Talk:Myanmar/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

20,000 Monks Protest

This section needs to be examined. The first paragraph has way too many differing points to be cohesive. For example, one sentence says that "Myanmar’s comedian Zaganar and star Kyaw Thu brought food and water to the monks." Although it is an interesting tidbit, it seems out of place in the abbreviated article section. Achika54 18:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Human rights are closely related to economic development. So I think Burma needs stability and economic development, not revolution. So, I support the government. No government allows rebellions, including US government. If I organize a lot of people with the purpose of overthrowing the US government, I guess I will be arrested or beaten to death too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Or the nazi-germany government...Slipzen 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Silly comparisons

This kind of sentence "It is somewhat smaller than the US state of Texas and slightly larger than Afghanistan" is ridiculous. This is Wikipedia not Americanpedia and we don't need every non-American country, city or region to be compared to an American state just because many Americans are so stupid that they can't understand sizes quoted in square kilometres or square miles. I'm just relieved that you don't refer to London as "London, England" or Slovakia as "Slovakia, which is in Europe" (like frequently happens on US TV). Let's develop a proper encyclopaedia and not a fact book for stupid people. 213.230.130.54 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly agree with most of your points, yet you may find that the distinguishing of "London, England" would be more commonly found in Canada than in the United States. Remember that self-centrism is a common worldwide condition. :-) -BaronGrackle 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting tid-bit: The population of Myanmar is 127% larger than the population of Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.193.10 (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What happens if the junta is overthrown?

Are we going to retitle this article, or are we going to start a new one under the Burma title, a la the Soviet Union and Russian Federation? --Hemlock Martinis 20:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Move it now, as below. The Russian Federation is not the same thing as the Soviet Union; it used to be a subset. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Junta steps down we'll be editing the article on Tibet within 6 months for similar reasons.

Budhist monks FTW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.193.10 (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

CIA heroin connection?

Is this information corroborated by other sources? --Espoo 02:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we know that many former Chinese Nationalists from when Chinese Communists came to power fled to northern Burma and went on to the drug trade. - According to Prof Alfred McCoy in his "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" as well as other sources. 67.53.78.15 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation"

I'd like to protest against the use of the term "former British occupied territories" in the history section as that is not a neutral PoV. Wiktionary, which I think is the best source for how words should be used in Wikipedia, defines occupation in that sense as control by a hostile army, and so while the British Army was certainly occupying territory during the Anglo-Burmese wars, a permenant and recognised civil administration can never occupy territory. And I think saying British colonialism was overtly hostile is not entirely neutral. Stupid, mismanaged, insensitive, yes. No dispute there. But not universally "hostile." Wiktionary says "belonging to an enemy, showing the disposition of an enemy" (again, can't apply after Anglo-Burmese wars), "showing ill will and malevolance, or a desire to thwart or injure" (I've yet to see proof that mainstream colonialists were in any way malevolant. Never ascribe to malice what could be ascribed to mere stupity), "occupied by an enemy or enemies" (bit of a loop, isn't it?), "inimical, unfriendly" (this one is the only one even debatable, but doesn't get past my civil administration argument.

For a comparison, since the United States has its borders recognised almost universaly, but is built on land annexed from the original inhabitants, the entire country should be declared "occupied" unless this is changed. More importantly, since the Burmese annexed independant kingdoms several times, a lot of Burmese territory was "occupied" before Britain turned up.

And another thing: "Kipling’s poem 'Mandalay' is now all that most people in Britain remember of Myanmar’s difficult and often brutal colonisation." That's I'd like a source on that, because I live in Edinburgh and I can say with confidence that it's an outright lie. Most people here either have absolutely no idea where Burma is, know about it from the recent events but have never heard "The Road to Mandalay", or are educated folks who know plenty about Burma. That sentence is not neutral, is aseemingly innaccurate, and needs a citation.

An Anonymous Contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.125.107 (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. How would you approach the use of the term "Occupied [Palestinian] Territories" then, to describe the situation with Israel? Tomer^talk 05:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

One can not compare the situation of military occupations/annexations before and after the introduction of the IV Geneva Convention. Military occupation used to end when military law ended and a civilian law was introduced. Today this is no longer the case because annexations are not accepted as lawful under international law unless the population of the occupied territory clearly express a wish to succeed from the state to which they belong. So today a territory remains occupied even if the occupier declares an annexation and puts in a civilian government. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

By your definition, then, the occupation of the "Occupied [Palestinian] Territories" ended in 1967 (several years before the term came into widespread use), since Jordan annexed the West Bank, while Israel has not. I think this pretty clearly demonstrates the extent to which political agendas drive usage in the media, including naming, as I've commented on elsewhere on this page. Tomer^talk 17:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not my definition. Israel occupies the West Bank (Israel agrees that it does). International opinion is that Israel is also still in military occupation of East Jerusalem, something which Israel does not agree on as it says the capital of the State of Israel. BTW the the term territory is not a new one it has been around a very long time when describing issues like this one (see paragraph one of the The Palestine Mandate "to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire". --Philip Baird Shearer 00:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What you're talking about has nothing to do with the point I was making, namely, that nobody ever called the territories "Occupied" when they were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, and, in the case of the WB, annexed by Jordan. They only became "Occupied [Palestinian] Territories" in 1967. The point I was making had nothing to do with status of the territories, legality of occupation or annexation, etc. It had exclusively to do with the way that political agendas drive language usage in the media and how that "trickles down", if you will, to popular usage. The relevance here, of course, as I have said elsewhere, is that people get much more media exposure to the Israelis vs. non-Israeli Arabs fracas than they do to the ongoing situation in Burma. The media's adoption of the term "Occupied [Palestinian] Territories" has, consequently, had a much greater impact on popular usage not only because of the bizarrely disproportionate (one might say "obsessive") amount of coverage given to Israel and her neighbors, as opposed to Burma...but also because the media's adoption of the junta's respelling has been much less uniform...driven, I maintain, by the political views of journalists and editors. Nothing about what I said should be misconstrued as a desire to go off on a tangent about the situation in the Middle East, however, my sole purpose was to point out the relationship between journalists' politics and their consequent usage, and the further relationship between what the media obsesses about and what goes from media usage to popular usage. Tomer^talk 01:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But the complaint you were asking the question about was "I'd like to protest against the use of the term "former British occupied territories" in the history section as that is not a neutral PoV.". I was pointing out that IMHO the comparison is not helpful because one can not compare the two as the legal status was different because the colonial status of Burma followed a beligerent military occupation long before GCIV became part of international law. It is like saying that the Falkland Islands are are military occupied territory which they are not. The were however under military occupation by both the Argentinians and the British military until such time as the British military handed control back to the civilian government. The important point under international law is the type of government in the Falkland islands is an internal British issue because the islands are recognised by most of the international community as under British sovereignty. But even if the British had lost the Falklands War the islands would have remained under Argentinian military occupation even if the Argentinians had put in a civilian government until/unless the UN security council/Britain agreed that they were part of the sovereign territory of Argentina (which would to a large extent have depended on the local population desiring a change of soverignty). So to describe Burma as "former British occupied territories" is not an accurate description "former British colonies" or "former British territories" would be better. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was asking a bit tongue-in-cheek. The term "occupied" is used here, just as it is in the case of what I referred to, to elicit an emotional response rather than a rational response. The relevance comes in in relation to my discussion higher up the page where I point out that the media warp public perception according to their own viewpoint. This discussion has departed, almost from the beginning, from its intended direction because of more of the same. Calling Burma "former British occupied territories" clearly falls under the rubric of sensationalism, but people too often only recognize sensationalism when it contradicts their own worldview, as has now clearly been demonstrated. Tomer^talk 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the Edinburgh guy again. I'd just like to say that I don't know terribly much about the situation in Palestine, but shall we get back on topic? This is SEA, not the Middle East. Does anyone have a reply which is an agreement to my argument or a rational and relevant counter-argument? -Anonymous Edinburgh Guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.125.107 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

etymology: unsourced edits

Timeineurope keeps editing the etymology section without providing a source for his edit. I have reverted his edits already twice, so now it's time for others to step in if he does it again.

