Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Myanmar, or something that sounds like it, has always been part of the official name of the country in its own language. The British imperialists when they colonized the area decided to name the place Burma because they did not want to call it Pyidaungzu Myanma Naingngandaw. Now the government of the country (which like the government Zimbabwe is not a real western democracy) rejects the name the imperialists gave them and wants the international community to call it Myanmar. They think the name Burma is disrespectful because Burma is just the common spoken name of the country and not the official witten name in the Burmese language. Why do we, therefore, insist on calling the country by what the name the imperialists called it - Burma? We didn't do that with Zimbabwe because we realized just how much the name, Rhodesia, was associated with colonialism. Well the same is true with Burma when it is used in an official context. Its like calling a person by a nickname and not his real name.

There are people who say that we shouldn't call the country by what the Junta calls it but why should we call it by what the imperialists called it. At least the name created by the Junta was decided on by people who were actually burmese.

Also, I knew the country by the name of Myanmar before I knew it by the name of Burma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.106.153 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 May 2008

It is not easy to draw an analogy with Zimbabwe. When Rhodesia became independent in 1980, it was through a popular liberation struggle and Mugabe and Nkomo had clear popular support for the name change. Though Mugabe is, sadly, a bad guy these days, and has successfully jettisoned any vestiges of democracy (as well as Nkomo) from his government, it was not always this way. With Burma, on the other hand, the facts are as follows. In 1989, the government changed the name from Burma to Myanmar. This name change was rejected by the NLD, by the Shan National League, by the Arakan League for Democracy, by practically every other political party in the country. In 1990, one year after the name change, these parties (the ones that rejected the name change) won an election by an overwhelming majority. About 75% of the electorate that voted, voted for the parties that had rejected the change. Of course, the elections were not a referendum on the name of Burma, but the facts are that the parties backed by 75% of the electorate had rejected the name change. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 12:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the analogy is that far off. True, the political situations are different, but the goal of Wikipedia is to be descriptive, not prescriptive: the argument is not about what the title of the country ought to be, only what it is. And the fact remains that the current political entity is the Union of Myanmar. Another example is that many English speakers recognize Calcutta more easily than Kolkata, but the latter is where the article is located. In the case of Burma/Myanmar, I wouldn't mind having separate articles either, just as Rhodesia deals with the historical usage of that name, and links to Zimbabwe, which deals with the current political entity. -Rundquist (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you in principle. I am loathe to use the validity of the name change by the junta as an argument (even though I am convinced that when the junta goes so will Myanmar). My comment was in response to the 'imperialist' argument and analogy with Rhodesia/Zimbabwe (the 'people who were actually burmese' part). But, I agree that this should not be the basis for deciding on the name of the article.--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 16:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Burma/Myanmar#Civilization_vs._Regime for discussion.

1. The two are clearly separate in the minds of most people, and separating these two, as so many other articles have been separated, should appease all sides. The Jade Knight (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to be voting or listing arguments here. Anyway, I support this. People seem to think that if someone doesn't call something the same thing that they do, then that person is "wrong". We should stop trying to mould things to fit what we believe and instead fit our beliefs around reality: the reality is that the country has two names with two slightly different connotations: Myanmar seems to indicate something more present and future, whereas Burma refers to something from the past. So let's alter Wikipedia accordingly. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Let's use the names properly used in English sources: Burma for the historical country pre-junta, and Myanmar for the country as it is today. This is how Wikipedia generally deals with historical changes of this magnitude. --Gimme danger (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
4. That seems a reasonable suggestion, though it sets an uncomfortable precedent for countries that retain the same borders, people, and history but have a very different government. I don't think it's a perfect solution, but it seems reasonable and I certainly wouldn't object.Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

One thought on the usage of Burma vs. Myanmar in news articles: a news agency that uses the "official" name as prescribed by the dictatorship is more likely to be able to get access to the country, because it shows that they're willing to comply with the government's orders. Flaunting the difference in name isn't a good idea if you don't want to offend the people who give you a visa to enter. Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the name of the country from Burma to Myanmar. Last week I had put up a straw poll just to ascertain the key points for both the names: Myanmar vs Burma. Now topics of such a nature do raise sentiments of a lot of people, and consensus or supermajority is never going to be straight and easy process. Therefore, to ascertain the upshot such a debate, logic and clear reasoning sans sentiment should prevail. These are my findings and reasoning:

The pro-Mayanmar group had a much clearer and logical view

• WP:NCON -- The fact is that the name of the country was changed from Burma to Myanmar. Wikipedia reports facts.
• WP Naming conventions: If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name
• The name was arbitrary moved without a clear consensus
• Myanmar is recognized used by the United Nations and several other international bodies
• Political statements have no place in Wikipedia. That is, if several countries do not recognise the regime (and hence the name), it does not mean that the name is not existent.

The pro-Burma had subjective viewpoints

• The unelected Military leadership had no authority to change it. [Comment added by Nichalp: Unelected or not, it is not for Wikipedia to take sides on the legitimacy of elections and national leadership.]
• For what it's worth, most people I know have never heard of the word 'Myanmar' --> [Comment added by Nichalp: Ignorantia juris non excusat. Being unaware of the new name cannot be held as an excuse.]
• I think this is still the most widely used name -- very subjective. [Comment added by Nichalp: As an encyclopaedia, we report facts, not opinion.]

