Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:43, 22 January 2008

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:WP1.0

Myanmar B‑class Top‑importance

Myanmar is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Misplaced Pages. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Misplaced Pages aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.MyanmarWikipedia:WikiProject MyanmarTemplate:WikiProject MyanmarMyanmar B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet, requested articles on Burmese subjects and articles on smaller towns and villages Expand : Top-importance and High-importance articles Photo : add photos of incumbent politicians Stubs : Category:Myanmar stubs Update : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet after 2015 election Other : If you know Burmese, go on the Myanmar Misplaced Pages and make sure each article on the English Misplaced Pages has one in Burmese also

Southeast Asia B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Totalitarianism

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Maria Kruczkowska (2006-01-14). "Birma. Od Rangunu po Chaungtha". Gazeta Wyborcza. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Myanmar received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:V0.5

Archives

March 2003 – August 2007 September 2007 October 2007: RM "Burma" October 2007 December 2007

Factual info and cleanup

I've given up (and given in) on convincing other western users here to recognize reality regarding the incorrect title on this page. That aside; every editor needs to look at the Misplaced Pages policy on FACTS. Assuming that the majority wish to keep the incorrect POV title (in reference to an inclusive article as it stands); the reference to the term "Burma" in the present tense is factually incorrect. This article requires clean-up, specifically to correct all flagrantly false references to the current land area formerly recognized, by the only authority authorized internationally to make such a recognition, the United Nations, as Burma , and currently recognized by that sole authority as Myanmar, need to be corrected to represent current reality. Leaving it as it is violates policies: NPOV, FACT, NEUTRALITY. I'd make the changes myself but I seem to be the only westerner not brainwashed by state-controlled US media. Everyone else reverts any edit I try to make on western-slanted opinionated subjects so I'll let a more senior editor (I'd hope there were administrators who were above such blatant ignorance and misguided lemming-like going-along) make the required changes. Pointed comment should be taken only as a display of frustration over policy and nothing more. Not pointing fingers, just pointing out policy violation at this point. Article tagged Lostinlodos (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Template:RFChist

First statement in article is very clear:

"The Union of Myanmar (formerly Burma) (Burmese: , pronounced ), is the largest country by geographical area in mainland Southeast Asia."

Because of that article need to be moved under name Myanmar --Rjecina (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

We've had a discussion about this a few months ago and there was consensus to have the article named "Burma" as that's the most common name in English. Furthermore, "Myanmar" lacks recognition by many countries. The first paragraph has now been changed accordingly. Húsönd 19:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar…" is an interesting introduction. If we're going to say that "Burma" is the most commonly used word for the country, then shouldn't we say that the official name is "Union of Burma", or some other piece of fiction? Pardon my facetiousness, but are we serious here? -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You may change that to something like "Burma, officially designated "Union of Myanmar" by the Burmese government", if you think the name duality is awkward. Personally I don't think it's necessary. Húsönd 03:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly is wrong with Union of myanmar, formerly Burma? Masses of[REDACTED] precedent. And whatever matters to you personally isn't relevant but how can you possibl;y claim that the official name doesn't mater while adhering to our neutrality poliucy.? Comments like this are hardly helpful, and indeed are indicative of why an rfc is the way to go. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not "formerly Burma". People never stopped calling the country "Burma", nor has ceased recognition of this country under that name. Húsönd 03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Husond. Also, this should probably be a move request and not an RfC. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

