Talk:Myanmar/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Protect this article

People's opinions are starting to flow into this article. Might be a good idea to protect this until things cool down.--Npnunda (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

History of Myanmar/Burma

I noticed that "Recent Events" were placed at the top of History. I would suggest that these be placed at the bottom of history, as the rest of the history category is given in chronological order. The cyclone is a very important event and people may look to Wikipedia for information about it, but in time it will not be a recent event, nor will it necessarily be viewed as more important to the History of Burma than the other historical events listed. 128.173.82.81 (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• • True, but we need to be working to keep the information easily accessible during this time when people will be looking to this site for information about the country and the cyclone.

IPA of Myanmar

I speak of Burma but when I have to criticize the word Myanmar, I never pronounce the final r in English, not any more than in car or bar. The "r" is only there to indicate to a Brit that the tone changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.142.75 (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

>>You are missing the point.

You are so kind...

>>>English speakers have no reason to try to pronounce Myanmar or Burma or any other country name in a foreign language.

Exactly MY POINT. THE IPA values ***in the article*** do not reflect the NATURAL British/South Africa/Bostonian way of pronouncing the word : no final "R", a lengthened "A:", imitating the second tone in the original. The article confuses the example given by the BBC using in day-to-day English spelling with IPA orthographies. So the the MYAN-mar example given by the BBC is not /ˌmjɑnˈmɑr/ but /ˌmjɑnˈmɑ:/. In other words, all the sample pronunciations are American ones.

They use the English sound system, just as Burmese speaker would not try to pronounce United States or another country name according to English, French or whatever. This has nothing to do with colonialism, or politics. Wikipedia does need to decide, however, whether to base foreign translations of country names on the common accepted use among native speakers, or on the official translations provided by governments. If it the latter, then Myanmar would be OK, but then the Burmese, Chinese, Japanese and other versions need to be checked as well. For example, Burma (Myanmar) still calls itself Birmanie in French and 缅甸 in Chinese. And the U.S.A. name in Wikipedia's vietmamese version should not be "flowery flag", which is a colloqual translation, but not appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be from Massachusetts. The "r" in car and bar are usually pronounced. -Laikalynx (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he's from a place where they speak British English. American English isn't the standard for pronunciation outside of the USA. 141.154.126.194 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This story is especially entertaining, since apparently the "r" was added to this English-translation because Myanmar's government felt the name would be mispronounced if they just used "Myanma". Fun stuff, dialects. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Laikalynx: Actually, final "r" in standard English in the situations in question is silent. You can look it up. I taught English diction at the graduate level for 4 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.214.89 (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So your graduates drive a Ka and drink at a bah? They're not silent.Zelphi (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean caw and baa? Anyway, they are silent...under some accents. 199.172.206.97 (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, yeah, no wonder! Their silence is enforced at a graduate level of English diction! Wow. We get made fun of here in Texas, mind you, but I don't think the drawl is obligatory. Anyway... dictionary.com for some reason says that the final "r" in Myanmar should NOT be pronounced (unlike car and bar). Do we know anything about this? -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

When speakers pronounce /r/ only if it is followed by a vowel sound (see "linking R"), it's called a non-rhotic accent, and there is a lengthy wikipedia article on it Rhotic and non-rhotic accents. From personal experience, living on the outskirts of Boston, I'd note that the vowel is drawn out to compensate. Car becomes kaah, and not kă. Unlike English, Burmese is a tonal language and the non-rhotic English 'ar' may be the closest equivalent. Cuvtixo (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please put the IPA for the correct pronunciation into the article

Folks, the article gives the IPA for common mispronunciations of the word 'Myanmar', but not for the correct one. Would it be too much to ask for someone to put, at the beginning of the article, the IPA for the correct pronunciation?

I've noticed that news dispatches pronounce it in various, probably wrong ways, but I do not know how it should be pronounced.

Thank you. Bill Jefferys (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect part of the problem is that there is no correct way to pronounce Myanmar. The name is new, so there's no traditional pronunciation in English. Your only options are to try to pronounce it the way the Burmese do (which will be an approximation at best), or to invent a pronunciation based on its spelling (which will be nothing like the way the Burmese say it, because the name is a transliteration, not a transcription). Scientivore (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Extensive prior discussion

Has reached no concensus. Therefore there is no point in having an ugly macro marring the page asking for *more* discussion about whether to call Burma Burma or Myanmar. My own view would be to describe the state as Myanmar and the nation as Burma and divide discussion appropriately, but as Burma is the current default both on Wiki and in the English language and there is *extensive* discussion of the naming dispute *within* the page, this macro serves no purpose and has been removed. - jowfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.37.112.44 (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is whether to call the Myanmar by its UN (the only international authority that has the right to define such naming aside from the CURRENT ruling government of a nation or state), name of Myanmar or by its continued Western used name that for a country that in reality no longer exists, that being the name of the former nation previously known as Burma. Lostinlodos (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC) The argument that Burma is dominant in English is actually irrelevant and self-defeating as Myanmar is not an English speaking country. In actuality this page should be titled with the correct, localized name of that country in its own language. Would that not solve all problems? Lostinlodos (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"The argument that Burma is dominant in English is actually irrelevant and self-defeating as Myanmar is not an English speaking country." - Neither is Spain, but that article isn't at "España".  ;) In reality, a non-English-speaking country's native name has very little bearing on its English name, and the English name is defined through use, not by the U.N. English use may very well turn toward "Myanmar" through constant media use of that name--and it may be possible to argue that it already has--but the argument that we must respect the dictatorship's self-identification doesn't, by itself, hold much water. I agree, BTW, that addressing the name controversy is crucial, but I think the matter is addressed adequately by the "Etymology and origins" section, which in turn links to an excruciatingly detailed article at Names of Burma. Placing the disclaimer at the top of the page strikes me as misplaced advocacy of a POV that isn't supported by consensus. Elmo iscariot (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That aside, the tag needs to stay to allow a casual reader the understanding that the title name of this page about the current country of Myanmar and the previously no longer existing country formally known as Burma is disputed. Removing the tag states that the name is factually as listed currently, and therefor the (nude) heading page would be slanted to a Western POV, and not representative of the very country it is covering; violating the NPOV policy. Lostinlodos (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Article too long

Dear contributers,

It seems that well, you cannot avoid politics when it comes to any topic on Myanmar - I find that there is extreme politicization of any article which contains either Myanmar/Burma, in the name. In one article, I found that the related material was only one line long, while "extra" material, i.e., political related, was two paragraphs long. I am not against the writing of truthful information, but, there is a place for everything, and a format, instead of propping up posters of your opinion everywhere. These things, instead of helping the common wikipedia user on Myanmar/Burma, has, on the contrary, made the whole issue worse, and nobody ends up knowing anything definite about the country.

The main thing at hand is that, we need to make the main article (Myanmar or Burma, call it what ever you want, but as a native of that land, I prefer Myanmar) more professional and presentable. When you try the edit button, you'll see that its nearly 120kb long - one cannot get a quick info guide about the place - you are getting a whole crash course on the whole country on this page alone.

So, might I suggest that we just write some brief paragraphs, and divert about half the existing text to new articles? I dare not do it, since half the users will start jumping on me for doing it. User:Uthantofburma —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. This thing is a book! 74.182.101.168 (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article into a "Myanmar" (current government) and "Burma" (history) is a proposal for resolving the current naming dispute, though where to split the article and what goes in which is far from decided. I think that RfC is just about over, so we'll see if a decision can be made.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen articles a lot more bloated than this. And it doesn't really look to me like splitting it has any kind of consensus at all in the "Request for Comments" or "Name Dispute" sections. We'll see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What?