Other good arguments

• Failure to recognize a government does not equate to non-existence of said government. Like it or not, Myanmar is ruled by a military dictatorship and the name was officially changed by that government (81.208.106.64)
• Political leanings of editors here should have no say whatsoever on what goes on here on Wikipedia. If "Myanmar" is what the ruling regime calls it in English, then "Myanmar" it is. Whether the ruling regime is a democracy or a dictatorship or a tribal outfit is inconsequential. We are not here to fight for democracy in Burma or China. We are here just to report facts. (Sarvagnya)

Comments made by pro-Burma on local name vs anglicised name

A lot has been made on the issue of Germany/Deutschland, Japan/Nippon and so on. One is the anglicised name and the other is the local name. However what was not covered in the debate is that they do not compete for the same turf. Further, Burma is not an anglicised name of Myanmar. In this particular case, the government officially changed the name of the country from Burma to Myanmar, and ensured that the name of the country in the English language was also changed. Additionally, when a government changes the name of a geographic entity, they inform all governments and international organizations of the name change, to put it into international effect. This was not taken into consideration.

An issue that was not brought up was the relocation of the capital from Yangoon to Naypyidaw. Parallelisms can be drawn in the same manner. If the present government of Myanmar operates from the new capital, it would be a fallacy to state on Wikipedia that the Naypyidaw is not the administrative and legislative capital of Myanmar. Thus, in effect, irrespective of the legitimacy of the current regime, the new capital is recognised as the seat of governance of the present day rulers of Myanmar.

On common use

Quite a bit has said and misinterpreted about the common use criteria. This is the raison d'être for the pro-Burma name. Now, the common use criteria is meant for names that are far more commonly used by the general population in daily life. In most cases, official use and common use and are congruous with each other. For example Republic of India vs India; Commonwealth of Australia vs Australia, Russian Federation vs Russia. By using Google to determine Myanmar vs Burma does not prove anything on how commonly used a name is. It will only determine the online prevalence of the names.

Renaming criteria

Several Wikipedia policies come into play for the name

• WP:COMMONNAME
• WP:ENGLISH

Our policy is clear and ambiguous: Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is. And I have use this to make the final decision.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to remind everyone the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia that aims to deliver rich, updated, relevant, and accurate content. If the country is officially called by a new name in the English language by its political masters, Wikipedia must reflect it. By redirecting the old name to the new name, a reader will be alerted to the fact that there is a name change, and would read more why the name was changed. This is the purpose of an encyclopaedia -- To Instruct and Teach objectively. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How you can claim this with a straw poll in which Myanmar prevails by only one vote - meaning no consensus to any objective observer of this discussion - is beyond me. The burden of proof was on the supporters of the Myanmar name to overturn consensus, and they failed. I will not revert you since I have no taste for conflict this evening, but I urge you not to begin the category move until this matter is resolved since that's much more of a bitch than a simple article. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note I never said that I used the results of the poll to determine the move change, rather a summary of each editor's rationale behind it to summarize the salient points. I'm sorry, but moves of this nature cannot be based on straw polls. Objective reasoning and wikipedia policies must take precedence over numbers. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As all polls can be ballot stuffed with ridiculous answers, an indication of a poll as consensus cannot be used. The poll was even open to IPs as the rationale behind the argument meant more than the simple !vote. Further, Hemlock Martinis, tell me, how objective is the reasoning of one of the pro-Burma supporters to mention that he prefers the name because his girlfriend has not heard of it?! =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow... Nichalp you're a little subjective yourself, are you not? Reading this little section of yours really gives me the idea of (Personal attack removed). But, you got your way (or as you would say: Wikipedia's legitimacy was upheld), so at least you're happy. And before you say sour grapes, the name isn't that important to me. But it's good to know if I take over Canada and unilaterally name it BOOULABOOULAWOOULABOO and the UN is retarded enough to recognize it, that Wikipedia will follow suit. Beam 11:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, Myanmar is fine, but the way you did it isn't. Beam 11:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pray then, how would you do it? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• There does not seem to have been consensus for this move and so I shall revert it. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I find that the Move tab does not appear on the Myanmar article - presumably it has been protected in some way. Please clarify the status of this matter. Has User:Nichalp improperly used his admin tools in support of his position on the content? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  Here start the conspiracy stories. To clarify, I used the move button, nothing more. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  In fairness to Nichalp, the page was move protected by others for unrelated reasons. Myanmar was move protected by User:Philip Baird Shearer on Feb 16th with the message disptute over the naming of the page should be settled thorough a WP:RM not by cut and past edits [edit=sysop:move=sysop]). Burma was protected by User:Ryulong on Apr 29th with no summary but apparently in response to vandalism.

• I am not familiar with the full history and details of this - that is why I solicited more information, for which I thank you. As I understand what you're saying then, Nickalp has used his admin privilege to cut through the protections applied by the other admins. This might be considered improper wheel warring or is content editing through such protection another form of infraction? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that the page was protected when I made the move. Neither was a message displayed on the protection when I made the move. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus. One administrator's opinion, however well thought out, does not change the issue that it is solely that administrator's opinion.Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you understand by consensus? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Somedumbyankee, but it's clear to me as a newcomer to this Talk page that whatever "consensus" means there is not enough of it here to justify the change you just made on grounds of consensus. I can tell you're frustrated by the debate, but I'd suggest there is still compromise to be negotiated here and that administrative fiat is misplaced. Webmink (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

More or less, I expect that consensus would mean that the person making the change does not have to explain in any detail why. Your voice is welcome in the debate as an editor and you make good points but no substantial change has been made in argument since the last arbitration (that I'm aware of). Stare decisis is my expectation unless a process overrules it or no one reasonably objects. I see at least one reasonable objection (i.e. the elected government rejected the name change and is the "authority" specified in the naming policy) and see many editors who are "pro-Burma" and are willing to contest the change. In my opinion, making a change in name at this point is too bold.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To quote two of the reasons you give:

" 1 - Myanmar is recognized used by the United Nations and several other international bodies. 2 - Political statements have no place in Wikipedia. That is, if several countries do not recognise the regime (and hence the name), it does not mean that the name is not existent." So you use the fact the United Nations recognise the name as a justification in one line, and, in the very next line, state political statements on recognition of countries have no place in Wikipedia? It is obvious you are pick and choosing your "facts" to support your supposedly "neutral" opinion. If you were truly neutral and interested in debate, you would not have changed the name without warning or consultation.Angstriddenyouth (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, I assume you are an administrator since you feel that your conclusions are open to action without the need for discussion. However, do note that being an administrator does not give you the fiat to do whatever you like even when there is no consensus on a topic. If you feel that your arguments are stronger than those of others, please first make them, wait for reactions and counter arguments, wait for a consensus, and then make the move. I don't disagree with your conclusions (and, to some extent am happy that this over since using the name 'Myanmar' will at least end the fruitless discussion on the topic) but the way you've gone about it is not what one would expect from an admin. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 13:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I'm not sure what you may consider "expected from an admin". I had opened the debate, created a straw poll, watched it for a week, including the followup, prodded participants on both sides to give objective reasoning, and did not participate in the debate. In this case I have remained completely neutral. Had I participated, I might have been accused of favouritism. Next, I disagree with your assertion on the point of a consensus. How does one reach a consensus for such a controversial topic? If it is just a simple poll, a bot like Tangobot might as well evaluate it and enforce the move. Else, throw in a bunch of socks to enforce a single viewpoint. Shouldn't clear reasoning and established wikipolicies be given a priority? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, we don't go for straw polls on some dark corner of Wikipedia for this. We formulate move proposals that are listed on WP:RM so that everyone is aware of them and may participate. That's what caused this article to be moved to "Burma" last October. Your action is unilateral and against process. Please undo your move. Húsönd 14:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Husnod, from Wikipedia:Requested moves I quote: In some situations, the value of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, I don't object to the move as much as I do to the way it was done. You have stated in the past that you did not agree to the move to Myanmar so your position is fairly well known and favoritism would be better addressed by confronting the issues head on than by pretending to take the high road. Staying out of the discussion, not building bridges with people with the opposite viewpoint, and then unilaterally making a change is not conducive to a healthy editing environment. An admin should actively seek to engage in the discussion, especially when they are known to hold a particular viewpoint. I'm trying to be charitable here but it does seem to me that a low-key straw poll was initiated with the end result pre-ordained. I'm fine with Myanmar but I'm not to happy that my time has been wasted here. And, as Husond has stated on your talk page, you should know that the move will be controversial precisely because no consensus has been reached and you should take it to WP:RM. It is important for an admin to be purer than the rest of us and I refuse to believe that you've not tried to be a neutral party but will say that it doesn't appear to be that way. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to accuse me of favouritism then fine so be it. I am not here to debate on my opinion. When you speak of consensus, how would you determine when consensus has been reached? What criteria would you use? This is what is given in Wikipedia:consensus: In determining consensus carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves, including the evolution of the final positions, the objection of those who disagree, and in complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority. Could you point out if the logic of my outcome is flawed? Its easy to accuse me of personal bias, but is the move illogical?

The move is always going to be controversial, and I am aware of the implications. I have also quoted several pertinent points that were made not in the straw poll but else where. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of favoritism (I said I refuse to believe you've not tried to be a neutral party). You said you stayed out because you did not want to give the appearance of favoritism and my response was that, given that you're known to have a viewpoint, staying out achieves nothing and by staying out and then unilaterally making the change, you're not exactly achieving your objective of appearing to be an unbiased party. About the consensus, if a consensus has not been achieved and you have carefully considered the strength and quality of the argument, you should present those strong arguments first, give people the time to either accept them or state why they are not as strong as you think, and then, if you can't sway any hearts and minds, take it to WP:RM with your reasons. The way you've done it, I can't help but feel that we've been bushwhacked.--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 15:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that way. I have stated my reasons for making the move listing the merits of each point. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before the merits of your points are not really the issue here but no worries. A few quotes from WP:Consensus: Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. I take that to mean that editors should be engaged in the discussion and not watching from outside. If BaronGrackle moved the article, that would be less upsetting. (Actually, if Barongrackle were bold enough to move the article and left a message on my talk page saying that the discussion is getting out of hand, I might even respect the move and not personally revert it.) If editing of the page is impeded by edit wars, or is disrupted, or consensus cannot be found on the talk page through ordinary discussion, there are more formal dispute resolution processes. In this case, no formal dispute resolution process has been followed. I guess I've said my piece (again and again :-) ) So I'll shut up for now. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The way this page was moved and the reasoning behind it are nothing short of a scandal. This is just another proof that English language Wikipedia is too big and unwieldy to work under current procedures, which is why I no longer edit regularly.

I have made my arguments, so I am loath to repeat them in full. However, I just want to comment on the following:

Further, Burma is not an anglicised name of Myanmar.

Well, Burma is an Anglicization of an alternative name of Burma/Myanmar.

Quite a bit has said and misinterpreted about the common use criteria. This is the raison d'être for the pro-Burma name.