There is no reason to question the quality of the information provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation here. This is definitely a reputable source as defined in the relevant WP policy. If Timeineurope wants to remove this information, he has to either provide another source or he has to contact the writer of that article to check his sources. Information provided by CBC is definitely a more reliable source on scientific subjects than unsourced edits by Timeineurope. --Espoo 14:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the etymology section to how it was before you made your changes – I don't need to source that. Wikipedia:Reliable sources says: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Are you seriously going to maintain that journalists' writings are "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to" scientific subjects?

Timeineurope 14:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

When restoring a section to a previous version replaces a statement with a source with a statement without a source, this is a clear violation of the spirit and intent of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Due to your edit, the section now says "This name was used as early as the 12th century, but its etymology remains unclear."

In addition, you are of course free to remove any unsourced material from any article in Wikipedia, but that kind of behavior would reduce most articles to about probably 20 or 30% of their current length and would be considered very disruptive by most Wikipedians. The right to remove unsourced material is almost universally interpreted as the right to remove only such unsourced material that editors know or suspect to be incorrect.

Even more disruptive would be the removal of all sourced material if the sources are publications in major, respected newspapers. This is also true when these are used as sources for information on scientific topics. This kind of behavior would be considered very disruptive by almost all Wikipedians and would reduce most articles to probably about 10% of their current length. So unless you have a good reason to question the correctness of the information provided by CBC, your behavior is quite uncalled for. Your behavior is especially disruptive and childish considering your willingness to use the British counterpart to the CBC, the BBC, as a reputable source. If you have information that comes from a more reputable source than CBC, please feel free to add it, but stop removing the following edit, which someone else will hopefully soon put back, since i don't want to break the three-revert rule:

The first written record of the name, with the spelling Mirma, is from 1102, but its etymology remains unclear. Later written records use the spelling Mranma, the current form used in Burmese. The first part, mran, is pronounced /ˌmjɑn/ in Burmese, so Mranma would actually correspond to the English spelling Myanma. The "r" at the end is added only in English and in most European languages.

--Espoo 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is always OK to remove content that isn't reliably sourced – even if that results in the article saying something that also isn't reliably sourced. We have a right to remove unreliably sourced content and we don't have a duty to make sure what results is reliably sourced.

I am not saying the CBC is an unreliable source on all subjects, only scientific subjects. Wikipedia:Reliable sources says "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Journalists' writings are not "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to" scientific subjects. In fact, they are often regarded as the exact opposite – ask any scientist.

Timeineurope 18:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you are ignoring what i said (The right to remove unsourced material is almost universally interpreted as the right to remove only such unsourced material that editors know or suspect to be incorrect.) and its implication of being even more disruptive in removing sourced material that you do not know to be incorrect. Unless you have information from a reliable source that discredits the CBC, your simultaneous use of BBC info on "scientific" matters and removal of CBC info on "scientific" matters is disruptive and childish. --Espoo 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What part of "removed incorrect, although partly sourced, information" don't you understand?

Martha Figueroa-Clark, who wrote the BBC page, is a published phonetician.

Please respect Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Timeineurope 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As already said many times, you claim that something is incorrect without providing any source for that claim. You do not even provide information about any knowledge you may personally have that gives you reason to suspect the correctness of the info provided. And as also already explained several times, information provided in major, respected broadcasting corporations, especially of the caliber of the CBC and BBC, is definitely what is meant as a quotable source by Wikipedia:Reliable sources, even on "scientific" subjects. I know that journalists' writings are not regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to scientific subjects by you and many scientists, but there is no ban on them in WP policies. On the contrary, they are considered much better than providing info with no source at all. You have apparently also not understood that journalists make just as many mistakes in writing on any subject, not just ones you call "scientific". According to your logic, reputable media sources couldn't be quoted on any subject. Good journalists research their subject carefully and base it on exactly those kinds of expert sources you would like to see used here in WP. I have nothing against those kinds of sources, and they're definitely preferable, and anything quoted from even reputable media sources contradicted by these preferable expert sources of course has to be removed.

Something supposedly written by a published phonetician that purports to present all or most variant pronunciations but ignores US pronunciation and that incorrectly uses the appended phonetic respelling guide is not a reliable source. Her text was perhaps sloppily edited by a member of that overworked and overtaxed profession whose writings on some topics you want to ban as sources on WP and implicitly propose banning as sources on all topics.

I have tried to show the contradictions in your editing. I'm sorry if you feel offended by the descriptive words I used, but the intent was to describe the character of the editing and why it is disruptive, not to describe you personally. Sorry, i'll try to be more careful in describing edits and possible contradictions in them and to be more careful in using words that clearly apply to the edits and not the person making them.

The most disturbing thing about your unsourced and even unexplained claim of the incorectness of the information from the CBC is that you seem unconcerned that your claim is contradicted by Names of Burma/Myanmar, which you have probably not even bothered to look at. --Espoo 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not usual, nor is it necessary, to provide a source when removing unreliably sourced content. The source can't go in the article, and it is not at all usual to put it in the edit summary. It is also not considered necessary to put the source on the talk page. In short, I did nothing out of the ordinary.

Journalists don't "make just as many mistakes in writing on any subject". Science stands out as the one subject never to trust a journalist on. The reason for that is probably that science is harder to understand than other subjects. Compare the average newspaper article on science and the average newspaper article on politics and you'll see the difference. It may be true that good journalists research their subject carefully, but, needless to say, many journalists aren't good journalists – and it doesn't matter that they base what they write on "expert sources" if they lack the skills necessary to understand them, indeed, most bad science journalism probably stems from journalists' misunderstandings of expert sources.

The BBC page neither explicitly nor implicitly "purports to present all or most variant pronunciations". The main point of these pages is to communicate the BBC Pronunciation Unit's recommendations. Since the BBC doesn't use American English, the Pronunciation Unit naturally "ignores US pronunciation".

The reason the CBC article is supported by Names of Burma/Myanmar is probably that that Wikipedia article was the CBC journalist's source. Compare:

Wikipedia: The first time the name of the country appeared was in a Mon inscription dated 1102, inside which the name was spelled Mirma. The first record of the name in a Burmese inscription is dated 1190, in which inscription the name was spelled Mranma. Today in Burmese the name is still spelled Mranma, but over time the "r" sound disappeared in most dialects of the Burmese language and was replaced with a "y" glide, so although the name is spelled "Mranma", it is actually pronounced Myanma. In Chinese, the name [...] was recorded as [...] (pronounced "Miǎn" in Mandarin).

CBC: The name first appears in a manuscript from 1102, spelled Mirma. Later manuscripts spell the name Mranma, the current name used in Burmese language. The "mran" is actually pronounced "mian" - so it's pronounced Myanma.