rfc sounds more appropriate to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there wasn't consensus, this issue is thoroughly disputed, I (a) support some action and (b) support the removal of endless unnecessary repetitions of the words Burma and Burmese and (c)support using the words Union of Myanmar when referring to the current gov. I suggest now is the time to try and deal with this issue which (barring a renaming of the country by its actual gov, whoever that is in any given moment) isn't going to go away. I welcome e,mails on the subject from anyone who agrees with me. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, asking users who agree with you to identify themselves in private e-mails is a most irregular procedure. Please be transparent otherwise you will damage the validity and credibility of your own positions. Húsönd 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay, I welcome emails from anyone on the subject. Nothing wrong with private emails though, and lets not pretend otherwise. I am coming in good faith and am not convinced that my request negates that. But there are huge issues here and I would like to see them resolved. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I wish I could pretend that nothing's ever wrong with private emails. Anyway, I'm assuming good faith. Húsönd 03:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, for me anyway this isn't about individual editors. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is astounding. Since the government on Taiwan is not recognised by the majority of countries on this planet too, shall we change its opening line with a "Taiwan, officially designated "Republic of China" by the Taiwanese government" or something like that? Since when did[REDACTED] hold the right to ignore official names in favour of "popular names" (the later of which was actually less than convincing in this regard) especially when dealing with country names? I hope we will not reach a day where Australia gets renamed as Down Under should the later term become a more popular terminology!--Huaiwei (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when did Misplaced Pages hold the right? Using common names is a long-established custom. It's not like some weird exception has been imposed on this article.—Nat Krause 06:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you then explain why the Republic of Ireland is not simply Ireland, the People's Republic of China is not at the China article, and the Taiwan article is not about the country called the Republic of China? Sure, using common names has been a long-established custom, but we have always also allowed exceptions especially in politically sensitive topics, such as the above. This article has now joined East Timor as the only countries not to be presented by their official English names, and is it a coincidence that both also happen to have very low representation in this website?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not very persuasive that the naming isn't political. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

None of those examples are comparable. We do have an article on , one on Ireland, and one on Taiwan. The articles on the corresponding governments are given other names for purposes of disambiguation. As far as I can tell, sympathisers of the PRC government tend to be the same people who are in favour of moving that article to China, i.e. away from its official name. The Republic of China is a particularly complex issue, since it is the name of a state which official includes territories vastly larger than simply Taiwan and a few surrounding islands; however, many people feel that its claim to these territories is no longer sincere.

This article, on the other hand, is simply a choice between two names.—Nat Krause 02:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point entirely. The China article is not on the People's Republic of China, but on the Chinese civilisation. The Taiwan article is on the island of Taiwan, and not the political entity based on the island known as the Republic of China. The Ireland article is on the island of Ireland, and is not on the dominant political entity known in full as the Republic of Ireland. In each situation, a common country name is deliberately reserved for something non-political, with the actual country article residing at the full official English name. What is the common situation between all of these, and how do this relates to the situation on the Union of Myanmar vs Burma?--Huaiwei (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Today[REDACTED] situation about Burma/Myanmar is very funny because[REDACTED] is not accepting military hunta decision to change state name, but it is accepting hunta decision to change capital name from Rangoon to Yangon. We must make decision on wiki if there will be Myanmar-Yangon or Burma-Rangoon because today situation is silly.--Rjecina (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. So, naturally, different types of names will sometimes be chosen in different cases.—Nat Krause 06:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's odd to have this article named Burma, whereas the one about its capital is named Yangon. There was a move proposal for that one at the same time there was one for Myanmar-Burma, but the discussion there didn't reach a consensus for the move, thus defaulting into keeping Yangon. Like Nat said, this goes on a case-by-case basis. Húsönd 06:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar's capital is actually at Naypyidaw, but since it was again a designation by a government which is not recognised by some wikipedians here, I suppose we are forced to state Rangoon as the capital still.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, duh, I just can't get used to Naypyidaw as the capital. Anyway, you do raise a good point as a matter of fact. Why should we have this article named Burma against the junta's decision to name it Myanmar, while abiding by their decision to move the capital? Well, firstly Misplaced Pages is not an official entity who makes decisions of recognition. We just happened to decide that this article should be Burma due to its common usage in English, and that decision is not to be understood as political. As for Naypyidaw, there are no English usage issues. We just state as an encyclopedia that it's the capital of Burma because it has been officially proclaimed so by the ruling government which has been moving the central governance institutions there, thus making it the actual capital. Húsönd 07:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't get used to it either...heck I can't even pronounce that name properly without assistance, but the fact remains that it is our problem. The capital is Naypyidaw. Period. A fail to see how any self-respecting encyclopaedia can allow political viewpoints of individual editors to influence presentation of fact. You claim that "we just happened to decide that this article should be Burma due to its common usage in English", but just who constitutes "we"? Several apparently stated that the move itself was not exactly in full accordance to wikipolicies, and has continuously incited criticism, as it still does now. So if we as an encyclopaedia can state the capital as officially designated by a government, why the concern over stating its official name as designated by the same government? Is common naming truly the sole concern here? Is the timing of the move a matter of pure coincidence?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Huaiwei's earlier point about the People's Republic of China and Taiwan are important; despite what Misplaced Pages's policy says, there are many, many articles in which a place's common name is NOT its article name, and most people don't want to change those article titles. Also, let me add a citation to my previous fake-point. The official name of Myanmar, in "common English" (i.e. the United States government and probably the Commonwealth governments), is the "Union of Burma". I'd nearly bet all the English sources that use "Burma" also use "Union of Burma". So, are we foolish enough to use this "common name" in our article as the "official name", or is that too far over the line? -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We have never used the official name, which is the Union of Myanmar. We don't in the United Kingdom either. That isn't the point. The point is that we never use (except in this one case) the name that is rejected by the government. It would be like calling Sri Lanka Ceylon or Zimbabwe Rhodesia. What is unacceptable is that we are taking sides against the ruling government in an international dispute in clear violation of our NPOV policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it particularly unacceptable to take sides against a ruling government in an international dispute, but acceptable to take sides against their opponents? That is NPOV?—Nat Krause 02:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