I Thought that Rangoon was the capital of Myanmar! Oh well,did they change it? Fila934 (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yup. New government, new name, and new capital. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Nope, "Rangoon" much like "Bombay" or "Burma" is an outdated and incorrect term. --Tocino 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "outdated", shouldn't we say that the traditional term is either closer to the Burmese spelling, or, more likely, based on a dialect from western Burma which the early British were more familiar with? And I don't see anybody changing Madrid to Mathreeth, or Paris to Paree. Are we so worried about being politically correct towards a dictatorship that we have to change our own language in a way that is not appreciated by many Burmese? (I have been told by Burmese that the change to "Myanmar" etc. is simply a ploy of the junta to have a brand new start for everything and distance itself from the 1990 election won by the "Union of BURMA").Jakob37 (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll find people that will state ploys on both sides. Either way, it is recognized by the UN as "Myanmar" and I gave an official UK geographic names resource that states reference to "Union of Myanmar". Rarelibra (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"And I don't see anybody changing Madrid to Mathreeth, or Paris to Paree." The crucial difference being that Neither Madrid or Paris were British colonies!!!! Referring to Bombay as Mumbai is a gesture of respect, for the wishes of inhabitants, as well as prior tradition. Unfortunately, the name changes in Burma seem to have been imposed, rather than reached by a consensus. So please, while Jakob's points about Burma and Rangoon are consistant, comparison to non-colonial cities is wrong, and Tocino's comparison to Mumbai is not quite the same. I also think that it is fortunate that Wikipedia does not have to conform to Unite Nations or "offical" UK geographic names. Usage in scholarly (or peer-reviewed) publications (in English) is a better standard, although in disputed Wikipedia articles, naming conventions are usually deferred to what is written in the original article. Cuvtixo (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the junta moved away from Yangonas it has been the center of many protests since colonial times. Rds865 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blatant pro-Burmese propoganda in this article

Extracted from the "Religion" section:

"Myanmar enjoys religious tolerance and since the ancient times, there has been full freedom of worship for followers of different religions. So different religions can be practiced in Myanmar. The religious edifices and religious orders have been in existence and religious festivals can be held on a grand scale."

See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90131.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.173.189 (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by pro-Burmese propaganda? The stupid government's accused of every bloody thing - yes, it commits horrific acts of brutality - but as a native, I do not find religious persecution in both the towns and in the villages. It might exist in the border areas, but the average Burmese is extremely tolerant of difference in religion. From my experience, they're way better than many Americans when it comes to religious tolerance. Do you believe 100% of what the state department says? I have only one line: where are the WMDs which were supposed to have been documented??? Where where where???

Wikipedia has somehow become a tool of advocacy by many parties - and in Myanmar's hyperactive rumour mill, many facts get tangled. And nobody seems to be talking about the Christian missions' attempts to win converts by opening Christians-only free clinics in rural Karen state. Freedom of religion is the freedom of practice one's religion - not to evangelize - and because evangelists are complaining about the place, religion's nolonger free?

Its way more better for religion than many countries I have been to - it's the truth, and if you don't like it, then, too bad. You care to complain about this single line - when the whole article's already made a good job of the people? You see the white spot on the black board.

But well, I guess wikipedia's okay to remove things which you don't like, and try to justify it with the world's most professional liars department. —Preceding unsigned 18:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean things you don't like, such as when autosigning bots try to attribute your own writings here to you, and you remove the attribution, as in 2008-03-23T13:26:35 ? Just asking...you seem to know a lot about professional lying? I'm not even a party to this dispute but find such tactics to be counter to the spirit of transparency and accountability that I thought Wikipedia was based on. User:scbomber 15:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening a Christian only clinic is not a good method of winning converts. the Karen people were looked down upon before they were Christians. Also, I believe there is a saying "to be Burmese is to be Buddhist." Surely no one denies the crack down on monks, so perhaps one could argue that the government persecutes everyone. Rds865 (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

While it did not quite rise to the level of propaganda, this could be easily rewritten to be more neutral. For example "Myanmar enjoys has religious tolerance and since the ancient times, there has been full freedom of worship..." This gets across exactly the same information without instigating those who might disagree. Cuvtixo (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag and coa in the infobox

Why is there no interwiki link to the Flag of Myanmar and the Coat of arms of Burma in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfQ (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed now. It had to do with the common name being Burma/Myanmar. Technically the infobox code didn't know what to do with that entry; so it did not link. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I apologize for the copy not move

I know this is quite old and outdated at this point, but I apologize anyway for an older edit from the improper unrecognized name Burma to the proper recognized Myanmar as the poster who scolded me was correct as I now see/notice that it was a copy and not a move. That "copy" page was supposed to be a /sandbox page, not a real page. Again I apologize....Lostinlodos (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Forced display

I forced the Burmese characters in this article to display correctly in every browser, not just Firefox, with the new {{lang-my-Mymr}} I created. Enjoy! ☺ Taric25 (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

US involvement

The section is more about opiate trade, and not about the alleged involvement in Burma by the US and needs some fixing. Rds865 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the referenced to Bo Gritz's allegations (which are not substantiated) that US government officials are involved in opium trafficking in Burma/Myanmar is not serious enough or relevant enough to be on the main page. Perhaps a separate page called "Theories of United States Involvement in Burmese/Myanmaran Drug Trade," but not in the main article. In addition, Bo Gritz is not a reliable source. His own Wikipedia entry pretty much describes him as a fringe conspiracy theorist who is preparing a paramilitary organization to deal with the Second Coming. Anybody can make allegations about US officials' involvement in the drug trade, but that doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the main article about this country. I will make this change if I hear no objections soon.J P M7791 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WWII

there is a little information about that time, and what there is, is confusing. It says that the American-Kachin Rangers fought for the occupiers? Certainly at this time Japan had occupied Burma? There is no mention of the Burma road. There is no mention of the Japanese occupation, and the formation of the Anti-Fascist Organization. Also the BIA was replaced with the BDA, and then the BNA and when it joined the Allies it was the PBF. Rds865 (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Burma in the Dutch Empire

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire (Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes significative parts of Burma. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ square=tradingpost (Red4tribe (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html (credible source) (Red4tribe (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Hi Red4tribe, both of your above links show the connection between Portugese and Burma, which is true and significance. Burmese port city Thanlyin was held by Portugese explorer Philip de Brito for 12 years (1600-1612). But the contents from your links doesn't show anything about Dutch and Burma connection. Can you explain us which paragraph or sentences that you are referring to? --Kyaw 2003 (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Genocide

Evidence has been gathered suggesting that the Burmese regime has marked certain ethnic minorities such as the Karen for extermination or 'Burmisation'.[110] This has received little attention from the international community, however, since it has been more subtle and indirect than the mass killings in places like Rwanda.[111]

I would like to suggest you somehow mention that this has recently recieved some media attention as it is the backdrop to the new rocky movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.169.163 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that this Genocide section comes under the heading "Economy". What does genocide have to do with the economy? Someone needs to move this section elsewhere perhaps. Deamon138 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma = Myanmar

I think we should name this conuntry Myanmar. The military regime has renamed Burma into Myanmar. So we should follow the new name on Wikipedia, weather other governments are accepting this new name or not. --Shorty23sin (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Politics aside, the official and most used name is Myanmar. 91.152.193.7 (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of the page and move your discussion to this page accordingly. --SMS ^Talk 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The world's largest broadcaster (the BBC) uses Burma. I think Wikipedia should do the same. --Philip Stevens (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not calling this country "Myanmar" is equivalent to calling the country that dominated Europe in the early 40s just "Germany" and not "Nazi Germany".
Blindman shady 15:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your statement wins the award for the most convoluted anti-junta statement of the year! I will look for an appropriate barnstar. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that your barnstar should help Nazi Germany, or should help South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere like such as. Húsönd 16:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been watching too many Ms Teen USA Pageants... 128.173.82.81 (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

:-) Húsönd 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a proxy of the BBC, which in turn is not the sole indicator of popular usage. I believe this has been debated on numerous times before without a proper conclusion. I stand by my continued believe that wikipedia should adhere strictly to its WP:NPOV policy and adopt the name used by relatively nuetral parties[1], including the United Nations.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The name used to be Burma, now it is Myanmar, so the page should be called Myanmar. Everyone recognizes this country as Myanmar, its as simple as that. To politicize it and call it Burma has no place here.--Urbanz (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the page should be called Myanmar - however, I don't strongly believe that. What I do strongly believe in is consistency, and if we're going to title the article "Burma", we should refer to it as Burma in the article.--71.191.83.42 (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that redirects are cheap, so it doesn't really matter until there is consensus for the article to be moved. I also agree with the above user; it should be consistently named within the article, unless a quote or source directly refers to it as the opposing name. --Izno (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me then why Rangoon has been renamed Yangon on wikipedia, even though the BBC definatly refers to this as Rangoon and most of the English speaking world. Seems to be the same double standards on wikipedia as usual.--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the U.S. Government refers to the country as "Burma." In a note in the CIA World Factbook, they state "since 1989 the military authorities in Burma have promoted the name Myanmar as a conventional name for their state; this decision was not approved by any sitting legislature in Burma, and the US Government did not adopt the name, which is a derivative of the Burmese short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw." link. — Sam 11:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.121.46 (talk)