There it is, complete with misunderstandings: "mian" is Mandarin, not Burmese, and it's inscriptions, not manuscripts.

In Names of Burma/Myanmar, no source is given, so in end effect, this information is completely unsourced.

This is what happens when you trust journalists on science.

Timeineurope 11:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You continue to refuse to say what you think is incorrect in the information you removed with nothing but the vague "explanation" that journalists are usually wrong in reporting on "scientific" topics. Your attempt to divert attention to the other article's possible errors is not going to be successful. Please state clearly what is wrong in the info originally quoted by me from the CBC article:

The first written record of the name, with the spelling Mirma, is from 1102, but its etymology remains unclear. Later written records use the spelling Mranma, the current form used in Burmese. The first part, mran, is pronounced /ˌmjɑn/ in Burmese, so Mranma would actually correspond to the English spelling Myanma. The "r" at the end is added only in English[7] and in most European languages. --Espoo 11:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What part of ""mian" is Mandarin, not Burmese" don't you understand? While it is not necessary to go into detail on what is incorrect when removing unreliably sourced information, here goes:

The first part of the word (which shouldn't be given as "mran", see below) is not pronounced /ˌmjɑn/ in Burmese. The claim that it is pronounced "mian" stems from the CBC journalist's misunderstanding of the Wikipedia article, which gives "Miǎn" as a Mandarin, not a Burmese, pronunciation. Even if it were pronounced "mian", the interpretation of that as /ˌmjɑn/ is your own invention (the modern Mandarin pronunciation of "mian" is closer to /mjɛn/).

It makes as little sense to say that Burmese uses the spelling Mranma and pronounces it as Myanma as it does to say that it uses the spelling Myanma and used to pronounce that as Mranma. Burmese is spelt using Burmese characters, and the character that used to be pronounced /r/ is now pronounced /j/ (cf. Rangoon/Yangon). The Burmese spelling used to be pronounced Mranma and is now pronounced Myanma – it isn't Mranma pronounced Myanma. The best way to solve this problem is to include the Burmese spelling – any rendering in the Roman alphabet is flawed, either because it uses <r> for both /j/ and /r/ or because it uses <y> or <j> for both /r/ and /j/.

The first sentence doesn't identify Mirma as being a Mon spelling and thus leaves readers to think it is a Burmese spelling.

Saying that it "would actually correspond to the English spelling Myanma" implies that it wouldn't correspond to the English spelling Myanmar. However, either spelling is an acceptable rendering. The spelling Myanmar was devised by non-rhotic English speakers – they didn't pronounce the "r".

Anyway, I have better things to do with my time than engage in endless discussions with impolite opponents, so this is the last you will hear from me on this subject.

Timeineurope 13:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to have upset you again, but i do sincerely hope you will agree that it was a good idea to ask for at least something to back up the claim that the CBC info was incorrect. You're quite right that it is not necessary to go into detail on what is incorrect when removing unreliably sourced information, but please try to understand that it would in future be a good idea to provide at least a tiny bit of information to show other editors such a removal is not based on a private theory or personal bias.

So far, all you'd said to explain your revert was claim that the info was wrong and that journalists can't be trusted on this topic. (Your other explanations concerned the WP, not the CBC article. - Use of "manuscripts" instead of "inscriptions" is no reason to remove the entire info, especially since it used "writings".) Other editors had no way of knowing whether this was a simplistic claim based on some personal crusade against quotes from news sources on certain topics and whether your claim was not some personal theory. Now that editors know how much you know about this topic, they will certainly believe there is good reason to leave the CBC stuff out.

Too bad that you weren't able or willing to rewrite correctly the info that the CBC journalist unsuccessfully tried to explain and summarise. I assure you CBC journalists do not usually make stuff up as they go, and they wouldn't even know how to on this topic. They may misunderstand and oversimplify, but i'm 99% sure the CBC info you simply deleted was based on some correct info from a reputable source. I highly doubt CBC would use Wikipedia as its only source. I'm sure you know where to find the relevant sources to rewrite this part of this section correctly. Right now, the heading is a joke because most of the section is talking about other things than etymology.

It was not necessary to go into such detail in backing up your claim, but i assure you your time was not wasted. Your information will help future editors prevent the same and similar nonsense misleading simplification from reappearing in the article and will help them understand the relevant transliteration problems.

I will be adding sourced information on the etymology of the country names and the naming history, and i hope you will check whether this info is correct and remove anything that is not. I already have some ready from Britannica, and we know that that is no proof of correctness. In fact, many scientists consider encyclopedias at best as reliable as the work of good journalists :-) --Espoo 12:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

reliable sources on English use of Myanmar and Burma and on the legality and validity of the name change

Please only add information from reliable sources to the lists below. These include not only scholarly and academic publications, government websites, and reference works but obviously also reputable media sources. In a changing situation, in other words always, the media is usually able to provide more up-to-date and in that sense more reliable information on current use of a term than even scholarly publications if these are not very recent.

• Some reliable sources state or imply that English use of Myanmar is still so rare in common usage that it is not understood by most English speakers and that it is still so rare or new even among educated speakers that at least 6(!) variant English pronunciations exist (in each dialect of English). A linguist will be able to tell us if this is proof that the term is not really yet established as an English word.

http://www.onelook.com/?loc=bm3&w=myanmar http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/myanmar http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict?in=myanmar&stress=-s#lookup

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/burma.htm (makes Firefox freeze up) says: "It used to be the Union of Burma and even now most people outside of the country call it Burma"

• Below is a list of academic sites, institutes, and articles that use only or mainly B in official names and institutes or in articles, which is a strong indication that Myanmar is not accepted by scholars as the correct English term for the country. The world's only peer-reviewed printed research journal on Burma published outside of Burma is called the Journal of Burma Studies and was established in 1996, 7 years after the junta changed the name.

Center for Burma Studies

Journal of Burma Studies "The world's only peer-reviewed printed research journal on Burma published outside of Burma/ Myanmar. The Journal of Burma Studies was established in March 1996"

University of Texas Libraries

Cornell

http://web.soas.ac.uk/burma/index.html

http://southasia.uchicago.edu

http://www.cis.yale.edu/seas/index.htm

http://www.indiana.edu/~bsa/burma.html

http://library.dartmouth.edu/guides/sub.php?page_id=3926&subject_id=25&section_id=1 "For example, you want books about Myanmar, but does the catalog use "Myanmar" or "Burma"? If you do a subject search for "Myanmar," click here to see what happens." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Espoo (talk • contribs) 10:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize 1991 Presentation Speech (also listed below because both an academic institute and an internationally respected organisation)

• Below is a list of government sites and sites of internationally reputable institutions and organisations, including websites of the so-called opposition (which in fact represents the legal government of B), that use only or mainly B in official names and institutes or in articles, which is a strong indication that Myanmar is not accepted by these as the correct English term for the country.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35910.htm explains "the democratically elected but never convened Parliament of 1990 does not recognize the name change" According to international law, this means that the official name is in fact still Burma.

Human Rights Education Institute of Burma

Nobel Peace Prize 1991 Presentation Speech

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1018965307901 says the same as the US State Department, but doesn't point out that Burma's democracy movement is in fact the democratically elected government of B: "Burma's democracy movement prefers the form ‘Burma’ because they do not accept the legitimacy of the unelected military regime to change the official name of the country."

• Contrary to what is claimed by some in the move discussion above, use of M instead of B in English in Asia is not at all obvious. Just one example:

756 from bangkokpost.com for burma.

