Talk:Myanmar/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

What is this?

Do we need another article for the Union of Burma? Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 04:06, 01 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we have one? I didn't see it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate article on the Union of Burma since the 1974 and 1989 name changes were mere name changes. --regentspark (comment) 12:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A clear demonstration of what Wikipedia should not be

And so, the latest move request comes to another inconclusive close. I did not participate, for the patterns demonstrating the failure of this site to steer back to where it was meant to be again rears its ugly head. Critical policies again take the backseat, while contentious ones are given full airing.

Which critical policy was I referring to? NPOV, of course. Despite numerous "pro-Burma" advocates insisting their views were not influenced by what happens politically in that country wedged between India and Thailand, tell-tale signs that they were far from being politically NPOV were evident even in the closing admin's comment (or at least it was implied):

I suspect there may be other move requests in the future, depending on what happens politically in the country...

Fish and karate, [1]

Now, check out the comments made soon after:

• We should wait at least one year and some sea change in Burma before testing the waters again...[2]
• Yeah, I don't think we'll need to revisit this anytime soon unless something big happens to the contrary...[3]

It is indeed sad, that here in Wikipedia which is supposed to be reliant purely on NPOV sources, we are strategising pagemoves based on political events. As has been highlighted by numerous alarmed editors before me, the first move request away from Myanmar took place soon after the failed civil uprising, and now there is an attempt to move it back only when people are convinced that the "democratically" elected government is serious about reforms. Pro-Burma advocates insist there must be substantive change in "common usage" before a page move, yet one wonders where these people were prior to the 2007 protests. Did "respectable sources" suddenly change their reference of the country after the 2007 events to invoke that first move in Wikipedia? I doubt so. So why is it being used as an argument to resist a move in the opposite direction now?

And despite countless reminders that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a democracy, we still have people trying to weigh their views based on numerical advantage rather than the strength of arguments. The closing admin may not see it, but while the arguments have not changed for the past 3 years, we are still seeing the two arguments boiling down to two main policies:

• Pro-Burma: Common Usage
• Pro-Myanmar: NPOV

I have mentioned it several times before, and I am saying it again. While the pro-Burma folks latch on to the common usage argument, the outcome has been inconclusive. But the pro-Myanmar plea that wikipedia must adhere to NPOV has remained sidelined, despite (and perhaps also because of) it being a far more important policy than common usage. Instead, some Pro-Burma folks have argued that conforming to usage by "majority English-speaking countries" is somehow more politically neutral than observing global English usage. This, despite the undisputed fact that there are now more English speakers outside the "majority English-speaking countries" than there are within it. Further, there is nothing in WP:COMMONNAME which supports the notion that native English usage should take precedence. It is a twist of facts to fit one's viewpoint. Unless one can show us a policy which suggests otherwise, that India and China uses the term "Myanmar" in their English-language publications should be of equal weight as a publication from the UK or the US.

Therefore, the above exercise has demonstrated several things. We have now proven that Wikipedia articles can be directly influenced by political events in a matter of months or even days after they have occurred, without bothering to look at sources first. When we do look at sources, we choose articles based on what kind of sources we think fits our agenda, and rejects others as "less respectable" just because they reflect contrary views. We have proven that numerical superiority is important, that you just need 37 people to say "As above" to count in critical decisions. We have proven that the native English-speaking nations should determine how the world calls their own country in English. And we have proven that in Wikipedia, common usage counts more than having a NPOV.

We have certainly done well.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason I said that there'd probably be no need to revisit this until "something big happens", is because not much has change in the four or so years since the original vote. With a few exceptions, the same sources that used Burma still use Burma while the same sources that used Myanmar still use Myanmar. This probably won't change until something else changes, which means we aren't likely to reach consensus. Both names can appeal to NPOV, since there are two POVs at work here. And both names can appeal to Common Use, as this RM has pounded home. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Great. Things don't go the way you want and you attack other editors, belittle the closing administrator's abilities and smack down the polling system that is used in countless other disputes here. Just because you have different priorities in what you deem good sources doesn't make your pov any more viable than anyone else's. Oh and the sources we pull from sometimes change in a matter of days not months so we have to be flexible. You were too cowardly to put your two cents in and have it challenged properly by your peers at the proper time so now you post a pompous, biased and very pov annotation. Yeah that's the way to do things at wikipedia. You work within the system and with the system. There are many times I'm at a loss as to how a mediated rfm etc. gets ruled on or how editors can be thinking what they are thinking. That doesn't mean that after the fact I attack everyone who disagreed with me like a little kid would. Every debate I've been in people give different weight to different sources just as jurors give different weight to different evidence. As a group we tried our best to lay out things for the closer. Sure some simply said yeah or ney and he didn't base his decision on those votes, as he said. So yes... I think we certainly did do well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

More like

• Pro-Burma: Common usage
• Pro-Myanmar: NPOV and common usage.

Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This from the person who voted TWICE in the last poll, so it wasn't even 50/50. Add NPOV and English sources to Pro-Burma and you got it down. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was just trying to make another point, not make another vote. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Huaiwei, you reach the conclusion and now there is an attempt to move it back only when people are convinced that the "democratically" elected government is serious about reforms because you're looking at all this through a biased lens. The reality is that the name of the article has been largely decided on the principle of common name policy. The common name of an article is, roughly, the most recognizable and natural. Naturally, the salience of Burma or Myanmar depends on the presence of that country in the news of various English speaking countries and that only happens when there are events of significance in that country. That, essentially, was my logic for the one year or sea change comment - the one year because I believe that sources are generally drifting toward using Myanmar and the sea change because that will only increase the awareness of the name Myanmar. I think the present discussion was conducted in a civil and reasonable way and the conclusion, while not to my liking, is not unwarranted. --regentspark (comment) 23:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your insinuation that anyone who opposed a move sucks as a Wikipedia Editor. Go look into my post history. I earned my stripes upholding NPOV in the Kosovo related article space. I was just interested in the Yugoslavia war one day, read some articles, made an edit and BAM I was all kinds of up in the gruesome online battle of wills and wits in the sad real life battle of the former Yugoslavia. What got me hooked and what intrigued me into being an editor was the fact that the Wiki had enough rules and "laws" to allow anyone intelligent enough to put any bias aside, as I put my personal subjective ideas and thoughts away when I edit, to edit any article to be "right" as far as that idea goes in this place. So, in other words, GTFO of here with that "you all suck because you think differently than me" crap. It's not needed and pathetic. Beam 00:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

U Thant first non-Westerner to head any international organisation?

I just read this in the article:
In 1961, U Thant, then the Union of Burma's Permanent Representative to the United Nations and former Secretary to the Prime Minister, was elected Secretary-General of the United Nations; he was the first non-Westerner to head any international organisation and would serve as UN Secretary-General for ten years.
The reference that follows does not mention that he was the first non-Westerner to head any international organisation. This seems like a bold statement and should have a reference of its own. Anyone agrees/disagrees? In the U Thant article this statement is not mentioned at all. Podex (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur. The statement should be removed or it should be changed to the first non-Westerner to serve as UN Secretary-General. SWH^talk 14:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This document from UN does say that U Thant is the first non-Westerner to head an international organization. Thant was the very first non-Western head of an international organization and was eager to champion a new development agenda.(page 43) SWH^talk 14:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the sentence. Not much point saying first non-Westerner for the sec gen post because he was the second sec gen. --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence may not be notable enough for this article. SWH^talk 15:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes

I implemented some changes to the page to make the page somewhat easier to read, and also added some useful info. The edit has been reverted by User:Entropy. Please look into whether the revert has been justified, and whether the edits can not be implemented, perhaps by leaving out the links if so needed. See here

Other info to add: Government and politics:

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the Burmese government has been fueling his corrupt regime using several revenue sources, which were built with slave labour. This includes several mines: Monya cuppermine, Kyaupathu goldmine, Hpakan jademine, and Ruby and sapphire mines near Mogok. Several pipelines too been built in the south of Burma, conveying natural gas from Yadana, Yetagun and to near Bangkok. Other pipelines for conveying oil and gas are buing built in the center of Burma (Magway-Lashio). The Myitsone dam is also being constructed in Kachin state. Especially this last construction has sparked severe anger from the Kachin minority and as such, resulted in the breaking of the cease-fire of the Kachin Independance Army. The corrupt Burmese junta meanwhile remains firmy thugged away in the military zone in Nay Pyi Taw.

Dissolution of SPDC and constitutional referendum (2008–present): last line--> Even non-military organisation providing assistance to the Burmese people (ie Free Burma Rangers, ...) are being shot on sight.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.146.84 (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Clinton photo

Can somebody help me upload this photo and put it in the foreign relations and military section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.67.183 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Clinton in Myanmar.jpg. --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.67.181 (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please move back

Someone here, please move Anglo Military Occupation and Burmese Authority Government back to British rule in Burma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.67.181 (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been  Done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Insertion of Information In Government part of Infobox

Hey can I change some of the information in the infobox part

Such as "Dominant-party system lead by the Union Solidarity and Development Party"

I don't think that dominant-party system fits with Burma. a category of parties/political organizations that have successively won election victories and whose future defeat cannot be envisaged or is unlikely for the foreseeable future The USDP has only won one election, not successive ones, and it is unclear what course Burma will take in the future. --regentspark (comment) 04:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just got back; universally Myanmar there, regardless of political views, which are now much more openly expressed

I went insisting on "Burma", came back mind changed. "Burma" is now a deliberate political statement on the part of the opposition, not a real name for the country. Interestingly, "Myanmar" is seen by people of all tribes, including the Bamar, as being more inclusive. Wikipedia's got this wrong. 198.240.128.75 (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

and you are? I haven't seen you post here before under this handle. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Not important, just someone who's actually been there recently. I don't really care to the level of the flamers on here but just my 2¢.

Wportre (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Using funky modern tools, we can determine which word people in Burma are using without actually going there. See here. Kauffner (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Access to the internet is limited to a very small section of Burmese society and, this is just an educated guess, a section that is probably more in tune with the power structure (which prefers Myanmar). That said, I agree with Wportre that most Burmese use Myanmar when referring to the country, even in English. And, this is a recent change. However, none of this is important because we look primarily at non-Burmese English language sources to decide on our title and the results are ..... (murky!) .... no consensus to move! --regentspark (comment) 01:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You might at look my link before responding. No, there hasn't been any "recent change". Usage inside the country has been "Myanmar" for some time. The people using Google are typing in terms like "Myanmar Burma". They want to look stuff up. They're not making political statements. Kauffner (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I did look at your link. All I was trying to say, obviously not very clearly, was that well to do people in Burma are more likely to "think Myanmar" than to "think Burma" because there closer to the Myanmar power structure and that's the way they've been brought up. Talk to older school teachers in the small towns, and you'll get a different mind set. About usage, I'm talking from personal experience and was not referring to your link (which, in its sparseness, is probably meaningless). But, never mind. --regentspark (comment) 01:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agree that Myanmar is the name of this country. Today on the news there was a long piece on Myanmar and I had to do a search on wiki to discover that Myanmar is called "Burma" here. Why don't we call Sri Lanka "Ceylon" by this reasoning? To avoid calling a country the name it calls itself, seems confusing. The rest of the world calls it Myanmar, the UN etc. What is preventing wiki from doing the same? KennethSides (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the rest of the English-speaking world calls it either Myanmar or Burma. You'll find Myanmar more in U.S. media sources, plain Google searches, other online encyclopedias, etc. You'll find Burma more in British media sources, Google Books, English-speaking government sources, etc. Both names are common, and there have been so many "no consensus" results on this issue that I think you can interpret the current name more or less as a coin flip. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously I don't know anybody who calls it "Myanmar". Even US news readers refer to it as Burma/Burmese people. google book search Burma. Now google book search Myanmar. 13.6 million vs just 1.8 million. There's your answer, Burma is used many times more than Myanmar in English sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Myanmar" has twice as many Google results as "Burma". --108.225.115.211 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember that at the time of the name change from 'Burma' to 'Mynamar' the UN did not recognise the then-government as legitimate as it was by no stretch of the imagination democratic, so the UN did not recognise the name change, and therefore the older name 'Burma' was retained outside the country. IIRC, the only people who used the 'Myanmar' name were that country's government, the pro-democracy movement, including Aung San Suu Kyi, continuing to use the old 'Burma' name when using English, although that may have changed by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the UN adopted it almost immediately. I wouldn't be in any position to talk about popular usage at the time though. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As of 1/16/12 the US and the UK officially use the name Burma as the English language form in an explicit nod to pro-democracy efforts. The UN uses Myanmar because they follow the request of the government of a member country (up until this week, an unrecognized Military junta). Despite the recent change to now recognize the civilian government, I feel the US and UK are in a better position to judge the situation than most of us are and, given the history of the name change, Wikipedia should wait until at least one of these countries changes its position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.196.205 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I do remember that there was some controversy at the time over the name change and whether it should be recognised internationally due to the nature of the government ruling the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

flag vs name

Hmm... You use their old name, but still use their new flag? The same people renamed the country and changed the flag. Why is the flag appropriate to use, but not the name Myanmar? 85.217.20.33 (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiki's policy is to follow the English-language WP:RS, and this is the usual way it is done. See the CIA's World Factbook. Kauffner (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... What sources Simple English wikipedia follows, because they have Myanmar there? I doubt neither Burma of Myanmar belongs to Simple English vocabulary. 85.217.20.33 (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner's answer was bad. Burma is used because it has strong common usage in the english language, per WP:COMMONNAME. Although Myanmar also has large widespread usage, no consensus has been found to change the name of this page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I should add that the name and the flag are two separate issues. The name should how the name of the country is usually given in the RS, and the flag should be how the current flag is usually given. Kauffner (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

They should not be separate issues. "usually given"? Given by who? And about that Simple English question, that seems to not have any sources. 82.141.118.151 (talk) 11:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You might try reading what I write before asking questions about it. Both the name and the flag are given in the "Burma". The World Factbook (2024 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency.. Kauffner (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Satellite image of the Ayeyarwady delta.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Satellite image of the Ayeyarwady delta.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing RfM

Where did the archive for the last RfM go (Ocotber 2011)? All the links I find link back to this talk page, and I can't seem find it in the archives. -ryand 14:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is at Talk:Burma/Archive 8#Requested move: Burma --> Myanmar. SWH ^talk 16:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

HTML comment

There are only 8 HTML comments in this article and none of them say "Please use Burma". Any suggestions?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Where would you put one? The page title is protected, and I don't think any assault of inconsistency on the article is going to be thwarted by a hidden warning. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Such a comment would be at the top of the article. Compare the comment at the top of Color. Georgia guy (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Color isn't move-protected though. Add a comment if you like; it's not exactly obtrusive; I just don't expect it to be of any value. Bigbluefish (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

move request Yangon → Rangoon

I placed a move request at talk:Yangon for 'Rangoon'. IMO it's just as odd to say 'Yangon, Burma' as it would be to say 'Rangoon, Myanmar', and IFAICT 'Rangoon' still beats out 'Yangon' as commonname. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that it is inconsistent. But my hat lies firmly in the Myanmar category so much so that - as I've argued in previous discussions - this is beyond COMMONNAME. Where it is a matter of correct vs incorrect, other things should come into account. Where issues are political, more so, and I have long known that references to Rangoon and Burma are invariably used by sources unfavourable to the state authorities. It is largely used as a deliberate and provocative insult. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Aung San assaniated by the British- what nonsense

Honestly, if you cannot cite better than a conspiracy piece that has no basis in fact please leave it out the article.82.31.236.245 (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Not sure how that crept in. --regentspark (comment) 23:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Proper intro lede sentence

Hi Kauffner: the lede sentence needs to properly identify the article's subject. Stating the country's de facto short name, Myanmar, followed by its lengthy official name is proper, non-repetitive and doesn't contravene anything in the MOS that I've looked at. Here's what the MOS says on the subject which is relevant, under MOS:Lead Section -Alternative names:

"By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can have only one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. Indeed, alternative names can be used in article text in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article....."