That's good enough for me. 70.128.104.143 (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good enough for what? That wikipedia should adopt the name "Burma" because it agrees with United States govenment's view that "Myanmar" was illegitimate for being an undemocratic name change? Has wikipedia become a proxy of the U.S. govenment?--Huaiwei (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I vote for Myanmar. Every country has the right to call themselves whatever they want.205.246.153.217 (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use this page to discuss this issue. It has a long talk page to which you can argue your points. --Coffeegirlyme (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If these little Asiatic pseudo-Chinamen want to be called Myanmar instead of Burma we should respect their wishes and call them Myanmar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.192.210 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A fact, such as the name of a country, is never subject to opinion. Anyone who says it should be "Burma" or "Myanmar" based on their feelings is not contributing to an encyclopedic article. There is a name for this country, and it is not easily expressed in English, since it is in Burmese and uses a non-arabic script. This name has been translated into English, into what we call a "conventional name", which "Burma" has been since the very beginning. I don't care how it is translated, but to suggest that these same words are now translated into something else seems silly. I am bothered that this Wiki article says the official name is Myanmar and quotes the BBC as proof, but the BBC does not state Myanmar is the official name; instead, suggests Myanmar is only an alternative. Read the BBC article and you will see. I am removing the word "official" from the Wiki article. Also, this Wiki article links to the CIA Factbook, but fails to mention the U.S. position as stated there, which is that no official legislative body has changed the name from Burma to Myanmar. Instead, the Myanmar name change seems to be a public relations campaign which the U.S. has not recognized as official. I say we stay with "Burma" until "Burma" changes their name officially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.135.99 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus has never really swayed from the position that Myanmar is the country's official name. You find a nation's official name from the nation itself, regardless of whether its government is legitimate. If our source doesn't reinforce this, then, well, we need a new source. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Germans call their country "Deutschland", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Germany". Albanians call their country "Shqipëria", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Albania". Greeks call their country "Elláda" ou "Ellás", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Greece". Armenians call their country "Hayastan", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Armenia". Georgians call their country "Sakartvelo", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Georgia (country)". Hungarians call their country "Magyarország", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Hungary". (Just to name a few...) Why should Burma (locally, Myanmar) be any different? The Military Junta may rule the country as they please, but they don't rule the English language. Gazilion (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that this article should be called Myanmar which is the English translation for the name of that country. We do not call Zimbabwe Rhodesia merely because we dislike Mugabe's government, and this name is pure colonialism,a nd apparently by supporters of colonialism for this country, as we see in the current news stories like this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

How the hell could a name be colonialism? Do you know what colonialism is? It's, like, having colonies, not calling things by different names. WHOOPS YOU EPIC FAIL 216.37.253.152 (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's officially Deutschland in German and Germany in English. So by your analogy, Myanmar is the official name in English, and so on English Wikipedia it should be using the official English name (leave Burma/Myanmar dispute to the Burmese wiki). I dont support the military government, but I don't support bias in a supposedly impartial environment Schroedi (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No legislator has changed the name. Therefore, Burma would appear to be the correct name until it is officially done. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The official English name of Burma is now Myanmar; the name change was recognized by the UN (which, as far as countries are concerned, is a bit more authoritative than the BBC). Accordingly, most place names have changed, including Rangoon (now known as Yangon). Like it or not, I believe Wikipedia should switch to the new name. And, as far as names sometimes being colonialism, they obviously are. Fred 79.1.108.206 (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's news to you: only countries which have English as a de jure or de facto official language have a say in what an official English name of anything is. As to the UN, the UN 'recognises' nothing, it uses whatever each member country gives it, and as such saying that a name is 'recognised' bu the UN simply means that the UN was handed out that name - the UN does no appreciation, neutral or otherwise, to invoke it is an empty argument. And last but not least, the prevalent idea that 'Burma' is a 'colonial' name is quite disingenious - 'Burma' and 'Myanmar' are the exact same word, only the former is a traditional English spelling that reflects as best it can the pronunciation at the time of the burmese language it was taken from, whereas the latter is a spelling travesty. Any comparison to the Zimbabwe / Rhodesia is self-defeating anyway - no country today calls Zimbabwe Rhodesia out of dislike for the regime, so it may indicate that refusal to accept the ragdoll 'Myanmar' isn't based on politics.85.241.116.29 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If the name of Rhodesia was changed to Zimbabwe in the same circumstance as Myanmar, and Zimbabwe is in the international limelight for the same circumstances as Myanmar today, would you dare say the same naming dispute will not erupt over Zimbabwe?--Huaiwei (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in this case Burma simply equals Burma. Sure, I agree that when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe it was certainly legitimate. But Burma was basically taken by the dictators by force, and given a new name by them simply to proclaim the "change" they had brought. When a country is forced to accept a new leader and names, government, etc., it should still remain as it was before the takeover! And though Wikipedia is generally third party, I just think we'd be making a good statement by refusing to call it what it's military leaders call it. Jetblue1717 (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

opinion statements in article

the following, and some of the text around it, under United Nations section, reads like an opinionated magazine column.

"While there will always be competing strategic interests by the various players, it would be a mistake for some-the United States, UK, China, Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia-to hijack the process from the UN. Gambari, a Nigerian, is a seasoned negotiator with a track record to match the Myanmar military's 40-year reign, and he remains the best hope to break the political deadlock that has spanned two decades."

also, several protests are written about in detail twice in the article.

in the introductory section, the date of british rule is mentioned twice also.

i'm not a member who edits on wikipedia, but looked at this article for info about myanmar after the cyclone hit. i think these changes, and perhaps a little more cleaning up, would help out everyone looking for info about this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.11.2 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyclone death toll

Both CNN and BBC report death toll to be at "more than 22,000"; where is source for the figure currently cited in article? Suggest it be changed to figure supported by credible sources. 81.132.41.159 (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyclone

I'm sorry, but I don't see how a recent natural disaster warrants a section on the page of a country. HanBoN (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the re-write (not by me I should add) justifies its inclusion - it is a significant event in the country's history, regardless of how recent it is. 81.132.41.159 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not in its own section, though, as Indonesia doesn't have a whole section about the 2004 tsunami. Just a suggestion. HanBoN (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a current event with news changing the nature of its impact every minute. Perhaps the event can move into the history section down the road but, for now, it is not yet history and it should probably have its own section.

My vote is with HanBoN, The page should be an overview of the country, not its recent events. Would you include a whole section on Hurricane Katrina on the USA page?, I think not. I think the suggestion of a link fom a sentence or two is a good one. --E! —Preceding comment was added at 07:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The ruling Junta's refusal of international disaster aid, and lack of internal aid to the disaster zone, warrants mention somewhere. Especially since refusing to permit aid of over 2 million disaster victims just might constitute a human rights violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.245.58 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

I know there are a number of problems and a number of hands stirring the pot here (and I am not going to add mine in addition), but there are two separate sections on the 2007 monk protests and also for the recent cyclone. Combining those will help with your article length. PerlKnitter (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. With the article being the size that it is, it is harder to grasp what is already there I suppose. But seriously! the Cyclone has two sections which pretty much say the same thing. Someone wanna use the delete button? --Coffeegirlyme (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

I don't think I'm the first person to notice but it isn't uncommon that people take the name of this article as justification to reword other articles or move them. Is it worth adding something to the header about this, something like, "Although this article uses the name Burma, other articles may refer to the country as Burma or Myanmar and this should not be changed without consensus. Remember that we don't require consistency across wikipedia and considerations like WP:ENGVAR may come into play"? Given the lack of consensus for even this article, of particular concern of mine is when people make changes which don't make any sense e.g. changing Myanmar to Burma in United Nations member states or South East Asian Games (I don't know if it's actually been attempting in these pages but I'm pretty sure I've read about it before in some other cases and I wanted clear cut examples) Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In wikipedia it is convention that for disputed terms (such as between British vs. U.S. terminology), the original name (or spelling) used in the article establishes precedence for each individual article. Therefore, new notable articles (with verifications such as citations) can be written using "Myanmar" or "Burma," as the author sees fit. This encourages the research and creation of good articles (although it also might encourage frivolous, unneeded articles; these are be weeded out) Cuvtixo (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So accidents of fate, timing and circumstances will determine what wikipedia considers to be the name, if it's not overruled by a random crowd of passerby throwing out a yea or nay? No wonder it's such a bloody mess. 141.154.126.194 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please keep this discussion over at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about the name of this article though, simply discussion on the header of this talk page Nil Einne (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tay Za

Does Wikipedia have an article on Tay Za? Under some other spelling perhaps? PiCo (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I was looking for an article to link to Air Bagan but couldn't find one (even under several alternate spellings). I think its worth putting one together, though it is hard to get hard facts on him. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Government

I notice that the Government of this country was recently changed from a Military Dictatorship to Military Government. Upon clicking the link to Military Government, the article told me that it has two forms: Military occupation or Military dictatorship. Now it's clear to me that Burma/Myanmar is not a military occupation therefore its type of Military Government is a Military dictatorship so the previous version was correct. The reason it was changed was apparently "rm inflammatory POV" yet this isn't a POV. Besides, there are legitimate cases of dictatorships and military ones too that are such not through someone's interpretation of the government but the fact that the military has sole authoritative power. This is true of Burma/Myanmar. Surely we must change this back? Deamon138 (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll make the change now. Beam 00:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it has it as "Military Junta", which I linked to the article on Junta, which will suffice. Beam 00:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi dear all pro editors, I think the the sub-title Government only demonstrates the modern or recent government. Since its old (backdated) government is not included under the title, it should make changes whether to enter the post colonial government or change the title to modern government. If someone would like to see back, i.e, 1962 Coup or 1975 government constitution, it should clearify for further information to it. May I request you to update it please.Thnaks ! Kwantonge (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Military Expenditures

These numbers don't add up. I know they're from different years.