I have said it before and I am saying it again. If you compare the number of hits for Burma and Myanmar in academic databases like JSTOR or Google Books, Burma beats Myanmar with a wide margin. Whatever.--Amban (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What you mention is using a filter to determine the prevalence of the name. The filtration criteria can be easily manipulated by either camp to suit their goals. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought that academic sources did have a weight on Wikipedia, apparently you know better than me.--Amban (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This move is long overdue. Congratulations. Neutrality trumps individuals opinions every time. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, don't buy firecrackers just yet. Húsönd 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, it is quite obvious from the explanation of your decision that you are entirely biased in this matter, especially regarding your description of the pro-Burma rationale. This debate has nothing to do with politics, nor does it have anything to do with local name vs anglicised name. No one is seriously claiming that "Burma" or "Myanmar" are Anglicizations. They are both English names of the country. The Anglicizations are Myanma (literary) and Bama (colloquial). "Nippon" and "Deutchland" are false comparisons. A proper comparison would be East Timor. East Timor's official English name as dictated by it's government is "Timor-Leste", yet Wikipedia, and most of the English speaking world still refer to it as "East Timor". The only issue that is relevant to this debate is usage, and it has been well demonstrated, here and elsewhere, that current English-language usage is nearly evenly divided. Thus there is no reason within our policies, barring consensus otherwise, to move the article. What the United Nations has to say is completely irrelevant to our debate here. And it is very telling that you cite the UN's opinion under the pro-Mayanmar groups "clear logic", but mention nothing of the United States, Canada, Australia, and the UK not recognizing "Myanmar". If you are going to compare the logic of the 2 sides, you should at least attempt to appear impartial about it. Kaldari (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that there was clearly no consensus to move the article, it appears that this entire "straw poll" was little more than a pretense. Indeed, no unbiased reading of this debate (or the numerous previous debates) could see it as anything other than the community being evenly divided. By ignoring that fact, and acting unilaterally, Nichalp has demonstrated that he believes his own opinion to be more important than the opinions of the community. More importantly, he has abused his administrative powers by effectively ignoring one side of the debate and moving a protected article despite a clear lack of consensus on a very contentious issue. I have posted a notice on the Administrator's noticeboard to this effect. Kaldari (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well in that it was no different from the original move, which was also done without consensus. looks to me like we are back where we started. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kaldari, I assume that Wikipedia naming policies are less relevant to you. Again there is no comparison with western countries vs the UN. The UN is not a political organization, although some might consider it to be. Why should the recognition of western or eastern countries be given prevalence? Why not apolitical international bodies? FYI, the straw poll was not conducted to fill numbers to determine the page move, rather to determine the summary behind the reasons of the move. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You're correct: the opinions of the governments of English-speaking countries are no more important than the opinion of the UN to this debate (both are irrelevant). I was just pointing out the inconsistency in your rationale for moving the article. Of course Wikipidia's naming convention is important to me, indeed, I believe it is paramount. My reading of the guidelines clearly differs from yours, however. Kaldari (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• In effect, Nichalp didn't determine the consensus of the poll (which is something an involved editor with an opinion is unlikely to be able to do effectively anyway) - he made a determination of the strength of the opposing arguments, and sided with one in the absence of consensus. That isn't always a bad thing - sometimes required in AfDs and other areas. But in those cases it is done by an uninvolved administrator, not an involved administrator moving against move protection. If a poll on the talk page (not a subpage) doesn't result in a clear consensus, then the article should stay at Burma. In the mean time, it should be moved back to Burma. Avruch ^T 19:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  I think Nichalp applied more reasoned thought than we saw in October when the article was moved from Myanmar in the first place. There was as much consensus then as there is now, and yet, that move also went ahead anyway. I would claim he has simply restored the long-time status quo, and now is the appropriate starting point for a discussion to propose the move to Burma. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I totally agree with Avruch. Besides, we could just simply move this back to Burma with one of those edit summaries we use when someone unpleased with the result of a move proposal tries to act unilaterally- "rv, current title discussed and approved per move proposal on the talk page". The fact that Nichalp is an admin/bureaucrat shouldn't make any difference (apart from the fact that it is far more concerning). I'll do it myself if nobody else does, since Nichalp clearly won't acknowledge and revert his mistake. Húsönd 19:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope you do not do so, Husond, it would appear like wheel warring to push a point, and probably result in all involved facing arbcom sanctions. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not wheel warring to undo an admin's actions when they're clearly unjustified and against process. Besides, Nichalp was the first one to push a point by reverting another admin's decision to move this article to Burma. Húsönd 22:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The name of this article has been changed, without consultation, from "Burma" to "Myanmar" by a user named "Nichalp" on the basis of a straw poll, which currently stands at 17 votes for "Myanmar" and 16 votes for "Burma."[[1]] Up until yesterday there were more votes for "Burma." If you believe in Democracy please sign this straw poll in favour of "Burma," so we can change the name back. Decisions of this kind should not be taken by one person. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. I think User:Nichalp's rationale is sound, and at least as reasonable as the rationale behind the move from "Myanmar" to "Burma" last October. Therefore, this latest move is simply a restoration of the long-term status quo for this article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Prior discussion had concluded there was no consensus on the name change. For one user to decide to take the name change into his own hands, citing a Straw Poll which until yesterday showed a majority in favour of the name "Burma", and a series of partisan, subjective statements as justification is inappropriate and mistaken. By the way, I am aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy. I was referring to democracy in Burma. - Angstriddenyouth (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are aware that "Wikipedia is not a democracy", then you should know that the count of votes in a straw poll is meaningless. Nichalp made it quite clear that he closed the discussion based on the actual comments people made, not the raw "vote" totals. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think political statements like "If you believe in Democracy... I was referring to democracy in Burma" help this discussion. It keeps dragging it back into the realm on political statements about the regime in this country, not about what is the most commonly used name in the English speaking world. Wikipedia is not the place to set trends, it follows them. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Important Notice" informing users of the name change mentioned the straw poll as justification. I do not call this making it "quite clear" it had nothing to do with the vote totals. I have read through his summary for the change, and it is clear that he is partisan, and in summarising the arguments in favour of "Burma" was brief and dismissive. I realise there are arguments in favour of the name "Myanmar", but to simply dismiss the name "Burma", and use instead a name which is not recognised by most English speaking countries (the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, etc..) is a mistake. I would have accepted a change to the name "Burma/Myanmar" (as used by the EU) but to dismiss the name "Burma" out of hand is not to recognise the controversy. There is no clear consensus on the name change, and this should be made clear, not ignored.Angstriddenyouth (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that the title of this comment section is very telling about the rationale behind many of the pro-Burma comments. It evokes a political plea of persecution, essentially protesting against the military rule. It implies that this decision is bad for the Burmese people. Regardless of the final decision, it is not. It is simply a naming convention, and the article makes it quite clear in what context each name is used elsewhere. WP:NCON makes it quite clear what to do when there is ambiguity between two possible choices for the naming convention. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It does, but it does not of many others. Húsönd 20:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This header implies that those of us supporting the Myanmar name are somehow in favour of the current regime instead of simply being in favour of NPOV. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not forward a political agenda. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a clear double meaning in the title of this comment section. Yes, I want to save the name "Burma", as to use the name imposed by the Junta, but never ratified by the Burmese people or recognised by the International community, is, in a small, but nonetheless important way, to add legitmacy to that regime. There is no clear consensus on the use of the name "Myanmar", so any decision to use the name, whatever reasons given, is subjective. I realise you could read the title "Save Burma" in another way, and that was not accidental. But that's another topic. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps "Burma" name supporters now understand how we "Myanmar" supporters felt when the name was changed some months ago after being stable for years at Myanmar. I consider Nichalp's justified move a return to status quo ante.--   Avg    20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, me too, well expressed, AVG. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For an article to be changed, there of course needs to be a consensus amoung all the wikipedians because what the wikipedian community says is always the truth. *note the sarcasm* Just because someone puts his own opinion above the opinions of the community, does not mean that we need to ostrasize him or call him an "An Enemy of The Poeple"