As mentioned in the earlier edit summary there are numerous Wikipedia articles with identical wording, such as this one for China. Would you propose rewriting them and changing the MOS? HarryZilber (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to me that "Republic of the Union of Myanmar" includes "Myanmar". Or am I missing something. --regentspark (comment) 01:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't want the article to stutter, especially not at the beginning. This article has a "Names" section, so there should be only one name in the opening, according to MOS:LEDE#Separate_section_usage. In this case, there is a strongly split usage, so that approach probably wouldn't work. But the basic idea should be to leave to the names to the "Names" section, and put as few as possible in the opening. Kauffner (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, the lede (lead) sentence is an important and quick intro to the article which defines its scope. Alternate names, as noted in the MOS copied above are necessary to help readers understand what the article is about. The formal name, "Republic of the Union of Myanmar" is lengthy and thus has a low recognition value to lay readers, especially the large groups of readers who have English as a second or third language. There is nothing repetitious in this lede sentence: "China (Listeni/ˈtʃaɪnə/; Chinese: 中国; pinyin: Zhōngguó; see also Names of China), officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is the world's most-populous country..."

Similarly, there's nothing repetitious about "Burma /ˈbɜːrmə/ ^ⓘ, also known as Mynamar, officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, /ˌmjɑːnˈmɑːr/ ^ⓘ....". This helps the reader understand what he or she will be reading; the fact that there's a section about the country's name further on doesn't provide justification for constructing a poor introduction to the subject.

A reading of MOS:LEDE#Separate_section_usage points to the fact that geographic place names can be moved to the names/etemology section when there are *three* alternate names. In Burma's case, there are only two alternates, which isn't so lengthy that an extra four words (...also known as Mynamar...) will trip readers up. The lengthy article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) also offers this advice: "By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called." Burma is definitely called Myanmar in popular English usage, and I doubt many people have ever heard of the 'Republic of the Union of Myanmar'—however it is important to have the official name within the article's intro sentence. I'm no supporter of military huntas, but I do support better lede sentences in Wikipedia's articles.

Both 'Burma' and 'Myanmar' should be in the intro sentence; if you still find it too long then I suggest we transfer "...officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar..." to the names section. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing is if you start adding every name to the lead it becomes a bit jumbled, because really it's the "Union of Burma" not just Burma. Must we include that too in the lead? I would think not. Either "Republic of the Union of Myanmar" or simply "Myanmar" is fine, but both placements make the lead sound a bit rough. Since this does have a names section all alternatives should certainly be in that section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the two most important common English names for the country, 'Burma' and 'Myanmar', should at least be in the lead intro sentence i.m.h.o. This is compliant to Wikipedia's guideline which states ""By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, asking the less contentious question, what it is called." The formal Republic of the Union of Myanmar name can be move to the Names section although my preference would be to have the three of them in the intro sentence. HarryZilber (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

By massaging the lede's intro sentance and moving the lengthy Burmese translation to the Names section, we now have what's likely a better introduction to the article, with the lede sentence actually made shorter than its previous version. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, starting with "The country ..." etc. makes the lede clunky. Also, see WP:LEDE. --regentspark (comment) 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep our eyes on the ball: Wikipedia *demands* accuracy. The country's name is a complex subject which doesn't render to a simple intro sentence -that's something everyone will have to live with when you must have factual accuracy. A few more optional words have nonetheless been removed to shorten the lede sentence again. But the country is known in popular usage both internally and worldwide as simply 'Myanmar', and leaving that out of the intro sentence is akin to a cardinal sin. Lets skip the clunkiness debate and concentrate on accuracy. HarryZilber (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Harryzilber, I empathize with your desire to see Myanmar in the opening sentence. However, "The country known as both Burma and Myanmar" is not only a grammatical mess but it is also against the guidelines set down in WP:LEDE. My apologies, but I must revert you again. The consensus here seems to be that a mention of Myanmar in the long name of the country is sufficient. I suggest you abide by that consensus rather than trying to push the thing you want into the lede. Abiding by consensus doesn't preclude discussion, so please do use the talk page. Regards. --regentspark (comment) 16:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Regentspark: do NOT misstate WP:LEDE, implying that only one name is to provided in the lede. IT SAYS NO SUCH THING. WP:LEDE –Alternative names specifically says, as written earlier above:

"By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can have only one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. Indeed, alternative names can be used in article text in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called "Gdańsk" can be referred to as "Danzig" in suited historical contexts. The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability."

As was also written above: "By following modern English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, asking the less contentious question, what it is called."

The country's official name will appear only in the next section. Your attempt at consensus-pushing is being rejected, especially since the text you support conflicts with the MOS. If you want to change the lede again, I suggest you change the MOS first. But since three names appears to be an issue, the lede sentence will be reduced to the two popular English names, Burma and Myanmar. HarryZilber (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to shout or make peremptory statements that begin with "Do Not". Anyway, it is usually better to ask simply ask someone to clarify what they mean rather than yelling about what turns out to be an incorrect assumption on your part. I was referring to the part of WP:LEDE that talks about the construction of the first sentence. It says If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence. Seems fairly clear to me and should be easy for even the meanest intelligence to figure that one out. Either way, I see you've gone back to your initial formulation, the one that consensus rejected. But, I'm not going to revert you on that. I've already exceeded my personal 1RR. Enjoy! --regentspark (comment) 19:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse my curtness; I apologize. Naming conventions and guidelines in the MOS are complex and we're integrating instructions from various sections simultaneously. In any event the instruction you refer to is now in place: Burma is now the both first word of the lede and is also highlighted, meeting that requirement, and by using only two names the sentence is simplified and easier to read. Of equal importance is that the two most common names for the country are now being used. Thank you for your patience with this. HarryZilber (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Harryzilber, you are now attempting to push your preferred edits over the objections of two editors and against the consensus on this page. I suggest you stick to the talk page for the time being. You may have good points and you may be able to convince other editors but trying to push things unilaterally is not helping. --regentspark (comment) 14:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Regentspark, at this point it appears that now only you're objecting to the usage of "Burma, also known as Myanmar...." in the lede paragraph, so this appears to be a content dispute between you and me. Others previously objected to a lengthy intro sentence with more than two names, so the introductory sentence was recrafted with the two most important names of the country, as per the MOS. I'm not sure what you're objecting to now because your latest post and revert do not state what you're actually opposing. Are you trying to dispute the MOS? If not and If you're trying to say that the 'Republic of the Union of Myanmar' is the more appropriate second name for the lede sentence, well I'm sorry but I feel you're quite wrong and I don't know how you could justify yourself with that. HarryZilber (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly clear. The short English name for the country is Burma. The long name for the country is "The Republic of the Union of Myanmar". Both should be in the first sentence (I don't see the latter in your latest edit). Since Fyunck(click) reverted your preferred version, I assume he has some objections as well. But, I'll let him speak for himself. Finally, Kaufner and Fyunck(click) both have stated above that we shouldn't include Myanmar in addition to "The Republic of the Union of Myanmar" (I think that unnecessary as well, but haven't objected to the inclusion). Hope this helps clarify things for you. If you used the talk page more and the article as a storyboard less, all this would be clearer. --regentspark (comment) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I withdraw my objection. With some tweaking of the text in the names section, I can live with this. I'll drop a note on itszippy's talk page asking him to unprotect it. --regentspark (comment) 20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Regentspark: to clarify your last post, I believe you mean that you are now dropping your objection to my last edit which had:

1) "Burma, also known as Myanmar, etc...." in the beginning of the lede, and:

2) the formal long name remaining in the Names section

If that's so, then you can go ahead with it as the page is currently unprotected. HarryZilber (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Already done. Your text in the lede actually makes more sense. --regentspark (comment) 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Its good that a common ground was achieved. HarryZilber (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

British English tag

Why is this article written in British English? Wouldn't English usage in the country more closely resemble Indian English? Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Burmese English. But, from a practical point-of-view, I don't think many editors would have a clue. FormerIP (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If there was an article about a topic internal to a country, it could be in the local dialect. Provided that English is a majority language, or at least a major one, there. --88.112.90.114 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the tag is all that meaningful. There is no such thing as Burmese English so, I guess, all this does is to ensure that the spelling used in the article is consistently British rather than American. --regentspark (comment) 20:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Name section wording change

I'm going to reword "Various non-Burman ethnic groups choose not to recognise the name because of the association of the term "Myanmar" with the majority ethnic group, the Bamar, rather than with the country" as "Various ethnic opposition groups have also chosen not to recognize the name" because the current wording doesn't make sense. And two of the three attributed citations don't include any page numbers. (I have Myint-U's 2001 book so I can look it up.)

The current wording implies that the name Burma is somehow more inclusive. Unfortunately, that's simply not true. Both Myanmar and Burma historically referred strictly to the Bamar although many since the 30s have tried to promote one of the terms to make it more inclusive. The 1930s leftists/nationalists tried to make "Bamar"/"Burma" to be the more inclusive term--hence, many ethnics, Chinese and Indians actively participated in "Dobama Asiayone" ("We Burmans Society"). But the trend since independence has been the opposite: it's Myanmar that's been promoted as the more inclusive term. (The longevity of this policy seems to have taken hold at some level. I've seen many more non-Burmans refer to themselves as "Myanmar" in Burmese in the sense of nationality today.) From what I can see, the reason some ethnic opposition groups oppose the name "Myanmar" is the same as that of other opposition groups: they don't recognize the legitimacy of the SLORC government to make such a name change. Not because Burma is somehow more inclusive. Hybernator (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Thant Myint-U makes the comment in the context of the Ava kingdom referring to itself as Myamna Naing-Ngan. Though the Myanma and Burmese people are (as you say) ethnically the same, the connotations that the ethnic groups attach to Myanmar originate from that Ava reference and the same connotation is not attached to the name Burma, possibly (and what follows is my speculation) because of its longer history as the name used by outsiders for the region, or perhaps because the non-Bamar ethnic groups were closer to the British. But, it's been a few years since I read the book and perhaps I'm wrong about the details. It would be helpful if you can look up the Myint-U book. I had a copy somewhere and will also look for it, but I don't see it on my shelves. --regentspark (comment) 19:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recollection is correct as far as Myint-U's contention that the use of Myanma Naing-ngan as the country of Myanma people was first made only in the mid-19th century, as a rallying cry around ethnicity (and religion) after having lost the first two Anglo-Burmese wars. Presumably, if we extend his argument, the earliest extant use of Myanma Pyay (Country of Myanma), which appeared on a Pagan era inscription in 1235, may not have the 19th century connotations of ethnicity or nation-state.

As for your speculation, as far as I know, the British themselves never used the term Burma/Burmans/Burmese as inclusive terms in the modern sense. At least in the colonial era books I've read, the British themselves used the terms Burmans/Burmese interchangeably to refer to the Bamar, and the rest of the ethnic groups by their names. (Perhaps because Burma was separated from British India only in 1937!?) Also, I wouldn't make a blanket statement that non-Bamar were closer to the British. The ethnic groups were (and are) not a monolith, and the British played favorites even among the ethnics. (Only the Karen, Chin and Kachin could join the army, for example. Indeed, even among the Karen, Christian Karen were preferred.) The Burmese independence movement had many ethnic leaders, many of whom had rallied around religion. AFAIK, in 1947 aside from the Karen leadership, no ethnic group chose the British, who ironically ignored the pleas of the Karen leadership for an independent Karen state. Casual observers don't know that the Karen rebellion was the only major ethnic rebellion to the early 60s. The rest were mainly Burman political (leftist) rebellions (plus the Nationalist Chinese invasion). Per Myint-U's 2006 The River of Lost Footsteps, the army's heavy handed behavior really turned off many, especially in the ethnic regions. Most of the ethnic rebellions erupted only in the 1960s after Ne Win rejected the federal system agreed upon in the 1947 constitution.

Anyway, it's my long-winded way of saying I don't think ethnic groups prefer the name Burma because the British gave the term. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. They just don't think the government had the legitimacy or right to change it. Not because they have any real affinity to the old name for its more inclusive qualities. My two cents. Hybernator (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What I meant to say was that the ethnic groups (perhaps) prefer Burma because it wasn't imposed from the inside. But, go ahead and change the text. I have no problems with restating it because, as far as I know, we don't really know what the various ethnic groups think about the name today. --regentspark (comment) 13:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (June 2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Procedural close – The original nominator needs to provide a reason for such a proposal, and not just merely slap on the {{requested move}} tag.[4] This is because the title of this article has been heavily disputed, and has been the subject of numerous mediation cases and Request for Comment discussions. More importantly, as a result of these disputes, further discussions of the title need to be kept at Talk:Burma/Myanmar, not here. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated}}

• Assuming that you meant to say "Burma -> Myanmar, and your reason", please refer to Talk:Burma/Myanmar. If you want the page moved, you should give a (good) reason. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 16:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Undo" blatant, uncited propaganda

I undid the extensive edits "documenting" things like "the CIA operative Dali Lama." While I'm no expert on Burmese history, the items added had no citation. Wikipedia is not a place for "original research," and certainly not for things that don't even pass the laff test. Why not document the Dali Lama of being a "Killer Klown," sent on an advance mission to taste-test Muslims?Weyandt (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

pronunciation

Although in the US perhaps the "r"s in Burma and Myanmar are pronounced, the "r"s are actually only a lengthening mark, from a transcription system based on British, non-rhotic, English. So the British English pronunciation are [bɜːmɘ] (perhaps [bɜːmɑ] and [mjɑnmɑː]), which approximate the native pronunciation of [mjəmà] and [bəmà] (which shows that natively, only the initial consonant differs). In American English, we may expect a pronunciation of [bɝma] and [mjænmɑɹ]. The "pronunciation" (double quotes since it has // instead of []) given though, is /bɜrmə/ and /mjɑːnmɑr/ which I think is misleading, and not at all what the sound clips (apparently by a British person, even though the filename has "us" in it) sound like. I therefor changed the IPA to something reflecting the sound clips. I also have some doubts to the stressed final syllable of Myanmar, but I'll leave that to someone else. Jalwikip (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That obviously makes sense, but there are too many Americans on Wikipedia for us to do sensible things like that. Even placenames in England have the silent r rudely inserted into the transcription. — Chameleon 14:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you're both very confused about several things. First of all, it is not OK to replace the pronunciation used in one national variety of English with that used in another. The only constructive and productive thing would have been to add the UK pronunciation, not replace what you (erroneously) felt to be the US pronunciation.

In addition, if you'd bothered to click on the pronunciation link, you'd have found the explanation for "r" appearing even in the phonetic transcriptions of British place names. As Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key explains: In many dialects, /r/ occurs only before a vowel; if you speak such a dialect, simply ignore /r/ in the pronunciation guides where you would not pronounce it, as in cart /ˈkɑrt/. You can be sure that the pronunciation explanation at Oxford would not be /ˈɒksfərd/ if you were correct in your incorrect and naive assumptions about Americans "ruling" Wikipedia.