According to the List of countries by GDP (nominal), the GDP was 13.7b in 2007, and according to the the List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures article their military expenditure was 3.9m (no year given). The CIA factbook map shows it in the 1% range which seems unlikely for a military dictatorship. On the other hand, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0607-03.htm gives an estimate in the "top 15" in expenditures. #15 on the list by military spending in the wikipedia article, Spain, spent 12.3b in 2006, so if Burmyanmar spent that much it would be 90% of their GDP, a number that is simply ridiculous.

http://yearbook2005.sipri.org/ch8/app8A is the actual report by the Swedes cited in the commondreams article, which has a lot of raw data to sift through, but the 2002 (last year of data) budget for military was 16.4b in converted dollars (compare China, 30.7b and US 364.8b for same year), which is greater than the nominal income of the country? See page 14-15 of the pdf in the appendix.

http://first.sipri.org/non_first/milex.php is the 2007 data from the Swedes, and they've ceased to bother to convert from Kyat because of the flaky exchange rate.

In short, the 3.9m figure is ridiculous, the 16.4b figure is impossible, and the "Top 15 spenders" allegation cannot be confirmed and should be removed. The CIA factbook page for Burma claims a realistic exchange rate of 1k kyat/$, which makes the SIPRI number $73.1m, but that ignores 5 years of inflation in a country known for inflation. The official (i.e. completely fabricated) exchange rate in 2003 was ~6 kyat/$ which is probably why the GDP numbers and expenditure numbers are so meaningless.Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Removal of the Disputed Title tag (immediately)

It should be done immediately. This is an English Wiki, and following that fact we should call the country what the English speaking world calls it. Which, in this case, is Burma. Australia, Canada, the UK, and the United States all call it Burma. We should also qualify it, as we sort of do as being called Myanmar since 1989 by the Military Junta.

It really isn't that hard! Anyway, I support the immediate removal of the Disputed Title tag. It's a blemish on this article. As long as the first sentence qualifies the name as being Myanmar according to the Junta Dictators than the article is both accurate and correct according to Wiki Policy.

As a secondary concern I do not think it should say "Officially Myanmar", something like "named Myanmar by the Military Junta in 1989" is much more accurate. Beam 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your other comments, but I would be fine if we removed the disputed tag from the article (not the talk page). Of course, I don't speak for the rest of the masses. :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the tag is ugly, and if we explain in the first sentence about the name than I see no problem with its prompt removal. Beam 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to keep it, the debate about the name isn't going to go away and there are some mastodons running around when it comes to that disagreement. Frankly, the status quo of "we call it this but no one agrees" is probably an important point for a reader of the article in the first place and is a decent (if awkward) way to give the article a NPOV. I'd prefer some sort of neutral third name, but I don't care that much.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "we call it this but no one agrees"? You're not making any sense. The NPOV is Burma considering that it's an English Wiki. But this discussion isn't about that, it's bout removal of the tag which is not helping the article. The first sentence qualifies the name, the tag in the article isn't necessary. And we're not going to make up a new "third" name, lol. Beam 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The tag doesn't help the article, it only harms it. Beam 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I support keeping the tag and the Rep of Myanamar name, your arguments have not healed or resolved the dispute so I see no need to remove the tag until and unless we make a serious attempt to resolve the issue, and pretending it does not exist is not doing that. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I speak English, and still call it Myanmar. So that doesn't work, in bare point, either. Lostinlodos (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Burma/Myanmar. There is a substantial disagreement in the English speaking world what to call the place. Frankly, I think that the whole thing of "it must be named this" is kind of petty, but until a solution is found (or forced by fiat) it remains a disputed issue.Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This being the English Wikipedia doesn't mean it is tailored to the countries you listed. Last I checked, English was one of the most widely spoken languages in the world. What the qualifier of "English" refers to is that the encyclopedia is written in this language and for English-speaking people, not just for residents of four specific countries. If this is taken into account, then Burma is by far not the only or exclusively correct way to refer to the nation in question. What's more, there really is a great deal of disagreement, both on Wikipedia and in the real world, as to what name is most appropriate. For these reasons, and seeing as only a single main title can be given to any particular article on WP, it would not be a good idea to remove the Disputed Title tag. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the whole dispute isn't going to be solved here. You guys are proving my case. With that being a fact, why dirty the article with that tag? As of right now it's called Burma, it's that simple. Until there is a different solution and as long as we qualify it in the first sentence there is no need for the tag. I agree with the fact that it won't be solved here, and because of that we should remove the tag. Beam 02:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with BaronGrackle. (I.e., without commenting on the comments, I think it better to remove the tag from the article but keep it on the discussion page and I don't speak for the masses either!)--RegentsPark (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To further clarify, by removing the tag I don't mean to endorse either name over the other. I support a further discussion on the Subject, and eventually following consensus. But as it is now, we're using Burma. We'll qualify the name in the first sentence presenting the other POV. That's a neutral way to do it as it stands now. Removing the tag does not necessarily condone one pov. Beam 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't tag articles for disputed titles simply because move proposals were unsuccessful but the "losing" side decides to make their point highly visible. That's just petty disruption, because if there was no consensus to move this back to Myanmar, then there was consensus to keep Burma and therefore the tag is supported by a minority that is acting against consensus. Thus, it should be removed at once. Húsönd 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Let me add a petty point: "...because if there was no consensus to move this back to Myanmar, then there was consensus to keep Burma..." That's not necessarily true, as lack of consensus one way or the other equals an automatic no change (as the last vote was an even tie, there is no "minority"). The lack of consensus for the initial change to Burma is one of the issues being discussed on Talk:Burma/Myanmar, which is having a straw poll if anyone is interested. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Husond. I say we remove it. The minority that is upset over consensus should not be allowed to hinder this article. What do you say, Husond? Beam 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Some Anon took care of it. All is well. Beam 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. This will start a lame edit war almost for sure. Well not to worry, if there's consensus to get rid of the tag, then one of the warring sides should easily overcome the other. Húsönd 16:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I assume that you (as I do) have this page watched. We'll see what happens. Beam 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that both of you are "good friends". You can be sure that both your actions will also be closly watched to detect for any signs of collusion, made particularly neccesary when both of you apparantly gang up in an edit war in this article.--Huaiwei (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Beam, your initial premise seems incorrect. The "English speaking world" does not refer to the country exclusively as "Burma." In most recent news coverage here in the U.S., Myanmar has, for good or ill, been used almost exclusively (see CNN [2], AP [3], Yahoo News [4] and even NPR [5]). Abroad, the BBC seems split in their own reports, sometimes referring to Burma and sometimes to Myanmar. There seems little of the concensus you suggest exists...the tag seems to appropriately reflect that difficulty. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

CNN always qualifies the name with the fact that it's also called Burma. As I explain above it is commonly called Burma. The article is called Burma. The dispute over the name should not affect the article. If there ever is a consensus to change it, than we'll change it. Until the the Dispute Tag represents a dispute with no foreseeable solution. With that being a fact, why have the tag? We qualify the name in the first sentence. It's almost stupid to have the tag. Beam 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am getting the sense that a good portion of this discussion is not about the removal of the dispute tag, but in fact about the dispute itself. If the naming issue has been resolved, it is my opinion that the article should be updated to provide consistent references (e.g. referring to the correct country name where it is appropriate), and the tag removed. If not, I would recommend leaving the tag in place. In terms of this discussion, I would recommend that any comments regarding the actual naming dispute be posted to the Talk:Burma/Myanmar page, to help build an accurate consensus on the issue. X-Kal (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason that I put back the dispute tag was because, simply, there is a dispute. The tag is simply there to show that as of now there is no consensus what the article should be named. I do not believe that we should remove the tag until that the naming dispute is resolved on the Burma/Myanmar talk page. MethMan47 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

X-Kal, I said and say again that it isn't about the name itself. Methman, the naming dispute has a dedicated plus for its resolution. As of now the article is called Burma. In the first sentence we explain that it's also called Myanmar. This is done just like CNN or modern day medias say it. In fact, I don't care if the article is called Myanmar and Burma is in the first sentence. The point is that the dispute does not need to be tagged in the main article. It doesn't help the dispute and it hurts the article. The reader knows the dispute by reading the first sentence. If they wish to contribute they come here to the talk page, where the dispute tag should go. This is also the reasoning of my good friend Husond, who has also posted in this section.