On the other hand, the name was disputed. There was a lock on the topic because an ongoing discussion was being made. Not only did Nichalp impose his own opinion above the opinions of the community (which in ethics, is not always wrong), but he did so without giving prior notice that he would be the sole objective judge of the debate and that he would change the title unilaterally. When he created the straw poll, he did not mention that he alone would determine the title from what our arguements were based on and from whether he thought our arugemetns were logical or not. The whole reason why we have a discussion or a poll about this is so that the community can have an effect on what the article's title is, and while an unbiased judge is acceptable, the judge needs to have made himself known. Otherwise, the community doesn't have a clear idea of what is going on and cannot properly do its job. In other words, what Nichalp did, was swindle the people participating in this discussion whether he intended to or not.

Now he says that he did not know that the topic was locked. Under normal circumstances, the topic's title should be reverted back to its original title, but in this case, the original title is and has been heavily disputed, and legitamacy of its origin is also questionable.

Now, the article needs a title.

Can anyone present a reasonable arguement as to how we can resolve this conflict? (and not what the title should be). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWycliff (talk • contribs)

Please assume the good faith of Nichalp. He is not the only person who has read this discussion and is not the only one who can see that more people have argued in favour of "Myanmar" on Wikipedia conventions' terms. It is also at best a divided consensus, in which case, status quo ante applies as has already been said. His action was in my view an excellent application of WP:BOLD. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the policy in depth, I agree that Myanmar (or Union of Myanmar) may be the more appropriate of the two names by policy ("between two names, use the authority's name">junta is recognized as government due to embassies>junta is authority) but I can see clear arguments against using the name and don't see a consensus. I see no realistic Liancourt Rocks option. A "Burma" article and a "Myanmar" article is clunky but appropriate. My guess is that Nichalp got a rough reception in part because of confusion about whether he was acting as editor (too bold, but in good faith) or admin (which would be inappropriate, WP:NBD). I agree with JohnWycliff that prior notice would have been very appropriate.Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are other countries that have similar debates.

• Greece (Hellenic Republic)
• Switzerland (Swiss Confederacy)
• Netherlands (Dutch)
• West Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire)
• Soviet Union (USSR)
• Russian Federation (Russian Federation) - often called Russian Federation instead of Russia
• Holy Roman Empire (Germany) - Holy Romans and Germans aren't the same.--4.245.76.125 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

None are remotely similar, please consider refactoring your POV header, it isn't helpful. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The user that posted this an IP sock of indefinitely blocked disruptive user xgmx (talk · contribs · block log). If Angstriddenyouth wasn't yelling First Amendment all over the place I'd be tempted to delete the comment entirely. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Myanmar had a first amendment. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We combine the two: The Burmese Union of Myanmar! PERFECT!--4.245.76.125 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Or pehaps Myanmar (Burma). Thanks, SqueakBox 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

While a redirect is obviously a great idea, it's not really a suitable name for a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody give me an abbreviated reason, as to why there's so much resistants to the name Myanmar (particullary when the country name was changed years ago)? GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar is resisted because most of the Western world sees the military government as illegitimate usurpers. Elected parties that never took power and figures like Aung San Suu Kyi have rejected the name change. Government publications and some other media persist with the Burma name for this reason, and the perception is that an "average guy" would be more likely to recognize Burma than Myanmar.