62 from bangkokpost.com for myanmar.

• Use of B instead of M is twice as high on edu pages when used in normal running text, as shown by these searches for "and B" and "and M":

28,300 for site:edu "and burma.

14,800 for site:edu "and myanmar.

• Use of B instead of M is twice as high in Google Scholar hits when used in normal running text, as shown by these searches for "and B" and "and M":

10,300 for "and burma

5,440 for "and myanmar.

--Espoo 09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

missing external links and relevant info

No govermnent website nor mention of physical server locations of it nor of the "official Myanmar wireless internet service provider" http://www.myanma.net/ --Espoo 11:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

last paragraph of 20,000 monks protest section

This paragraph is only one sentence, and appears to be a list of newspaper headlines or something similar. I have to go to a class, but would suggest that someone rewrite this in a coherent fashion. Natalie 14:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this section belong under Economy? My understanding is that the protest was in regard to political suppression and a lack of democratic processes, not economic concerns. TechBear 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph I'm thinking of begins "On 29 September 2007, tourists vanished from Myanmar;" and continues on for eight more lines with only one period. I don't think it, in it's current form at least, belongs anywhere since it appears to be a bunch of newspaper headlines strung together as prose. I'm working on it. Natalie 19:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've ended up just cutting the whole paragraph, since it had no coherent narrative. The paragraph immediately above it has a similar problem, and someone (presumably the writer) provided Google News search results as a reference, which definitely suggests they were just copying newspaper headlines in a list. Aside from the complete lack of readability, this would also constitute copyright infringement. I don' want to just erase most of the section, though, so I'm going to try to copy some from the main article. Natalie 19:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

October requested move

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 Speedy close. We just did this. A decision has already been reached. --Hemlock Martinis 00:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Burma → Myanmar — Myanmar is the official name of the country. The majority of American media use Myanmar. The United Nations uses Myanmar. English usage of Myanmar is wide spread. The article was named Myanmar for a very long time until suddenly Myanmar came into the news and activists changed the name without a consensus. —Tocino 23:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. It has been 14 years since the name Myanmar became standard in U.S.-published World Atlases. Georgia guy 23:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Surely there's some Wikipedia rule about not proposing a move back to a former name less than 24 hours after a successful vote to move a page in the opposite direction. Everybody who might comment has probably already done so and the proposer Tocino already voted in the last poll. This vote is utterly pointless, you can't keep having votes until you get your way. Jooler 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The decision's been made. --Hemlock Martinis 00:26, 4 October 2007 (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.

Regarding the above move request

This page has been moved, but there is not a clear and solid consensus among Wikipedians that we've settled on the best name. Nevertheless, I agree that it's very premature to start a fresh move request so few hours after one has closed.

I'd cheerfully listen to an argument that "Myanmar" will be recognized more easily by more English speakers than "Burma", but until that argument has been made and discussed thoroughly, a move request is inappropriate. Let's build a consensus first, and then we can move the page. Meanwhile, the artifice of a timed survey is unhelpful.

My personal suspicion regarding the name is that, if the name Myanmar get printed on enough maps and in enough media for enough years, then it will be the most commonly recognized among the upcoming generation of English speakers. Presumably we'll try to switch at that time, which will involve trying to determine when that is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please show me the rule that says you can't have another poll. I find it amusing that the supposed pro-democracy side who support the name Burma will not allow a democractic poll to occur on WP. Secondly there wasn't a consensus to move the article from Myanmar to Burma. There was significant support for Myanmar. Despite this, the activists moved it anyway. The article should be moved back to it's original and correct name.... The name Myanmar which was the name of the article for a very long time. --Tocino 00:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not about there being a "rule". Don't get hung up on the idea that Wikipedia is all about rules. The point is that we just had a long discussion attached to one move request; having another one right now is unlikely to change anything. Let's just talk about it, just like people, discussing any kind of question, and if it becomes clear that we're becoming convinced that more people recognize M, then we'll do a move request and move it back then. At this point, it appears that more people recognize "Burma" as the name of that country. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should at least wait one or two months before this is attempted by then.. perhaps world events would unfold that would necessitate another move, or something, but let's just wait before we do this whole shebang again. Personally, Burma is now in the right place, and the closing admin was right. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm mystified as to how anyone can say, after 14 years, that Burma is more common then Myanmar? Heck I remember it being common and the source of jokes back in 1996 with the Seinfeld episode The Foundation (Seinfeld). That is not to mention the overwhelming usage by the media of Myanmar now. I think its a safe bet that the current "redirect" of Myanmar is being used more often by curious readers to get to this article then Burma. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's really not "overwhelming". I think the reasonable position to take is that it's not entirely clear which version is more recognized. If some people are saying that one word is "obviously" more common than the other, and others are saying that the other is "obviously" more common, then neither is correct. It's clearly not obvious. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm mystified as to how some people keep claiming that M is more common than B. In what country and among what kind of people? Most people in English-speaking countries outside of Asia have no idea where M is and many don't even know what it is. Most people do however know that B is a country, and almost all of these know that it's somewhere in Asia. And since most people in English-speaking countries had and have only a vague idea where Burma is, the change in the official name only confused them more. It takes much longer than 18 years (1989-2007) for a new name to become common in general use, especially if the old name is used extensively in both the media (at almost every first mention of M) and general speech when (rarely) speaking about it. Even those news outlets that mindlessly use M instead of what their customers understand and what the elected Burmese government (so-called opposition) wants show demonstrators saying mostly B and with signs using mostly B.

So far i've been speaking about what normal people understand and hear. I hope you're not seriously going to claim that more normal people in English-speaking countries (except perhaps in Asia) will actually use M in talking to others?! They would be afraid of sounding snobby or of not being understood and they don't even know how to say it, which is the main reason why they don't use it. Even highly educated people are confused, as shown by the many different pronunciations listed in dictionaries. This is proof that M only exists on paper and in the news. It is not yet really an English word. Most people have trouble understanding that writing is a tool, not a separate language. When a written word does not have only a few pronunciation variants, that is clear proof that the word is not yet part of the spoken, "real" language. As soon as a word is used often, only a few pronunciation variants survive.