This is also the reasoning of the people who agreed to remove the tag here. They, as I, say they aren't commenting on the correctness of Burma, but commenting on the removal of the tag. I feel that people want the tag there for the wrong reason X-Kal. That they want it to push their POV. The tag isn't needed because we immediately provide the two POVs of the "dispute." It's the first thing in the article. It's not as if we don't mention Myanmar in the article, it's the first sentence. The dispute tag should be removed immediately. Beam 00:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, that does help to clarify things - thanks! I mainly made my post because the posts in this discussion thread weren't all about the tag, but about the dispute itself. In terms of the tag, I agree - the first sentence should do the trick on its own. Now... is it just me, or does the first citation tag make that first sentence confusing at first glance? It seems like it should be located in a different location within the sentence. X-Kal (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That DOES clarify your concern, Beam. One reason you might be having difficulty reaching any kind of resolution is that your actual issue is obscured somewhat by a (false) suggestion in many of your comments that some kind of name consesnsus already exists in the English speaking world (it doesn't, as I noted above). Your later suggestion that CNN "always" qualifies the name of the country is also incorrect (simply look at the very first ref I offered you). But these are really side-issues to what turns out to be your main concern, which is redundancy. Your idea here is sound, and I could come to agree that the tag itself is redundant...but you'll get farther in that argument, I think, if you drop the false premises in your arguments. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll let that "false premise" remark slide, but all in all you're right. Beam 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, now that you have explained your position I understand where your coming from and agree. Thanks for clearing that up!MethMan47 (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Beamathan came to my talkpage declaring that "concensus" has been reached to remove the dispute tag. I read this entire section and I see absolutely no sign of such a concensus ever concluding. As long as the disputes at Talk:Burma/Myanmar remain unresolved, the tag shall stay.--Huaiwei (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If we are to refer to "CNN or modern day medias" as per Beamathan's comments as to how Mynamar/Burma is introduced, this article would be named "Myanmar" with a "formerly known as Burma" line in its introduction[6], but that clearly is not the case here. An article naming dispute tag is placed as long as there is a continued dispute over its name, to immediately inform users that such a dispute exists, and thus to read the article with care and to participate in the discussions if they feel the need to. It should not be removed over assumed motives, over whether it "helps" the dispute" or whether it "hurts" the article or not. The naming dispute is created by wikipedians in a wikipedian article. Stating "Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar" in no way informs the user of such a dispute. And like it or not, the article title will always be primary to whatever is in the first sentence. Removing the tag will be interpreted by many as acknowleding the current title, and this should not be encouraged while the dispute remains unresolved.--Huaiwei (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. Consensus has been reached by myself, Husond, 71.9.8.150, X-Kal, Meth, Baron, and Regents. Cease adding the tag. Thank you. Beam 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Oh, and if you read this section than you'd understand that BECAUSE of the disputes at Talk:Burma/Myanmar that the tag here isn't needed. Husond has taken the further step of putting the tag in the edit page of the article, and the tag is here on the talk page. Really, it's the right thing to remove the tag, and it has consensus. Thanks for understanding. Beam 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What utter nonsense. There is disagreements from myself, Somedumbyankee, SqueakBox, Lostinlodos and Homologeo, so just what "concensus" have you reached?--Huaiwei (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached many months ago when tens of users consensually agreed to have this article moved to Burma due to common usage in the English language. Please try to get over it. I'm removing the disputed title tag, again. We don't tag articles for disputed title because someone got frustrated with the result of a move proposal. Otherwise we'd have thousands of articles with this useless WP:POINT tag. Húsönd 03:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Common usage and consensus are both moving targets, and there may be a need to revisit the subject from time to time. Looking at the discussion, I see no consensus on action, see no immediate need to make a change (nothing false, misleading, or insulting about the tag), and think from a process standpoint the status quo should remain. In the end, though, I will not oppose removing it because I simply don't think it's that important.Somedumbyankee (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't necessarily oppose removing the tag, but there was NEVER consensus to move the article from Myanmar to Burma, something which I, and I'm sure others, highlighted not longer after the move. This doesn't necessarily mean it should be moved back, perhaps it's too late, but it's clearly inaccurate to claim there was consensus to move the article when there wasn't. Also, I'm not convinced there is consensus here to remove the tag so although I won't be re-adding it, I won't remove it if it is re-added and I also think further discussion is needed. People need top remove that majority does not equal consensus Nil Einne (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Beam, you seem to have a bad habit of claiming concensus where none exists. There is no universal usage in the media or in English-speaking countries, as you suggested, none even on CNN, the source you specifically cited, and certainly none yet reached in this discussion. I reiterate, I, along with many others here, are willing to be persuaded that the tag is redundant and should be removed...but that doesn't mean that concensus has already been achieved. You've still got a case to make, and until that point, the status-quo should remain. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm going to AGF and just take your comment as a lapse in intelligence. Beam 23:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who is civil, why you...well you aren't. Yet you ask me to "remain civil"? That's pretty strange. Really pushing my Good Faith. Beam 02:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a controversial topic which requires the use of cool heads. Remember, before you make your post, read through it again, even out loud if that is helpful, and make sure that it doesn't sound like an attack, and that you're saying what you actually meant to say. I'm looking this over, and see that there's a consensus among *part* of this group, but there's still a divide here, and it definitely shows. I'm hoping that we can find a way to work together on this.

Now... Húsönd, you mentioned that there was a previous consensus on its naming awhile ago? Do you have a citation that we can look over, so that at the very least, I can see the result of the conversation? I would be most curious. X-Kal (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as move to Burma by an independent admin. Move proposals are only closed as move when the closing admin sees a consensus for such, as within his/her discretion to determine consensus, complying with Wikipedia procedures for closing those discussions. Húsönd 02:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding has been that until concensus in an editorial dispute is reached, the disputed material remains as it was prior to the opening of discussion. The tag was present at the opening of this discussion (thus the discussion arose) and no concensus has been reached as of yet...however, some editors have decided to remove the tag anyway. Is my understanding of the procedure faulty, or are some people simply trying to achieve their aim by fiat? 71.9.8.150 (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The question from the devil's advocate is: what is the status quo for the tag? If the status quo is that the article should be called Burma without a name dispute tag, then we turn the discussion around and get bogged down in administrivia about policy. The dispute about the name is very real, and WP:CCC for that and it has its own talk page. Whether the tag is there doesn't make much difference.Somedumbyankee (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If it didn't make any difference, then why was this discussion begging to remove it even started? Seems it does make a difference to some people.71.9.8.150 (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

...And now it seems it's a moot point. Goodness. I'm more confused about the policies in question than ever. The arguments in favor of 'Burma' or 'Myanmar' seem perfectly trivial by comparison to the meta-arguments being made about which policies apply, or how to implement them, or what constitutes concensus. Yoiks.71.9.8.150 (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Add the Dispute Tag Back

User:Nichalp has decided the name is Myanmar. He did a straw poll atTalk:Burma/Myanmar. Now, you may not agree with the new name (I don't) but it is what it is. Just because you dispute it doesn't mean it's "disputed" as far as Wikipedia goes. Do not add the "Name Dispute" tag back. Please. Thanks! Beam 11:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just as a passer-by, the straw-poll on that page looks pretty inconclusive to me (equal numbers of votes), and now the change has been made the dispute is escalating becuase of the precipitate action. I'd gently suggest that there is clearly a dispute and the action taken is clearly poorly timed. I'd suggest you add the tag yourself so that others don't have to... Webmink (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just because you dispute it doesn't mean it's "disputed." What a great quote Beam! As I write, the straw poll is equal at 17 votes each. I suggest as soon as there are more votes for Burma we change it back.Angstriddenyouth (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't 'do' voting here. Consensus can change, but please do not be pointy over this issue because you disagree with the decision which has been taken. Try asking for a review of the decision on ANI once the 'dust has settled'. Presenting a valid argument using policy guidelines will prove more productive than simply arguing that because you think the US, UK, Canada, and Australia position on the matter is the correct one that Wikipedia should follow suit. Coldmachine^Talk 21:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Save Burma!!!!!