Burma was and remains the normal name for the country in English. For example, the BBC and The Times today have current stories using this name: Burma to mourn cyclone's victims; Burma junta shows signs of backtracking. Since these sources are respected journals of record, the proposed alternative seems absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You say that as if the two largest international news agencies, responsible for thousands of syndicated publications each day, don't use Myanmar. Or the largest metropolitan newspaper in the USA. The journals of record are divided; this is undisputable. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about the other side. At least one can somewhat understand the passion on the Burma side but why exactly is there so much resistance to Burma when, even the editor who made the move, admits that it is not clear which name is more common? --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 23:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Because when it's unclear, the wisdom is to use the "official" name, over which its own government and the UN have the greatest defining authority. Understand that the more emotive and politically-charged argument there is in favour of Burma, the more people rush to defend the integrity of Wikipedia, which does not operate on the basis of political support or acceptance or justice, but on that of common usage, administrative authority and a neutral point of view. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the logic (by that logic, a whole lot of things should be renamed in wikipedia, but never mind). I'm curious as to why the passion? It's not as if the Myanmar guys love the government (though this comment [2] on this page about Aung San Suu Kyi's death is a little bizarre and very crude). Cultural imperialism is a possibility but given the dubious historical significance of the name (unless, of course, the Myanmar guys know little about the history of Burma) that seems unlikely. Some users have touted neutrality but Myanmar is clearly not a neutral name when you talk to the Karen or members of many other ethnic groups (unless the Myanmar guys have no clue who these Karen and other ethnic groups are and what their situation is vis-a-vis the official government of that country). But these are all reasons, why the passion? --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's passion for Wikipedia that motivates me, at least. It sickens me that NPOV is gleefully disregarded because editors don't like the current regime. I think the Burmese people are monumental victims of their oppressive "leaders", but I don't want to disrupt Wikipedia's core policies as a means of personal protest. See Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma for my additional comments. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the use of Burma is considered POV. It has been endorsed by the parties that rejected the name change and won more than 75% of the vote in an election immediately following the name change. Plus, Burma is a common English name for the country. Still, it is interesting to see your passion for wikipedia and I can only hope that it is backed up by a reasonably good grasp of the actual situation with the naming of Burma. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You have identified exactly why the use of Burma is POV. Your comment assumes that the popular vote has a greater authority over the name than the Junta. That is a pro-democratic POV and Myanmar/Burma is clearly not a democracy. This is why it's so hard to eliminate the Western bias in Wikipedia. In terms of the most common usage, the political balance may affect this in the Burmese language but since it is not an English-speaking country, that isn't the same in English. The fact that there are huge media giants choosing both names shows that the English language state of affairs is far different. BigBlueFish (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I understand where the opposition is coming from now. And, it is comforting to know that, though my choice of a non-POV name for Burma may not be doing well, at least I chose my side wisely. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a response to the pro-Burma people being a little overenthusiastic, frankly. Why people get so hot and bothered about what the article is called bewilders me. I'm just a process wonk that wants to see things done in a disciplined fashion.Somedumbyankee (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We've established that common usage is unclear. By "administrative authority" I'm guessing you mean policy and not "administrator authority", and the policy mostly supports Myanmar. Both terms are politically charged (foreign tyranny vs. domestic tyranny) and neither adequately meets NPOV in my mind. I don't see a reason to challenge the policy or WP:Ignore all rules, so it's Myanmar, but that doesn't make it a "wise" decision when two of the three points considered are at best ambiguous. Those that support the Burma name are not corrupt, biased, or "assaulting the integrity of Wikipedia", the policy is just a way to resolve disputes so we can move on.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, back on topic-previous name disputes have taken some routes to consider:

• 1. Liancourt Rocks chose a neutral third name for islands contested by Japan and Korea. I don't see a practical third name. Burmese Union of Myanmar would be like saying "United States of USA." The two names are, more or less, different ways to spell the same Burmese word (the language is still Burmese?). Per policy, Myanmar (Burma) would imply there are multiple Myanmars that we can't otherwise tell apart.
• 2. Istanbul and Constantinople have separate articles for different time periods. This has been proposed. There's enough material for a separate article under the historical name and this could work. The Myanmar article would probably be limited to the history of the military government to reduce redundancy.
• 3. The infamous Gdansk article uses different names throughout the article as appropriate to the various time periods. This appears to be what is happening now. Zealous editors will sometimes go in and change the article name, though, and this is unlikely to be a permanent solution.
• For reference, WP:NCGN is the governing policy and there are other examples there. I prefer the separate article option.Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that #1 is impractical, while #2 seems like a pretty good idea, although the history may be too much in progress to do that right now in a neutral way. Note that Nyasaland redirects to History of Malawi and Constantinople is fundamentally a subpage of History of Istanbul. There is no reason not to cover the history under both names while it is still best organisational practice to do so. And #3 should most certainly be done regardless of the choice of title. Of course there will be many time-independent occurrences of the name as well which should match the title. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for names under #3 (Gdansk option), since that's the easy one.