An issue is NPOV when all country articles correspond to their official English names, or at least in part (with the sole exception of East Timor), except for one which was moved for no better reason then personal judgement that the government is not legitimate. --Huaiwei (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And I can bet you will get a response saying "Ceylon" isnt more commonly in use than "Sri Lanka", thus rendering your example moot. I would cite the example of the massive Indian city renaming exercise instead, where city names were renamed almost immediately in[REDACTED] despite the new name obviously needing time to become "commonly used". And why this happens? Perhaps one reason is that there is a significant Indian community in wikipedia. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Myanmar or Timor-Leste. Official names of geographic entities seems to be an exception which must be made in the common names policy, especially when dealing with major entities such as countries and cities.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right about why those pages were moved. However, that it was so doesn't tell us much of anything about whether it was a positive development. I was worried that the precedent of the Indian cities would start to be cited as an example for other similar moves, and here it is. That said, I suppose that if this is really the trend in Misplaced Pages in general, then it's only fair for you to mention it here.—Nat Krause 02:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Section break 1

The government is not a legitimate one; it was established through bullets and not ballots, and has kept under house arrest the rightfully elected leader of the country. I see no reason why we should use their name for Burma just because they have guns and their opponents don't. The English-speaking world uses Burma, and that's our measuring stick. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It not being legitimate is just your opinion and we cant write an encyclopedia just based on our own opinions. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out numerous times in the discussion it is not the case that English use is overwhelmingly just "Burma", with "Myanmar" heavily used in English as well. Opinions on the regime are irrelevant POV (and inconsistent, as also pointed out several times, as other past and present entities of dubious legitimacy are at their names) - what matters is a) what is the name most commonly used across the Eglish speaking world?; and b) when it's impossible to establish this (as it clearly is here) what is the mechanism in policy for resolving the tie? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it has been mentioned before that the phrase "English-speaking world" needs clear definition. Past discussions seems focus on defining this as countries where English is the dominant native language. Unfortunately, the real situation of the language is such that there are far more non-native English speakers than there are native ones, and it has been yet established if "Burma" is the predominant word used amongst all English-speaking peoples all over the world.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus, using the word of English-dominant national governments is unreliable, since many of these governments purposely avoid using the illegitimate regime's name, for the purpose of withholding moral support. If we used this criteria for, say, Northern Cyprus, the English Misplaced Pages article would simply redirect to Cyprus since only the Turkish government recognizes it. If we used it for Driver's License, even in a purely U.S. context, the page would be Driver License, even though this is far from common use in America. The English-speaking media sources are much more divided than English-speaking governments, yet not even they can solely be used to determine "common use". Unfortunately, Myanmar/Burma doesn't exactly come up in everyday conversation... at least not in the English world. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Burma is NOT the official English name! Lostinlodos (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's because there's no such thing as an official English name, because there is no authority that could sanction one or the other.AdeMiami (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No one seems to prefer the name Myanmar except the military junta currently ruling Burma:
"Official practice in the United Kingdom is to use as country names those names which are in common informal usage in British English. In this instance, that name is “Burma”, and hence “Burma” is the country name in official UK usage..."
--An Introduction to the Toponymy of Burma, by The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use (2007), p.5
Even the people of Burma prefer that it retain the English name Burma (especially the NLD). Kaldari (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This article must be moved to Myanmar