Didn't you notice that even when you changed b|ɜr|m|ə to b|ɜː|m|ə in violation of Wikipedia:IPA_for_English the software still rendered and renders it as bɜrmə?

The funniest thing is that you didn't even notice that your change in the pronunciation of Myanmar didn't make it UK yet. A quick look in a UK dictionary would have shown you that the two most common UK pronunciations are very different from what you came up with. --Espoo (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're correct about this, Espoo. My Collins and Oxford dictionaries both give /ˈbɜːmə/. I don't have a US dictionary, but it must either be that WP has the notation wrong or there are indeed UK and US variants. Formerip (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read what i quoted above from Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key. Yes, UK pronunciation is without r, but Wikipedia's notation indicates the r even though it is silent. Take a look at the pronunciation explanation at Oxford: /ˈɒksfərd/. --Espoo (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How is that not the American version, though? Formerip (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you go to the link provided and did you read the explanation of the IPA key? It tries to explain that WP uses an IPA key that's a compromise between the different kinds of English. The idea is that this prevents having to explain the trivial differences between the major kinds of English every single time we provide a pronunciation. I'll quote all relevant parts of Wikipedia:IPA_for_English here (plus a bit more, to show you the general idea using a different dialect difference), so please tell me if you still have trouble understanding it because then it needs to be improved:

This key accommodates standard General American, Received Pronunciation, Canadian English, South African English, Australian English, and New Zealand English pronunciations.

Therefore, not all of the distinctions shown here are relevant to a particular dialect:

• If, for example, you pronounce cot /ˈkɒt/ and caught /ˈkɔːt/ the same, then you may simply ignore the difference between the symbols /ɒ/ and /ɔː/, just as you ignore the distinction between the written vowels o and au when pronouncing them.

• In many dialects, /r/ occurs only before a vowel; if you speak such a dialect, simply ignore /r/ in the pronunciation guides where you would not pronounce it, as in cart /ˈkɑrt/.

--Espoo (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

3rd alternative?

I am wondering if the discussion of the actual official name in scholarly circles has any strong suggestions (from outside the country and its ethnicities) that might yield a more appropriate name. While I understand that it is against normal wikipedia policy to drive events, being a neutral information source; it is also true that if improving things generally is everybody's overall goal, then an exception might be considered if something like East-Central South Asia (I am sure this in particular is not going to win much support) already has been suggested and supported by some number of scholars. A renaming of the country to encourage and cause the minorities to feel given de facto equal citizenship status--as one step--might be expected to help the country's people to more easily solve some of their long-standing problems. If the wikipedia community can find cause to encourage such a change, I think it is an alternative worthy of consideration. Considering that the reasons different countries cannot agree on the two choices presented are clear--and that this is causing the debate/dispute here, it also seems to give wikipedians an opening for such a deviation from editorial policy (assuming such a 3rd alternative is already floating around).173.15.152.77 (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This assumes that the naming of an article has the purpose of asserting or implying a preference for a name. It does not, and it should only seek to label the article the way that most people would expect to find it. The fact that there are two names under which significant numbers of people expect to find the article doesn't make it any more sensible to name it under a third. Bigbluefish (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If there was a widely acceptable 'third alternative', this would be a reasonable idea as a compromise solution (compare e.g. Fixed-wing aircraft, to avoid choosing between airplane and aeroplane). But I don't think there is: certainly not one as recognisable and well-known as Burma and Myanmar are. If you have any good suggestions, make them, but East-Central South Asia seems like a nonstarter to me. Otherwise, we simply have to make a decision between the two common names here. Robofish (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Myanmar is not a part of South Asia, but Southeast Asia, and so it would be Northwestern Southeast Asia, if anything. But of course that squares the circle as it's got all points on the compass as well as Asia involved in the name! Nice try though, of course no one would know what you are talking about given that name. Why not just some latitude and longitudes? --Jeffmcneill (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What about Burmanyamar? Formerip (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I would go for the first joke name for a country if I lived there and had a vote, but I don't. [Not because I think the particular country is a joke, I should say.] I think the article might best be named Burma/Myanmar (The country that once contained a fair chunk of what is currently part of India), but I don't run things here at wikipedia either.

Anyway, this was just a trial idea in case there was something already out there, something I expected to be a longshot. The improvement in my bland name is noted. One point is that redirects easily handle the question of where people expect to find an article. 173.15.152.77 (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To avoid more confusion: The RfC close because the RM is closed --PBS (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

---

What is the best title for this article? It has already been listed in WP:RM, but due to the potential controversy, it is desirable to gather as many participants as possible to the discussion, to try to get a definitive resolution. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The requested move discussion is in the next section below.

Comment - I believe this is a unfair request for comment, simply directing people to a requested move below which has one sides opinion stated at the top giving it priority and preference. Why no discussion or presentation of both sides positions clearly for people to see? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The goal is simply to bring greater attention to this requested-move survey, by putting notifications at various Asian WikiProjects, at Village pump (miscellaneous), through the RfC mechanism, and so forth. For particularly notable and controversial requested moves, we should aim for much larger and more diverse participation in the discussion. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A RFC is reasonable, my concern is the timing, with many of the points made by those who oppose change not yet being made because this RM is brand new, which means this is rather one sided points being made below so far. Rather than presenting people with the key points from both sides in a fair way. We have had no time to mention the CIA world factbook or US state department or many many others. its entirely one sided. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it is a standard requested-move survey, according to the prescribed format, per WP:RM. The initial proposal, naturally, is made by the side that wishes a change from the existing title. However, the discussion lasts at least one week, so there is plenty of time for everyone to have a say, and to marshal evidence and arguments. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice that I avoided using government publications with the grudging exception of Voice of America. The press is a much better mirror of common use. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My concern is this request for comment which at present is bias because it is asking people to give comments and opinions on something below which only has one sides viewpoint, without giving people any time or chance to challenge some of the points or to provide additional sources. Its one sided because people have had no time to make the case yet this happening so quickly out of the blue with no prior discussion or warning to it being staged. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the way debate works. You have the advantage of the status quo and you are free to address my point of view. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I intend to address some of the points in the morning and im sure others will be over the coming days too. the trouble is this has suddenly sprung up without any prior discussion that a new RM would be taking place. So a RFC directing people to what is one sided sourcing selections below clearly can result in people not getting the full picture. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (Burma → Myanmar) August 2012

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was the article should be at Burma. I've read over virtually every comment in this discussion. I have looked at some of the metrics from Google Insights and Books and Searches and what not. I've looked at some of the policies dealing with naming disputes, and tried to find some not even mentioned here. I began from the perspective that this was an article that didn't have a name, not an article that was at "Burma" and needed a reason of biblical proportion to be moved to "Myanmar". And, after all that, I have come to the conclusion that the current name is the correct one.

I must say that early on in the reading, I was tempted to move the page to "Myanmar", having seen all the oppose statements that referenced, and sometimes exclusively mentioned, a desire to avoid enabling a repressive regime. First, taking down governments should not be one of our goals here. Second, if you think empires will rise and fall because of anything that happens on Wikipedia, you're delusional. I didn't want to enable that, and I still don't, but the admissible reasons for having this page at Burma still outweigh those supporting Myanmar.

The primary force behind moving this article is that Myanmar is the official name. As many people have pointed out, WP:CRITERIA cautions against using official names; on Wikipedia, titles tend to reflect common names. I'm tempted to recall a subject I'm familiar with: in 1930, Turkish authorities, in an attempt to bury the name Constantinople, requested that Istanbul be adopted as the sole name of its largest city in foreign languages. Suffice it to say, many languages were unwilling to change, with many still maintaining a form of Stamboul (another old name originally used to denote part of the city) or even Constantinople eighty-two years later. The fact of the matter is, language does not just change by decree. It often takes months, years, or decades for a new name to permeate into a language and render the old name extinct. And, in the case of "Myanmar", that has yet to happen. While it is quite obvious that "Myanmar" enjoys wide usage, I see greater evidence that "Burma" is more widely used in English language. WP:CRITERIA encourages us to choose a name that is recognizable and natural for readers, to choose something they are most likely to look for. It is not entirely clear that "Burma" is predominant globally, but it seems that "Myanmar" has predominant usage in fewer places and to a lesser degree than "Burma" does in those places where it does (especially the UK). In the interest of choosing a name that is recognizable and natural for more readers, rather than the most recognizable and natural for more readers (and I'm not even sure there's a conflict here), Burma is the appropriate name.

I want to make it very clear that I was not afraid of moving the article. Given this is a topic I don't care about at all, I would have let the shitstorm fly over my head. I actually would have loved getting the comments on my talk page (at least people would know I exist!). But, as much as I enjoy playing the renegade, I couldn't do it this time. The evidence, the policies, the guidelines, the points presented here just don't support it. -- tariqabjotu 02:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Burma → Myanmar – Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for the move

Reserved for a comment by the proposer: user:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
I am commenting here because PBS thinks it is appropriate for me to do so. I think both names are in common use. However, considering that the (i) official name of the country is the Myanmar, (ii) along with the fact that it Wikipedia's business is to only reflect reality which is that the current name has been decided by the ruling government, and (iii) international recognition given by the United Nations - the proper article name should be "Myanmar". Burma can still be retained in the lead section. Note: Any administrators who have previously participated in discussions on Burma/Myanmar dispute and other Burma/Myanmar related articles should restrain themselves from closing this RM. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC) This proposal was added after the original proposal by MQ. WP:COMMONNAME is policy, however, since the use of both the titles in the English-language media around the world is divided, the additional factors should be taken into consideration. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Original proposer's statement

Burma → Myanmar – Myanmar is the preferred title as shown by Google Trends, Google Insights, Britannica, World Almanac, Google Maps, U.S. Geological Study, NOAA, Bing Maps, MapQuest, Nokia Maps, OpenStreetMap, Yahoo Maps, Lonely Planet, TripAdvisor, Wunderground, AccuWeather and the London Olympics. I'd put money on it that Apple's iOS 6 Map beta also uses Myanmar.

Weather.com uses Burma. I visited all these mapping Websites and this was the only still using Burma. Clearly Burma is not favored in the mapping industry.

These are reputable news organizations that use Myanmar: CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post via AP, Reuters, New York Times, NPRaBusiness Week,Los Angeles Times, Daily News via IANS. Organizations that don't: ABC News (Australia), Voice of America (Note this is a U.S. government publication),Sydney Morning Herald. These lists will be added to later. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for not moving

Counter proposals (no comment on the proposal just counter proposals)

More Burma press usage includes: Time magazine, Toronto Star, The Irrawaddy], The Guardian, Radio Australia, The Telegraph, BBC, Washington Post, USA Today, Mizzima news, Arab English Times, Global Post International (uses both), Huffington Post, Democratic Voice of Burma, The News International, even the good old Western Farm Press. Heck their political leader Aung Sang Suu Kyi calls it Burma. So that doesn't really get us anywhere and it's why we should be waiting till/if more organizations change their tune. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And here are some English speaking governments using Burma.. CIA world Factbook, US State department, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, New Zealand Foreign Affairs and Trade(note NZ Government actually returned to using Burma in 2010, so its not like the traffic is just all one way in recent years)BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Procedural comments

Procedural comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't think there is much point in making these lists. In the English speaking world, British and Australian media use Burma while US and most other countries (Singapore, India but not - oddly - Thailand) use Myanmar. Journal articles use either (jstor is divided on recent titles). Clearly, either is a candidate for common name with Myanmar having a slight edge because it is increasingly in use and because US media is dominant. Though, on the other hand, Burmese is clearly more common than Myanmar (for the people) and so the naturalness of going from Burmese to Burma over Burmese to Myanmar should be a consideration. The question is more what are we going to do about it. What does policy say when you have two good candidate names, one of which is "official" and gaining, the other is historical and declining. --regentspark (comment) 01:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC) What should be added is that Myanmar probably has the edge in the US and some other English speaking countries, but is almost never used in others, such as the UK. Although we have no specific policy that says so (although maybe we do), the need not to completely alienate a large part of the English speaking world outweighs our need to reflect majority usage in the US. Formerip (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC) WP:COMMONALITY might be the guideline you're looking for. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC) To be honest I was hoping that perhaps later next year when the new gov't has been operating for awhile and we were a little further distant from the last huge debate, plus with possible policy changes at UK, AU, US and Canada... that time span might be just enough to sway towards Myanmar. This just seems like it'll be the same thing over again and waste my time informing all the others about it. I'm not sure the headache has left from last time or even from the recent Taiwan move. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Holy Moly...Didn't we just go through this huge ordeal? I hate to have to inform all the last participants once again. My typing fingers still haven't recovered. I think this request should be tabled. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - I do not believe the RM should have been restarted. This process has clearly been impacted by biased canvassing demonstrated below, where wikiprojects in Asia have been notified, but not wikiprojects of many English speaking nations which use Burma far more. That clearly is not fair. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I will post the differences here to save time for those who may not have seen it. The main Burma talkpages were rightly notified as were Village pump, Wikiproject Geography and Wikiproject Politics. However the following locations were also canvassed -Wikiproject Asia, Wikiproject Thailand, Wikiproject Laos, Wikiproject China, Noticeboard for Indian related topics,WikiProject East Asia, Wikiproject Southeast Asia I do not claim anyone has intentionally done anything wrong, but the canvassing that took place clearly favours the "support move" side, with Asian wikiprojects being canvassed but not English speaking country wikiprojects, where Burma is far more widespread. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC) BritishWatcher I have moved your comments down here because they are procedural and not about the pros and cons of the proposed name. Personally I think that this move should have been strangled at birth as it is a complete wast of time, but as it was not then it will have to be played out. It is much better that it is played out under the WP:RM procedure, than under an RfC (see my comments above for links and details). I was informed of the proposed move on my talk page by Fyunck who is presumably informing everyone who has expressed an opinion before, so I do not think that there will be a consensus for the move (but time will tell). If you were against the move or the procedure being used why did you write in the RfC "A RFC is reasonable,..." I do not think it was (See my comment at User talk:P.T. Aufrette#Comment on the RfC move from Burma to Myanmar) -- PBS (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC) my objection is not to the RFC, personally i think a RFC would be better allowing everyone to give their opinions and then for a discussion to take place based on that RFC, rather than one single admin having to sort through it all and come to a conclusion. My objection is that a quite a few wikiprojects were notified in asia, whilst no projects of majority english speaking nations such as USA, UK etc were notified. Justified or not for being bordering countries, this clearly favours the move side. As P.T Aufrette said in their vote below, there are regional differences and compared India and the UK. Yet the Indian noticeboard was notified, the UK one was not. That is unfair and has had an impact. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I believe this should be closed as no consensus, but it is clearly very split down the middle, i do not want to see someone approving the move to the new location without realising this debate has been influenced by unfair canvassing. Had it not been for that, there would be more against the move. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I have never voted in anything related to Burma/Myanmar, also not here, but seeing this RfC/RM it does look like it has been messed up pretty seriously, indeed. Good luck to the admin who is going to read all this. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC) The RfC has no process for deciding the outcome of requested moves and recently got an administrator into hot water which involved a ANI and a rejected Arbcom request (see Men's rights..., and the outcome of that RfC was a lot clearer than this one is going to be. The RM process is much more clearly defined and suitable for difficult cases such as this. Besides advertising this move at WP:RM is a useful way to get more people involved and to help counteract your worries about bias advertising. -- PBS (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC) (moved comment from top) I am against the move to Myanmar, but I have placed this request here so that this move is run under the auspices of the WP:RM process. There was recently an ANI on whether such moves can run under an RfC which initiated a RfC discussion on the move policy talk page Wikipedia talk:article titles where the consensus is that all such controversial moves should be run as a WP:RM. -- Relisted. PBS (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC). There is some understandable confusion on PBS's part. This was originally listed as a WP:RM on August 8, but became delisted on August 16 as the end result of a series of edits by several different editors. Click on the "show" link below for a timeline of events. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Timeline of events 19:58, 8 August 2012: Marcus Qwertyus created a WP:RM for Burma → Myanmar.[5] 22:28, 8 August 2012: I myself added the WP:RM notification.[6] As you know, the RM bot is no longer functional as of July 18 and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions has been being updated manually, as a stopgap solution. 23:07, 8 August 2012: In order to publicize this potentially controversial WP:RM, I put a notification in RfC under both history/geography and politics/government/law [7]. It was also advertised in Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) [8], WikiProject Geography, WikiProject Politics, the WikiProjects for Burma/Myanmar and its neighboring countries, etc. 23:17, 9 August 2012: Marcus Qwertyus attempted to withdraw the RM and in doing so, removed the {{requested move/dated}} template [9]. 02:38, 10 August 2012: It was revived within a few hours by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington,[10] but he forgot to re-add the {{requested move/dated}} template. 16:11, 16 August 2012: It was removed from WP:RM by Wbm1058 [11] with edit summary "although there is a long ongoing discussion at talk:Burma, it is no longer tagged with template:requested move/dated, which it must be to appear on this page". It seems nobody noticed. Today: User:PBS relisted this at WP:RM, unaware that it had been listed earlier. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC) =====Break===== (moved comment) This move proposal is based on many of the misunderstandings and incorrect reasoning regularly re-used for supporting the move to Myanmar that naively or intentionally ignore Wikipedia policy at WP:COMMONNAME. All support votes that use these very same arguments should be disqualified because they prove that the voters didn't bother to read up on Wikipedia's article naming policies, purposely pretend they don't know what the policies are, or want to subvert these policies instead of engaging in a fair and open debate on the policies themselves (on Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles, not here). So, contrary to the claims of the move proposal: (i) If the official name is not the same as the most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, Wikipedia policy clearly says that the official name should not be the article title. (ii) It is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy to say that the article name should be based on what has been decided by the ruling government. (iii) The country names used by the United Nations are what the ruling governments want - the name used by the UN is in no way proof of international recognition and it says even less about use in reliable English-language sources. --Espoo (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Espoo, my impression is that you have not bothered to read what the supporters of the proposal have been talking about, so I'm afraid your commentary will be disregarded. Also, please do not edit the proposal section. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I've read what they wrote; what makes you think i didn't read what they wrote when i'm criticizing your proposal. Your proposal summary is the problem: it's above theirs and clearly misleading and encourages disregard and violation of MOS! My comment should be put back or your misleading and incorrect proposal should be changed. It was a bad idea to move my comment and correction of your erroneous proposal here where no one will see it and where it will not prevent misleading people who come to this move proposal. In addition, this section clearly says in red letters: The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. --Espoo (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I have moved your comments outside the collapsible box. Please do not re-insert your commentary to the top of the section which is reserved for the proposers. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Survey of opinions

