Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Myanmar vs Burma

How should the country shaded red on this map
be referred to on Wikipedia?

It appears that editors are sharply divided on the question of whether the article about the country shaded red in the map on the right should be named Myanmar or Burma. There have been a number of attempts to assess consensus on this issue which have had differing interpretations. The inability of contributors to the article to determine this matter necessitates wider input from the Wikipedia community. Whereas a lot of dispute resolution on Wikipedia centers on getting agreement from those involved, the numbers involved a lack of convergence in opinion necessitate that the question be put to a wider audience. An example of such an approach having success in resolving an issue of naming can be seen at Talk:Gdansk/Vote, which aimed to resolve the contention question of how to refer to the city known as either Gdansk or Danzig.

In line with that precedent, I propose that this discussion lasts two weeks, after which the consensus will be assessed. Though the numbers of people advocating either position is a significant factor, this is not intended to be a pure vote and participants are encouraged to provide clear reasons why they hold a given opinion with especial reference to what Wikipedia policies which support those opinions.

Discussion

This section is intended to arguments in favour of using one name over the other and discussion of the strength of those arguments. Participants should bear in mind that they are likely to be reviewed by those with no prior knowledge of the naming dispute and should be persuasive.

• Because this situation is unique, I'm not sure how much precedent there is. With the Baltic city, Germans and Poles both have undisputedly legitimate reason to call the city what they do, unlike here, with the question of legitimacy for the military government. It's not like the Republic of China, since we can conveniently have one article on the government and another on the island. As far as common usage: one hears both "Burma" and "Myanmar" commonly in society; May 2008 cites an AP source for Myanmar and a Reuters source for Burma; surely both of these are generally reliable sources. How many of these "Burma" references are simply because people don't know anything about the country since school, when it was still called Burma by everyone? Since both names are in common English usage, I don't think that we can say that one is "more English" than the other; consequently, I think that our best criterion is the official name. I know that the USA, UK, and many other countries use "Burma"; as an editor focused primarily on US geography, I rely heavily on what the official US designation for a place is. However, since the country's defacto government (regardless of its legitimacy, it's definitely ruling) uses this name, I think it's best to have the article at Myanmar.
• All this having been said, I do wonder: what about the country between Mali and Ghana? Nobody seems to question its name change by an unelected military president in 1984 from Upper Volta to Burkina Faso. Upper Volta covers specifically the country until 1984, while Burkina Faso concentrates on the country since then. What if we applied the Gdanzig standard here, saying that 1989 (or 1987, whenever the name change was announced) is the boundary, with pre1989 references going for "Burma" and post1937 references going for "Myanmar"? Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  Having the two article would be an interesting approach. I worry a little about duplication of content across the two articles that would result, but it definitely seems to be a good option to add to the debate. WjBscribe 04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually the Upper Volta/Burkina Faso example isn't quite that simple. The term Upper Volta is applied to a portion of that country's history, while Burkina Faso is the main country article. That doesn't sound like an unreasonable solution. Guettarda (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I respect those who prefer Burma cause they feel it's the most commonly used name. However, I fully disagree with those who oppose Myanmar merely because that name was chosen by a Military Junta. Afterall, Wikipedia is not a platform for Human Rights. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I could respect those who prefer Burma because they feel it is the most commonly used name if even one of them would provide a source, statistic, or citation to bolster that claim. So far, every time someone has made the claim, and made a vague reference to CNN or the BBC or whatever, it has turned out that the opposite is true: major news outlets are using Myanmar almost overwhelmingly. I don't discount the claim entirely...I just haven't seen any actual evidence to support it yet. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any proposed enforcement mechanism? This debate has been going on for about a year and occasionally there is a vote. Then people informally stick with a name for until someone stirs the anthill again. I think there is little to no possibility to gain a consensus. Thus the debate should be limited and article naming should have some formal process. If there isn't any proposed enforcement mechanism I would recommend that the article name be based on a vote, that the name is locked for a period of 3 months at a time, and that a new voting window occurs for a short period of time every 3 months. Cheers.--Burzum (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• My own searches are disagreeing on some of the quoted "google tests." I just ran two book searches: [1] = Myanmar, 2440, [[2]] = Burma, 10440. How are other people constructing that query?

1. 1989-2008 it's more Myanmar (about a 60/40 split).
2. Google Scholar, on the other hand, favors Burma (60/40ish split, use advanced, search by title only, Burma is a surname as well).
3. "Normal" Google is the only one that clearly favors Myanmar, and that's probably a false positive because of one widely repeated source (AP). As I've stated on the previous talk page, news agencies may be unreliable for determinations of common usage, since they may need to pander to the regime to get visas and interviews.
4. Google news shows a massive (~80/20) bias in favor of Myanmar.
5. Doing google searches with "Myanmar" and "Burma" combined with a nonsense word (bouncy, broad, spaghetti, college, funky, guitar, quarterback, playstation, xkcd) show an average ~55/45 split favoring Myanmar. "bouncy", "funky", and "xkcd" (informal language and pop culture you would rarely see in an AP news report) were the exceptions, favoring Burma by ~60/40 split.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispensing with the straw men

The following are not reasons why we should move/not move the article:

1. Legitimate/illegitimate government action - Wikipedia doesn't play politics.
2. Burma/Myanmar is a more correct transliteration - neither Myanmar nor Burma are correct transliterations, the correct transliterations are Myanma (ceremonial/literary) and Bama (colloquial/spoken).
3. One name is more "official" than the other. Wikipedia doesn't care about what is "official", we care about usage of the English language. This is why we have an article called "East Timor" instead of "Timor-Leste", even though "Timor-Leste" is the official English name of the country, as defined by the government of that country.

Not always true. The wiki page for Ivory Coast is Cote D'Ivoire and not not Ivory Coast. Most people know the country in English as Ivory Coast

Totally false, actually. The policy indicates that common usage is simply the first test. If it cannot be determined, the official name or "self-identifying usage" of the entity is used, so Wikipedia does in fact care which name is more "official" for purely arbitrary reasons. WP:IAR can be invoked, but you have to justify it. Common usage is very strongly split and does not provide a clear answer. Most of the arguments that can be made (and some that can't) have been made regarding common usage, so insisting on it is simply going to draw out this debate another five years (the very first comment in 2003 on the article's talk page is the name dispute).Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Certain organizations/nations recognize one name or the other. Again Wikipedia doesn't care about politics or the policies of other organizations when naming articles. We care about usage.

The only issue we should be considering here is actual usage. Let's talk about that. Kaldari (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Usage has been established as unclear and/or contradictory, so looking at WP:NCGN#Multiple Local Names: "We recommend choosing a single name, by some objective criterion, even a somewhat arbitrary one. Simple Google tests are acceptable to settle the matter, despite their problems." This is the case if the "local authority" accepts multiple names as equally valid (caveat: this policy is for when there isn't enough usage, not when the usage is contradictory). If for purposes of argument, we assume:

1. Common English usage cannot be easily determined.
2. In cases of unclear usage, the policy says to follow the local authority.
3. Local authority is contested.
4. Both authorities (popular vote vs. actual regime) have claims to validity.
5. Wikipedia cannot decide which is legitimate.
6. Each name is accepted by at least one local authority and therefore there are multiple names accepted by a local authority.
   