Myanmar is the name recognized by the UN and the majority of world states. I am not aware of a single sourcebook or encyclopedia that has an entry on Burma as opposed to Myanmar. The use of the name "Burma" is a blatant political statement meant to support the country's opposition movement. This is totally inappropriate for a supposedly neutral encyclopedia. Maglev Power (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The timing of the move was highly propagandist and is a discredit to the project. El_C 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Then let's be bold, help write a serious encyclopedia, and move it oursevlves. I ask that you try moving it. I just did, but was quickly reverted. You both should be given more serious consideration than I, as you two are long-time respected editors, while I'm new around here. Maglev Power (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See? Consensus, it works (some of the time). BJ 04:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then please move the article back to Myanmar. I'd do it; but I probably shouldn't make too many revertions as a very new editor. Maglev Power (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maglev: Don't be afraid to be bold!, that's what Misplaced Pages is all about --Astral (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, I already tried twice, and was reverted twice. I think the change will be more likely to stand if another user follows my lead and moves the page. Maglev Power (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, why are there two pages with the same content and different names? BJ 05:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to redirect this now because of the two different pages existing. Please don't do anything for a minute. BJ 05:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Now we have to move back a bunch of subsidiary articles, like history of Burma, politics of Burma, geography of Burma, demographics of Burma, etc. Maglev Power (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