In addition, use in scholarly, academic, and expert writing strongly favors B, as clearly shown here. The use of M in the media is simply mindless adoption of official Burmese and UN use, which is dictated by the wishes of the rulers of its member states, which can include crazy generals using unscientific transcriptions to promote their agenda. In addition, we all know that an excellent broadcasting company like the BBC makes its own decisions whereas most newspapers and other media mindlessly follow some style guide like the AP's, so the use of statistics to show how common some term is is OK (and scientific, i.e. linguistically correct, when done correctly) when dealing with use in normal English by the general public and on reputable websites and in other expert and general scholarly sources, but it is not a valid linguistic argument in discussing media use. --Espoo 06:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Why do you suppose it takes more then 18 yrs for a name to become common? History (and Wikipedia) is littered with counter examples from businesses, to sport teams to stadiums, to numerous cities to numerous countries to airlines and even people. Typically when things change their names, people catch on. But I think one fundamental point is being missed in this discussion. "What leads our readers to these articles?" What makes people want to look up Myanmar and read about it. Something being in the news as a current event is a big driver and Wikipedia is becoming more and more of a go-to source for educational and school work. With the vast majority of maps and logically text books having the correct name and the clear majority of news sources using the correct name M vs B it seems quite reasonable that Myanmar is what the majority of readers are going to be searching for. To keep this article at an archaic and outdated names seem counterintuitive and backwards thinking. The only logical reason for ever not using the correct name is if the incorrect one is vastly more common then the correct one. This is a scenario where that is clearly not the case. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Espoo, all of your claims are OR that aren't backed up by the facts. I don't hear anyone in the United States say "Burma". I don't read about Burma anywhere besides on WP and British based media. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Associated Press, The New York Times, Yahoo! all use Myanmar. Even Fox News uses Myanmar. My local newspaper uses Myanmar. You go on to say that the wonderful BBC uses "Burma". Hmmm, maybe because the BBC is run by the British government and of course the British government refuses to recognize the wishes of the current government in Myanmar.--Tocino 08:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agne and Tocino, your arguments are much the same, so i'll answer both here. Yes, when things change their name, people catch on, but not when they get their names changed by others considered as intruders or worse. And not when the elected Burmese government (so-called opposition) refuses to accept the new name. And not when most English-speaking experts and scholars continue to use the old, legitimate name. You desperately cling to the news Googles despite the repeated explanations of the lack of independent decision making by most news outlets, especially US, on (not only) naming issues. WP policy specifically refers to reputable sources, and use of B by experts outweighs mindless media usage. And the overwhelming preference for B over M in Google Scholar hits and Google edu hits is shown here - did you to look at that?

And NPR is comparable to BBC in the exceptional quality of its journalistic methods and integrity and independence. Claiming that the BBC is run by the British government means you know nothing about it. It's much more critical of the government than most US news outlets, who pander to the lowest common denominator (the mindless US majority that doesn't vote and wants even news to be entertainment) because they are so dependent on funds provided by advertising. It's no coincidence that it's NPR that has this story explaining "News agencies have differed over what to call the nation..." which shows that things are not as boringly bland and simple even in the US as you claim, including specifically info that shows your claim about CNN is wrong. Listen to the primer on the country's name linked to on that site. The CBC is already catching on, NPR is starting to switch, and apparently some US news outlets will sometime soon start following the well-established and uninterrupted use of Burma by experts and in research journals etc. instead of mindlessly and simplemindedly following the dictates of boorish generals who know very little about anything to do with society or names. It's scary to realise that even Dubya has more sense than most US media on such a simple case. And even if this were a simple UK/US difference, there would be no reason to call my carefully documented evidence of use in reputable sources OR. What do you think OR means? --Espoo 22:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your agrument comes off as arrogant to me. All of the fine news sources I mentioned to you who use Myanmar are mindless idiots who will say or follow anything. Meanwhile the BBC which is apparently better and more independent than the rest has made the correct choice. This is what I'm getting from you. Of course you don't give any links to support. Well, how can you since they're mostly opinions? You also go on to insult the American people.

CNN uses Myanmar. Proof: 1 2 3

In America we are taught that the country is named Myanmar. In our school books (Example) and on maps everywhere. The majority of the independent media also uses Myanmar. I suspect many people will type in Myanmar to only get redirected to Burma, which then the Burma WP article will say that actually the person was right, the country's official name is Myanmar whether the British or Western Europeans like it or not. --Tocino 16:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All of the fine news sources I mentioned to you who use Myanmar are mindless idiots who will say or follow anything. - I said nothing of the kind; sorry if it sounded like that. I simply repeated what has been explained many times, that it makes no sense to use Google searches on news to determine how common a term is in general use and among experts. It's been explained several times that most news outlets follow a few style guides and do not make independent naming decisions. What is significant is what decisions are made by news agencies and major newspapers, not how many minor news outlets follow some style guide. What is significant, for example, is that the British Reuters uses mostly M and only mentions B despite B being much more common in the UK. I also specifically pointed out an excellent and truly independent US news outlet that points out that the use of M/B is not a clearcut case even in the USA though most US news sources apparently use M. You however continue to ignore the fact that B is so common and M so uncommon in at least the UK that the BBC decided to use B for that reason, not due to the kind of reasons you invented with a clear intent to insult and claim that US media is not government controlled. Now when i point out that the BBC is not government controlled and much more independent than most US media because these are dependent on frantically appealing to the masses due to their dependence on advertising, contrary to the equally excellent NPR, you get upset.

I did not insult the US American people. I'm a US American myself, and i consider it no insult at all to point out that many of us no longer vote and want even news to be entertainment. That's the horrible truth, not an insult.

You also continue to ignore the fact that since B is strongly favored in reputable sources it's pretty irrelevant that even the fine US news sources you listed prefer M. WP is an encyclopedia, not a news source summary.

You also ignore the fact that the elected government of B, which is kept out of office by the illegal junta, is against the use of M. It's an incredible insult to the most cherished values of most US Americans if US schoolbooks use M despite this fact.

which then the Burma WP article will say that actually the person was right, the country's official name is Myanmar - This makes absolutely no sense; just because the official names of East Germany and North Korea are something else does not mean that the WP lemmas should not be the official names or use these in the WP article more than once.

Your listing of CNN links tries to simply ignore the fact that the NPR story clearly documents that at least some CNN reports/reporters use only or mainly B. Did you listen to the audio link here? --Espoo 21:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Espoo, I've got to say, your repeating that the ousted government is legitimate and elected, and the current government an illegal junta, weakens your case. It gives me the impression that you're supporting the name "Burma" for political reasons, which is precisely the wrong approach for Wikipedia. As for your claim that "most people in English-speaking countries outside of Asia have no idea where M is and many don't even know what it is," I really don't think you're qualified to make that claim, about what "most people in English-speaking countries" know. How many English-speaking countries have you lived in? To what extent does your circle of acquaintances represent a cross-section of all English speakers? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, it would certainly weaken my argument if it were the only thing i had to say. As it is, i'm listing it among and after many other and stronger arguments. More specifically, the kinds of reputable sources WP should mainly be based on clearly favor B and usually only also mention M because it's used in so many news outlets, at least in the USA (shown in the above section on reputable sources). However, the declared wish of an elected government is definitely also a reputable source that alone cannot influence WP naming, but should definitely be considered in a situation in which we seem to have a traditional, clear UK/US divide. In deciding on WP use, the declared wish of the elected government should at least balance the UN practice of using the name used by the de facto government (M) and the decision of news outlets to follow UN practice. This is a good example in which a responsible WP editing decision should be able to balance even a large majority of Google hits or Google news hits with one official statement because it's obvious that those numbers would immediately switch the other way if the elected government is allowed to rule.

As for the claim that most people in English-speaking countries outside of Asia have no idea where M is and many don't even know what it is, i didn't reiterate the arguments and data again. They are the declared research to that effect by the BBC, the reports by some members of the discussion about widespread use of M in English in Asia, and my knowledge of US conditions, which is admittedly mostly based on experience from many years ago. (Since this is personal experience, i'll put it in parentheses: Most US Americans have trouble saying on which continent even well known countries like Austria and Finland are located, so i'm quite confident they still know more about B's than M's location because the name change of a country that is so exotic to most US Americans has no doubt not improved their state of knowledge about B. For most US news listeners, the news is entertainment.) More specifically, just because something is on the news often in the USA does not mean that most people use the same words in everyday speech to describe those events. So far, the only evidence for use of M in everyday English in the USA is from US dictionaries, and these report such a very exceptional and bewildering variety of pronunciations that this indicates the word is not used much in everyday speech.