The name of this article has been changed, without consultation, from "Burma" to "Myanmar" by a user named "Nichalp" on the basis of a straw poll, which currently stands at 17 votes for "Myanmar" and 16 votes for "Burma."[[7]] Up until yesterday there were more votes for "Burma." If you believe in Democracy please sign this straw poll in favour of "Burma," so we can change the name back. Decisions of this kind should not be taken by one person. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy... Coldmachine^Talk 19:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, neither is Burma. That's why you are using the name "Myanmar."Angstriddenyouth (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all I came to the talk page to take a look after this issue was flagged at ANI. I have made no comment nor involved myself with the debate or put forward my views beyond pointing out that your remarks appear to indicate a misunderstanding over what Wikipedia is and is not. Second, Wikipedia is also not your personal soapbox. This has nothing to do with your views on Burma/Myanmar, and everything to do with naming conventions for articles here on Wikipedia. Coldmachine^Talk 21:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Decisions of this kind" are ALWAYS "taken by one person," pretty much by definition. An administrator evaluated the arguments, not the number of votes. Canvassing for votes is not only discouraged on Wikipedia, it is also ineffective. 1,000 people might argue that an issue should come down in favor of 'X'...but if the last editor says it should be 'Y,' and has a convincing rationale for it consistent with policy, then 'Y' it is. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Policy" can always be interpreted to suit your views, as can religion. But you are right insofar as that my reasons for using the name "Burma" have more to do with my belief in democracy, human rights and freedom of expression, than my knowledge of Wikipedia naming conventions. It seems that, for now, the Wikipedia naming conventions, as you interpret them, have won. I will still use the name "Burma", though, and I will not be alone. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article on Myanmar does not deny that. I know little of the subject but I think I can wish you luck in your plight for a reversal of the political situation there. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please know that rallying for support and telling other editors how to vote in a poll is counterproductive, because results end up being skewed in favor of who can canvass the most users. Canvassing is generally not looked upon favorably on Wikipedia, and for good reason. Please feel free to inform others of the poll and to encourage them to voice their opinion, but such efforts should be voiced in a neutral tone and should not advocate any particular position. Otherwise, the poll is rendered useless. Using flashy statements, such as that supporting the title of "Burma" is somehow proof of someone's appreciation of democracy, only confuses the situation and misdirects editors from analyzing and participating in meaningful discussion of this issue. ~ Homologeo (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WHY THE HELL HAS THIS PAGE BEEN MOVED TO MYANMAR?? THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS FOR THIS MOVE!! --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was determined by an administrator. Please see discussion on straw poll site. MethMan47 (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

An admin's opinion doesn't matter anymore than anyone else's. Quite a few of them appear to be semi-retarded. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NBD is the policy in question. Admins are not authorities, they are just entrusted with a few more tools that would be too easy to abuse in the hands of trolls. That said, please try to be calm. It's not the end of the world, it's just wikipedia.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few of us here who believe that the recent move was questionably done. However, we also believe that the previous October move TO Burma was questionably done. If the move to Myanmar is being investigated, I suggest the original move to Burma be investigated first. Only if that move is shown to have been done validly and with consensus, should the current move be questioned. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if, and I stress only if, this were to go to Rfa the original move would have to be part of what was being analysed. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the name should be changed back to Burma because it is the most commonly used name in English speaking countries. Deutschland also reroutes directly to Germany although German people would never call their country "Germany". So what's the point about Myanmar? Ericbodden (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain your statement. Each of the several users who have backed up their statements with fact has shown that there is extensive usage of both terms. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The name Germany is not controversial (although it unquestionably would have been before 1990 when their were 2 German states). Thanks, SqueakBox 23:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The article title will likely remain as Myanmar very similarly to how Bombay redirects to Mumbai even though Bombay is the common English usage. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think Mumbai is very much modern English usage. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you spend much time at all in English-speaking countries but that's not the case at all. In fact, most Indian restaurants that choose to take their title after the city will choose the more recognizable Bombay spelling. After all, it was the English who named the city Bombay and it is still used on many maps including those produced by the Rand-McNally Corporation. Now, the important question is whether or not a name change by the current government in power should be recognized in the article. The issue isn't over whether or not the government is legitimate as many may disagree on that point. The fact remains that even the U.N. is referring to the country as Myanmar, not Burma. [8]--Ave Caesar (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Many Indian names were changed with popular consensus amongst Indians with a democratically elected government. Not by some illegal military dictatorship --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the forum to decide whether their current government is worthy of changing the name of their state. We just write down what is, and the state formerly known as Burma is indeed known as Myanmar these days. --61.9.62.6 (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias on development

The main problem I see with this is the economic reductionism and the unproblematized view of 'development.' Development has been done in many countries on this globe in a way that subjugates them to economic bondage. More money flows out of developing countries that flows in from the West - a net drain on the 'global south.' The hegemonic discourse of development is a deeply trouble on, based in Western economic thinking and ignoring economic behaviours that for the basis of local economies in Burma and elsewhere. People may not have much 'income' but if they have access to land and can feed their families from it, imposing the development model on them when it has failed in so many instances is unconscionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.220.179 (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

More kindly, I guess I could invoke WP:UNDUE. The article addresses corruption and profiteering by corporations. Frankly, looking at the technobabble of the argument, WP:DNFTT may be the more appropriate rule.Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not really the place to argue about whether the economic model itself is appropriate to the region. Theoretically, at least, Wikipedia is neutral, and the gold standards are verifiability and notability. If several thousand commentators in economics, politics, and humanitarianism all declare Myanmar is a revolting case of exploitive dictatorship, that gets into the encyclopedia. If one lone commentator declares 'hey, slavery is just fine for some regions of the world, let's not impose our Western morality over there,' that too may make it into the article, if the lone voice is notable enough and their claims are printed in a reliable source. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed tag for this talk page

Any objections? That discussion is unlikely to die soon, so probably best to keep it together with its full history.Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, no such current interpretation about Myanmar being the appropriate title. Húsönd 21:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised to include the lack of decision and the RfC page.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a more useful tag than the existing one, as it links to the current location of the discussion (the RFC). I'll go add it. Terraxos (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert to status quo

{{editprotected}}

Move back to Burma

See also Talk:Burma/Archive 3#Requested move & Talk:Burma/Myanmar#Straw_poll

I have taken part of this post and this post from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nichalp's move of Burma to Myanmar to explain the context of this debate for those who are not familiar with the mind numbing details:

On May 12, Nichalp launched a straw poll on the issue of whether the article Burma should be moved to Myanmar (despite the fact that numerous previous straw polls and discussions within the past year had shown the community to be evenly divided on the issue). At the conclusion of the straw poll, it was evident that opinion was still evenly divided. The numerical result of the poll was 16 opposed, 17 in favor. More importantly, both sides were still strongly entrenched in their positions and both sides presented numerous opinions and facts in support of their side and how it related to Wikipedia policies. ... . Kaldari (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

...

Yes, you recall "one or two" because the first was squashed as a speedy close—it was proposed on the belief that the October move had been done without consensus; unfortunately, the Myanmar-namers went about the process the wrong way, and now many editors falsely perceive "Burma" as some sort of long-established status quo on Wikipedia. The second attempt you recall was allowed to exist because time had passed since October. The "Burma" majority (majority, not consensus) that had previously been galvanized by the atrocities against the monks had by this point completely vaporized. A moderator closed the poll at "no consensus" when Burma was ahead by one vote, after which it was revealed that one of the votes had been a typo meant for Myanmar; so there was an exact tie, with more votes trying to come in after the close. .... -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus on AN/I was that the action was inappropriate and what is needed is for an uninvolved administrator to revert the move of Burma to Myanmar. Therefore, I am requesting an uninvolved administrator revert to status quo pending further dispute resolution, as is customary per policy. While there is a dispute about title, this action is not controversial. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Forgive me, but could you post a link to the AN/I discussion? I still don't know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia, but I've been following this topic on no fewer than three different pages simultaneously (this one and the two linked in the warning template at the top of this page). I don't even know what AN/I means, to be honest. If some sort of consensus has been made that the previous move was inappropriate, then how would one request a similar investigation be made on the move in October of last year? Many feel that move was similarly inappropriate; we believe the most recent move was a restoration of status quo. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that October's move proposal was closed inadequately, then you can bring your concerns to WP:ANI and request community feedback on whether or not was that proposal closed inadequately. Húsönd 20:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The move back to Myanmar WAS a revert back to the status quo. MethMan47 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Editprotected usually shouldn't be used to invite wheel warring... --- RockMFR 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, usually:

• admins don't move move-protected pages against previous move proposals closed by other admins;
• admins don't close polls they started;
• admins don't determine consensus all by themselves if a lack of consensus is clear;
• admins don't move pages through straw polls somewhere, instead of a properly advertised WP:RM move discussion at the talk page;
• admins don't trample process;
• admins don't evoke WP:IAR for doing all of the above;

Therefore, this edit request might actually be a good idea to revert what has been clearly agreed as User:Nichalp's most inappropriate move. Húsönd 20:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I supported "Burma" in the straw poll, but have only made one other comment overall in the newest round of debate. Am I sufficiently uninvolved to move it back to Burma? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you've expressed an opinion for the other position and then move it, it'll probably be met with frothing at the mouth. This page has been kicked around plenty. Just leave it where it is for now, we'll have some sort of agreement relatively soon. Even if the current location is not the best one, it is not totally inappropriate. The current move may have been inappropriate, but the previous move may also have been dubious and "where it was" is anything but clear.Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we won't have any sort of agreement soon. No further process can be taken seriously if Nichalp's move isn't reverted. Here's why this move must be reverted at once [9]. Húsönd 21:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I WP:DGAF, really, where the page is at for now. If you have a consensus that it should remain there until the end of discussions, go for it. I'd like to think that the RFC will produce some sort of rational consensus by the end of the two weeks, but I'm new at this and not very cynical yet.Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah! You'd be immediately accused of bias. Húsönd 21:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think some people are over reacting. And, per usual, it's very sad to see Administrators abuse their powers. Usually it's a direct against an editor action, but to see moves and reversions of that move done by admins who are supposedly responsible, well that's just sad.

Two wrongs don't make a right people. Let it be. Instead of wasting your energy on the name of the article, maybe that energy will be better spent on improving the content of said article. Especially considering that the admins have created the mess. Beam 03:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was in favour to of the move to Burma and I am going to revert the move. I have given my reasons for this decision at ANI: Nichalp's move of Burma to Myanmar: Solutions?

At the very least the poll ought to have been on the talk page of the article not on some other page, It is a long standing custom that changes to the page are discussed on the articles talk page not on some other page.

It is also customary that if a move is made with WP:RM that a move back must be made with a WP:RM request. Therefore I am going to move the page back and if you wish to move it again then please put in a WP:RM request. As WP:RM says "If there is a clear consensus after [5 days], the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus"."

If you wish to change the WP:NC before putting the page up for a move, then go ahead and have a debate on that page first. But until such time as there is another WP:RM request and there is a consensus to move the page the page should remain at Burma.

I will also add that one of the reasons for the development of WP:RM was to stop wheel wars. So before anyone moves the page back to Myanmar from Burma they should use the designated move procedure and go through WP:RM. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose moving the page back to Burma at this point in time, simply because it will cause more chaos than there is right now. We need to let this cool down for awhile, before any decisions about the article is made.MethMan47 (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to hold off on renaming all the related pages and other references as well. Even if the article stays at this location, a Gdansk-style split is very likely, and having to revert any of those will re-ignite the debate on those pages.Somedumbyankee (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Too late. Beam 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that finally even Nichalp agrees that this should go back to Burma at once. I am rather disturbed that some of the Myanmar-supporters will not put their title preference aside for the sake of restoration of a process that was in strict compliance with Wikipedia's policies and standard procedures. Trust in process will return after this article is moved back to Burma and new proposals may be then discussed harmoniously and constructively. Húsönd 16:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wheel warring "a process that was in strict compliance with Wikipedia's policies and standard procedures" seems odd to say the least. I don't believe I have seen an article with as little credence given to proper procedure for a long time. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The trust in admins has already been diminished by this action. My personal trust in the admin system is already destroyed, but this action can't help the trust others had in this system. Also, after reviewing the prior move from Myanmar to Burma, that was one ugly situation. It actually had less logic than Nichalp's move. At least Nichalp had a well thought out reason. Beam 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The "status quo" was Myanmar for several years until October's move, which was based on a very questionable declaration of consensus. If there was such a thing as WP:Move review, I am certain that it would have been overturned, as "no consensus" implies no change. The right way forward from the resultant mess we have now is not only to undo the most recent action, but start with a fresh discussion based on the original status quo. That is what Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma is intended to do, is it not? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with a WP:Move review, I recall thinking several times in other unrelated moves that we are lacking such a page. The fact that "Myanmar" was the status quo for many years doesn't mean that "Burma" is unable to be a status quo. The article was moved to the latter following a standard procedure that involved many users. Thus it's legitimate. The closure of that move proposal could be reviewed at this WP:Move review or somewhere else, but unless there's consensus that it was closed inadequately, it shall remain legitimate. Unlike Nichalp's move, which wasn't. That's all we need to know, and no arguments clinging to last October's move to justify permanence of this article in "Myanmar" possess reasonable grounds or compliance to Wikipedia's standards. Húsönd 17:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Given this edit and this edit by user:Nichalp in the section Response from Nichalp of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Well I've been seeing the article on Burma since morning. check log The log shows that it has been moved from Myanmar to Burma. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

---

For some strange reason I am seeing the article as Burma all day. (the first line reads "Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar". So, if the way forward it to revert my move, please go ahead and do so and set up some mechanism to decide on one name. Just a heads up, I will be out of town from the tomorrow (23rd to the 4th) so no access to the internet, and will be shortly logging off the wikipedia for the night. I hope something concrete can take place. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no procedural implement to moving it back. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Me neither. But as of this moment this is still "Myanmar". Húsönd 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

page moved back to Burma. If anyone wants to request a move to the name Myanmar, please follow the steps at WP:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Trust in process and consensus has been restored. Húsönd 18:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

More accurate to say admins with strong opinions ignore consensus to do what they like, which is unfortunate in an article ass controversial as this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The page needs to be at Myanmar. I wish somebody had notified all those who voted in the earlier polls about the latest one, because I have a strong opinion about this and didn't get a chance to register my viewpoint this time. In any case, process was never followed in the initial move to Burma, so restoring the name to Myanmar was automatically valid. Everyking (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read this important policy before continuing this discussion.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Back to Burma again? Can somebody get me a shrink? GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In January (here), I suggested tongue-in-cheek that perhaps a bot needs to alternate the two names on a regular basis. We seem to have achieved that without the bot or with meatbots (coining meatbot as a possible new wikispeak term). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Stepping back

This has been a tough time for all of us and I figure it is a good time to step back and see what we have before we can figure out where to go. First, what do we have:

1. Since many respectable organizations have decided that Myanmar is an acceptable name, and many other equally respectable organizations have decided that Burma is an acceptable name, there is no harm done to wikipedia whether the article be Myanmar or Burma. The world will neither look scornfully at us if the article is called Myanmar nor will it be clueless when CNN says Myanmar and we say Burma. (Which doesn't mean that we don't think about the name.)
2. The article is a good one. It is well cited, has a lot of content. Some reorganization, some rewriting, a bit of work mainly in the older history section and in the more recent events sections, and we could have a featured article candidate out there if we can get that darn name issue sorted out. That is a good thing and worth thinking about.
3. Straw polls and counting votes for or against Myanmar or Burma isn't going to get us anywhere. There seems to be an even split on the two sides and plenty of passion as well and, at this point in time, whatever the outcome and irrespective of who makes the decision, approximately half the editors are going to be upset.
4. The Burmese are unlikely to overthrow their government and either revert to Burma or accept Myanmar and make life easy for us. We're going to have to figure this out for ourselves. (Unless 8-8-08 has some significance!) But, that is what wikipedia is all about.
5. Intransigence is not going to be useful and we, each one of us, myself included, needs to ask ourselves whether we can live with the 'other' title. If you find that Burma as a title makes you sick and want to throw up in the toilet, you should probably consider taking a long wikibreak. If the name Myanmar makes you want to head to Burma with a machine gun and die fighting the b***ards, you should probably log off from your wikipedia account, buy a ticket to Bangkok, head for the border, and do just that. We need to get ourselves to the point where we can confidently say "I think Myanmar is the appropriate name for the article, but I can accept Burma as the title," or "I think that Burma is the appropriate name for the article, but I can accept Myanmar as the title." If we can do that, we'll be free of this mess, whatever the title turns out to be.
6. Last, but not the least, perhaps every time the discussion gets frustrating or someone on the 'other' side says something that you know is completely egregious but can't explain why, take some time off and work on the article itself. Find a citation, edit the copy, trim some fat. The article is the thing.