BJ, please move the related articles too. I'd do it. But don't seem to have that ability to make a proper move as you just did as a new editor. Maglev Power (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets take this slow, articles that have politics involved often cause unneeded drama and I'm not in the mood for that. I'm trying to find out why the pages are named the way they are and find a higher place to establish consensus before making any more moves. BJ 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But we have to have standardization, just like any encyclopedia. (Misplaced Pages, to its credit, I see from the article histories, for over six years standardized all those articles correctly, using the new name Myanamr.) If the main article is named one thing, the names of the subsidiary articles must be the same. Maglev Power (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(This isn't a reply to you, I was trying to save and the server lagged) If you read the whole talk page you will see the naming is highly disputed. Before anything more is done a broad consensus for the naming convention of all the pages related to Burma/Myanmar. I'm going to file a WP:RfC to attempt to reach a consensus. (and somebody moved it back while I was typing this) BJ 05:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to unilaterally move this article and its talk page, as well as other topic related articles. Moves must be listed at WP:RM and discussions must last at least 5 days before a decision is made. Thank you. Húsönd 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this site can be so legalistic. Being factually accurate and encyclopedic must trump polls and legalisms here if this page is to be a serious encyclopedia article. Maglev Power (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As El C stated, the politically-motivated move of the article to the Burma page is a discredit to this encyclopedia. I will participate in the RfC; but the ultimate goal here must be to do what is correct and encyclopedic. Myanmar is the name used by credible sourcebooks and encyclopedias; and Myanmar is the name Misplaced Pages used for many years. Maglev Power (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The move had little to do with politics. It was proposed during the demonstrations back in October simply because more attention was naturally drawn to this article during those events. This article was moved to "Burma" because there was a consensus that "Burma" is a more common term used to refer to this country than "Myanmar". Húsönd 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above I think a RfC should be filed in the matter, I inappropriately moved it because I was confused by the existence of two articles (should have checked the history better) and because I didn't read the entire talk page. I don't have any objection to either name and don't really care to be a party in this dispute so I'm going stop talking now. BJ 05:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An RfC wouldn't be a good idea, that was tried not long ago. The only possible way for determining consensus at such a hot topic is a move discussion listed at WP:RM. All users may then participate and voice their opinion. Húsönd 06:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Husond, the name is not more common. This is a black-and-white matter of fact. The name Myanmar is recognized by the UN and the majority of the world's states. The name Myanmar is used by all serious encyclopedias and sourebooks. (The CIA Factbook is an exception because Myanmar is on the list of the Bush administration's targets for "regime change.") Evidence of this is easy to find even from a quick Google search. 82,300,000 entries come up in a search for "Myanmar" ; less than half that number come up for "Burma." Maglev Power (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We've really had a lot about this in the past few months. We talked about the more common name issue, the where official issue, etc, etc... Again, new proposals should go straight to WP:RM. Húsönd 06:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a debating-society. If editors are so obsessed with procedure they will lose sight of the overarching goal of writing a serious encyclopedia. Now, that I have mentioned the facts above, I urge you to demonstrate your commitment to proper encyclopedic conventions and retract your comment that Burma is the "common name" of this country. Maglev Power (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you're new here. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that's made by a debating society. You may now be properly horrified when you find out that Misplaced Pages is not even supposed to document the truth, but merely document what is sourced and agreed upon by its reviewing/editing community. Here, we function through WP:Consensus and many other policies. Húsönd 06:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that Misplaced Pages is not supposed to document the truth will not help us improve the quality of this encyclopedia article. Now, again, do you retract your comment that Burma is the "common name" of this country? Boracay Bill and I have clearly demonstrated that this is not the case. Maglev Power (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has actually read up on the supposed "concensus" on the move can see the heavy political agenda simmering within many proponents of the "Burma" name. It is clear that the said "concensus" has never been properly garnered, with a touch of boldnest to hastern the move. That you keep having people questioning this move till this day is testimony of this, and is a natural backlash. It is but a matter of time and procedures before the page gets moved back to its official English name recognised by the majority of countries on Earth.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be bold and do it yourself. You, Boracay Bill, El C, and SqueekBox, and I have made clear the move of the article to Burma is painfully obviously factually ungrounded and unencyclopedic. I'd move it right now again. But I don't have the ability as a new editor. Maglev Power (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody will be bold and do it because any move will be promptly reverted. Please cease these demands, any further unilateral move attempts will bring move protection to this article. Húsönd 06:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just some unscientific info from google searches I just did:

• about 8,320,000 English pages for Myanmar.
• about 3,100,000 English pages for Burma.
• about 9,630,000 English pages for allintext: Myanmar.
• about 3,640,000 English pages for allintext: Burma.
• about 1,360,000 English pages for allintitle: Myanmar.
• about 915,000 English pages for allintitle: Burma.
• about 2,290,000 English pages for allinanchor: Myanmar.
• about 1,350,000 English pages for allinanchor: Burma.
• about 439,000 English pages for allinurl: Myanmar.
• about 401,000 English pages for allinurl: Burma.