   

We could then follow this suggestion. It's arbitrary, but that's rather the point: Wikipedia's name of an article does not reflect an endorsement of that name, it's just a workaround for the limitations of the software. I'd recommend contacting a random uninvolved admin and have them choose the arbitrary and objective criterion instead of using the Google test by default (we know what the results are).Somedumbyankee (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Looking at your list:

1. Agree completely.
2. Agree completely.
3. Disagree. How is local authority contested? There is disagreement over whether the military junta is legitimate, but there is no one who actually believes that a country called Burma is ruled by a democratically elected goverment. Who leads this government? Where is it located? Look at the infobox for Myanmar: we describe it as a military junta led by Senior General Than Shwe. Therefore, the military junta led by Than Shwe is the local authority. If we believe there is some other authority, then the infobox should say something along the lines of "Disputed" for several of the answers. For this reason, I disagree with numbers 4–6 on this list, and I believe policy clearly points toward "Myanmar". -BaronGrackle (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(WARNING: the following comment may contain wikilawyering and/or semantics!) Unfortunately, "local authority" isn't defined (the assumed reading is "current government"), so it isn't obvious. If the article were about the government, it would be painfully clear, but it's about the country. Valuing the government over the people is simply a point of view, as is valuing the people over the government. (/WARNING)

I think this is actually the major sticking point in this discussion, especially for the more vocal pro-Burma editors. Mostly I'm just looking for a solution that makes it clear that the name of the article is not an endorsement of the government's authority (an obvious violation of WP:NPOV).Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Did some further research on this and it sounds like this is the intent of the policy: the government's use is simply an arbitrary tiebreaker with no endorsement of its value. It remains neutral simply because it is as arbitrary as the "common usage" principle.Somedumbyankee (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Three further strawmen that keep being raised:

1. "It should be Burma because governments can't dictate English usage." In actual fact the usage by a government is very often highly influential in determining English usage as speakers follow suit. To take a relatively uncontested name, "United States" is not a name passed down from on high but one chosen by government with the people following suit. Sometimes a country's official name has not yet taken off in English (e.g. Timor-Leste being best known as East Timor) but other times it does (Burkina Faso). The source of a name should be irrelevant.
2. "We don't call Germany 'Deutschland'." This is true. But we also call "France" "France". Some countries are known in English by their native language name, others by a different name and some have sought to get consistency on this (it's not just for political reasons - a single name the world over is useful for tourism). Again this is an argument about the root of the name, not one about usage.
3. "The official name is 'Union of Myanmar' and we don't do official names elsewhere." This is confusing the "official long form" with the "official short form" of the country's names. The official "short" name of the country in English is "Myanmar", just as the official short name of another country is "Germany" not "Federal Republic of Germany" (the long form). Timrollpickering (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions

An opportunity for those unfamiliar with the dispute to asks any questions which would help them make up their minds as to the more appropriate title.

• In regards to splitting the article, my main question is when the cutoff year would be. Discussion above indicates the year would be 1989, with the name change. Do we feel this would be preferable to 1962, the year the military junta gained power? The article on the Soviet Union, as a counterexample, begins with the Russian Revolution and the independent Soviet republics, not with the formation/naming of the U.S.S.R. in 1922. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• To review, 1948-1962 was Union of Burma (official name) under civilian government. 1962-1989 was the first military government, the BSPP (retained Union of Burma from what I can see). A second military coup took place in 1988 (SLORC). That group changed the name to Union of Myanmar. The history section of the article lumps the two military groups together, but it's probably best to think of them as two separate institutions. The second group (SLORC) changed the name. I see three splitting points:

1. Myanmar article is the country after they gained independence, since calling it Burma was the British convention (division at 1948). I would recommend a split of articles here, but use Burma or UoB for historical references from 1948-1989.
2. Myanmar article is the country for BSPP and SLORC (division at 1962). I think that this is the official government position, would have to do more research. Considering that revisionism has been alleged, I would not recommend following the official line without careful consideration.
3. Myanmar article is the country since SLORC deposed BSPP and changed it (division at 1989). This is the earliest point at which Myanmar could reasonably be considered an English common usage. This makes sense for the naming dispute, but only marginal sense for the article split.

Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

If you have made up your mind on the issue, please indicate which title you favour along with the reasons that have persuaded you that this would be the appropriate title for the article.

One article at Myanmar

• Myanmar is the official name and that is the one that should be used. Anonymous101 (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• In previous discussions, there have been claims that "Burma" is more common in the "English-speaking world", including the US, UK, etc. I just don't see it, and those claims seem like so much empty rhetoric. From my perspective, it is patently obvious that the most commonly used name in the English-speaking world is "Myanmar". Just spending a few minutes looking for links to major well-known international organizations, I found exclusive usage of "Myanmar":
  • United Nations — link
  • International Organization for Standardization — link
  • Universal Postal Union — link
  • International Telecommunication Union — link
  • International Olympic Committee — link
  • FIFA — link
    Also, the Associated Press uses "Myanmar" exclusively. My local newspaper uses AP, and I have been looking for any usage of "Burma" these past few weeks, with none to be seen. I have been paying attention to CNN to see what they would use, and every instance of on-screen graphics I observed showed "Myanmar" alone. Sometimes the news reporter might say "formerly Burma" etc., but the preference for "Myanmar" was clear. The top of Google News - World (link) at 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC) says "Myanmar Mourns Victims of Cyclone" with links to the New York Times [3] (no mention of "Burma"), Reuters [4] (one mention of "former Burma", all other refs to "Myanmar"), International Herald Tribune [5] (no mention of "Burma"), and CNN [6] (no mention of "Burma"). The Washington Post [7]] does use Burma, but that was the only link from that set to do so. I truly cannot see any NPOV way to claim that "Burma" is a better article name than "Myanmar" for Wikipedia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, we've become like the Burmese. We use Burma in normal conversation and Myanmar in more formal documents. I see no problem with this setup. An analysis that might be worth using from the BBC (a Burma user): [8].

One quote from that BBC link stood out for me: "If Burmese people are writing for publication, they use 'Myanmar', but speaking they use 'Burma', he says." Wikipedia is "writing for publication", are we not? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I support a framework for this at Talk:Burma/Myanmar#solutions following the Gdansk precedent, repeated here for clarity:

1. pre-1752: "Area that includes the current state of Myanmar" or equivalent for the area.
2. 1753-1885: Use Burma here simply because a lot of what's written about this period (in English) was written by the British when they were in charge.
3. 1886-1989: Burma (British colonization to junta's name change).
4. Any reference post-1989: Myanmar.

Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Myanmar is the country's name. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Myanmar and Burma are both common names in English; as current media and other sources show, it is harder to defend the argument that English speakers will recognize Burma but not recognize Myanmar. Since Myanmar is the government's self-identifying, official name, it should be preferred as the article title. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• There is a country and it is called Myanmar. Sarvagnya 00:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Myanmar is both the official name and, it would seem, the more commonly used one (particularly among objective authorities). If only one name is to be used, the case for this one is far stronger than Burma. Terraxos (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Even if news outlets didn't overwhelmingly acknowledge that Myanmar is the country's official name (and even the BBC does that, per above), the U.N. recognized government of the country is the over-riding authority in this case. Using the name they have self-selected is not an endorsement of their policies (and might even help distinguish them from the country's history).71.9.8.150 (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Myanmar seems to be the more common name used in English across the world, whatever one may wish for otherwise. All the political arguments should be irrelevant. The article should be at Myanmar because of usage but if dominant usage is impossible to determine the Wikipedia naming conventions point to the official name as the solution to the tie-break. The article was at Myanmar for a long time until it was moved to "Burma" as a knee jerk reaction to protests last October in a very controversial RM where clear consensus was not determined and many editors openly stated that their desire for Burma was based on political reasons. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has been, is, and should be still called Myanmar. I believe we should honestly look at the reasons why it was moved to Burma in October. Was it because many decided it was the most common name? No. It was simply a POV move motivated by the monks protests. With Myanmar we can avoid any political statement, and maintain Wikipedia's policy of NPOV.MethMan47 (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Country calls itself Myanmar, so does the Associated Press, CNN, The New York Times, and Reuters. Myanmar is also used by the Encyclopedia Brittanica, a real encyclopedia, unlike Wikipedia where political games are played at the expense of content. Like A Rainbow (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• While I do not endorse the process that led to this argument, the Myanmar name is the correct one. I'm not sure what a two-article solution would achieve or how we would agree where or how to split it. Orderinchaos 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Myanmar is the article's proper title. It could be conceivable that we'd use Burma even with Myanmar being the official name, but it would require such overwhelming use of the name Burma that the name Myanmar would not only be rarely used, only relatively well-informed people would even know about it (for example, Greece being used instead of Hellenic Republic). In reality, use of the names Burma and Myanmar is about evenly split, and NPOV thus demands that we use the official name. Everyking (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• I was actually unaware of this naming dispute until about a month ago. However, after reviewing the arguments I think that the Wikipedia naming conventions tend to indicate the following procedure:
  1. If "Burma" is clearly more commonly used in English, the article should be titled Burma.
  2. If "Myanmar" is clearly more commonly used in English, the article should be titled Myanmar.
  3. If neither can be clearly shown to be more commonly used, the naming conflict guideline poses the additional questions Is it the official current name of the subject? (which would indicate Myanmar, not Burma) and Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (which is true of both Myanmar and Burma, as described in the Names of Burma article). Hence, if the usage in English is in doubt, Myanmar should be used.

So the big question is: what is the more common usage in English? A lot of methods have been tried so far, but WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) says that "The best method of establishing that a name is widely accepted, or is the name most often used or understood by English speakers, is a statement to that effect by a neutral and reliable source." Unfortunately, there are differing sources, largely due to the split in media usage:

"Reuters has no political agenda and seeks to use language that is neutral and accurate. We switched to Myanmar when the term became widely used, almost a decade after the military rulers made the change. They did so, they said, to distance themselves from the colonial-era term Burma and to bring the English-language name of the country closer to how it sounds in the Burmese language. Reuters has no view on the merits of that argument. When we changed we noted that the United Nations had switched to Myanmar, as had the Association of SouthEast Asian Nations, and that Myanmar was becoming common usage."[9]

"It's general practice at the BBC to refer to the country as Burma, and the BBC News website says this is because most of its audience is familiar with that name rather than Myanmar. The same goes for Rangoon, people in general are more familiar with this name than Yangon."[10]

Note that both of these statements were made around the same time, fall 2007, at which time Reuters thought Myanmar was becoming common usage, while the BBC didn't (granted, in this source the BBC is talking about UK usage, which may not reflect worldwide English). Overall though, I think the only clear consensus is that the common usage of the name is in dispute. Thus, I believe our current situation is the third one listed above, and so I support using Myanmar as the article title. -Rundquist (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

One article at Burma

• Two articles is not a useful idea. It would be hard to article that the two words refer to different regions.
• A two article solution still fails to avoid the controversy, as the controversy is mainly over what the current country should be called.
• Despite the odd reasons why, Burma is still the WP:COMMONNAME of the nation in most of the English speaking world.
• The fact that Myanmar is also fairly common, does not imply that Burma is not more common
• Myanmar is harder to spell

--T-rex 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The controversy is not about what the country should be called, it is about what the article about that country should be called.

It would be helpful if you would give your "odd reasons why" you think Burma is the most common English Language usage. Google web search and news search are almost tied (Myanmar actually marginally wins both at the moment). All the major international organisations use Myanmar. All the major international news agencies use Myanmar. There are significant other media organisations using both of the names.

The tie-breaker when there is more than one common usage in WP:NCON is the offical one. Burma has to be the comfortably dominant option to justify using it rather than Myanmar.

Finally, "Albin" would be very upset at your last proposed reason to use Burma. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Google results show that Burma is a somewhat common name. Google results also show that Myanmar is also a somewhat common name. However at this threshold any direct comparison between the two is meaningless (even more so as most articles will mention both names) (although your conclusion that they are tied also results in the head to head comparison being meaningless).
• by "odd reasons why" I was referring to the refusal of the governments of most of the english speaking world to recognize the name myanmar. Whether or not that was the correct decision by the involved governments is besides the point. The end result being that the name "Myanmar" did not catch on as much as it otherwise would have, resulting in "Burma" remaining as the common name in most of the english speaking world. By using the phrase "odd reasons" I was attempting to avoid the political controversy, and instead to simply point to the end result.
• Additionally Myanmar is also identified as either Myanmar (Burma) or Myaanmar formally Burma whenever it is used, while the reverse is not as universally true

--T-rex 02:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you acknowledge that both uses are prevalent then you should acknowledge that the more officially recognised one is the one we should use as the title. You repeatedly seem to imply, however, that Burma is in far wider use. Please consider that your personal experience may not reflect the whole of the English-speaking world and do some research. Your claim that Myanmar is always qualified as formerly Burma is directly contradicted by every single news story at the top of Google News except these two both of which open using Myanmar exclusively except in a paragraph explaining the status of the name Burma. BigBlueFish (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see what I said above about Google news, and what it says further above about the "official" names argument being a straw man. I acknowledge that both are used, but that does not lead to the conclusion that Myanmar should take precedence. Burma is the more common name. Furthermore your use of news sources that aren't primarily english is irrelevant to this discussion. Also extensive links to random examples doesn't change anything. --T-rex 23:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My links referred to your claim that "Myanmar is also identified as either Myanmar (Burma) or Myaanmar formally Burma whenever it is used". Google News may not be an authoritative way of making a decision but neither is the fact that you say that Burma is more common with absolutely no sourced justification at all. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unilaterally changing the name to Myanmar and ignoring the commonly used name Burma is hardly establishing a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Here are a couple of quotes from the Wikipedia Naming Conventions[[11]]:

• "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize." (The name most recognised throughout the English speaking world is Burma. It may be that a majority the American Media prefer to use Myanmar, but, as Morrissey once said: "America is not the World." I am from the UK where the name Burma is used universally by the Government, all major news organisations and NGOs and, for that matter, the people.)