pre-1752: "Area that includes the current state of Myanmar" or equivalent or just use Burmese, talk around it, or some other non-controversial term (may not be the last time we change this...). 1753-1885: This is the sticky one: Lower Burma and Upper Burma, or...? I would stick with Burma here simply because a lot of what's written about this period (in English) was written by the British when they were in charge. 1886-1989: Burma (British colonization to junta's name change). Any reference post-1989: Myanmar. [3]).Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason everyone here is resisting the name Myanmar is because it isn't official. I'll explain why.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE SCENARIO THAT AMERICANS (and other peace loving countries) UNDERSTAND Brigadier General John Doe says "Hey I got a great idea lets start a coup and take over the United States!". He then shoots the president in the back of the head and says "I'm in charge now! I'll shoot anyone who protests against me being a Nazi". Then about 800 high school students protest for a democratic government and he has them all mercilessly shot in cold blood by Burma's form of the SS (in this scenario the new American SS). He then says "I know, I'll rename the United States....how about JRoerhtoertyoeyjohmfdthzT, thats the best name for a country, ya, this is great, oh look the stupid countries don't like the name and what I do, oh well there just gay cuss I'm in charge and there just stupid little countries that can't stop JRoerhtoertyoeyjohmfdthzT because were a superpower".--4.244.36.208 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; but Myanmar is the country's name. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And were your unlikely scenario ever to happen we would move United States to JRoerhtoertyoeyjohmfdthzT. Its not fior us to judge the politics of Myanmar or the US, our job is to write an encyclopedia describing how things are. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"How things are," is debatable. The party which won elections in Burma (a result the Junta ignored) uses "Burma." As far as I am aware, the majority of Burmese people prefer to use the name "Burma" when talking about their country. So does a large proportion of the Media and the International community. The crazy General example above is not without a point. You are saying "Myanmar" is the name of the country based on the unilateral decision of a bunch of murdering despots. Well Done.Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Myanmar is ruled by despots or not. Wikipedia is not a platform for Human Rights. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, right or wrong these Generals rule Myanmar. That is why Than Shwe and the others are in the infobox rather than those who won the election but do not in reality govern Myanmar. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Plus, your analogy isnt quite accurate. The junta had been in power for over 20 years before the name change, it isn't like the military just came out of nowhere and decided to change the name. And it isnt like they changed it to some stupid random name either, the region had been known as Myanmar to the people for centuries. It would be like if the British military changed the United Kingdom's name to the "Union of Britain". MethMan47 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted the following to Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma , but I am not sure that many people have looked there, since discussion continues here.

In previous discussions, there have been claims that "Burma" is more common in the "English-speaking world", including the US, UK, etc. I just don't see it, and those claims seem like so much empty rhetoric. From my perspective, it is patently obvious that the most commonly used name in the English-speaking world is "Myanmar". Just spending a few minutes looking for links to major well-known international organizations, I found exclusive usage of "Myanmar":

• United Nations — link
• International Organization for Standardization — link
• Universal Postal Union — link
• International Telecommunication Union — link
• International Olympic Committee — link
• FIFA — link

Also, the Associated Press uses "Myanmar" exclusively. My local newspaper uses AP, and I have been looking for any usage of "Burma" these past few weeks, with none to be seen. I have been paying attention to CNN to see what they would use, and every instance of on-screen graphics I observed showed "Myanmar" alone. Sometimes the news reporter might say "formerly Burma" etc., but the preference for "Myanmar" was clear. The top of Google News - World (link) at 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC) says "Myanmar Mourns Victims of Cyclone" with links to the New York Times [4] (no mention of "Burma"), Reuters [5] (one mention of "former Burma", all other refs to "Myanmar"), International Herald Tribune [6] (no mention of "Burma"), and CNN [7] (no mention of "Burma"). The Washington Post [8]] does use Burma, but that was the only link from that set to do so. I truly cannot see any NPOV way to claim that "Burma" is a better article name than "Myanmar" for Wikipedia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia says Burma, the SS Free's wiki says Burma, Google says Burma (Myanmar), Firefox and SeaMonkey's spell check programs say Myanmar is not a word. The general does not have the authority to change the name of a country, the elected official is the only one that does, with the approval of the senate (or other senate-like power that is stated in the constitution).--4.244.36.208 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm... let me contradict you. Uncyclopedia says Myanmar, SS Free's wiki is a dead link, and Google says Myanmar (Burma) (on the map version, anyway; the searches just produce more results for Myanmar than Burma). I wouldn't have responded, but most of what you said was inaccurate. -BaronGrackle (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of you are missing the good thing about Burma, they were good in World War II, I highly doubt that the fake leaders of Myanmar (aka: generals since they weren't elected) would be good in World War II if they were around, they would probably help the Nazis since they commit crimes against humanity just like fascists do.--4.244.36.208 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This may well all be true (though it is an 'argument contrary to fact,' and simple speculation to boot). That doesn't change the fact that they are in control of the country at this point, and have officially renamed it, just as the Nazis renamed the government of their country, etc., etc. Doesn't acknowledging that the current (admittedly, repressive) government has renamed the country actually serve to distance them from what you claim is the positive history associated with "Burma?" And doesn't acknowledging their name change make it easier to distinguish the changes they've brought to the country? Treating evil as though it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. Indeed, there's a good argument to be made that the opposite result is more common. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They haven't officially renamed anything because they are an illegitimate regime. They have no authority to "officially' do anything. The name of the country is still Burma. JohnMGarrison (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to agree with this statement and I despise the military junta, the US has an embassy from the military government of the country (http://www.mewashingtondc.com/). There's an embassy in London, one in Paris, one in Tokyo, one in Berlin, and so on. The military government controls the seat at the UN. They may be hopelessly corrupt and totally incapable of providing for their people but they are the internationally recognized government of the country. If they were not, there would be no embassies. Those embassies often lack actual ambassadors, of course. For example, the US refuses to have an ambassador to the country in protest. To say that "normal" relations exist would be a joke, but they do exist. (q.v. [9])Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The US has an embassy in Rangoon, Burma. Here is a link to their official webpage.[10]Angstriddenyouth (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen, it boils down to this. Wikipedia operates a NPOV policy. Any assumption that a military junta is any less legitimate than a democratically elected government or any other form of government is a POV that is unsuitable for Wikipedia. It is generally accepted that the junta have political control over the country, and this is the closest thing to an official authority on the country's name that there is. The US can call it whatever they like but unless they have an overwhelming influence over the English language usage, it's irrelevant. Indeed, the UN disagrees with them, just like on some other recent issues. BigBlueFish (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

• "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize." (The name most recognised throughout the English speaking world is Burma. It may be that a majority the American Media prefer to use Myanmar, but, as Morrissey once said: "America is not the World." I am from the UK where the name Burma is used universally by the Government, all major news organisations and NGOs and, for that matter, the people.)
• "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." (Bearing this in mind, I cannot see how the recent change by a single editor to change Burma to Myanmar can be justified.) - Angstriddenyouth (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The Iraq and weapons of mass destruction thing is completely different in my opinion, it is different in the fact that Burma has leaders that the people chose and despite the fact that they don't really have any power, they are still in charge of everything.