What's ironic about this B/M debate is that it is apparently a traditional, clear UK/US divide, and these are known to cause much more interest in WP naming discussions than the sufferings or the wish of an entire people. Most of those discussion members accused of being political activists were probably just defending their regional speech preference. It's also quite funny that it took so long to find out that this is a UK/US difference. If someone had bothered to contact a professor in both a UK and a US university, we could have saved huge amounts of time and energy. If this is such a clear regional English difference, we should of course consider renaming the article Burma/Myanmar, but we should definitely consider the declared wish of the elected B government and of the majority of Burmese people in deciding which to use mainly in the article. The biggest irony is namely that the fervent defenders of M basing their arguments mainly on Google news hits and ignoring more reputable sources (the ones i documented) also blindly or dishonestly ignore the fact that most experts quoted in the news and most Burmese demonstrators in those same news sources use mostly B. The US news stories also regularly have things like "who wrote a book on B" or "the Open Society Institute's Burma Project/Southeast Asia" which clearly demonstrate what experts on B say and use. --Espoo 07:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've raised the question of naming convention standards forcountry names here. -- Boracay Bill 02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Would the people who argued for moving "Myanmar" to "Burma" also support moving "People's Republic of China" to "China". The exact same reasons listed above would be just as applicable here. Or will the supportes of the Myanmar mover argue that China (by itself) is not a common name used to refer to the PRC? Try and do all the searches you listed above. What does the US State Department use? What does the UK government use? What does the BBC use? --Polaron | Talk 04:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

China has nothing to do with this. It has a completely different geopolitical situation, so please stop trying to bring it up. Thank you. --Hemlock Martinis 06:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? I was going to follow up on the comment by wagering that a significant percentage of people and mass media refer to the Republic of China by some different name. But now, China's a straw man. Former Soviet Union's a straw man. Thailand, Iran, Vietnam, Cote d'Ivoire, anything that is an example is a straw man. The counterexamples offered are English translations of nations that have made no official request of how to be known in English. I'd be eager for an example of a nation that 1) had a name given to it by some European colonial power, 2) has officially changed that name to something else and requested others to do so, 3) has had that name recognized by the English spoken in the U.N., and 4) has a Wikipedia page named for the former colonial name. If there is none, then I suggest that straw is a sturdier substance than air. -BaronGrackle 06:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is seriously suggesting that the official name of Burma should not be prominently mentioned in the WP article. Nobody is seriously suggesting doing anything like that for any of the other countries listed. And China is a completely different situation than B because almost everyone knows that there is discussion about what China really is and includes. No reputable source will ever use simply China even when the whole text is only about mainland C or only about Taiwan. If there were 2 parts of Burma claiming they were the real B, nobody would seriously suggest calling only one of them B in WP. And yes, moving ROC to Taiwan could probably be supported with sufficient data on common and scholarly use.

And as for your 1-4, 2=3 as has been explained many times, and 2 is in violation of the wishes of the elected government of B, so all you've got left is 1, and there are many countries like that. --Espoo 06:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You said that "No reputable source will ever use simply China even when the whole text is only about mainland C or only about Taiwan". Are you sure about that? Have you tried doing the searches you posted in the previous Move discussion for whether "China" is commonly used to refer to only the PRC? Too bad you don't apply your principles universally. --Polaron | Talk 20:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Every page with Burma in the name should also mention Myanmar, but until the last few days on iseveral pages with Myanmar in the name Burma was not mentioned. Sometimes presumably because some editors argued that "Burma is the old name for the country" which I think has now been shown not to be true. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a convention that if a page has been moved via a WP:RM then a new WP:RM to move it back should not be made for six months. Here are two examples from the archives which come to mind but I can find more if someone asks. The reason for this is that if the debate has been thorough then little more can be said and there is a general Wikipedia convention that one does not make multiple requests just to get the result one desires because most editors have more constructive things to do with the time they spend editing Wikipedia. However this convention is not set in stone and there may be cases were due to circumstances it is necessary to have a requested move in under six months but I have not read any reasons in this section which seem to me reasonable reasons for another WP:RM. For anyone who puts in such a request in under six months should consider that it may well be counter productive for them because some editors will express the opinion that a move back should not take place just because the WP:RM is too soon. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question here, does anyone talk about the Myanmarise opposition, the Myanmarise government, the Myanmarise junta? I think it is telling how truly accepted a name is when people do not really use it in adjective form. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The adjective for United States is American, United Kingdom British, the Philippines Filipino, the Netherlands Dutch, etc. Sometimes the adjective arrives in English via a different route than the noun. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 11:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I suppose you are right on that point. I do think though that we usually use the most common term in the English speaking world for something and I think there is little doubt that in the English speaking world Burma is a lot more common than Myanmar. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with you on that latter principle; that the naming of the article should conform to the naming conventions (WP:UE, WP:COMMONNAME, etc) that we have. I just disagree with some of the arguments that are being used, i.e. that it has to do with politics and the (non-)recognition of the current regime, that the old name is too colonial, etc. Unfortunately, many of those who are arguing based on English usage are merely saying "Everyone says..." or "No one uses..." or "X is more common by far" without any sort of backup other than their own personal say-so. I personally lean slightly toward Burma, but only because I don't think Myanmar has sufficiently established itself in common usage to supplant Burma (as opposed to, say, Belarus vs Byelorussia). I am, however, willing to be convinced one way or the other. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 11:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't have this article on my watchlist and who doesn't regularly follow this topic, I must admit I was surprised to discover that this article was moved. I had thought that "Burma" had fallen out of use, akin to "Peking" or "Bombay". My main area of interest is sports, and I note that the International Olympic Committee uses "Myanmar" [1], as does FIFA [2]. And by utter coincidence, my local newspaper had a top headline today of Myanmar regime launches roundups. There was no mention in the entire article of "Burma" as a former name etc. I scratch my head at any claim that "there is little doubt that in the English speaking world Burma is a lot more common than Myanmar", since Burma is a name from the past in my part of the English speaking world. Andrwsc 16:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In North America especially, under-30s are more familiar with Myanmar and over-30s with Burma. (in the UK, "Burma" predominates among all ages). As WP is disproportionally edited by younger contriburtors (<30's) then the current decision falling to Burma is undoubtedly the correct one, as WP:NAME and WP:COMMONNAME both refer to "English Speakers" in general and not "English Speaking WP editors". Also remarkable is that despite the swell in awareness generated by the protests and crackdown, the arguments for "Burma" were quite apolitical; accusations of "politics" were conspicuously ill-founded, and too shrill by half. (and insisting on "Myanmar" is *potentially* just as political). As such, the decision is taken, should stand, and any move to rename it back should be opposed as per WP:POINT. István 16:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you're right about over-30s and under-30s. I'm 30, and I feel that Myanmar has been the dominant term for most of my education and adult life. Perhaps older speakers don't realize just how predominant Myanmar is for younger speakers, and vice-versa. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you are implying my age, but rest assured I am well over 30. Your statement strikes me as a personal opinion only, unless you have a source for that. My single person observation is that I haven't seen "Burma" used in a current context in years, and I've lived in multiple English-speaking countries during that time. Andrwsc 17:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes Andrwsc, you are right it is a personal opinion and WP:OR (note I never used this argument during the debate) unless we can segregate google hits by age group (don't laugh...) we will never be able to (dis)prove the point. But it is more a question of Wikipedians deciding on common usage among "all English Speakers" (not just amongst themselves) and since it is quite likely that WP is overrepresented by younger (<30) editors AND (I forgot to mention) (must be my age) 3-digit I.Q.'s (i.e. people who paid more attention in school, to the news, etc.) then this bias might be material to the present discussion. BTW, I'm NOT implying that >30 is "old" ;-) István 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, apology accepted. ;) And yeah, I'm not young, but I am smart.  ;) Like I said above, I'm not hugely passionate about this issue, but I do find it odd that Wikipedia appears (to my eyes) to be clinging to a historical name. I would wonder about the reaction of a "normal" person who picked up today's local newspaper, and looked up "Myanmar" here after reading the headline article. I would speculate that reaction would include a certain amount of puzzlement at the redirect to "Burma". The principle of least astonishment ought to apply here. Andrwsc 18:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I presume Andrwsc that you are living in North America, because this is in part an English speaking national issue. Would you assume that most of the people who know the country as Myanmar would also know it is called Burma? In the UK this is not so because Myanmar is seen as a political sop to a brutal military regime. Using Google on parliament.uk returns