• Strong oppose - Burma is the commonname of this state and almost every country is at its commonname rather than full / official name. I also believe this should be speedy closed due to a debate happening on the renaming not that long ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Contradiction is not argument. Also I am making the case that the proper name is the common name. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree...this should be a speedy close. I can't believe it was opened again so soon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is no such thing as a speedy close for move discussions. You are thinking of procedural close which obviously doesn't apply here. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There goes our summer holidays then. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Admins can do quick closures for rm's when we just had one huge one. Probably under disruptions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you need evidence of the power the ability of consensus to change see Talk:St. Louis#Requested move. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow...13 people voted there. But of course consensus can change. Look at all the foreign diacritic words now in usage as more and more non-English editors join this English wikipedia. But we just had a huge discussion on Burma with no consensus... and to do it again so soon seems like a waste of editor's times. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Follow the usage of reliable sources. Also, the Trends and Insights data suggest that this authoritative usage has become the most common name, and is only becoming more so. I remember during the last RM, some user said that they would only reconsider their opposition to "Myanmar" if the government becomes a liberal democracy. (This political reasoning appears to lurk behind users' assertions against the evidence that "Myanmar" is the "common name".) However, the politicking about the name by Western governments is rapidly changing in response to the 2011–2012 Burmese political reforms (e.g., Australia[12]). Shrigley (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

So one foreign minister uses the term and suddenly its rapidly changing situation. I see they have not changed what they put on their website [13] BritishWatcher (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually came here looking to "Burma-ize" some of the articles that still had Myanmar names. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Did no one notice the warning at the top of the edit page: Please note Discussions of the current title should be kept at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 22:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves go on the talk page of the main article that is getting moved. This article has more watchers too. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A notification was placed at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. In any case, that page is probably not on a lot of watchlists, because Burma/Myanmar itself is just a redirect to Burma. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Indifferent. Myanmar is now a well used term. Far more than it was last year at the time of the previous move request. But, Burma is also well used. Particularly in academic departments and in British, Australian, and Thai media. Which is the "common name" is probably a toss up. --regentspark (comment) 23:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support per everything I've written in past discussions on this. Myanmar is at least as common as Burma if not more so. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support based on Trends and Insight data. High time to move it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - It is a shame that we would seek to appease a regime by renaming this article to comply with their demands. Of course if they are successful in their attempts to bully people into not using the name i guess it will no longer be the "commonname" and will have to be changed, but at present they have been unsuccessful. If in the future the situation changes, then so be it. but there are plenty of sources such as the BBC and Guardian for quick examples which use it. Will link more sources in the morning. it is a great shame this new RM has been opened, and it is most unfortunate we have a biased Request for comment which benefits those seeking change, as at present only one side of the argument has been put and its at the very top. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Country names change all the time and often the regimes are less than perfect. Opinions on the regime are POV and should be irrelevant to the decision. Without looking can you say if perfect regimes came up with the following names: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Ghana, Malawi, Mali or Zimbabwe? And that's just a selection of African countries. As for the BBC their usage is more mixed - during the Olympic opening ceremony Myanmar turned up under that name and the commentators stated it's formerly Burma in the same way as they did with several other countries whose names have changed without this sort of dispute, rather than a more nuanced explanation such as with "Chinese Taipai" aka Taiwan. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Like i said if the regime was successful then it would become the commonname, but that has yet to happen with numerous sources still using Burma making it the commonname in the English language. The BBC always use burma, but the official name is what takes part in the olympics which is why it is used for that.Their country profile article and most news articles say Burma. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and move to close. I think there was a consensus that this should be revisited no more than annually. In any event, nothing has changed since last week or whenever it was. Formerip (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I am here in response to the request posted at WT:IN for the Indian point of view on this issue. The Indian media (Times of India, Hindustan Times, Zee News, Economic Times), textbooks used in Indian schools and the Indian government (as already mentioned in the article) all use Myanmar rather than Burma. Since common name is determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, the prevalence of Myanmar in Indian sources should be factored into the final consensus. Regards. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• With the largest English speaking population in the world, Indian publications ought to be given due weight. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Aung Sang Suu Kyi and her party uses "Burma". -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support In this case one of the two COMMONNAMEs is simply archaic. The country has been called Myanmar for over thirty years. If Aung Sang Suu Kyi changes it back again, I'll change my mind. Ben MacDui 08:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet she, her opposition, and many media organisations still use Burma. Yet as the source linked above showed they are threatened not to use the term.BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In what way is your second sentence relevant to existing policy? Our attitudes to the government and opposition of the country or their methods should not be factors in this discussion at all. Per 76.189.114.163 below (although more politely) it is dispiriting to so much of this discussion apparently dominated by political posturing. Ben MacDui 15:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And saying "although more politely" is polite? Makes sense. Well, at least you agree with me. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I guess the problem came with British not able to pronounce names in their native tongue, making Bharath as India. but as we know ' India ' is the well known name for the country , I support because having a single article including both the names in them will give clear representation of facts rather than having two different articles for same country, closing is not a solution as it will again delete data out. A merger is best solution. but a single persons or parties statement should not be a deciding factor as with time everything fadesShrikanthv (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What? Merger? There aren't two articles and there is no merger required. Did you post in the wrong place? And both names are mentioned right up front and in the names section. But throughout an article only one name can be continuously used. It's looking more and more like nothing is being done about this ridiculous waste of time rm. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The article clearly states the Myanmar is the official name, but explains that many use Burma still making it the commonname because the military dictatorships change is not recognised or endorsed by many. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I dislike having Wikipedia used as a political pawn. The name of the country is Myanmar; I see no valid argument other than a political statement about the current governing regime, which has been there for decades. -11:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Suu Kyi, who as of July 3 was still showing grit in the face of the regime's continued thuggery on this issue: "The State Law and Order Restoration Council...didn’t bother to consider what the public opinion about the new name was. They didn’t show any respect to the people.”[14]. Usage in the U.S. is evenly split, according to Insights. I note that the bug above specifies that the article be written in British English. British usage is overwhelmingly "Burma", as you can see here. GBooks is well over 2-1 Burma, according to this ngram. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends the World Factbook for "country names," and this source gives "Burma." Kauffner (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• The AP Stylebook, which has recommended using Burma since 2006, is more pertinent to this discussion. Also, the Ngram Viewer is very inaccurate and doesn't show tell us anything about usage after 2008. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Who says AP is "more pertinent" than Chicago? WP:MOS recommends Chicago and doesn't even mention AP. The link you give is about OCR problems with pre-1800 works. Kauffner (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pre-1800 and even late-1900 articles can be mistaken for 2000 decade works. And what about re-prints? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It leaves a rather sour taste in the mouth that wikipedia would capitulate by appeasing a regime that is using clear threats and intimidation to try and prevent the use of the common english language name Burma. This article has been at this location for years and if it is changed will have massive implications for use of the name throughout wikipedia. Im not entirely sure this out of the blue RM to last just 7 days is a reasonable way of determining something with serious implications for 100s of other articles and usage in articles, not to mention the success for a regime intent on wiping out a name they dislike. Despite clearly failing to accomplish their aims as the opposition still call it Burma along with so many media sources and some of the main english speaking governments. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The only reason it has been at this location for a few years is a highly contentious RM that took place before there was a proper review process. Just about everything since then has ended in "no consensus" which just builds on the mess. And political opinions about the regime should be irrelevant to determining the best location for the article - the fact that so many of the Oppose !votes raise political matters is telling. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

We must go by what is the commonname, i believe Burma is still the common English language name despite attempts by a regime to prevent that being the case. Whilst the decision should be based on policy such as going with the commonname rather than the official name, it is impossible to ignore the political dimension to this considering just over a month ago people were being threatened by the regime for using the name Burma. No matter what peoples motives and reasonable positions, there can be no doubt that a name change favours the regime and goes against the opposition and people. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Timrollpickering is right. "Per Suu Kyi" is not a valid argument. This is not a political forum. Please restrain yourself from ascribing political motives or intentions to fellow editors. That is very unproductive because it detracts from the real encyclopedic issues which we must discuss here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's perfectly correct, but let's not be naive. What's being discussed is essentially a political question about whether the junta has the right to rename the country. That's true for both sides. Even once everyone has been persuaded to wear a Google n-gram fig-leaf, we will still only be engaged in an exercise of counting fig-leaves. Formerip (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Both names are equally common (give or take a source or three). The question boils down to what the consensus political belief or personal preference is. No point in pretending otherwise and generating long lists of who uses what name. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I specifically said we must go by policies and follow things like Commonname, something i believe is still Burma. I was not trying to claim anyone had bad motives, its why i said no matter what motives and reasonable positions people have. My point simply was its impossible not to recognise this is a very politically sensitive issue and if the name of the article is changed, it favours the regime over the people and opposition who are threatened by that regime to not use the name burma but still do. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clearly still known as Burma to most except for the totalitarian regime in charge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose news orgs seemed split, but most countries (especially western, English-speaking ones) use Burma. So let's keep it here. Hot Stop 19:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Most of our wikipedia users have heard of Burma but not Myanmar. Burma has wider coverage in books than Myanmar.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Heavens no. If we don't go along with the Ivory Coast government's request to use Côte d'Ivoire, we certainly shouldn't take directions from the Burmese junta. A reading of Names of Burma provides plenty of sources that use either form, so I don't buy an argument based on a list of the sources that use Myanmar. While I agree that discussing the political motives of editors is quite counterproductive here, I would argue that it is impossible to separate politics from this issue: the use of Burma or Myanmar is a political statement, and inasmuch as we must make such a choice, it's a clear one to me. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe we should consider revisiting Ivory Coast, then? In my opinion, WP:COMMONNAME should lean towards the official name when the common name is disputed; other than that, naming should have nothing to do with the politics of the country in question. If the government of Stanistan suddenly decides to call itself "The Most Serene Grand Federal Monarchical Republican Co-Operative Oligarchial States of North Stanleyistan," the article should remain at "Stanistan", as the official name is not commonly used. However, if the government decides to change the name to "Stanleystan", a long-standing historical name for their nation, and the name "Stanleystan" is used in all official English-language government correspondence, increasingly adopted by the international news media, and used in international organization such as the UN, but remains about equally or slightly-less used than "Stanistan", the dispute should be resolved by favoring the official name, and moving the article from "Stanistan" to "Staneleystan." After all, who are we to tell the people of Stan(ley/i)stan what to call their country? Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. With mixed media usage it is difficult to justify a change to the status quo. It's worth noting that this dispute relates specifically to the English name of the country: the native language's name for the country does not appear to be in dispute. Thus, the usage of English-speaking governments is relevant, although of course it should be just one of many considerations. —WFC— 22:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved Marcus Qwertyus's comment here: The result of the proposal was This has been withdrawn. Clearly this topic is too political to discuss in any meaningful way. Thanks to all those who didn't let personal convictions get in the way of improving Wikipedia. You know who you are. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reopened the discussion to allow it to continue. Political preferences of Wikipedia's editors should not be allowed to undermine encyclopedic integrity. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 02:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You've missed the point, political preferences are the only way to choose between the two titles.