comment - once again I see this claim (that Burma is the most commonly used name) and once again it is demonstrably untrue. The BBC occasionally uses 'Myanmar' as well as 'Burma' (a few examples [12][13])

• You give two examples of the BBC using the term "Myanmar." One is a report from BBC Weather on a particular day. I can only assume that the writer in question was not aware of the implications of using that term. This hardly suggests a common use of "Myanmar."
• The second example is a promo for an interview with "the UN Human Rights Envoy to Myanmar" and uses the word "Myanmar" in reference to the title of the interviewee. It states in the first line that the country is "still known as Burma."[14] Again, this does not, in any way, show a common usage of the term "Myanmar." As an aside, I would recommend watching this interview. It is interesting to see that the "UN Human Rights Envoy" has not even been to Burma recently or read in detail relevant reports on what is actually happening there. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"the implications of using that term" (My emphasis). Your POV is showing. You assert that there is some horrific implied problem with using reality. Reality is that nation is Myanmar now. It's a cesspool of both corruption and, well, cess. That doesn't exempt it from having a name which is used by others. As for the second, it's clear the UN recognizes the name Myanmar, whereas you do not. More evidence of a personal POV, instead of an argument from reasoned logic, or from policy. ThuranX (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe my personal POV on this matter is pretty clear, and I make no apologies for that. However, I also believe my view is supported by both logic and policy.Angstriddenyouth (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for you to spout off on your opinion. But when you argue that reporters are wrong to use words, you show that you have a singularly politically motivated agenda to push your POV. That's right, you're a POV-pusher. Wikipedia is NOT a big hammer of social change. Write a neutral article using the facts, and readers will come to the sensible conclusion on their own. It makes the most sense to recognize both governments, and write about the legacy of each properly. ThuranX (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

At no point in any of my comments did I say a journalist was "wrong" to use a certain word. I find your accusations that I "have a singularly politically motivated agenda to push your POV. That's right, you're a POV-pusher" extremely inappropriate. Please write a neutral article using the facts. I have no problem with recognising both words, I do have a problem with the unilateral removal of the word "Burma", however, which is hardly establishing NPOV.Angstriddenyouth (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

But you have no problem with removal of all instances of 'Myanmar', apparently. It's clear you find the Mynamar Junta government personally distasteful, and that's fine. However, Wikipedia is not the platform for that. ThuranX (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, ThuranX, I do find the regime currently in power in Burma distasteful. I hope this is nothing personal, but something we can all agree on. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. But this argument goes both ways. A lot of people who have argued in favor of Myanmar clearly do so because of their dislike of supposedly "colonial" names such as Burma, Bombay and Madras, and so on.--Amban (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

and in an overview of their own naming practices, cited anthropologist Gustaaf Houtman: "If Burmese people are writing for publication, they use 'Myanmar', but speaking they use 'Burma'" and a key opposition leader who notes "It's probable it will carry on being called Myanmar after the regime is gone" [15]. They admit themselves that 'Myanmar' is the correct term for official publications and print media (such as an encyclopedia), and that their common use of'Burma' is derived from a familiar colloquialism. (He also states, in this article, that the name change was "a form of censorship.") The UK's government may not recognize Myanmar's name change, but the U.N. does. It would seem the latter trumps the former. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, you are incorrect. The UN has no power to enforce name changes. The Sovereign power, in this case the UK, most definitely trumps the UN. And we use "Burma." - Angstriddenyouth (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The UK is a sovereign over its own territory and its own name. Myanmar is no longer a colony of the UK, so I'm not sure by what argument you're claiming it has any sovereignty there. The sovereign government of Myanmar has renamed the country "Myanmar." The UN is not "enforcing" such a change, merely recognizing it...and they remain our go-to authority for international relations, not any one individual member country, such as the UK.

• You were suggesting that because the UN uses a name, that somehow "trumps" its usage in other countries. I am sorry, but this is not the case. In the UK, where I, and many other Wikipedia users come from, we use the name "Burma." You cannot just ignore this by saying, "well, the UN doesn't."Angstriddenyouth (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• There is a reason we use the international name, and the U.N is the foremost international body in the world. Otherwise we would be reduced to creating things like uk.wikipedia, us.wikipedia, ca.wikipedia and aus.wikipedia. You know, now that I think about it that wouldn't be such an bad idea. ~Cr∞nium 18:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• LOL. Yeah, maybe you're right. But, seriously, "the UN is the foremost international body?" Watch the interview, cited above, with "The UN Human Rights Envoy to (cough) Myanmar." He hasn't even been there!!! The point I was making previously was about common usage. A lot of Americans have cited the fact that a majority of American Media use Myanmar. Though not, however, the biggest selling paper in the US, USA Today, or The Washington Post or Voice of America or The Boston Globe or The US State Department or Fox News etc.. My point was that throughout the world Burma is still the most used and recognised term, and I used my home country, the UK, as an example. I could equally have used Australia, South Africa, New Zealand etc. The fact is more English speaking people around the world use and recognise the name Burma and going on Google News and getting a list of AP syndicated news sources that use Myanmar does not present a compelling argument to the contrary. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, we come to where I see a real problem with false assumption in the pro-"Burma" argument, which is the unsupported claim that Burma is "still the most used and recognised term." You mention, for instance, a number of countries which you believe support this claim...and yet a search of Australia's governmental website reveals that they use both terms, as do the sites for the governments of South Africa and New Zealand. Indeed, New Zealand's website uses "Myanar" over 22,000 times, whereas it produces "Burma" only 5,290. It really seems both terms are in common usage, which brings us back to the tiebreaker that the official government of the country has suggested the proper transliteration is "Myanmar."71.9.8.150 (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to truly gauge "common usage" without doing a proper survey asking ordinary people on the street what name they recognise. Every day I speak to people from all around the World and they all recognise and are familiar with the term "Burma", although I accept your point that "Myanmar" may now be in more common usage on the internet. Whatever the solution to this naming debate, however, it cannot just ignore the name "Burma", as was done by the recent re-naming. - Angstriddenyouth (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." (Bearing this in mind, I cannot see how the recent change by a single editor to change Burma to Myanmar can be justified.) - Angstriddenyouth (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Angstriddenyouth, since you bring up the topic, I'll remind anyone reading that a stable article was called Myanmar until October of last year, after which it was moved to Burma, after which there has been weeping and gnashing of teeth ever since. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's a fair point, BaronGrackle, but two wrongs... (etc.) Angstriddenyouth (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is a key point, and one that seems to have been glossed over, with all the rhetorical focus on the evil junta etc. I was very surprised to see the move discussion in October closed with a declaration of consensus—from my eyes, it looked like as much of a "no consensus" situation as we have now, and therefore should have resulted in maintaining the status quo (i.e. kept at Myanmar). There is no WP:Deletion review equivalent for moves, and the pro-Burma editors squelched the protests by stating that no additional move discussion could take place for six months. I would strongly recommend a review of the previous move as part of this RfC. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be unrealistic to expect everyone to agree on what "consensus" means? ;-) Seriously, nobody can expect one side or the other to capitulate into silence. What we can (and should) expect is that we refine this discussion: i.e. avoid logical fallacies (e.g. ad hominem, straw men, etc.) define common ground, distill the specific points of contention - and not rehash the same old wheelspinning. This is as pure a test of Wikipedia's dispute resolution abilities as I have seen - despite the growing number of editors, lets see if we can make progress, not crash and burn into endless reproach. István (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be harder to type, Myamnar is a classic typo (albeit one my web browser spell check spots), but the hardest word to type in English is teh sorry the. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, SqueakBox, I've always had more problems with Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis ;o) (sorry, just trying to lighten the tone a bit..) Angstriddenyouth (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Burma per WP:NAME which proscribes... ...these selection criteria: 1. most understood by english-speaking people; 2. minimal ambiguity; and 3. makes linking easier. One by one:

• 1. Recognized - Burma is more recognized by English speakers, despite the Google/Google Books/Lexis hits being roughly equivocal. Note that "recognized by" is not the same as "used by" or "usage". The seeming popularity of "Myanmar" is falsely inflated by hundreds/thousands of daily bylines (usage) filed by the Associated Press which has adopted "Myanmar" in its style book and enforced upon all contributors (i.e. they don't have a choice). Moreover, the seeming popularity of "Myanmar" is likely inflated by age bias. The average age of Wikipedians is, dare I suppose, lower than the general population; many editors (esp in North America) do not remember much before 1989 when Burma was used virtually exclusively and "Myanmar" was not.
• 2. Ambiguity - you will find many more instances of writers "explaining" that Myanmar is another word for Burma than vice versa; this is because they know that readers are more familiar with Burma, and such explanation is necessary because "Myanmar" is less understood.
• 3. Linking - Most of the history of Burma's interaction with the outside world occurred before 1989, under the name of Burma. The WWII era records that Burma played many important roles, under the name BURMA. Even if "Myanmar" stands, we are not obliged to change reference to historical items such as the Burma Road yet that would create confusion in itself. Preserving the name Burma will in fact fit this criterion to make linking easy and second-nature.

In conclusion, Burma fits all three WP:NAME criteria far better than does "Myanmar", therefore Burma should stand as the article's name. István (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

number two (ambiguity) is an excellent point. Almost 20 years after it was changed, people still explain what Myanmar is. It may be indirect evidence, but it's a very compelling indication of "common usage". I would strongly oppose any proposal to call the country Myanmar for pre-1989 (though that history might be included in a Myanmar-titled article). I would openly laugh at suggesting that articles or uses of the colonial era should be changed from Burma.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to argue your list:

• 1. Recognized - As more time passes, this claim needs more and more evidence to defend it. It is near impossible to glance at a resource, media or otherwise, that mentions modern-day "Burma" with no mention of "Myanmar" as well. You remind us that the more aged people of the world may have no grasp of any events more current than 1989. However, you must also recognize that younger generations will have no grasp of events prior to years after their birth. For these people, the "hundreds/thousands of daily bylines" that call the nation "Myanmar" will tell them all they will even know about this nation. Some may have just learned about the country with reportings on the recent cyclone. Can we really have any verifiable definition of "recognized name" that ignores media, encyclopedias, and online sources throughout much of the world?
• 2. Ambiguity - I argue that the writers "explaining" Myanmar as the name for Burma is due to political sensitivities, not strangeness in English. Among the sources that use Burma, most will likewise explain that the country is called Myanmar by the current regime. For contrast, do a Google News or Google Map search for "Timor-Leste". The news hits will NOT explain that the country's name is "East Timor", even though the latter is more commonly used in English. The map will not say "Timor-Leste (East Timor)". Do more Google map searches, for Mumbai or Kolkata. There's no (Bombay) or (Calcutta) for those, either. Yet they list "Myanmar (Burma)". This is no explanation for English understanding; this is covering the politically-correct bases, so it is no response to ambiguity.
• 3. Linking - I'll yield this, if it is an important consideration in Wikipedia policy. I can't imagine that it's that significant, however, as it hasn't stopped us from keeping the most current names of other countries (e.g. "United Kingdom").

Since we are considering policies, here is a reminder of the policies most Myanmar-namers would bring up:

• From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names):"If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name." This is especially relevant as the article is a geographic name. To be fair, this isn't exactly accurate to the situation; the truth is that two names are widely accepted in English. Can the policy be interpreted to apply to those cases? If so, it points toward Myanmar.
• From Wikipedia:Naming conflict: "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name... Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is." This is especially relevant because there is very much a conflict on this article's title, and there is definately disagreement that Burma is the most commonly-used name. This section reads almost as if it were written after the Burma/Myanmar disagreement started, by a pro-Myanmar-naming editor. Since it wasn't, it needs consideration. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for taking time to put together a thoughtful and structured response. If all editors did the same, we might see some progress. Please see these responses:

• 1. Recognized - a. We (everyone) may be missing a subtle but important point: "used" (active) and "recognized" (passive) are not the same. The policy states "recognized", and with reason. "Used" is official, mandated, etc. whereas "recognized" is understood, spoken, adopted. Take a whimsical example of naming the johnny roll - a) toilet paper, or b) bath tissue. Most recognize toilet paper, yet (ignoring google for the moment) just try to find "toilet paper" printed on any package in North America; virtually all read "bath tissue". In this case "used" mandates "bath tissue" and "recognized" mandates "toilet paper". re: B/M- Just because the AP stylebook mandates that all contributing press outlets (&they are the DeBeers of North American journalism) use M which results in a daily avalanche of "use" does not mean that people "recognize" M over B. Your question of whether we can measure "recognized" while ignoring journalism is spot-on, perhaps the answer is yes, indirectly, via Google Books (this is actually recommended in some policies) or for technical subjects Google Scholar (not really applicable here) (BTW, B=9K+, M=2K+) b. I can't follow your generational arguments, could you please clarify?
• 2. Ambiguity - We agree that North American writers very often introduce "Myanmar" with the qualifier "formerly Burma", but do not explain "Burma" any further. You have argued that this is done out of political correctness; I argue that it is done for practical reasons, specifically that some readers will not readily understand the word "Myanmar" on its own. It is up to the community to decide which is more true. István (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't answer this earlier, sorry. With "Recognized", it is important that "used" and "recognized" are not the same; we agree on that. The fact that so many common sources "use" Myanmar, however, is evidence of how many "recognize" it. People read media sources and encyclopedias, and their titles have more influence on them than the toilet paper label. Many people here are using a different definition of "recognize"; namely, whether a country "recognizes" the military junta's legitimacy. Because the U.S. and Britain do not "recognize" Myanmar (i.e. support its legitimacy), they say Myanmar isn't recognized by these sources... in reality, it just isn't USED by these sources. As for Ambiguity, we actually DISAGREE in our statements. I do not believe that more writers introduce "Myanmar" with the qualifier "formerly Burma" more than the other way around. Someone else here pointed out that, while doing a Google News search, only a few of all the top hits for Myanmar actually made reference to a "Burma". You'll find similar results when searching for Burma. If you look on Yahoo! maps, you'll find "Burma (Myanmar)". This does not mean that Myanmar is being used to clarify what Burma is; and the converse is equally false. As for the generational arguments, I'm just saying that there are more younger people in the world who would recognize Myanmar and perhaps not Burma; they are just as ignorant as those older people who would recognize Burma and perhaps not Myanmar. Why should the older generations be given preference just because there are fewer of them on Wikipedia? -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