• 5,690 English pages from parliament.uk for -Myanmar Burma
• 252 English pages from parliament.uk for Myanmar -Burma
• 482 English pages from parliament.uk for Myanmar Burma.

The two major British TV news outlets, the BBC, and ITV, both us Burma as do many other news orgnisations in the UK, so it is quite possible for Brits (who do watch news bulletins) not to know that the country is also called Myanmar. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm currently in North America, but I have lived in Europe too. I don't want to presume that I can speak for anybody other than myself, so I'm just stating my own personal observations. I perceive the current name as Myanmar, and the historical name as Burma, and that is probably reinforced by a) what I see in the newspapers (including references to Yangon, which I know was previously known as Rangoon), and b) what I see in my frequent work on sport-related topics, such as the aforementioned use by the IOC and FIFA of Myanmar. That is all. To be honest, I'm surprised to hear that the BBC still use Burma. Andrwsc 19:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly a) true for many people, but not most; b)original research (as is the same argument pro-"Burma"); and c) a summary of most of the preceding debate, and the difficulty of settling the crux of the issue: i.e. which is more commonly used in English. All reasonable editors can accept that both names have many users, and neither choice is 100% correct. What is *un*reasonable are "unreferenced opinions that one name is "obviously" more used than the other, and that the exact opposite argument is invalid b/c it's merely "unreferenced opinion". Time to pack away the brickbats, the horse is dead now. István 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a divide between the news agencies on who uses the "new" names of Myanmar and Yangon and who doesn't. Reuters and AP use the new names, whereas the BBC and the PA do not. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, just disproved that as this Reuters article uses Burma. Live Search news gives 32,304 results for Rangoon and slightly more, 36,357 for Yangon. It gives 163,114 results for Burma but more than double, 404,250 for Myanmar. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

One swallow does not make a summer, Most Reuters articles use Myanmar. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like 14,300 hits from uk.reuters.com for only Burma and not even mentioning M is a pretty decent summer. Looks like Reuters is perhaps changing its policy on the name. See these too: 1,490 hits from uk.reuters.com over the past month for burma -myanmar and this and this and this and this for Reuters articles, some of which use M but have only B in the heading, so the swarm of swallows is bigger than 14,300. --Espoo 08:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the count for the opposite way (myanmar -burma)? What is the ratio for reuters.com as a whole? --Polaron | Talk 12:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: As I've said before, I don't see any reason why we should prioritise any group over another. Therefore the fact that Burma is more popular with over 30 year olds and Myanmar with under 30 year olds doesn't imply we should choose Burma. (Nor does it imply we should choose Myanmar obviously). Also again it's disappointing IMHO that most people continue to ignore the usage in Asia. While I admit having briefly read the evidence the situation in Asia may not be as clear cut as I had thought (although I note that one big problems we have in all situations is that all the evidence we have is mostly media usage which is influenced by numerous factors and doesn't necessarily tell us what name is most recognised and/or considered most correct by the English speaking populance). My main point here is I agree with the later point István that the issue is not very clear cut. Definitely not as clear cut as those who keep claiming Burma is the most common is. (Note that I and most supports of Myanmar never argued that Myanmar was clear cut common usage although I did perhaps believe it was more common in Asia then it perhaps is outside Malaysia and Singaore.) My opinion remains mostly the same. Common usage is not clear cut, there is insufficient evidence to say which one is the more common. In the absence of a clear common usage then we have to consider other issues. Given that Myanmar is the official name (even if the government that made the change is dubious) then Myanmar is the clear choice. Regardless, moving the page was improper given the lack of a consensus (we don't go with the majority in the absence of a consensus). However it's too late now, while the move may have been improper and against process, it was made and fighting it will simply be too disruptive and counter-productive. Sadly, this whole sorry mess is IMHO indicative of the sorry state wikipedia is in Nil Einne 06:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) In my own experience (which may not mirror yours --I'm an American who has been living in the Philippines for over a decade), Myanmar (ex-Burma) is equally common-usage with Mumbai (ex-Bombay), Beijing (ex-Peking, as in Peking Duck), Guanzhou (ex-Canton, as in Cantonese), Ho Chi Minh City (ex-Saigon), Sri Lanka (ex-Ceylon), and probably several other such examples which don't come immediately to mind. -- Boracay Bill 07:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nil, I dont think its quite that bad, I believe the decision fell according to the standards WP:NAME which is summarised as:

As commonality could not be clearly settled, the second criteria (ambiguity) more clearly favoured Burma. It should be noted that the list of less relevant arguments include official names, politics (recent or past, democratic or authoritarian), colonial legacy, and geography-weighting of votes. I believe the point was made that "English speakers" did not refer only to "native" English speakers, and I dont recall anyone discounting the view of any particular country (which would be difficult to do here anyway). This debate was particularly intruiging as there were a core of editors from both viewpoints who genuinely tried to get to the bottom of the main point (commonality) without regressing to undisciplined chaos and although challenged, this time the core held. István 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There's only one problem. It's never been proven that English usage of Burma is wide spread while English usage of Myanmar is not. Despite it not being proven the article was moved anyway. I requested the move back to correct this mistake, but it was blocked by an editor with a very strong pro-Burma POV. --Tocino 16:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The BBC says that "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."(my emphasis)[3]. Not sure if they mean the BBC domestic audience or the BBC World Service as well.--Philip Baird Shearer 00:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The BBC does not hold authority over WP. Espoo is using the same defense. The BBC is funded by the British government, so its slightly skewed on this subject. Also I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the BBC audience are British people. As has been stated above, for every BBC that still uses "Burma" it seems there a five other media outlets that use Myanmar instead. Do you seriously believe that all of these media outlets who use Myanmar don't consider what their readers/viewers/listeners are familar with? If English usage of Myanmar wasn't wide spread then you wouldn't have over 70,000,000 Google hits for Myanmar. --Tocino 01:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tocino, English usage of "Myanmar" is widespread. So is English usage of "Burma". Many people are familiar with both names. It's not overwhelmingly clear which is more familiar to more people. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The BBC is funded by the British government, so its slightly skewed on this subject. Also I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the BBC audience are British people. - Please inform yourself better before claiming things that are incorrect and make you look badly informed. The BBC is set up in a way to ensure equal representation of views critical of the government. It is also known to be much more critical of the government, and more often, than most, even major, US news outlets. The BBC has a worldwide audience although it is not as popular in the USA as elsewhere. For that very reason, the BBC's language decisions are no doubt based on usage in Commonwealth countries, not just the UK. It's quite obvious that the BBC would not be using language and names exclusively British in broadcasting in so many other countries with a strong or even official use of English. --Espoo 07:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tocino don't place that bet as according the the Wikipedia page on the BBC World Service 44 million people (predominately/all?) outside the UK tune into the BBC English language world service broadcasts each week and most of the BBC-WS'd output is news current affairs programmes. In comparison the UK population is about 60 million but of course not all of them listen to the BBC in any given week. As I said I do not know if the above comment by Auntie was just for the domestic service broadcast or not. All it was meant to show is that at least one major English television broadcaster gives the reason why it uses Burma and has presumably done the research to back up its statement. Has any other major English language publisher given the reasons why they uses either Burma or Myanmar? If so it would be interesting to read and would shed some authoritative light on regional differences in usage.--Philip Baird Shearer 08:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Reuters was asked the question about why they use Myanmar instead of Burma last March. Their response is buried somewhere in the previous move discussion above. --Polaron | Talk 12:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitary section break

