldn't do proper research before voting. --Globe-trotter (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Just because no one made a list doesn't mean sources weren't given and continue to be given. proper research has been done in the past. And also just because sources point one way doesn't mean consensus will. As an example we had a personal name issue here on wiki. English sources that spelled out the name: spelling X=9 sources, spelling y=0 sources. Consensus was spelling y and that's where it sits today. And this happens all the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
What article was that, out of interest? RMs are always nightmares in my opinion, there's no such thing as a consensus on anything and it has to be hammered out one at a time on each page. At worst it gets into a slow-moving move page war where the article changes every few months and it's a lack of interest that leads to it petering out. I'd say this debate is about as hotly contested and passionate as the issues with China-PRC, Gdansk-Danzig, and FYR-Macedonia. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The particular one I won't get into again, but others pretty much in the same vain are foreign tennis players with diacritics in their names. We have a player Ana Jankovic whose own English webpage is spelled Jelena Jankovic yet still it sits at the diacritic name here. Other less prominent players have their only english sourced spellings without diacritics and they are sourced at the ATP, WTA, Davis Cup, Wimbledon, US Open, etc... No English sources given spelled their names with diacritics. None at all. Polls were taken, 90% polled said use the diacritics regardless (as it was their Serbian or Swedish, etc... birthname), and there we are. My point was that sources aren't all they're cracked up to be around here. Consensus rules the day. Sure it usually needs to be 65% or more to change a title from an established name to a new name but it isn't simply add up the sources and put them in a list as Globe-trotter would have us do. I just added a bunch silly though it seems to me, and could have added 100s more. Some editors will weigh the BBC and London Times extraordinarily high. That's their right here. Some will say we should count as equals Chinese newsprint translated to English. That's their right too as it is mine to pretty much discount it completely. Some will say to count the total US media as equal to the total UK media or Australian media. Some will say The US weighs more because of population, or that whatever India says goes because their population dwarfs the US/UK/Australia/Canada combined. It is not simply a number of sources game, nor even quality of sources game since we can't agree on what is quality or what is not. You're an admin and I'm not so I applaud you having to go through these on a regular basis. I wouldn't want to and luckily I can leave when it starts giving me too big a headache. At least most of the people who have participated in these Burma/Myanmar debates through the years have been informed by me, whatever side they're on, so that was my major contribution to this poll no matter the outcome. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(od) I guess this is all moot now anyway and Burma it is for the time being. We should wait at least one year and some sea change in Burma before testing the waters again so let's wait and see which way the sources move. Fyunck, any chance you can figure out how to add a link to this move request to the header of Talk:Burma/Myanmar page so that the "why is this page at Burma?" askers can get an easy answer to their question? --regentspark (comment) 20:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

  Done - I just did it and updated this page's mediation history. I'm not sure if it's exactly correct at [Talk:Burma/Myanmar]] as I couldn't find the original rfc link, so I linked it to this talk page. When this page gets archived I'm not sure if the links will follow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we'll need to revisit this anytime soon unless something big happens to the contrary. -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Or, possibly, to the country :). --FormerIP (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose any move. Don't know where to vote as the above is closed. Beam 20:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Too late, but it was already closed as no consensus to move. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myanmar/Archive_10&oldid=1134389385"