apologies for my delay as well. I take your point that over time, use cultivates recognition, that it already has, especially among the younger generation in North America who never used "Burma" in the past. I would simply maintain that we are not yet at (but perhaps close) to the point where, overall, the English-speaking world "recognizes" (i.e. is familiar with the word) Myanmar more than Burma - and that is the crux of the decision. One thing we must not allow the double-meaning of "recognize" (i.e. 1. "familiarity" as used in WP:NAME; and 2. diplomacy/military junta) to hijack discussions. You and I both know that neither the legitimacy of the sitting government in B/M, nor the officially sanctioned name in the UN or elsewhere, are valid reasons for favoring one name over the other. Equally, this should not be used as a straw man to set alight unrelated valid arguments. As for qualifying M with B or vice versa, I now agree with you after a deeper investigation that google does not show a difference in this. However, the generational argument is very valid - the community should indeed give weight (not "favor", but appropriate weight) to any segment of the English-speaking population which is less represented amongst Wikipedia editors. WP:NAME requires us to judge recognition amongst all English Speakers, not EnWiki editors. This does not negate anyone's valid arguments, but only frames into context the endless non-argument parade of "its M/B because Ive never heard anyone say B/M". István (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I support keeping a single article at Burma. We cannot have a separate article for every regime. And like it or not, Burma is the most commonly recognized name for the country.--Amban (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I also support one article at Burma. My sole argument for that is simple and has already been mentioned above (WP:COMMONNAME). Húsönd 00:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

One article at "Burma". We'd just have to change it back after that gang of criminals is deposed if we made it "Myanmar" now. (Bonus points for anybody who knows what Sri Lanka used to be called and what it means.) --Milkbreath (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I support one article at Burma for many of the reasons stated above. I believe that the original October move to Burma did show a clear consensus and was properly closed by the closing admin. When Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia and changed the country's name to Democratic Kampuchea, then literally started to kill everyone, did people start calling the country Democratic Kampuchea? No, most people continued to call the country Cambodia, despite what the Khmer Rouge wanted the country to be called. If the choice is to call the country what some blood-thirsty nut-jobs want us to call it or what it was before the crazies got control of the country: I'll be conservative and choose Burma. It is the name that the democratically elected opposition party of 1988 said should be the English name and most Western governments continue to call the country Burma. The French, Spanish, Latin, Polish, Italian, and Romanian wikipedia articles all use some translation of Burma while still stating that the country is also called Myanmar. The Portuguese and German were the only two major languages [that I found] that used Myanmar as the default article name. Also, I'm not sure how Chuck Norris feels on the subject but Rambo definitely calls the country Burma! —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was only somewhat recently that I learned Kampuchea no longer existed, mainly because of the Yakko's World song from Animaniacs. It used Burma as well, but popular usage has changed since the song was written. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is the best solution, primarily because Burma is the most common name in English. Additionally, many of the people of the country do not even recognize the legitimacy of the name Myanmar. JohnMGarrison (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So yet again somebody chimes in stating that Burma is the most common name in English. Could you please explain how you arrived at that conclusion? I've read a lot of discussion about this now, and so far I've seen no sourcable evidence to suggest this. On the contrary, every test, study and source I've seen has shown that the usage is profoundly divided, except when you favour authorities such as the press (Myanmar, unless you choose the British press), international organisations (Myanmar), the majority of English-speaking governments (Burma) or the majority of governments (Myanmar). Are we to believe that the British press or English-speaking governments wield an overwhelming influence on our language, that there is some long lost metric which will be unveiled at any moment or, as I suspect, that the majority of the rationales lobbying for a usage of "Burma" are founded on a lack of world view and emphasis on local experience, topped off with a good dollop of political emotive drive? BigBlueFish (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The statement that Burma is the more common name isn't really all that strange. I've always used Burma when talking (haven't had a reason to write about it much before the 'pedia), and I don't think I've heard Myanmar from anyone but The West Wing and the news, everyone else I've talked to calls it Burma. In writing, Myanmar is more common. I'd agree that usage is cleanly (dirtily?) split and that the "common use" clause of the policy is useless.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • This is my point; your impression that Burma is more common is based purely on local experience (unless you live everywhere at once; "somedumbyankee" sugests otherwise). Especially if you agree that from a world perspective the usage is split, it is totally unreasonable to use personal experience as an argument that it leans in one direction of the other. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It's not "totally unreasonable", it's just difficult to provide written evidence of spoken form without a documented phone survey or some other study we don't have. I'd recommend relying on the written forms when it's unclear since this is a written document, but Latin and other dead languages are the only ones where spoken usage should be summarily ignored.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Burma I support the article remaining at Burma. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Two articles: Myanmar for post-1989, Burma for pre-1989

• Neutrally written articles about both will make the history and situations clear to all involved. Those who are (rightfully) morally opposed to the sadists ripping off the Burmese people will find even the driest writing of the events since the takeover makes clear what monsters be there. Such clarity will be available to all readers, who will then be free to form an opinion. It's an issue where it's very hard to form a pro-myanmar view, even while carefully following NPOV. Facts can speak for themselves. ThuranX (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I could accept this solution only if Myanmar was the article that contained {{Infobox Country}} details, geography, demographics, culture, etc. sections, and was the article linked from articles like Lists by country and its sub-lists. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I could accept this only if both articles contain infobox details, geography, demographics, culture, etc. and if Myanmar is the link on country lists, then the very top needs a link to 'See Burma For More Details.' Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    Would the infobox for this separate Burma article list Rangoon as its capital and democracy as its government? Would it use the peacock flag instead of that of the military junta? Seriously, do you want to make a "Burma" article over the "democratic government in exile", wherever it is? EDIT: It seems the CIA World Factbook still lists Rangoon as the capital. Lovely. -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