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to use a silly cliche, but this is a "no brainer!" We need to move this article back to Myanmar now. Every minute the pages stay the way they are, it is an extra discredit to Misplaced Pages. Maglev Power (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop demanding. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not about me. This is not even about you. By the way, what do you have to say about the factual accuracy of Boracay Bill's post above? Maglev Power (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not going to be moved anywhere, anytime within the next several hours, or maybe days. You are welcome to take the suggestion (WP:RM), otherwise, the discussion will continue here. I am not examining Boracay Bill's comment, so I have nothing to say about it. Please, we have guidelines in place here for a reason. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are also a new user (Aug. '07) as well and not an administrator. I have checked the histories of the accounts that have chimed in here. I see the ones that favor proper encyclopedic conventions here, such as El C and SqueekBox, happen to be quite senior contributors. I'd be more interested in hearing what they have to say about the procedures. Maglev Power (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am not going to continue to try and help you, as it isn't working. I'll just say we don't have "senior editors" here and adminship is no big deal. I've been here for 6 months, and am familiar with the policies I am addressing. You've been here 2 days, and aren't. I am sorry that I couldn't be of more assistance to you, but I tried. -Rjd0060 (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If "Please stop demanding" is your idea of "helping" someone to get accustomed to the ways of wikipedia, I am not the least surprised that it isnt working.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Helping someone, especially someone who has started editing[REDACTED] to invoke a specific change, often takes much more than a few posts in the talkpage. There are no shortcuts about it, just as you try to tell him there is no shortcut in getting a page move done. Warning anyone about potential blocks and even suggestions of trollish behavior this early is not appriopriate in my books. If you want to see true trollish behavior, there are plenty out there to be discovered and "educated".--Huaiwei (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Users don't have any more weight because they've been here for longer or because they're admins. Again, please drop this otherwise you may eventually be deemed a troll and ignored as such. Please consider reading our policies and getting accustomed to Misplaced Pages. Húsönd 06:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly forthright, Husond, I doubt the move from Mynmar to Burma would have happened had it not been for your rather loose interpretation (and possibly, even affinity toward the Burma title — can you clarify?) of the move request. El_C 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I don't really think that my interpretation alone would suffice for the long discussions with many participants we had here back in October, which resulted in a clear consensus for moving this to "Burma". Instead of going around in circles, why don't you guys launch another move proposal for moving this back to "Myanmar"? If a new proposal results in consensus for that, then it will be moved with no drama. Húsönd 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very disingenuous to claim "clear consensus" for the move based on the October discussion. That happened among a relatively small handful of editors who happened to have Myanmar on their watchlist, I presume. After the move, a much wider group of editors noticed the change and raised their objections. From the volumes of talk page discussion since then (some archived), I would conclude that there is no consensus now for "Burma". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a case could be made that the closing of the last move request was too (for lack of a better term) vote-countish, not properly taking into account the many arguments that said nothing about what the article should properly be named, but rather what the country should properly be named (i.e., supporting the move for political reasons). Perhaps a new move request would be in order? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would support that. Further, I think this article is "important" enough that it shouldn't be buried amongst all the minutiae of WP:RM. A short notice on WP:VP directing editors to the discussion is probably appropriate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely because this article is "important enough", any move proposal must be listed at WP:RM. A short notice on dismembered, highly unchecked, virtually unrelated WP:VP is probably the least appropriate way of advertising the proposal one could think of. Húsönd 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple solution: put it both places. I know some renames have also been listed as RFCs; perhaps this could be another way to make sure it's not buried. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that we bypass the requested move process! I am proposing that the notice of the WP:RM nomination be "advertised" elsewhere (whether that is village pump, RfC page, etc.) so that more of the community knows this is going on. More people should participate in this discussion than just those who actively monitor the RM page (or this talk page). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sounds okay. Húsönd 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when has Misplaced Pages changed it's rules about facts? I certainly seem to remember something about stating facts and not opinions in articles, so irrespective of:

• whether the U.S. or the U.K recognise the name Burma and the UN recognises Myanmar
• however many billions of hits come up on Google (shame on the editor who provided "unscientific info")
• whether millions of Burmese themselves hate the name Myanmar
• however illegitimate the Junta is
• whether every scholar on Earth calls it Burma