• Oppose (strongly), as per common name. Myanma is the official name since 1948, but in English we always used Burma, even after 1989 (when "R" was adde to the name). On Italian wiki has recently been decided to use the Italian exonym "Birmania" as per WP:commonname and to avoid any political position using a name which a dictatorship tried to impose abroad. --Theirrulez (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am completely neutral on this issue and only want to see the title be whatever is encylopedically correct, with no bias and no political considerations. How or why the country's name was changed from Myanmar, or who changed it, should absolutely not be a factor in this debate. Also, the literal definitions of the two names should not be considered at all; whether they are precisely the same or not should never be a factor in this discussion. The only thing that matters is: What is the current name of this country? Whenever I see disputes about article titles I always like to do both a Google search and a Google News search - particularly with subjects that are in the news alot - so I can see how many results there are for each option. The Google News search is always the most telling. Here's what I found. Google search: Myanmar 319,000,000 and Burma 111,000,000. Google News search: Myanmar 194,000 and Burma 37,100. Clearly, this has been a very contentious issue here, and in the world, for a very long time. Has everyone read Names of Burma? By the way, I noticed that the title at the top of the infobox there is "Burma (Myanmar)". But the reverse is shown in Flag of Burma, which uses "Myanmar (Burma)" in the infobox. So is a compromise possible? Would anyone be satisfied if this article's title were changed to "Myanmar (Burma)" or "Burma (Myanmar)"? Keep in mind, though, if this article's title is changed, then it will also have to be changed in all of the many other Burma articles. If I were allowed to choose any title I wanted, right now I would say "Myanmar (Burma)". If I was forced to choose between Burma and Myanmar, I would choose Myanmar, based on both Google searches. If anyone can convince me in one or two sentences why I should change from "comment" to "support" or "oppose", I will be happy to do so. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am unaware of any articles that use curly brackets to indicate Wikipedia doesn't give preference to either. Maybe it is time to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to display the title as Burma/Myanmar without actually moving the page. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment - as it has always been on this article and is evidenced by almost every single oppose vote, there is no regard for Wikipedia's policies; this is only a political question for those who oppose the change to the most common name, Myanmar. I despise these type of shenanigans. It uncovers one of most glaring weaknesses of Wikipedia. It is not what is best or in keeping with policies, but it is what the most rabid group screams the loudest. Every two-bit, political agenda rules any discussion and good sense and forum polices are discarded because some group hates the "regime", the "junta", etc. It richly earns Wikipedia's disrespect by academia and will continue to do so until topics are approached from an objective position rather than those pushed by agenda, emotion, and silliness. -^StormRider 07:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What a load of bunk This is completely false and WP:SOAPBOXING to boot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the naming issue, please remember your wikiquette. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I was very close to simply removing SR comments as soapboxing and mean. These types of comments are routinely removed as not being constructive. Instead I left it but made sure to note it's falsehood and policy skirting. I nonetheless changed the wording. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per English-speaking countries Google Insights and Google Trends data and the uptick for Burma in the most recent data. Mark Hurd (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Regarding the use of various Google searches etc. There is a basic problem here that you can get different results depending on what exact search you run (itself a sure sign that majority usage is unclear. So, for example, as user above point to Google Search and Google News results in support of Myanmar. This is fair enough for starters, but if Google Scholar or Google Books had been used, the result would have come down in favour of Burma.

What's more there are general reliability problems with any of these methods. There is no easy way to filter out non-English sources, sources about unrelated subjects written by Mrs Burma or Mr Myanmar, sources that discuss at length why the use of "Burma" is wrong, sources that are discussion forums, blogs etc.

A good tool to use is Google Insights. This allows you to choose a time-frame, so you can filter out sources that are too old to be reliable as to usage right here and now. Better still, it allows you to filter according to the country from which the source originates, so you can cut out all the noise of sources from non-English speaking countries.

Here are the results for the last twelve months for the main countries where English is widely spoken (BTW, you have to login to Google to see numbers):

Australia

Canada

India

Ireland

New Zealand

South Africa

United Kingdom

United States

I don't know if I need to say much more, but I think these results suggest quite strongly that Myanmar is not more commonly used that Burma, at least in sources within the English-speaking world. You can also tweak the results yourself if you like, in order to specify a different timeframe or restrict results to news sources. Formerip (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but even your own sources show that, at most, Burma is about even in usage compared to Myanmar. The Google News results tell the story... 200,000 results for Myanmar, 40,000 for Burma. That covers all the recent news coverage, which is exactly what tells us what the common usage is. So a quarter million results by news sources, with 200,000 for Myanmar. That gives a very clear indication of what the preference is. And that's what this discussion is all about... common usage. And of course a general Google search doesn't tell which sources are reliable and which aren't, but the key point is that it's an apples-to-apples comparison. 300,000,000 results for Myanmar and 100,000,000 for Burma. So even if you wipe out 75% of the results for Myanmar, you also have to wipe out 75% of the results for Burma. It's seems to be extremely clear evidence as to where the common usage is. and if you research the topic of the name usage controversy... there's little disagreement that Myanmar is overwhelmingly the preferred usage among the media worldwide, even if there are certain areas of the world that still choose to use Burma. But they are the minority. So your argument not only didn't push me towards Burma, it actually pushed me towards being confident that Myanmar is the way to go with this article's title. Sorry. In any case, I think the best title for this article would be "Myanmar (Burma)". Otherwise, just Myanmar. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the part about wiping out 75%, and your first sentence misses that I haven't actually claimed COMMONNAME for either Burma or Myanmar. What I am saying is that there is no clear winner.

What you are missing is that a regular Google search returns a lot of unhelpful results - perhaps most significantly sources that are not in English. There's no reason to suppose that this is "apples to apples", if I am understanding that right. Insight helps to deal with this by allowing you to focus on recent results from particular countries. Formerip (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 75%, you claimed that just because there's a certain amount of results for a particular search it doesn't tell which are reliable in terms of determining common usage. And my point is that that flaw applies to both names being searched... Burma and Myanmar. So, yes, of course a Google search returns a lot of unhelpful results. But it returns a lot of unhelpful results for both names. ;) So it's an irrelevant consideration, especially when Myanmar has 300,000,000 results and Burma has only 100,000,000. If it were even somewhat close then there's no case to be made for either. But Myanmar clearly is the common English usage. And the only thing that's important in this discussion are the English results because we are talking about the article title for the English Wikipedia. Article titles here are based on the most common English usage. Period. Myanmar is the English name for the country now (whether we like how it got the name or not) and common usage has now clearly shifted to Myanmar. But, again, I think the article title should be "Myanmar (Burma)" because Burma still has significant usage even if it's in the minority now. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Myanmar (Burma) is not going to work. Neither is Burma (Myanmar) so it is a waste of time proposing them. The reality is that both statements "Myanmar is more common than Burma" as well as "Burma is more common than Myanmar" are equally wrong. Both titles are legitimate and arguing that one is more common than the other is mere useless pedantry. Apparently we're not ready to change the title as yet (though that time will come soon methinks) and Marcus had the right idea when he closed the discussion. Sometimes it is just better to leave well alone. --regentspark (comment) 02:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Though I prefer Myanmar, I find the title Burma (Myanmar) Myanmar (Burma) to be an acceptable compromise for the time being, given that the discussion above has not yielded consensus in favour of either titles. The discussion appears to have devolved into whether the current government in the SE Asian country has political legitimacy or not – which should be a non-issue around deciding a title for an encyclopedia article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC) (amended 03:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

@RegentsPark... People stating their good faith opinions on a contentious issue are never "a waste of time." So only opinions that agree with yours should be allowed? Please just state your opinion relating to the issue and leave out the insults. And it's interesting that you say using both names in the title is a waste, when a number of the articles relating to this country do in fact use both names in their infobox titles, such as Flag of Burma, Politics of Burma, Constitution of Burma and others. Obviously, if there's a huge debate among two names, and both sides have good arguments, suggesting that both be used is not an illogical suggestion. So, all you did was put down some suggestions and gave no reasons why the current title should remain, other than "it is just better to leave well alone." First, it's not "well," which is obvious by the big debate. Second, we don't just leave things the way the are simply because that's how it is. It's not how this project's community works. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the question of legitamicy of the current government has nothing to do with how we title the article, in fact our policies forbid us to do so. Our only concern is international usage. Agathoclea (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose and speedy close – the name change was already debated less than a year ago. This is English WP, and all western, English-speaking countries refer to it as Burma. There's no reason why the country should be referred to by a name instituted by a totalitarian dictatorship with no legitimacy in the eyes of the English-speaking Western world. This is evident as it was Aung San Suu Kyi and her party that told other countries to call it Burma, not Myanmar. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2012. (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the contention that "all western, English-speaking countries refer to it as Burma" is simply untrue. Even the United Nations now officially uses the name Myanmar. Many may be angered by the way the name came about, but as encylopedia editors we cannot, and must not, take personal feelings into consideration when deciding the article's title. So subjective comments such as, "There's no reason why the country should be referred to by a name instituted by a totalitarian dictatorship with no legitimacy in the eyes of the English-speaking Western world" have no place in this discussion (as much as the point may be true to many people). Just because something is "evident" to one person, doesn't mean it's evident to everyone else. But it's a moot point anyway, because our personal feelings are irrelevant. As Agathoclea appropriately stated above, Wikipedia's "policies forbid us to do so." The only issue at hand is common usage. As far as media usage, 84% of the current English results on Google News are for Myanmar: 212,000 for Myanmar and 39,300 for Burma. Clearly, this a huge debate both here and worldwide. Therefore, I cannot understand how anyone can reasonably say they are a "strong" support or oppose, or especially how they can recommend a speedy end to this meaningful and important discussion. I really think everyone should seriously consider simply using both names in the article title; either "Burma (Myanmar)", "Myanmar (Burma)", "Burma/Myanmar" or "Myanmar/Burma". --76.189.114.163 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Our guidelines do not recommend Google News since it includes numerous non-English sources. For the last two years, Highbeam has 13,243 news stories for Myanmar, 8,727 for Burma. There is no basis to prefer media sources to GBooks, which shows a strong preference for "Burma". Kauffner (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

First, please cite the guidelines that you claim do not recommend Google News. Second, the search was limited to English-only sources. Third, media sources do indeed establish common usage. Fourth, by your own admission, Myanmar is more commonly used than Burma via Highbeam: 60% for Myanmar, 40% for Burma. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support as Myanmar is the modern name, the official name, and is the more common, as seen by it having triple the Google hits from Burma. Also, I dislike that the numerous people stating that the reason, the only reason they give, that we should call it Burma is because the opposition (in other words, minority) leader calls it that. Thunderstone99 (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason why the opposition leader is mentioned is because this is a regime that threatens people not to using the name Burma. I dont think such behaviour should be rewarded, and the fact that despite such threats the name Burma is still heavily used including by the opposition is significant. We have to go by what is the most common name in English speaking world, and the fact that the main English speaking governments listed above all use Burma, the fact sources such as the BBC, use burma justifies it remaining at the status quo which has lasted for many years, especially as a change will have implications for 100s of other articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support as WP:COMMONNAME based on current usage in English language sources. Agathoclea (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support based on WP:COMMONNAME and all my comments above. However, I'd prefer "Myanmar (Burma)" or "Myanmar/Burma." The bottom line is that although Burma still has a lot of usage in certain parts of the world, the more common English usage between the two names is now clearly Myanmar. And the United Nations officially uses Myanmar. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Strongly - 1) this shouldn't even be listed again as we just went through this... it should be rapidly closed, and 2) the sources do not support a move based on common English usage and US, UK, Aussie and Canadian gov't usage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Burma" is still the common name. mgeo talk 05:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Burma and Myanmar are both common names, so WP:COMMONNAME is not part of the equation. "Common name" does not mean "most common name." --Jiang (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If they are both commonnames and this is not about which is the most common, why change this article title which has been at the status quo for years, with all the massive implications it will have for 100s of other articles titles aswell as text. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The current article title at "Burma" came after a move in October 2007, which was based on politics that lacked consensus. Go up to the archives and look at it. The closing remarks were: "The result of the proposal was Move to Burma. There are equally valid arguments on both sides of the debate: a significant majority of editors prefer Burma though, according to the "principle of least astonishment". I suppose that there's an emotional level of revolt towards the junta involved, and that "Myanmar" would likely be accepted per similar precedents if there's a democratic government. Oh well." It was changed based on majority vote that was based on politics. Look at the archives since then. Since then, a proposed change back to Myanmar has been proposed periodically for years. Backlash was so high that a separate talkpage was created to hold it all. But the move requests and arbitrations have never moved the article back because the result has always been "no consensus"---and even though the article was moved without consensus before, Wikipedia isn't likely to allow such a thing again, anytime soon. I guess what I'm saying is, you may not want to bring up the topic of status quo. It's sort of been a source of instability, a wound that's been festering since 2007. ;) -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this is a complete misreading of WP:COMMONNAME ("The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." [emphasis mine]). --BDD (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; setting aside (with great difficulty) my personal distaste for using the name a few lunatics foisted on us, there's also the fact that Burma is still the most common and easily recognizable name. Books I've read on the subject almost always refer to it as Burma (I can give specific titles if requested), and the BBC and the NYT still use Burma (demonstrative, not exhaustive, examples). And as a small bit here that's worth noting; Burma is the English version of Bamar, which is how the people currently living in Burma referred to their country until the government started their little crusade. That the change is almost entirely unnatural and forced doesn't lend it any credence. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Both are common names, but "Myanmar" is the official name of the country as decided by the ruling government. This should not turn into a debate about the political of the "naming" dispute. In any case, the word "Burmese" refers to one particular ethnicity while the word "Myanmar" is generally applicable to all citizens. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a comment on your !vote but Burmese and Myanmar refer to exactly the same set of people. Both are derived from the dominant Myanma or Bamar ethnic group and both are used for all Burmese people. --regentspark (comment) 16:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

To expand a bit on what Regentspark is saying, Myanmar is derived from Myanmasa, which is an invented formal term for the informal (and in Burmese, vernacular) name Bamar. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Karthikndr, do you recognise the tension between the first two sentences of your vote? Formerip (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support as always, in consideration of the various sources listed in the request, with admitted bias for the global media which has leaned toward "Myanmar" for years, and especially now that apparently the recent Olympics also used the name Myanmar. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—WP:COMMONALITY and WP:RETAIN seem to indicate that we should leave it here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know we had that guideline. But, yes, COMMONALITY should be a chief consideration here. Formerip (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This issue is appears to be rather contentious, and as such I would avoid any sort of speedy close before the discussion has fully run its course. With regards to the name, this is yet another example of the many debates caused by WP:COMMONNAME, which might be lessened or avoided altogether if guidelines were changed to favor the country-in-question's official English name when the article name is disputed. That being said, in my experience the two names are used about equally in global English-language media; Myanmar tends to be more common in official usage (itself a fairly recent trend, if I'm not mistaken), but Burma largely remains the most common in day-to-day conversation. That being said, while the latter is easier to understand for the reader (familiarity is likely greater, as well as no confusion going from Burma -> Burmese), the former is increasingly gaining prominence in international usage; as several readers have noted. Therefore, I am presently neutral, but am leaning towards a weak keep. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support—Myanmar is the official name decided upon their government, even on most recently printed maps the name is Myanmar. --Farah Desai Khan** (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, Myanmar does seem to have greater usage than Burma, although this is tricky to evaluate because of regional differences (e.g., the UK seems to use "Burma", India seems to use "Myanmar", etc). It is a bit dismaying that some users here seem to be arguing from moral grounds or personal distaste, as if it is our job to teach dictators a lesson. Having said that, however, the political reform process in the country is evolving, which means that anything decided here may end up being overtaken by events. Given the political component to the Burma/Myanmar naming dispute, a political reconciliation may end up resolving the naming dispute as a side effect. So it would not be too terrible if there was a "no consensus" retention of the status quo with a "wait and see" outlook towards the future, as long as it is without prejudice to specialized contexts such as sports where the "Myanmar" usage is firmly established (e.g., Myanmar at the Olympics), and without closing off the possibility of revisiting the issue soon if the political situation evolves. This should have been moved to Myanmar already some years ago, and should still be, but under the current circumstances there is less urgency. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering those regional variations you mention, it is rather unfortunate that you chose to advertise this requested move on certain pages such as the notice board for Indian related topics, and other such locations from the region. Clearly helping to stack this vote one way from that regional prospective rather than from overall English language usage around the world. Clearly disproportionatly benefiting one point of view. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute... that's not true is it? I assume if PTA put it on any Asian nation pages, that he also put it on the British, Canadian and Aussie wiki pages as well? Considering that it's the English source views that matter that certainly wouldn't be kosher. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