    If it's a pre-1989 article why not? or Yangon. I would probably vote for simply 'Burma' but if it was going to be split in two with pre and post 1989 as the dividing line, then having everything like culture and geography only in the Myanmar section isn't right. Remember, this would be a compromise between two world viewpoints... not a victory for one side or the other. It would be a big thing for many to have post-1989 be Myanmar so to have Burma with only pre-1989 history would be an extra slap in the face. Compromise is painful. To be honest I would have no problem with side by side articles with essentially the same info. Would that waste bandwidth, yes. But it would also stop edit wars and the pages could link to each other at the top showing that there is ongoing disagreement. Typing Myanmar in wiki would lead one to Myanmar and typing Burma would lead to Burma. Country links on other pages could be Myanmar/Burma and lead to a separate page with simple links to both the Myanmar page and the Burma page. It would be the viewer's choice on which one to visit. This is probably all against wiki policy but I'm only looking at what might work for the overall good of Wiki and Burma/Myanmar. It seems the extra bandwidth would be microcosmic compared to what would be gained over all the edit wars... and we'd have lots of happy wikipediites. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    Do we need a History of Myanmar article to match the History of Burma article as well? Is it Myanmar/Burma or Burma/Myanmar? A "two state solution" may be a valid option for the Middle East, but it doesn't work for Wikipedia.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    That's all you've got... Do we need? How do you know it won't work? Of course wiki doesn't need 2 identical articles. It doesn't need an article in a constant state of editwar either. As I said before if I had to vote for one only it would be Burma so I'm not unbiased here. But I do see a constant mess from others if it went the Burma route and I simply mentioned a crummy compromise that no one will like but many may be able to live with. And I don't care if on other country pages it gets listed as Myanmar/Burma as long as that link goes to a page that lists 2 links: one for Myanmar and one for Burma. People would have a choice, there would be no winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

    • I see this as a likely future for the article. I am not convinced that it is ready for such a move now. It would only be valid when historians treat the country as such, since we do not conduct original research. The nature of articles like Istanbul are an example of this example being well applied. BigBlueFish (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Is there any precedent for this? Unless there is I would oppose it very strongly. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Istanbul/Constantinople is the most readily available precedent. As I said, the difference is that reliable historians have not yet documented the history in this way, predominantly because it is so young and the outcome not certain. BigBlueFish (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I should have expressed myself more clearly. is there any precedent involving a sovereign nation. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, it appears there is, see Rhodesia and Zimbabwe and British Honduras and Belize. If we follow the examples of these article that would be fine. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
            • China/People's Republic of China is an example which is a domestic regime change (Chinese to Chinese) and not the release of a former colony, though a merge has been proposed there.Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I find all of these examples to be excellent demonstrations of an existing precedent for the aforementioned compromise. ThuranX (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I strongly caution against using the China/People's Republic of China example in this instance. That there are two articles is not due to a "domestic regime change". It is due to the fact that the word "China" is contested by two governments, namely the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. To have the article on the People's Republic of China at the China article has been seen to violate the NPOV policy (despite its obvious adherence to common names) because it means wikipedia has taken the position that the PRC is the sole legitimate government of all of "China", a notion the ROC contests. I have not evaluated the other examples cited in detail, but I would strongly caution against simply citing examples without looking into the actual rational.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
                • The only point was that a separate article was used even though the majority of the land mass went from Chinese control to a different Chinese control and there are still two articles. That argument is its own cyclone in a soda can, but the presence of two articles shows that setup in complicated political situations where NPOV is difficult to find is not Lèse Wikipidiè. A second article is not necessarily a POV fork.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV for further details on this setup, which was primarily driven by dual claimnants to the name "China", and was not driven by territorial issues. This is entirely different from the Myanmar case, where there is no territorial change, no regime change, and no claims on the name "Burma" by two governments claiming overlapping territory, thus neccesiting a need to "reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "Burma" or "Myanmar" to coincide with any particular state or government" as was the case for the word "China".--Huaiwei (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Opposed Frankly, I find this proposal ludicrous. There is one and only one country (entity) and it is called Myanmar. And, this entity didnt come into being in 1989.. it was only renamed in 89! Scores of countries have been renamed in recent history and scores more have multiple names. WP:REDIRECT is meant for situations like these and is more than adequate for our purposes. Different articles for pre-89 and post-89 Myanmars treads too close ngood

got just to POVFORK but also WP:OR. We dont write different articles for countries every time governments change or there is a coup!Sarvagnya 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to this, for the reasons raised by Sarvagnya above. While there is some precedent, separate articles are principally used where there has been a (for the lack of a better term) 'regime change', with a clear break between the state under the old name and the state under the new one. This is not the case with Myanmar/Burma, which had continuity of government throughout the name change; the post-1989 state is the same one that had existed since 1962. Though this may seem like a tempting solution, I just don't think there are strong enough grounds to justify two separate articles, like Zimbabwe/Rhodesia. (There's also the potential WP:POVFORK issues.) Terraxos (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The 1989 change was a change in "regime" as well as a change in name. The brutal and repressive military government was replaced in a coup d'etat by a brutal and repressive military government, (kind of depressing). The "reality on the ground", however, really only changed in 1948 (end of colonial era) and 1962 (first coup) and both of those are better places to split the article than 1989 in my opinion.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. In that case, I would not object to this solution if it brings an end to the edit war, although I personally still think one article would be more useful than two. Terraxos (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also not liking this idea. As I said above It would be hard to argue that the two words refer to different regions. And that a two article solution still fails to avoid the controversy, as the controversy is mainly over what the current country should be called. --T-rex 02:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Burma article should contain historical material (pre-1989 content only): this has been done over at Zaire which is now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and it appears to work quite well. It also seems an adequate compromise on what is a clearly divisive issue: is that not what we ought to be doing? Finding middle ground? Coldmachine^Talk 08:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and no. Compromise is great, but we should really be finding a persuasive settlement and consensus based on solid application of policy. If the status quo on the ground changes we may have to re-evaluate the title, but the decision we reach here should otherwise remain in place.Somedumbyankee (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Two articles: Myanmar for post-1962, Burma for pre-1962

Splitting the article here places the division at the time of the first military coup.

Two articles: Myanmar for post-1948, Burma for pre-1948

Splitting the article here places the division at the country's independence

• This split may not resolve many disputes, since there really isn't much concern or debate over what the British called it. It's the least controversial split but probably won't resolve the controversy over what to call the current country. Using this and a Gdansk-split (one article with multiple names used in the text) with all historical references pre-1989 as Burma is probably just equivalent to Gdansk-splitting a single article. I support one of these two solutions.Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This sounds ok but for stickler on rules, this may be looked at as wikilawyering or a content fork.

I came here only because of ANI's mention. Myanmar is the official name and the name I support. I do not support the military government. If we go with common usage, then we should support redirecting the United States article to "Great Satan America" since that's the usage in Iran (or maybe do that in Farsi Wikipedia).

Also the Timor Leste reason is not true. I have been to some English speaking countries where the TV news says Timor Leste, not East Timor. Americans tend to know little about geography so that they rarely report the country and, if they do, they use the old usage. 71.212.112.4 (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I live in Perth, Australia, which together with Darwin probably has more connection with East Timor than any other part of the English-speaking world, and the only time I've heard it called "Timor-Leste" is by socialist activists (e.g. Socialist Alliance, WSWS) and campaigners of various kinds. Both my state and federal government as well as all mainstream media of which I am aware frequently refer to "East Timor" (e.g. [16], [17]). I understand at least part of the reason is a compromise - Timor-Leste is Portuguese, Timor Lorosae is the actual local usage (by 95% of the population). This one at least has nothing to do with allegedly ignorant Americans. Orderinchaos 19:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it seems that the supporters of the Burma name have gotten their way again, I will throw my support behind this split, since it would be the least controversial. As stated above their is not any disagreement to what the British called the area til 1948. After 1948, for the most part, the country has been ruled by their military. So it would not make sense to me to split after 1989, because the government didn't change, just the name.MethMan47 (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Two articles, any division criteria

• I feel that the only way to resolve this issue is with two articles, though I don't particularly care how they are split (I would support any of the above proposals). As I have stated/pointed out elsewhere:

Why not include the history, civilization, and cultural information under Burma, but references to the current government under Myanmar, and have both articles? This is how China is treated, and this is essentially how Gaul [and Francia] (historical term[s]) [are] treated… notice that the Kingdom of Germany is in a different article than Germany, Austrasia, and East Francia (and the Third Reich). The Khmer Rouge are in a different article than Cambodia (which is in turn separate from Democratic Kampuchea). Manchuria and Manchukuo are in separate articles, as are the Confederate States of America and the Southern United States, the Republic of Texas and Texas, and the Kingdom of Hawaii and Hawaii. Or notice the three articles separating Hungary, the Kingdom of Hungary, and the Hungarian Soviet Republic… Really, there seems to be plenty of reason to split the two. And I could probably keep adding examples to this list, it's really not that hard to find them.