--Regents Park (Chase my ducks) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.231.35 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I appreciate this section Regent, but the first two posters after you completely missed the point, and it was awesome. Beam 12:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what areas of the article itself seem to need the most work (names aside)? Looking at the ongoing discussion on the RfC, it seems unlikely that a split article will happen in the near future, but that possibility should probably be taken into account if we do reorganize it. Cyclone Nargis and other events are clearly "big news", but how much of that should be written as "for posterity" rather than "current events?" Are there any guidelines for incorporating current events that have their own article into the page?Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm busy organizing myself for the long weekend (finally, some nice weather is expected!) so this will be a quick one. The one thing that needs to be done for sure is the uncited parts of the early history of Burma. Luckily, that is also the easiest. Other than that, some of the recent history is uncited except for news reports. The human rights section needs to be rewritten, expanded and better cited and this is the hardest because most of the material is in books and journals. The recent protests (from last fall) need to be moved and integrated into the history section (they are currently under Economy??). The article is actually in pretty good shape and doesn't seem to overly suffer from a POV bias - surprising given the passion over the name! --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 20:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Here's what I think we need: a new poll, starting from scratch, in which every person who has ever participated in the previous polls would be invited to participate. This new poll would last for a definite, substantial length of time (two weeks, a month, something like that) and no action would be taken before the closure of the poll at the agreed upon time. In the space immediately preceding the poll, a paragraph or two would be allotted to each side to explain its viewpoint; a period would be given for each side to gather up sources and present their arguments as effectively as possible before the beginning of voting. When the poll ended, the name with the highest number of votes would become the accepted title of the article, even if it's by a margin of only one vote. After this, the matter would be considered settled for a minimum of six months. Everyking (talk) 06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect ! A new poll with a longer duration for people to cast votes, say month, is good idea. Also we should not just count votes, but see the basis behind the vote - good sources and sound reasoning. But I still think vote margin needs to be more if both sides are to agree. Lets not just say 1 vote defeated an argument because in that case it also defeats the poll as half the participants go unhappy. This also raises questions like a new poll or who did what (as in case of poll conducted by Nichalp). 2/3 majority is what seems best. --gppande «talk» 10:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Everyking's idea has the advantage of simplicity. A simple 'Myanmar' or 'Burma' vote with no reasons given. The name then sticks for a minimum of six months and we can work on the article itself. While wikipedia is not a democracy is true, the simple fact of the matter is that both sides have good reasons and that the rest of the world seems to rationally choose this side or that which means that there is nothing wrong with either name. If nothing else, we've learned that what's clear and logical to one side is completely subjective to the other! --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 11:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy lol. But just as Cambodia ain't Kampuchea, Myanmar shouldn't be Burma >< --165.21.154.115 (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you read the discussions at pages with similar issues, voting will not produce an objective result since it tends to degenerate into allegations of sock-and-or-meat puppetry rather than actual decisions. A vote would ideally produce a fairly arbitrary result, which really isn't a big deal since it seems the debate is now between "I hate the regime" and "Wikipedia's neutrality would be desecrated by using anything less than the most literal interpretation of policy." The practical view, in my opinion, is that either name is acceptable and a "coin toss" decision is preferable to continuing disruption of the project. I'm being cynical, and I'll wait and see what the RfC produces before pole-vaulting to conclusions.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Voting is seldom perfect, but it's the only real option. A "coin toss", by which we mean one admin making the decision, is certainly not superior to that, and things like rational discussion and fair process can't be considered disruption no matter how extended they are (unlike, say, edit warring over the name). A requirement that editors only vote if they have a certain number of edits would help with sockpuppetry complaints. Everyking (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A vote is entirely arbitrary (it's about the same as holding an election for leader of the world and only telling people in Liechtenstein about it), so I have no problem with using a vote to make the decision. Look at the last vote...Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The leader of Liechtenstein is an hereditary position, so whatever the outcome of the election an admin would just appoint Prince Hans Adam II the leader of the world. :-) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd really prefer a committee of three disinterested editors making a decision, as opposed to a straight vote. I say this because I can imagine Burma winning by a margin of one or two votes, with the majority of votes made for reasons such as "The regime is not democratic" or "Burma is the official name because the junta has no authority". Yet, I can't imagine three unaffiliated editors accepting these arguments, and I'd expect any such group to rule similarly to the way Nichalp did. Granted, I'd understand if the group ruled contrary to the way I feel... I'd understand much less if the article were permanently kept at Burma because one extra person posted "Save the people of Burma!" -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be too difficult to find three disinterested editors who everyone felt comfortable with, personally, but that would at least be a method of resolution with some legitimacy. That's what's crucial in this mess, reaching a decision in such a way that both sides can acknowledge the validity of the outcome from a process perspective. Everyking (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is partially why I'm in favor of something rather arbitrary as a temporary solution until the country falls out of the news cycle and finding impartial admins will be easier (3 months?). The band-aid can be an arbitrary test (like an odd or even last digit of tomorrow's Dow Jones or Sensex index) and provides a process conclusion. Both sides have been engaged in what I see as WP:POINT, and a purely "process based" conclusion (i.e. agreeing to disagree on the facts but agreeing on a process of resolution) seems appropriate since both names are reasonable. I think Myanmar is more consistent with policy, but I seriously "can't be arsed." Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to all of this, so excuse me if I seem naive, but wouldn't it be possible, in absence of an agreement over the most fitting name, to call the page "Burma/Myanmar"? As far as I know, that's how the EU refers to the country. It's not the best solution of all, I'll agree, and could even take the discussion to the next level of silliness (Burma/Myanmar or Myanmar/Burma?), but as a temporary armistice it doesn't look that bad to me. Fred79.1.108.206 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCGN is the policy on controversies in geographic names, and as you expected, hyphenated names are frowned on because of the "who comes first" arguments. We could always WP:Ignore All Rules, but a zealous editor will probably try and "fix" it without understanding the history. Then again, I think that will be the fate of this article anyway.Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just read the article and Burma/Myanmar wouldn't work because it's not just a title problem. After the title the word Burma is infused throughout the article. When the title was switched to Myanmar then Myanmar replaced all the Burma references. You can't say Burma/Myanmar 100 times... one entry must take precedence when referring to it paragraph after paragraph no matter what title can be agreed upon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Gdansk precedent has a method for handling what name to use when. The past is relatively easy to dole out, it's mostly a question over what to call the current country.Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Current events

Might we want either a temporary hatnote or a "see also" for the present humanitarian crisis? I came here expecting to find a link to that article, wherever it may be, and couldn't find any. - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 20:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of this coverage is over at Cyclone Nargis. Sadly, there just isn't a lot of information out there since access to the country is so tightly controlled, and even the assessment teams on the ground probably don't have the information we'd expect to see.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

in the article, some parts say Burma, and some say Myanmar.

I think we should calll it Myanmar, since it may not be recognized by many countries, but that is the official (inter)national name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbomcchoi (talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the tag at the top of the page. The name is under dispute.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved the Page Move Protection tag to talk page

There isn't really a need for the tag to be on the article itself. As was successfully argued regarding the "dispute tag" previously, the tag itself doesn't help the article, and it being on the talk page achieves the same end. Beam 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Having a warning on the front page shows that the article is in a state of flux. Anyone who isn't particularly wiki-savvy wouldn't realize that there is an ongoing dispute and that the current version may well change in the near future. The "non-endorsement" of the current name of the article is a reasonable point to make. I don't particularly care for either name, but making it look stable when it's unclear is kind of misleading to the reader.Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not making a lot of sense. The first sentence of the article notes the naming of the country. I believe you were involved with the discussion regarding the "Dispute" tag, and it came to the point where the only sensible solution was to have it on the talk page. The same applies with this tag. It has nothing to do with honesty and I'd be insulted if I didn't assume good faith. Please reconsider your reversion, the last thing I want is an edit war of any sort. Beam 16:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the discussion on this page regarding the name dispute tag. I wouldn't say that there was a consensus that removing the tag was the only "sensible solution".

• The statement is true and not misleading. Neither staying nor moving are WP:SNOWBALL.
• Protection tags are usually on the front page of the article. See WP:PROTECT#Other_notes for talk page templates.
• The tag deflects mastodons: Having the tag on the article itself sends a clear message to people who might just assume that the name is wrong and move it.
• The tag shows that the current name of the article is not a consensus statement: Not having the tag implies to a casual reader that the current name is appropriate (not the current consensus because there is no consensus).

It seems kind of redundant to you or me since we've been staring at it for the last couple of weeks, but to someone who is not already involved it shows that the article is not stable. I mean, I really don't care that much, but why is it so critical to take it off? Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Because disputes regarding page moves aren't what the user should be reading. Beam 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)