They posted on the politics, geography, and central locations like village pump. But it was only locations in the region like India/China etc that were also advertised too. Clearly something that would favour the commonname in Asia rather than Europe, North America etc. Heres one. [15]. Im not suggesting any intentional foul play, i just feel its sadly helped assist one side when clearly there are such regional differences. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Holy moly... I checked it out and you're correct. Looks like intentional manipulation to me. possible ignorance from a long-time editor but he'd have to explain the rational. Either way it has skewed the results (which as expected weren't really going anywhere). Maybe that's even more impetus to close this thing today or tomorrow as no consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, how about a little WP:AGF? I specifically chose the WikiProject talk pages of those countries which border Burma/Myanmar, namely India, China, Thailand and Laos (I forgot Bangladesh), along with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) itself and some WikiProjects related to broad regions of Asia. It did not occur to me that Indian usage favored Myanmar, nor that Thai usage favored Burma; I learned that from reading the comments here. For the last Perth RM a couple of months ago, I did post to various WikiProjects of Europe, Asia and the Americas in order to gather as broad and diverse participation as possible, but got some feedback that it was too off-topic. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough with the explanation... it should be chalked up to ignorance of the situation as opposed to a conscious effort. It still skews things a heap, but we are caught in a loop anyway here in the 8th day of an odd rm. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Im not questioning anyones motives, i simply believe it is notable and could have had an impact on this RM, that it was advertised to one region of the world, whilst other regions wikiprojects where Burma is even more common, were not notified. I did not mention it at the time when i saw those posts, but it was just the reference to the regional differences that tied in with the point. Clearly with the Indian noticeboard being notified but not the UK one, that could inadvertently benefit the "support" side, as Burma is overwhelmingly the name used in the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support because I feel, based on all the information that has been cited in this RM and the previous two, that Myanmar is the common name for the country. I'd also add that Singapore virtually never uses Burma, whether colloquially or in the media. And if someone claims again that Singapore is not a 'western' English-speaking country and so should not count (as I believe was brought up in the last RM) then someone can point me to the policy that supports that statement. -ryand 02:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean like this story in the biggest English publisher in Singapore? And remember that the media is Singapore has to be careful in what words they choose. There is a lot of pressure put on editors to ensure that published articles follow the government's way of thinking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fyunck, I have been observing your conduct on this page and I believe it is high time that you limited your political commentary on this project. Your comments alluding to the incompetence or corruption in parts of the world which you don't belong to are not only condescending but disruptive given your habit of commenting under as many threads as possible. Please consider this as a warning. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 04:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is a warning then you need to please take it to my talk page and explain it to me in detail about all my disruptive political statements and my bad habit of commenting under as many threads as possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Myanmar (Burma) is okay as well. It's time for a change, ignoring a name that is used just as much if not more is a hinderance to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshMartini007 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Good news, everyone! I can finally put the issue to rest by sharing what librarians think.

• Library of Congress Subject Headings use Burma and derived forms exclusively.
• WorldCat, the world's largest library catalog, gives 94,513 results for Burma and 18,739 for Myanmar. Comparing works from 1989 onward (the year the regime declared the name change), it's 44,923 to 15,971 in favor of Burma. Now we can finally move on! --BDD (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The figures from the worlds largest library catalog of "72,000 libraries in 170 countries" seems significant. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Nearly every search engine gives wildly imprecise estimates of the number of search returns. See: WP:SET#What a search test can do, and what it can't. In addition, the name we choose should reflect current English usage trends and not just those used in the years 1989-2012. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support under the principle that since both names in contention are common (neither one is overwhelmingly more common than the other) then we should fall back to using the official English name of the entity, which happens to be "Myanmar". --Polaron | Talk 20:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If neither is overwhelmingly more common than the other... why change a title that has been in place 5 years with MASSIVE implications for dozens of other articles and content changes for 1000s of articles? People seem to be ignoring the major implications of if this name is changed despite some of those who support change conceding that there is no clear evidence that Myanmar is the far more common name. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - It's the legal name and I prefer the law to jungle rules. 88.81.100.235 (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Jungle rules? Since when is going with what people believe is the common english language name "jungle rules". some of the practices that have taken place with the 1 sided canvassing which has favoured the "support" side perhaps might be viewed more in that way. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing issue - Whilst i do not claim any intentional foul play, as i mentioned above i am concerned that certain wikiprojects were advertised to which will have clearly favoured the move side in this Requested Move. The main Burma talkpages were rightly notified as were Village pump, Wikiproject Geography and Wikiproject Politics.

However the following locations were also canvassed - Wikiproject Asia, Wikiproject Thailand, Wikiproject Laos, Wikiproject China, Noticeboard for Indian related topics, WikiProject East Asia, Wikiproject Southeast Asia

Whilst it was unintentionally, this clearly favours one side in this RM over the other, considering the most widespread use of Burma is countries such as USA, Australia, Canada, NZ and the UK. In particular in the United Kingdom, the overwhelming majority of usage is Burma not Myanmar, but clearly English language users from other parts of the world than Asia have been disadvantaged by the canvassing highlighted. I believe this is potentially significant considering how close the present vote is which shows there is a clear lack of consensus for a move even with the one sided canvassing. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - It may be valid to exclude all those opposing votes that are based strictly on political reasons. Wikipedia does not care about politics and should never be used to suport private political agendas. Those who seek to abuse Wikipedia's strict commitment to objectivity should be invited to use their personal blogs rather than allowed to vote and blatantly declare their personal agenda. -^StormRider 15:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

But the issue of the opposition using Burma which may be deemed a "political reason" along with countries governments such as USA, UK, Canada, NZ and Australia, is in fact about demonstrating the commonname, just as when those who mention it being the "official name" are infact talking about a political issue too. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. There's no such thing as an apolitical choice in this discussion. Suppressing one side because of politics would be rather abhorrent on the part of the closing administrator. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You may want to remove Canada as a "Burma supporter" it is very rare that we hear Burma both on the news and colloquially. JoshMartini007 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada use it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Also.. Canadian Friends of Burma and the The Prime Minister of Canada saying Burma in the Canadian Parliament earlier this year. The Canadian open parliament website finds 607 results for burma and 85 results for Myanmar. I find 721 results for Burma on the Globe and Mail, that is less than the usage of Myanmar with 1,870 results However I also saw a couple of article by the Globe and Mail (could be a lot more if i looked longer) which use Burma in the title, and say it is better known as Burma in the text [16][17] despite using Myanmar throughout the rest of the article which sort of demonstrates its more about policy of the org, rather than commonname Burma which they put in the title on some articles. I think that shows Burma is not as rare in Canada as you seem to think. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My assumption was correct - all of the following additional Globe and Mail articles specifically say "better known as Burma" in the article..[18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29]. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not correct to assume every vote is political in nature. That has more to do with your perception than reality. I do not have a dog in this race; however, it find it silly that a name so common as Myanmar is also the real name of a country and has been for decades Wikipedia's article on the country has been run roughshod by individuals who ONLY have a political agenda for retaining an incorrectd name. I don't know Myanmar, don't have relatives, don't know too much of the history, and I don't care. What I care about is Wikipedia, its reputation, and doing things properly. This has been a farce for too long and it needs to stop. The name of the country is Myanmar; case closed. There is no argument greater than that, none! Arguing about what is more common when it is blatantly evident that everyone knows what Myanmar is senseless. -^StormRider 06:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If numerous sources from throughout the English speaking world did not continue to call it Burma, then of course there would be no case. If tomorrow the Burmese opposition (who represent the majority of the people, remember this is a dictatorship at present), the foreign offices of the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and state department of the USA.. along with the BBC, Guardian, and numerous other organisations listed above from around the English speaking world that provide huge amounts of reliable sources for wikipedia stopped calling it Burma.. then so should we and id support a move to Myanmar. But they dont. Rightly or wrongly.. a huge number of sources that are deemed reliable call it Burma. And as my example about the Globe and Mail above showed, even ones that use "Myanmar" more of the time, can concede on a dozen occasions, Burma is the better known/commonname. And wikipedias policy is clear, Commonname is more important than official names. Its why almost no country in the world on wikipedia is at its official name, instead we go by common names. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

These are great POLITICAL reasons and have nothing to do with Wikipedia. We do NOT take sides and we could care less what the US Department of State chooses to do. The name is Myanmar and it is still just as common, if not more common, than Burma. Burma does NOT exist. We don't call the US the Colonies regardless of how much the British would like to still use the term. Again, politics mean nothing to Wikipedia or at least it is not supposed to direct our actions and our reasoning.-^StormRider 18:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How do expect "We do NOT take sides...Burma does NOT exist" to be taken seriously? Formerip (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be incorrect. We go by what English sources are calling the country, and sources like the UK, US, Canadian, and Australian gov't are extremely significant at the English wikipedia. They are certainly not the only sources we look at but we do not ignore them by any stretch of the imagination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Although i should add, i would fully support the introduction to this article saying "Burma officially Myanmar..." rather than just saying also Myanmar. Whilst i believe the article title should be the common english language name which is Burma still, the introduction should be very clear like other country articles opening sentences, what the official name of the country is. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Republic of the Union of Myanmar, commonly known as Myanmar and Burma," would be better since by some convention or agreement, most some place articles go by official name at first mention. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose reasons already given by everyone else so I won't rehash them76.226.205.159 (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Support for following reasons:

• (1)Official Name: With effect from 1989, the official name of the country has been "Union of Myanmar", and with effect from May 10, 2008, it has been "Republic of the Union of Myanmar". Sure, Aung Sang Suu Kyi and other groups may prefer "Burma", but they are not in power currently and they do not have the authority to revert the name nor have they even claimed to do so.
• (2) Not Wikipedia's business: I dont think its Wikipedia's business to sit in judgement of the legitimacy of the Junta's decision to rename the country. The fact remains that there is a government in charge of running the country, and regardless of how badly or brutally they are doing it, that is the government and they make the rules of how their country is called. Wikipedia's purpose is not to propagate what its users perceive as democratic ideals however benevolent they may seem. The POV is oozing from many of the Oppose votes above where dislike for the Junta (and its actions) translates to rejection of the name Myanmar. Feel free to dislike the Junta for their brutal rule, but that does not change the official name of the country.
• (3)International Acceptance: The United Nations has accepted the name Mayanmar. All countries in the neighbourhood (China, India, Bangladesh and all countries in the ASEAN) have accepted it. Other Asian countries like Japan, Pakistan, etc have accepted it. European nations like Germany and Norway have accepted it. However, the US, UK and Canada have not. That IMO should not be reason enough unless we are now suggesting that the views of these countries count more than that of the government of country in question, the UN and other countries in the region.
• (4)Current usage: Despite the huge systemic bias arising from the fact that most English language publications come from the US and UK who prefer the name Burma, I'm getting "About 44,900 results" for Burma in Google News, while Myanmar fetches about "About 166,000 results". Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Very well stated. Agreed. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Since Myanmar is in common use in English sources (more than half of the modern ones seem to use it, including most major news outlets), the fact that it's also the official name of the country for the last 20 years should make all the difference. We're not calling Zimbabwe Rhodesia - it really should make zero difference that we've got a bunch of British guys saying they've "always" been calling it Burma. --Helixdq (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would remind editors in this discussion to keep in mind two points:

1. The “Closing discussions” guidelines clearly explain that consensus-building discussions must discard “irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy”. All comments injecting politics as a rationale for the poster’s views should be eliminated from consideration. They clearly violate WP policy.

2. To any editors who have posted an abundance of separate comments in this thread, please read WP:MULTI. It states that editors must “Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts: Readers can read your prior posts, and repeating them, especially lengthy posts, should be strongly discouraged. In some cases, it may be interpreted as an unwillingness to let discussion progress in an orderly manner.” There is one editor who has posted his/her comments 30 times in this thread already. Trying to hammer other editors over the head non-stop with the same comments can be looked upon as being very disruptive. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

1 - So every mention of the fact Myanmar is the official name of the state should rightly be ignored, as WP goes by WP:COMMONNAME. Its also the English language wikipedia, so clearly usage in majority English speaking nations is important along with the numerous English language news sources which have been mentioned. .

2 - I have not repeated large amounts of text over and over again.. I have responded to some specificpoints with sources, sometimes a couple of sentences at a time and talked about WP:COMMONNAME.And several of my posts have been highlighting biased canvassing impacting on this discussion. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Myanmar is the internationally recognised name for the country, including by the United Nations. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with others that it should be Burma (Myanmar). United States Man (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: What would hypothetically have to happen for a consensus to occur? I know it's not a majority vote. Regardless of how the remaining votes go, it seems that there is too much support for both sides for the "c" word to ever happen. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This should be treated as a RFC, rather than a requested move. see Talk:Taiwan/Archive_21#Further_more_discussions_related_to_Requested_Move_.28February_2012.29 on how an even more controversial renaming was handled.--Jiang (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well it has basically been like one with the RFC template added right from the start and it being advertised in a number of places, along with the RM actually being withdrawn by the person that opened it days ago, although the discussion was reopened by someone else without the RM template which might explain why the debate is ongoing as a RFC, rather than being closed almost a week ago as no consensus had it been a standard Requested Move. Id rather see the compromise some have supported of Burma (Myanmar) or Myanmar (Burma) then merely go to Myanmar considering Burma is still in use in many place as the debate has shown. The country is clearly heading down a path that will determine what is is known as over the coming months as political reforms continue. Just today the news has been reporting about the fact censorship of all media inside the country has been ended [30].So unlike the situation with Taiwan and China a real political solution maybe coming in time that heavily swings the situation, either with Burma becoming more used as the censorship ends and the country continues its path towards democracy, or as the opposition, media and certain English speaking governments change to using Myanmar no longer questioning its legitimacy. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support A country, like any reasonably-minded person, has the right to choose an own name, should it elect so for any reason. If Burma-name supporters manage to reverse that government stance, it will become Burma again. But for now they style themselves Myanmar. Remember why Belgium, the previous colonial power, accepted the name Zaire without any official fuss. Wakari07 (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support proposed compromises I would equally be in favor of either "Burma (Myanmar)" or "Myanmar (Burma)". Zaldax (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - At this point, hanging on to Burma is pure revisionism. Myanmar is, for better or worse, the name of the country, and even the WP:COMMONNAME is all but historical contexts. Recognizing this is not an act of supporting a repressive government, it's simply realizing that the facts on the ground have passed Burma by. If, in the future, the government is overthrown, and the people of the country decide to return to Burma, then we can too, but for now, this country is "Myanmar", and we show ourselves to be unprofessional and do no service to our readers by sticking with a name that is now only of historical value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per reasons given by poster Chocolate Horlicks. Would also support, but do not prefer, 'Myanmar (Burma)' as an alternative.--Wolbo (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Per arguments I have cited in past discussions, the country is called Myanmar in much the way Republic of Upper Volta is now Burkina Faso. Indeed many sources continue to use Burma and they do so incorrectly. More precisely, you'll be hard pushed to find any source referring to Burma which is also favourable to the administration - in other words, proponents of Burma call it that as a protest to voice their opposition to the country's politics. Of course, it would have been a totally different story if most world states continued to recognise an ousted regime in operating in exile, but the entire world recognised the governance of the country's junta at every diplomatic level, therefore the "Myanmar vs Burma" debate is anything but linguistic. I agree with one of the remarks listed above that this is merely a name "foisted on us by a few lunatics" but this is the case with all countries past and present, along with their flags, anthems, mottos and other properties. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I direct you to the only authority on the English language worth listening to, Alfred Pennyworth. More seriously, it's the speakers of English who decide what the name of a country in English is, not a government or group of governments. It's not "incorrect" to call a country by the name people know it by, it's communication. People call it Burma ("incorrectly" or not) the article should be titled Burma. In past votes I've said this may change over time as more people get exposed to the name etc, but I didn't mean we should have to have a vote on it every month or two. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by InspectorTiger (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 August 2012‎ (UTC)
  • Comment. Of course it is the speakers of a language that determine a region's name and people may call it Burma or Myanmar. The English name of the country is Union of Myanmar and to call it anything else is the same as referring to Burkina Faso as Republic of Upper Volta. People would indeed do this if media continued to - I am saying that just because the BBC get something hopelessly wrong albeit deliberately to prove a point, it doesn't mean we who know better should follow the erroneous. Furthermore, media are supposed to follow the trends of the masses in language and not the other way round; but when ordinary folk depend on media such as here (most would not know the place otherwise), it awards politically fuelled editors and correspondents free influence. That said, there are enough sources which use Myanmar and nobody can argue that one reliable source is superior to another reliable source. The fact is that BOTH Burma and Myanmar are very widespread in English, it is too close to simply declare one victor because of more citations, so whichever direction this articles goes, it needs extremely good reasoning and as I said, there is unequivocally no language factor that is forcing "Burma" or "Myanmar" on everybody's lips. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Sluggish close. I just found out about this latest round of "discussion" via User:Fyunck(click). Now this talk page has garnered over 200 edits contributing over 80 KB by over 50 users, and I submit that none of it has made the slightest bit of progress towards the goals of this RM/RFC. None of it contains even a hint of a new argument. Not one argument has not been presented in exactly the same way in one of the ten pages of archived discussion and there is no sign of any original approach to any of the responses to these arguments that might give them some relevance to the progress of the debate.