I am not from English wikipedia and I'm not English speaker too. So I can say, that You made stupid and political implication thing, when removed page to Burma. You should know, that English language is international and You should use international terms too. You changed page History of Myanmar and wrote, that "Pegu forces out of northern Burma by 1753, and by 1759" (and a lot of more false things). You should remember that Myanmar is old ancient word, and Burma was only on XIX century (British colonial times) and 1948-1989 m. (independent country, but only in English language, in Myanmar (Burmese) language it was always "Myanma"). I think wikipedia is encyclopaedia, and You shouldn't use term Burma to identify with protesters (it is a task for the media.)--84.240.6.224 09:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Moscow, is written Москва in Russian and is romanized as Moskva. This doesn't mean that we will start changing the name of the Moscow article to Moskva, nor the Germany article to Deutschland, nor the Netherlands article to Nederland, etc. The native naming does not impact the naming of an article in the English language.--Burzum 22:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

These examples keep getting brought up but they miss the key point - there have never been any drives to use "Moskva", "Deutschland" or "Nederland" in English and so naturally they're hardly ever used in English and are not considered alternative name forms in English for Moscow, Germany and the Netherlands. There have, however, been drives to use "Myanmar", "Côte d'Ivoire", "Yangon", "Gdańsk", "Torino" and "Kyiv" for those respective places (amongst others), to the point that all these names are now in use in English as alternatives to "Burma", "Ivory Coast", "Rangoon", "Danzig", "Turin", "Kiev" and so forth. Unsurprisingly they account for several of the longest running naming disputes on Wikipedia (and those six currently stand at 3:3 in terms of article location) because both terms are now used in English and "this is the English Wikipedia so we should use the English name" no longer means anything in such discussions. Timrollpickering 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am interested to know which mainstream English language newspapers use "Gdańsk" rather than "Gdansk". --Philip Baird Shearer 06:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is often rarely made in English as the language rarely uses diacritics and their limited availability in print, typewriters and word processors have encouraged a habit of dropping them. So to be honest I doubt most people are making a distinction one way or the other on this one (and for that matter many other placenames and people's names). But the key point is not between whether they use "Gdańsk" or "Gdansk" but whether or not they use it instead of "Danzig". Timrollpickering 08:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If History of Myanmar has mistakes or deceit in it, please, by all means, go correct the mistakes and deceit, using citations. Tempshill 22:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Just a comment. This dispute is understandable, when you consider that International news medias' themselves can't make up their minds. GoodDay 16:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Another comment: FWIW -- Google search results (hl=en): Burma 16,400,000 hits, Myanmar 29,800,000 hits. (your mileage may vary) -- Boracay Bill 00:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason is that all news organizations in the US follow the AP Stylebook on naming conventions, and if it says to use Myanmar then several thousands of newspapers will use it, filling up the Googler with Myanmar. And of course every story from the AP itself is rehosted several thousand times on the web, multiplying each usage. Tempshill 22:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The confusion seems adequately presented on the article. The article is called Burma, and yet the opening line says the official name is Myanmar. Yep, the confusion is well presented. GoodDay 21:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

It is really bad form to renmove a POV tag without resolving the dispute. There clearly was no consensus to change the name of the article and the only reason it cant be changed back is because a vandal messesd up the myanmar page, SqueakBox 19:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

75% of people supported the move to Burma. Sounds like consensus to me. --Hemlock Martinis 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean majority, nor does it mean super-majority. It means that all concerns have been addressed, and that everyone agrees that we're going with the best solution available. It's an ideal we strive for, and it has not been achieved on this page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your major concern? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My major concern? Did I say I had one? I was just pointing out that 75% isn't a consensus. I might add (lest I seem to pick on only one side) that SqueakBox also erred above when he suggested that whoever edited the Myanmar page, preventing a quick move back, is a "vandal". That's a totally out of line accusation against a good-faith editor. Duja added a redirect category to the page, which was entirely appropriate, and that's what made a quick move back impossible. Calling that vandalism is inaccurate and uncivil. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Where did you get 75% from? It was much closer to 50/50. Now that Myanmar isn't in the news as much as it was a week ago, it seems more and more users are commenting in favor of Myanmar. I think this is because a lot of the people who supported "Burma" were anons and/or politically motivated people who don't actually care about the quality of WP or what's in the article. --Tocino 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple. I counted up the comments (60), then counted up the supports (46), then divided the supports by the total number of comments.--Hemlock Martinis 00:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Tocino, you may be right about "a lot of the people" who supported the name change, but this round is over. It's best to let it be for a while, and in a few months, it could be appropriate to reopen the discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that - there's no reason to have a rest period during which debate should be stifled. Tempshill 22:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't favor "stifling" any debate. Perhaps it would have been better for me to say that we should give it some time before opening a formal move request again, as it will likely generate more heat than light. I won't tell anybody what not to talk about, although I'm curious as to just what productive line of discussion is open to us at this point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Subpages

I've moved most of the subpages. Someone else might want to check and make sure there are none that have been missed Nil Einne 06:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

avoiding offensive names

Please participate in this more general discussion on WP:NAME. --Espoo 09:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, someone brought up that Burma (Myanmar) or, alternatively, Myanmar (Burma) might be the best title for the article. (There will then be a fight on which one goes first.) I agree that the country is in a unique situation AFAIK at the moment and I don't think there is any choice that is actually correct. Tempshill 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well quite apart from the fact that the inclusion of words in brackets normally signifies disambiguation (and I don't think anyone's arguing that this country is not the primary use for either "Burma" or "Myanmar"), compromise name forms rarely get anywhere. They're not indicative of the usage and this form still "takes sides" by implying one is superior to the other and we'd have as much discussion over which should come first with many suggesting removing the second name altogether. Plus this does open up wider discussion - why allow it for Myanmar but not for Gdansk, Kiev and other places where there's been endless debate over the article location? Timrollpickering 22:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Beyond Rangoon

The capital is Yangon. I've been there. Everyone pronounces it that way. Using Rangoon is like using Calcutta and Bombay where Kolkata and Mumbai are preferred, isn't it? Or Peking and Beijing? I suggest that Yangon be used throughout the article. -- Evertype·✆ 09:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I heard that people in Mumbai want to change it back to Bombay... Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, the capital was moved from Yangon/Rangoon to some backcountry in the middle of nowhere called Naypyidaw, look it up if you don't believe me. 68.36.214.143 16:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)