the only question we have to ask is "what is the official name"? This is similar in some ways to the old question of whether Persia or Iran was the correct name for that particular country. The government asked everyone to use Iran and that is how it's been known ever since. In the same vein of thought, if the "de facto" government of "Burma" asks for the country to be called "Myanmar" then Misplaced Pages should have an article called Myanmar and a redirect at Burma. Full stop. When there is a change of regime or a change in the official line then we can follow it by swapping around. Green Giant (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't abide by any decisions of any government. Never did and never will, regardless of your "full stop". As an experienced user, you should know that well. Húsönd 19:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The last RM was influenced by continuous news stories of murdered monks and the like, all this has now calmed down and it would certainly be appropriate to have another RM discussion. I tend to agree that if sources like the BBC are too ignorant to use the official name that we as an encycloepdia should be teaching them better, we are in danger of sacrificing integrity for western populism. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Husond, you say "Misplaced Pages doesn't abide by any decisions of any government". What do you mean exactly? And can you give examples. We should be neutral and the problem with this namje is that it takes sides whereas Myranmar doesn'tt ake sides but is neutral. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Blaming the outcome of the discussions on the monks is just speculation. I meant exactly what I said, we abide by the community consensus, not by what a government says. It's up to the community to decide what's neutral and adequate. Húsönd 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Err, I wans't blaming the monks, the idea of blaming people doing whatever they do for the problems we then face at[REDACTED] would be ridiculous. The community decides isn't strictly true, that is why we also have policies, such as NPOV, which cannot be trumped by alleged community consensus. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Burma → Myanmar — It's time this be opened again —   Avg    22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice of this discussion has been posted on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:24, 21 January 2008 (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 Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• Support move as abiding by our neutrality policy which means we don not take sides in the political dispute in the country. Burma simply doesn't exist other than as a historical entity. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - It is the official UN name, it is the name most countries use, plus it ranks first in google.--   Avg    22:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose We can't avoid coming down on one side in this case, so may as well stay where we are. Adam Cuerden 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Myanmar is the accepted name of the country by most countries and geographical authorities. Calling it "Burma" now is rather like calling Mumbai "Bombay": it would probably be recognized by more readers, but it's no longer correct. This issue has been far too politicized in the past, and I ask that anyone who closes this discussion ignore all arguments against calling the country "Myanmar" based on the fact that it is the junta's name for the country. This has nothing to do with how Misplaced Pages should title its article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support — I am a well-educated resident of an English-speaking country, and haven't heard the name "Burma" used in many years, so I was rather surprised when this article was renamed back in October. It needs to be moved back. "Myanmar" is the name used by the UN, ISO, IOC, FIFA, and whatever news organization supplies international stories for my local newspaper. I believe it is the most neutral POV of these two options. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support It has never been shown that one name is overwhelmingly more common than the other. In the absence of a clear common name, we should use the official English short form name as determined by the ISO. --Polaron | Talk 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Both names are used in English but Misplaced Pages:Naming conflict suggests that Myanmar is the better to use - see Talk:Burma/Archive 5#Ongoing dispute for my detailed reasoning as to how this policy applies here. The previous move discussion had many people playing the POV card about the regime but I don't believe this should influence the outcome. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - regardless of how much we may dislike the occupying regime, they control the nation, totally. At such time as the legitimate government of Aung San Suu Kyi or Sein Win takes power and formally renames the nation Burma, Misplaced Pages should follow suit. Until then, we should respect the controlling party's decision of Myanmar being the short-form name of the country. --Golbez (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support move This is the more common name in common parlance as shown by google, the current name, and the most used name by prominent international sources. I don't like the current regime but that's no reason to use a name that is non-neutral and outdated. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support I have the impression that the name Myanmar is more commmonly used by English speakers worldwide, if not in the US. I'm a US expat and, AFAIK, I had not heard the name Burma (except, probably, as "Myanmar, the country previously known as Burma, ...") in some years before the recent coverage of news events on the US-based news programs which I watch. Even there, I frequently heard "Myanmar". If (1) Myanmar has the edge usage-wise or (2) Myanmar has similar usage to Burma but UN, ISO, etc. conventions lean towards Myanmar then (IMO) WP should use "Myanmar" with a redirect from "Burma". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Exactly what has changed since the last round 3½ months ago? Anyway, as I said then, "Misplaced Pages is not bound to throw out the English name of the country and follow SLORC's weak transliteration system. (The Americans don't even say it right — most tack on a alveolar approximant becuase of the final 'r.')" —  AjaxSmack  —Preceding comment was added at 00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose "Burma" is the most common designation used by English speakers. "Myanmar" also lacks recognition by the governments of the US and UK, where most English speakers live. Húsönd 00:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not a US/UK encyclopedia, please. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Nobody said it was. Húsönd 01:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • You certainly implied it. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • No I didn't. What is implied is that a majority of English speakers live in areas where the name "Burma" is given recognition over "Myanmar", something that will often affect public displays of the name. Húsönd 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Your comment about the majority of English speakers is not valid, unless you again imply that English speakers = native English speakers. --   Avg    01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
            • I was referring to native English speakers. Obviously (US speakers + UK speakers ≠ majority of world English speakers). Húsönd 01:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
              • So again, are Anglophone nations dictating the content of the English Misplaced Pages?--   Avg    01:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
                • Not directly, no. But if a majority of users come from Anglophone countries that don't recognize "Myanmar", they are bound to be more familiar with "Burma". Húsönd 01:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• While the US government doesn't recognize "Myanmar", the National Geographic Society apparently does . Thus I don't think it's really accurate to consider Myanmar a term not recognized in the United States. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• So you can neither prove that the UK and US people say Burma nor prove the relevance of what the people in these countries. This is an encyclopedia about the whole world that happens to be written in English. It is not the encyclopedia of how the English speaking people see the world, as your initial comment implied Husond. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this is an encyclopedia that happens to be written in English, not an encyclopedia of how the English speaking people see the world. I can't see why should my position imply the latter. Húsönd 02:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Because of teh weight you are wanting to give to US and UK people on a subject which is not specifically related to either of those countries. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Google stats for US & UK just to get a feel for things:

• about 458 for allintitle: myanmar site:.gov.
• about 1,420 for allintitle: burma site:.gov.
• about 30,200 for myanmar site:.gov.
• about 54,700 for burma site:.gov.
• about 856,000 for allintitle: myanmar site:.com. !!
• about 579,000 for allintitle: burma site:.com.
• about 6,880,000 for myanmar site:.com. !!
• about 1,270,000 for burma site:.com.
• about 1,460 for allintitle: myanmar site:.edu.
• about 2,760 for allintitle: burma site:.edu.
• about 101,000 for myanmar site:.edu.
• about 117,000 for burma site:.edu.
• about 9,240 for allintitle: myanmar site:.uk.
• about 25,600 for allintitle: burma site:.uk.
• about 407,000 for myanmar site:.uk.
• about 389,000 for burma site:.uk.

My guess about the items flagged !! is that this shows the effect of pages from non-US owners which have been placed in the .com domain. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support It's the official name of the country (and has been for 18 1/2 years), is the official name in the UN, and ismore common now (a quick Google search brings 40.8 million hits for "Burma" and 88.1 million for "Myanmar" ). While I normally support the US goverment in cases like this (I don't consider Palestine a country either), the goverment in Myanmar doesn't look like it's going anywhere. TJ Spyke 03:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose "Burma" is the most common name to English speakers. It would be like calling Germany Bundesrepublik Deutschland and not Germany. The Canadian government also gives prominence to the name Burma. Leave as Burma with Myanmar redirecting to it. —MJCdetroit 03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Perhaps WP should name the article Burma/Myanmar and redirect from both "Burma" and "Myanmar", and cover the naming issue in an early section of the article (That would probably result in hissy-fit wars on the talk page over "Myanmar/Burma" vs. "Burma/Myanmar" — perhaps a bot needs to alternate those two names on a regular basis. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Name forms of that kind are very awkward for technical reasons as the "/" creates a subfield. And variants such as hyphenating tend to imply it's a name that is or was actually used (e.g. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia) so it veers into original research. Plus as you say no-one would be satisfied either with the order or the basic construct used. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class Myanmar articles
• Top-importance Myanmar articles
• WikiProject Myanmar articles
• B-Class Southeast Asia articles
• Top-importance Southeast Asia articles
• WikiProject Southeast Asia articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Old requests for peer review