It may be too late for a "speedy" close, but I propose that this farce be put to bed and those involved spared the further tedium it will otherwise surely bring, and I strongly oppose the reopening of this discussion prior to at least 200 edits or 50 users having made edits to Names of Burma, an article which actually contributes a useful public application of knowledge about the details of this naming dispute, yet has had fewer than 40 edits in the ten months since the last Requested Move. What if significant events change the facts of the debate before that milestone? Then there will be plenty to write about on that article. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The mass of comments above with statistics on internet and media usage of the term succeed primarily in one thing: they demonstrate that there is no consensus in the English-speaking world as to what to call this country. A mild balance in one direction or the other in recent media usage is not a particularly compelling reason to take action. Thus WP:COMMONNAME is of little help here, since there is no one clear "winner". Based on WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, as the guideline suggests, we look at recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. Both names are recognizable; I think of Burma as the more recognizable, but perhaps that reflects local conditions and/or the bias of the familiar. Burma, as was pointed out above, edges on naturalness, given that "Burmese" is the clear preferred adjective for the people and the language. Precision is not an issue, nor is concision, and consistency will surely be pursued by whichever camp prevails here. Ultimately, either name is inherently political, and there is no way around this; calling it "Burma" or "Myanmar" is making a political statement, and even "Burma (Myanmar)" or "Myanmar (Burma)" wouldn't solve the problem as it is clearly prioritizing through order. The only way around this would be to take the suggestion that we come up with some arbitrary new name for the region. Given that the article is already at Burma, moving it to Myanmar is a political act, even if disguised as a purely utilitarian one relating to usage (and I find those arguments thin). If we must make a statement, as it looks like we can't avoid doing, we should make the statement that the article makes now. Leave it where it is. Chubbles (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • But Myanmar is the official name of the country, and the more common result. Whether you like the regime or not, Myanmar is the official and legal name of the country. TJ Spyke 00:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support the move, as I always have. This article should never have been at the "Burma" title. Its usage is anachronistic and weirdly political. Everyking (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, Google Trends and Google Insight currently show more people searching for Burma than Myanmar (43 to 40).[31] Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Burma is fine; if it works, don't fix it. Warden (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Except no such country exists, "Burma" ceased to exist in 1989. Why not use the correct name of the country and the more common one? TJ Spyke 00:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support With a redirect from Burma to Myanmar. On a personal level, the folks I know who are from Myanmar would rather be introduced as being from Myanmar, not Burma. SarahStierch (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I have nothing to add to what User:P.T. Aufrette said above. (Disclosure: I was invited to comment here by User:Fyunck(click) as someone who has participated in Burma/Myanmar naming discussions in the past.) Robofish (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Burma is the British name. In the US where I live, it's called Myanmar. That's what the country calls itself. So Burma is left over from colonial times. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support The only reason some countries still use the old name of "Burma" is because they oppose the regime of country. If the United Kingdom chose to rename to "fdgodgjsoigj", this problem would exist. Myanmar is the official English name of the country, used by international organizations like the UN, and search results are more common for Myanmar. TJ Spyke 00:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - (1) sources are split on this issue, but it does appear that more news agencies and English speaking governments use Burma that Myanmar. (2) given that it's clearly a close run thing, there is no reason to change the status quo.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Burma is still the common name, even though Myanmar’s been around for decades. We all know how to pronounce Burma, while Myanmar has several pronunciations. The people are called Burmese. Suu Kyi, the country’s most prominent English speaker, says Burma. We live in a political world: moving it would suggest support for the junta. Rothorpe (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Burma is the Common English name of the country. It is referenced in history still very recognizable to people today such as the Burma Road. Japan renamed Iowa Jima, but it will continue to be known as such in the English language. The real name for Japan is Nihon-koku, but we still call it Japan as its English common name. Germany is the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Taiwan is the Republic of China. China is the People's Republic of China. SLORC can change the name of the country, but they can't change the "English Name" of the country. Unless we are going to rename Iwo Jima to Iō-tō. A country has its official name. But to let them dictate an official name in other languages does not make sense. The Russian spelling of the USSR was CCCP. Why are we renaming this article again? Every single argument falls apart when you consider the names of every other country. For some reason the news media is bowing over backwards to allow a country to arbitarily name itself and ignoring common names. And that is enough to change a name in an Encyclopedia? Alyeska (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons already given. The Jade Knight (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Burma" is the name of the country in English. We should no more change it to Myanmar than we should change the title of the article on Germany to Deutschland, or Greece to Hellas. We do not need to respect the wishes of one political faction within the country with regard to usage of a language which is not spoken by a majority of the country. It can be called "Myanmar" on my.wikipedia, and maybe on pc.wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose "Burma" is pretty much the only name I ever hear or see, if Myanmar is used at all it's usually in parentheses after Burma. That would seem to be the more common name as far as I can tell. If readers find it confusing there's always the Names of Burma article to explain it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support for obvious reasons. Also, I live in Northern Thailand and both words are used (by Myanmar citizens), though Myanmar is more common. However, when you go to the border you are applying for a Myanmar visa and entering a country named Myanmar. There is something a bit Orwellian about not accepting a name change of a country, though of course we have always been at war with Oceania. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support The country's name change. It is clear it is not going to be Burma again, due to anti-colonial sentiments that "Burma" is loaded with. We should be up to date with history being made and definitely not decide what name a country should have for them, like in bad old days (colonial era). --Gironauni (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, of course. It is the name of the country. All the rest is politics. Having the article at the name Myanmar does not equate to supporting the current regime. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, Myanmar is the name of the country that the country's government gave. We should respect the country's ruling authorities. Burma was a historical name, and as far as I know, and also as other people above pointed out, various media and authoritative sources including government publications of various other countries did change their reference to the country as "Myanmar". This is also similar to Cote d'Ivoire, whose government specifically requested the international community (all other countries), publishers, and cartographers to use this name (which is French, and the country's official language) instead of Ivory Coast, which is the English translation of the French name. It's important to respect the country's wishes and not call a country (or a person for that matter) a name that it doesn't want to be called. All modern atlas, maps, and globes I've seen has Myanmar now. The example of Taiwan is unusual since the Republic of China lost so much of its territory that it's left with basically only Taiwan, and that it lost UN recognition as "China" due to the unusual insistance of both sides of the Chinese Civil War on the false pretense of One China Policy, it is only known internationally, as well as locally for all practical purposes as "Taiwan", so it just makes sense to call it Taiwan. Mistakefinder (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We just had a MR that decided on 'Burma'. Also, the summary above said 'Burma' is used in the UK and 'Myanmar' in the US, but I live in the US and the normal name of the country here is 'Burma'. — kwami (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I always look what is official in that country, and in this case the official name is Republic of the Union of Myanmar or short Myanmar. Name Burma came from the Union of Burma. Since the official name is Myanmar I support the name change. Also the United Nations uses the Myanmar name, if they use it I think Wikipedia should too. Adrian (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose -- Both names fit WP:COMMONNAME for now, and there's no real NPOV answer to this question at present. But the move, if made, would have knock-on effects that really aren't worth taking on. This whole thing is an energy sink. A review once a year is already too frequent. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the three thousand five hundred discussions we've had over this in the last decade. —Nightstallion 10:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – Both names are in wide use, but "Burma" remains more recognizable. Official doesn't count. Kanguole 11:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, 1) Burma is more universally recognizable 2) there is no reason whatsoever to prefer official names 3) this new discussion follows much too soon upon the last move discussion. older ≠ wiser 11:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMON NAME and WP:COMMONALITY. Trout slap for re-nomming so soon. Try again in a year if the trend continues. Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC).
  
• Oppose Although both names are in wide use, I see nothing in the data presented (and I limit my analysis to that) that conclusively demonstrates the suggested name is more common than the current name, at least not to such an extent to merit a name change.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - Somewhat agree with Stfg about 5 above me. I believe that it is one of those cases where both are plausible and technically correct, but "Burma" remains more known in the English-speaking world in spite of its official renaming, and I don't know a single Burmese restaurant or person in my city (Perth, which has a sizable community due to our geography) referring to themselves as "Myanmarese" or their country as "Myanmar". See e.g. Burmese Association of WA, Australian Anglo-Burmese Society etc. (If you've never tried it, they have awesome food there - imagine pork with mangoes and fried noodles :D ) Subjective, I know, but with Google hits (see an analysis in the next section by someone else) hitting close to 50/50, that may be all we have to go on. Burma has received 260,000 views on Wikipedia, 39,000 of them came through Myanmar. Orderinchaos 13:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:ENGVAR (particularly WP:TIES), we should use the name used by the English-speaking country with the strongest national ties to the subject. That is Great Britain (on the strength of its historical association if not present connections), which has a strong consensus among sources for "Burma". --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose and Move On. Please. Please move on. Beam 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry we dont vote count. We require discussion and your exasperation comments are not conducive to finidng a n alternative resolution. Seems like IDONTLIKEITLihaas (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC).

• Support Burma is NOT the COMMONNAME, it is the western name, in western outlets. Everywhere else in the world it is officially termed Myanmar, with a possible few/couple of mentiones in media. Also per WP:GOOGLEHITS that is not a criteria for encyclopaedic content. It is also the UNofficial name for the country. That said a redirect and mention in the lead of Burma is not out of order.Lihaas (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

When you say it is the "western name", do you mean it is the common name in the western world? That is certainly the case, and its part of the reason why the article title is at its correct location.. the English speaking western world in particular. But its used in other countries that would not fit the bill of "western" and of course it is used by the opposition within the country... they are the reason "the west" continue to call it Burma. If the opposition within burma against the regime called it Myanmar, so would the "western world". BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Survey of opinions - arbitrary break 1