The Jade Knight (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In which of any of the examples you cite above involve purely a name change of the country in question, as was the case when Burma was renamed as Myanmar? You are equating entries for a region (eg Manchuria) with a formal vessel state (Manchukuo); a actual independent Republic or Kingdom (Texas, Hawaii) with formal states of another country; and states of vastly different boundaries (Germany). Just as you can find numerous "examples" such as this based on a regime change, I wonder why we do not have an article each time there is a general election involving a change of government in the vast majority of countries around the world (how about a new article for Taiwan during the DPP's rule in 2000 to 2008? A new article for Nepal post-2008 after the Maoist electorial victory? An article for each period in which a military coup ousted the civilian government in Thailand?) In addition, I would like to ask just in what way does the history, civilisation and culture of Myanmar be more applicable to Burma than Myanmar?--Huaiwei (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT explicitly says "There are no hard and fast rules for when an article should be split." It gives some suggestions on article size which could go either way. If it makes sense to split, split it. That said, I don't think splitting the article will actually resolve anything in this argument.Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, so when "precedents" are being cited as a reason for a split, I fail to see how this advances the discussion further in any meaningful way, especially when people seem contented to just fish for a few examples without really looking into why they exist as such in the first place.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Manchuria and Manchukuo were the same place, but simply different governments which used different names for political reasons. The same applies to Germany and the Third Reich as well as Cambodia and Democratic Kampuchea, Hungary, the Kingdom of Hungary, and the Hungarian Soviet Republic. As the reason many people oppose ideologically the usage of Myanmar appears to be based on its political ties to the current regime, this seems to be a case of politically-motivated renaming of a nation, à la Cambodia and Manchuria, and should be treated as other similar examples have been treated. You'll notice that Nepal is still called Nepal, and Thailand is still called Thailand. If one of those governments were to change the name of the nation, and there were to be (this level of) contention in Wikipedia over what the article about the nation should be called, I think it would justify such a split. There is certainly precedent for it. However, most of these events involve no name change that anyone recognizes, so the issue is moot. Taiwan is still Taiwan, Nepal is still Nepal, Thailand is still Thailand. There is no controversy there. But what if China and the People's Republic and China were the same article? There'd be hell to pay. The Jade Knight (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to compare the maps at the top of Germany and Nazi Germany. I cannot admit to having the patience to read the rest of your post after it ignored a perfectly reasonable point by Huaiwei. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support two articles. The main crux of the argument seems to be whether calling it Myanmar would endorse the military regime (note it would not) or that calling it Burma is right because we shouldn't bow down to the military regime and call it Myanmar. Well it's not bowing down, it's the correct name. See my arguments on the talk page [18] and [19] for my reasoning. The only other argument seems to be which is in more common usage. Now I'll admit I haven't examined all the bountiful evidence that you've all provided but it seems to me that perhaps in the UK and the US, Burma is more common. However, these aren't the only speakers of English, and it seems that if you take into account other countries that speak English, the it's a tie. Hence, since both are common, then it should go down to the official name, and since I have shown (at least I hope I have) why we should have no qualms with the military government, then the official name is Myanmar. As for when the Myanmar article should begin, I have no idea, but as per the China arguments etc, two articles (a current and a historical one) is a necessity but the dividing point of those isn't something I'm too interested in right now, so long as we actually get two articles! Deamon138 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Steps to take for resolution

The request for comment was proposed as a two week discussion, and it has primarily died down. I do not see any consensus formed here. The next recommended step in dispute resolution is an informal mediation, with the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal being a recommended source. Any objections? Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have none. Out of interest, what other available options are there? Deamon138 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth skipping Mediation Cabal and going straight to Requests for mediation. Mediation Cabal cases tend to be mediated by one or two individual admins. This type of mediation has already been attempted by Nichalp, and a more formal effort may still be at risk from rejection of the outcome from people who think the Mediator's got it wrong. Of course if we do consult the Mediation Cabal, we can do our best to stop that from happening. One thing that we would benefit from is a clean page to write on. Whoever submits it to the cabal should be sure to concisely and fairly summarise all the main arguments for all options, to stem the volume of comments weighing in out-of-context personal opinions. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have submitted the case and attempted to balance the main arguments. It is available at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08 Burma. Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I do disagree with your opening description of the case though. The Google News tests are too close to call. The majority of the British press, not just the BBC, are in the Burma "outlier". There is at least some validity in the consideration of the breadth of the Associated Press. I propose changing the description to:

"The involved editors cannot come to a consensus about common usage. Disagreement starts over whether there is a prevalent usage in the English language. Google tests and Google News tests show very similar frequencies for Myanmar and Burma, although Myanmar tends to come out ahead. Most US news agencies including international news agencies the AP and Reuters use Myanmar; most British news agencies use Burma, both with notable exceptions. Most international organisations such as the UN recognise Myanmar; most English-speaking governments do not and most south-east Asian governments do. Some concerns that vernacular usage differs notably from written usage have been raised.

In the absence of a common English usage, WP:NCGN and WP:NCON recommend using the officially designated name. For the body with administrative power over the country, a military junta, this is Myanmar. However, not everybody recognises the junta's authority over the country since they rule by force and against the outcome of the 1990 election. The elected party rejects the name Myanmar."

It would be poor form for me to simply overwrite that though, so if you don't agree I simply offer that as my summary to add if the case is taken up. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was a pretty even split Google or media-wise as to the most used name? Deamon138 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That was what I meant but I've revised the text to make that a little clearer. In general, Myanmar wins but not necessarily by a convincing margin. It's close enough that it depends exactly how you judge it, adding extra search terms and so on, and how you weight the impact of different news sources. If you go by distribution, Myanmar wins hands-down. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of the statements in your summary, but the precedent of changing the summary is just going to end up in edit wars over how it's summarized. I'm sure the cabal folks are used to having somebody with an obvious POV submit a request for mediation. They aren't making a decision based on the summary. In fact, they aren't making a decision, they're just providing a little discipline so that we can. The request page isn't "the next place to have exactly the same arguments" it's just an indication that a real dispute exists and that realistic attempts have been made to resolve it before calling for help. Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)