• Support official name per UN is hard to argue against. If and when the junta goes and it reverts to becoming officially Burma, we can move it back. No big deal. per WP:COMMONNAME: "This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." I think the intent of the second sentence is for exactly this type of case. Moondyne (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What the official name is recognised by the UN is irrelevant, nobody is claiming Burma is the officially recognised name of the country. Almost no country on wikipedia is at its official name, instead they are at the commonname. The point is Burma is the common name for people in the English speaking world as reflected by numerous sources from media and english speaking governments such as the USA, Canada, Australia, UK, and New Zealand. We are not merely depending on sources from before the name change which is what that sentence you mention refers to, its the fact english speaking governments, the opposition in the country and numerous reliable sources that help source wikipedia continue to call it Burma. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I always wanted to vote in one of these. --112.203.21.234 (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL :). Note to closing admin: this vote should carry double weight. Formerip (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose BlueMoonlet makes an excellent point regarding WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES. Number 57 08:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Our policy is WP:COMMONNAME, and we even have a page warning against the fallacy of jumping for the WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Yes, the usage of reliable sources are divided, but it seems perverse to seek this move at a time when the trend for "Burma" is already well established & is only growing in all kinds of reliable sources. Wareh (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose With reliable sources divided, "Burma" is surely the most widely recognized name of the country in the English-speaking world; just as far more people understand the name "Greece" than would know where "Hellas" is. Moonraker (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Myanmar is common for most English international speakers around the world. Birmania/e use for most Latin family languages, especially in France, Italy, Romania and Spain. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. A change requires cause tied to changed usage by people, and what has most been cited in support is the new name's presence on lists. And... it is offensive to keep revisiting a topic at will, hoping for some favorable alignment of moon phase with alluring flower scents... Look at User talk:Argyriou. Of the last 3 comments, two are for this burmania. If the move should be permitted, who wouldn't scream if a reverse move request was listed in less than a year? Yet this is the 2nd RM in mere months since a failed one. 3 RMs in less than a year? Shenme (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The RM a few months ago was a non-event, a mere placing of the tag without providing a rationale and it was shut down on procedural grounds. It can hardly count. The previous RM was ten months ago - that is sufficient distance for further discussion, especially when the previous one ended in no consensus. Finally the user talk page in your example is one for somebody who's made less than fifty edits in the last twelve months - naturally the messages pile up. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well this discussion has involved over 80 people and it is very clear that there is no consensus for a change to this article title after 5 years of being at Burma. No new evidence has been produced to justify such a change which will have massive implications for 100s of other articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You've already made that point multiple times; you don't need to keep posting it again and again just to fill up the talkpage. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Tim, I was about to say the same thing. BW, please allow other participants to say what they want. Ultimately, it will be up to the closing administrator to take a fair account of the opinions that have been expressed here. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And i believe Tim has made his point about his views regarding the past RMs and discussions that have taken place. With this RM being dragged out 3 long weeks, its hard to just sit and ignore some of the points being made. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, for all the reasons I've given previously. Tomer^talk 18:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (strong), for the simple reason that most English-speaking people in the world will know that Burma is a country, yet a considerably smaller number will know what Myanmar is (especially in the UK where very few people have even heard of Myanmar). Somebody compared this debate to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, but that is an invalid comparison because no English-speaking people call that country Rhodesia in 2012, and this is all about what the "common name" is (or is supposed to be)! One must put aside any political biases and just accept the fact that Burma is still more widely known than Myanmar. Comment - in addition it should be blatantly obvious by now that a) no useful consensus is going to be reached here, and b) this is just raking over old coals. Close it now and put it out of its misery! C 1 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - do you have any evidence to support that England is so ignorant of world affairs as to support your statement that, "yet a considerably smaller number will know that Myanmar is". Please provide it; according to all the evidence this is just a fantasy used to support your position and has no basis in fact. -^StormRider 13:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! Ever heard of Wikipedia:Assume good faith? You might also read what others write more carefully, for example especially in the UK where very few people have even heard of Myanmar. Let's assume C 1 is a Brit and is not making this up, OK? Your way of approaching his valuable input shows that you're not from the UK because then you'd simply say "that's nonsense". And whatever made you feel that Brits are ignorant of world affairs if they don't know the name Myanmar? Most Brits know much more about what's going on in the world than for example US Americans do. They can't be called ignorant if they know more about the country but often don't know the name M because UK media uses mostly B! --Espoo (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is surely commonsense.. if British people are mostly use to the Government and media sources calling it Burma, not everyone is going to be aware it is also known as Myanmar which can cause confusion. The BBC in almost all of their articles just say Burma, they dont mention Myanmar too. Geography also does not teach the official names of every single country on the planet im afraid. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the reasons above, PLUS: The French Wikipedia page for London is Londres. If Mayor Boris Johnson issued a decree stating the official French name for the city is actually London, should the French change the name of their article? No, they should continue using the common name, which is based upon real world usage. A language is commonly owned by its speakers, not the politicians. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 14:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (strongly). The move proposal naively and inadvertently lists most of the misunderstandings and incorrect reasoning regularly re-used for supporting the move to Myanmar, which naively or intentionally ignore Wikipedia policy at WP:COMMONNAME. All support votes that use these very same arguments should be disqualified because they prove that the voters didn't bother to read up on Wikipedia's article naming policies, purposely pretend they don't know what the policies are, or want to subvert these policies instead of engaging in a fair and open debate on the policies themselves (on Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles, not here). So, contrary to the claims of the move proposal: (i) If the official name is not the same as the most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, Wikipedia policy clearly says that the official name should not be the article title. (ii) It is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy to say that the article name should be based on what has been decided by the ruling government. (iii) The name used by the United Nations is what the ruling government wants - the name used by the UN is in no way proof of international recognition and it says even less about use in reliable English-language sources. Another WP policy ignored by many voters is Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#National_varieties_of_English, which clearly says that the article title should be Burma because Myanmar is used so rarely in the UK that many Brits don't even know what Myanmar is and because this article should use UK English. I'm quite convinced that this debate is restarted at regular intervals because of the following five reasons (of which number 5 is probably the most important), so there should be a ban on move proposals for at least 2 or 3 years to prevent regularly wasting huge amounts of time of serious editors: 1) Many people don't understand that the language and article names used on the English Wikipedia are based on use in reliable English-language sources, i.e. usage in English-speaking countries, not worldwide use by people who use English as a second or third language. 2) Many North-American editors are familiar with both M and B and don't realize that M is rarely used in the UK. 3) Many people enjoy arguing. 4) Many people don't like adhering to policies or don't understand why it's important to do so. Even more people are uninterested in changing the policies they disagree with and instead prefer to rant and rave about individual applications of the policies. 5) Many of the move proposals and support votes are probably due to political reasons; perhaps some editors are even paid by the Burmese government. (You don't see many of the editors i classified under reasons 1, 3, and 4 proposing moving Germany to Deutschland.) Some votes for B are also openly or indirectly influenced by political reasons, but when you look at the discussions caused by UK/US differences, you can see that these generate the most traffic and emotions. Often editors are not even aware that the reason something annoys the hell out of them is because it's not their kind of English and because they often don't even know it's correct English in another English-speaking country (see the equally insane "discussions" i.e. fights and regular waste of time over the/The Beatles). I will not now list the detailed analysis of use in reliable sources i compiled during the last debate, but i will link to that later when i have time to find it. Suffice it to say that it has been clearly proven by me and others that B is much more common in reliable English-language sources, especially (but not only) British ones, and we should not be moving to M unless the BBC and UK newspapers and most other reliable sources including academic publications stop using B. (Only if B were incomprehensible or unused in reliable US or Australian sources would we perhaps have to consider a compromise like Fixed-wing aircraft, in other words a neutral title. But then again, this article is clearly in UK English, so the already existing redirect from Myanmar would be enough even in that theoretical case.) --Espoo (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONALITY. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Res judicata the name change was debated as thoroughly as any issue I can remember in my 7+ years of editing here. If anyone has an argument/point which was *not* already presented in the original debate, please present it and note it as novel. (I will be very surprised) Otherwise we are simply wasting time, rehashing the same tired arguments in the manner of an EU referendum (i.e. voting until a desired answer is achieved)István 01:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing issue?

Between 20:01, 21 August 2012 and 05:10, 22 August 2012, User:Fyunck(click) posted to perhaps a hundred user:talk pages, notifying about this WP:RM. I am not sure whether to applaud him for his initiative, or criticize him for WP:CANVASSING. I myself made efforts on August 8 to widely publicize this RM through RfC (under history/geography and politics/government/law), at Village pump, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject Politics, and the WikiProjects for Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Burma/Myanmar, and its neighboring countries. I believe those steps were justified, to assure a wider and more diverse participation. But it is a bit problematic to post to individual user's talk pages; we must accept good faith that he drew up the list of users fairly.

It is also troubling that he chose to canvas on the WikiProjects for Australia, England, and UK (and only those). It has been widely noted that the UK is an area where "Burma" has wide regional usage. Why not the US and Canada WikiProjects too, for instance? There is an obvious connection between Burma/Myanmar and Asia, where it is located. There is also some connection with the countries that directly border on it. But if you go beyond that, you should try to go global in an evenhanded way. I attempted to do just that when the latest Perth RM was being discussed a couple of months ago, but received feedback that it was offtopic, which is why I only publicized in Asian and neighboring-country WikiProjects this time around. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well informing people who have taken part in the conversation in the past provided its both sides is not against the rules. I did not know that it had been posted on those 3 wikiprojects though, but that is probably in response to your biased canvassing of wikiprojects in Asia which favoured those who support the move. None of them should have been informed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

But Burma/Myanmar is in Asia. Surely it is not biased to post in WikiProject:Asia, WikiProject:Southeast Asia, etc. There is a relevant connection. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In your vote you stated yourself that there are regional differences and compared India and the UK... Yet your canvassed on the Indian noticeboard, which would have benefited the move camp, as Burma is more used in majority English speaking nations such as the UK, Canada, Australia, USA etc. Only advertising to wikiprojects in one region of the world that is more likely to favour the move. But that does not mean he should have posted on those 3 wikiprojects, i was unaware of that until this post. none of those other countries wikiprojects should have been informed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted to the WikiProjects for neighboring countries a few hours after the RM was initiated. In the discussion since then, we have learned that Thailand usage favors "Burma", while India favors "Myanmar". But after a full two weeks of discussion, Fyunck(click) should have been aware that UK regional usage heavily favors "Burma", just from reading the comments of other participants. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes those posts right from the start have had a bigger impact on the debate, i can see why he wanted to balance it up a bit with the post to the UK wikiproject page, but dont agree it should have been done. and with it being only 24 hours it could potentially be undone. Or some more locations notified such as USA and Canada to try and balance the debate further. But it has all complicated this RM further and it was already in a mess with the template/original withdrawal etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just noticing this and my talk page. Would it have been better for me to include the US and Canada also? I was going to just put in UK/England because of their close ties to Burma/Myanmar but I thought Australia would be a viable country where more English speakers probably favored Myanmar. Thinking about it England was a bad choice. I had thought of doing each country in UK separately but after doing England I though about it and said UK should be enough. I then added Australia for some closer regional balance. As for letting previous posters know about this it was done in the past to praise and I said at the beginning I would take on the task of informing them again. There's gotta be an easier way of doing it other than manually. It sure took a long time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering these 3 posts were done only 24 hours ago, maybe they should be undone? From the comments on here over the past 24 hours its been the messages to people who have previously debated these matters. But if not then English speaking majority countries such as Canada and USA could also be informed. It would have been better if none of them had, but i can see why someone wanted to try and balance it up a bit, but far more wikiprojects in the region have been canvassed which has favoured the move side. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I just did, removed those three posts. I still think that if nearby countries were informed then UK and Australia should be informed, but at this late date I agree that we can do without it. Probably should have been none (or all from the outset). Note that one post had a comment... I hope he isn't mad I erased it. Off topic but what I kinda found sad was that in informing previous posters how many of them are retired or gone from wiki. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks thats probably for the best, 24 hours in the space of a 3 week RM shouldnt have impacted it overall considering the numbers of people who have taken part in this. As for past editors yes, the fact there are so many who have been involved in previous discussions demonstrates how extensively these issued have been hammered out though. Its not like 5 years ago a small number of editors managed to get the page moved and nobody had noticed till now. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Requesting closure (rejected/withdrawn)

Requesting closure (rejected/withdrawn)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe this problematic Requested move should be closed as no consensus. This has already lasted 2 weeks, and we must now wait a 3rd week if it goes to the end of the new RM template time. It is clear from above that there is absolutely no consensus for a move from the current title which has existed for 5 years (not to mention the impact on 100s of other articles as usage will all have to be changed). We should instead wait until more developments happen which result in the sources changing more heavily one way or the other as the country continues its path towards democracy which will at some point solve this problem. The original proposer of this RM withdrew the proposal a week ago and it was reopened by someone else. There has also been unfair (although i accept it was unintentional) biased canvassing, with only wikiprojects relating to Asia and countries in the region being notified, which will have benefited the move side as Burma is more widespread in English speaking countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ and the United Kingdom whos wikiprojects were not notified. Views have now been clearly expressed by many editors, there is no consensus for a move. Why must this go on? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose closure request, let it be handled in the normal course and that does involve relisting. The history of this dispute has seen multiple attempts by supporters of the status quo to get discussion shut down and that never helps resolve a situation. And FTR there was no proper consensus to get the article to its current location in the first place but at the time there wasn't a decent mechanism for reviewing the decision. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC) this process has been anything but normal, and we have had biased canvassing which help sway the result a certain direction for those wanting change. There have been numerous discussions on this talk page and elsewhere about this name and there has never been clear majority support or consensus to move the article to Myanmar. The fact it has been at this location for 5 years is significant and makes it far more difficult to suddenly when there is no consensus make a change that will impact 100s of articles. Especially done because of a flawed RM that has benefited those who favour the move because of the canvassing. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I don't remember you raising the strawman of 100s of articles when this article was moved then; it is not that major a problem as articles can easily be moved to conform and we've certainly moved other countries (e.g. the recent China and Taiwan changes). The five years is only significant in how long the issue has run but given the dubious closure of that RM it is not something to rest the issue on or try to shut down subsequent discussion. Everything that ends in "no consensus" just comes back to a very dubious decision that needs to be superseded one way or another. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I was not here 5 years ago when the page was initially moved. There have been numerous attempts since that initial move regarding if it should be moved to Myanmar and there has not been enough support for it to happen. The move 5 years ago was fair, and i dont accept that had there been a review process it would have certainly been overturned. Nothing has yet changed to justify moving it to Myanmar, there will be developments in the coming months on these matters as Burma moves towards more democracy, and censorship is reduced. We will then see what happens in terms of usage which will help determine if the title needs changing. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Since all but one of those discussions, including mediation, ended in "no consensus, default to status quo", and the exception was a veto wielding by supporters of using "Burma" trying to shut discussion down, it remains an open issue that the current title is not stable and was wrongly installed in the first place. Until that bad outcome is either reversed or a discussion actually ends in a consensus one way or the other and replaces the status quo then it is untenable to keep pointing to it. Naturally the discussion will seem fair to those who openly think we should be making political statements. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC) 5 years at Burma without it ending up at Arbcom as far as im aware and that is not considered stable? For something the sources are clearly split on that is reasonable. It would be far more controversial to move this after 5 years with no significant change to justify such a move taking place. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC) It hasn't ended up at Arbcom because Arbcom is primarily for settling conduct disputes not content decisions and has never been intended as an ultimate naming forum. Yes some naming debates have been brought there as the cause of grief but not all. And one of the few good things in this eternal debate has been that most of the dispute has been confined to talk pages (the article was move locked fairly early on) rather than on articles so conduct disputes haven't come up so much. And no, the five years of status quo by contentious RM is meaningless when it's been under discussion pretty much continuously throughout that time. Whatever the outcome is it's going to be controversial so there's no point playing that card either. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC) No matter your own opinions on the RM that took place 5 years ago, it is a legitimate point that it has been at this location for 5 years, and there has not since that time been a solid majority or any consensus in favour of a move back. Along with all the implications of moving this page would have on the 100s of other articles that will be impacted. Clearly any title will be disputed but it would be far more controversial to move it to a new location after this time with no significant case for needing the change now. Its why it would be better to wait for real world developments than altering things when the sources dont justify it. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC) You seem to be under the impression that the Burma name is a 5-year status quo, that it holds with it any sort of stability. It is more accurate to say that the 5-year status quo is a state of constant conflict, backlash, and gnashing of teeth. Just look at the archive history of this page. The moderator who changed the title to "Burma" five years ago outright acknowledged that there was equal evidence for both names, and that the support for Burma was probably political. You can read that in his very words. That questionable page move was the reason there even developed a need for the separate Talk:Burma/Myanmar page, to funnel away confused editors who didn't understand why the page was at its current name. So please, stop trying to appeal to status quo. The status quo for this article, is conflict. :) -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Whilst there has been some who strongly oppose the title and it has been discussed regularly, the article being at this location for 5 years is important, despite some disagreeing with the initial decision. The fact there have been those discussions and no agreement has been reached demonstrates a change is not appropriate. There being no consensus and plenty of evidence backing up Burma is still the commonname in the English speaking world justifies the status quo remaining. Many of the points people make focus on the fact the official name is Myanmar, ive never disputed that is the case. But Burma is the common English language name which is what matters. Anyway, ive accepted that the move wont be closed now, so the debate will carry on for another week and we will see additional peoples views. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose closure request Personally, I despise the "no consensus" outcome; that should always be the worst case scenario. I think the discussion should continue until either a compromise (most likely either "Burma (Myanmar)" or "Myanmar (Burma)") is reached, until a consensus is reached on one of the two names, or until it becomes indisputably clear that there is no chance of a consensus being reached. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose closure request, let it be handled in the normal course and that does involve relisting. 88.81.100.235 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC) comment - Those alternate names were discussed in previous discussions. In fact I believe I was one who brought up Burma(Myanmar) as an option that was shot down in a hurry. One problem is that even if the title is changed to Burma(Myanmar) we absolutely cannot use Burma(Myanmar) throughout the article... it would be silly and unwieldy. It must be either Burma or Myanmar in prose usage for consistency. No one could agree on that either and some were worried about more vandalism throughout the prose if both names were in the title. So I slunk away from the Burma(Myanmar) title option. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC) If we leave the discussion open until there's a clear move or not move outcome, it's never going to close. Of course, that would have the benefit of preventing further requests. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Well unlike the the debate on if the article should be moved there appears to be pretty much consensus it should remain open for another week at least from the comments above. I shall add some additional points in the coming days to the discussion then. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.