The leaders "that the people chose" are under house arrest, or in prison, and aren't in charge of anything. It is the military Junta, which was never chosen by anyone, which has the power. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides regimes like this one rarely last any long. In Germany, that was different because the Nazis were elected into office (which is something that people learned was a bad thing and never happened after that [other than Nationalist Spain during the Spanish Civil War). We own Iraq, we went in, kicked there asses and seized there land and government, we then tried to make Iraq a democracy but the terrorists kept blowing up the voting booths (with the people in them just for fun since there gay terrorists).--4.244.36.127 (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This debate is not going to be concluded until an enforceable decision is handed down from on high. Since there are many archives of debates on this subject, and at least one RFC, it is time to move this up a step in the dispute resolution procedure. I honestly don't think formal mediation is going to solve this, but perhaps we can come to an agreement where the name is locked for several months at a time. If we can't come to an agreement, I think this content issue should be moved up to the Arbitration Committee. It is just too destructive to allow it to continue.

Does anybody agree that we should escalate this problem on the DR procedure?--Burzum (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's an active Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma in process.Somedumbyankee (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I was interested to read that Der Spiegel (Europe's biggest and most influential weekly magazine)[[12]] last year reverted from using Myanmar to Burma. The link is here.[13] (In German.) It is a fact that most European countries use the original name. Right now I am in Italy where the press universally use "Birmania." In case you didn't guess, that's Italian for "Burma." Not "Myanmar."Angstriddenyouth (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

YouTube has about 30,000 hits for Burma, 34,000 hits for Myanmar. Might actually be a better reflection of "common usage" since it doesn't have the AP bias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyzQItUhXyw&feature=related

At 1:00 in (uses "Burma"). This is a semi-famous 1990's US TV series. More "popular culture" than "common usage" and isn't current, but I can't resist.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Entertaining, but the United Kingdom is also called England! BigBlueFish (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

They spelled Israel wrong too, and they used a country in Africa by both its colonial name and its current name. I would not take it as a reliable source.Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They didn't call the United Kingdom, "England", they called England, "England", and Scotland, "Scotland", which is perfectly legitimate, considering both countries maintain their seperate identities, whilst still being parts of a Union. What I liked, though, was that they also included "Tibet" in the list of countries. But don't get me started on that one. - Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And Britain, and Great Britain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk • contribs) 10:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The UK is not called England, neither is it called Britain or Great Britain. England is a region of the United Kingdom, as are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Great Britain includes England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom is a state, Great Britain is an Island and England is a part of the island of Great Britain. See United Kingdom, Great Britain and England (also Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland). Alun (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You muppet we were discussing vernacular, not the concise definition. Someone travelling to Birmingham could just as correctly say they are travelling to the UK as they could say England. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the fact that somebody would stoop so low as to harass somebody for there ethnicity and nationality. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a personal union of England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland (Irish Civil War), and the Munster Republic (formerly). As well as a few minor states that came and went during the Irish Civil War, which involved like 18 Irish countries, most of which surrendered shortly after declaring war. Also Cornwall (aka: Kingdom of Cornwall) was and will be a country in the UK in the future. England took them over in the 16th century and they have been resisting English rule ever since.--4.244.36.20 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

...and don't forget Berwick upon Tweed (as the Russians did) ;-) István (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

More uses in popular culture: the first Harry Potter movie uses Burma in the visit to the zoo scene (joy of having cousins). I've never read the books, don't know what's used there. The West Wing, on the other hand, uses Myanmar in season three. Neither quibbles about using the other name. Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

REFERENCES: SS Free - Wikipedia reliable reference, SS Free's wiki, Transformers wiki, Uncyclopedia, Yahoo! - Wikipedia reliable reference, Catholic Encyclopedia, Spartacus, AboutUs.org - Wikipedia reliable reference, Classic Encyclopedia, InfoPlease.com, Making History - The Calm & The Storm, Central Intelligence Agency - Wikipedia reliable source, United States government - Wikipedia reliable source, State.gov - Wikipedia reliable source, [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and about a million others. Myanmar references: 0.--4.244.36.79 (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have commented on your extensive list of links here, many of which are U.S. government and many of which are Burma freedom protesters (both of which we acknowledge as using "Burma"), but I felt I had to comment on some of these links because they further the "Myanmar" argument:

• SS Free’s wiki– A video game wiki? The Burma article was made May 19. Note there is no India article, nor many other nations.
• Transformers wiki- Burma article made March 22. Anyway, I’d presume that references to the country in Transformers would be pre-1989, so of course it would be Burma.
• Uncyclopedia- Article was redirected to Burma on May 23 (today), creating a double redirect. I corrected it; thanks for the heads-up. If you decide later to move the article at Wikitravel, try to avoid a double redirect.
• Yahoo- To your credit, you've proven to me that Yahoo! is fairly divided, when I'd previously thought it was all-Myanmar. Your link goes to Yahoo quoting the CIA World Factbook. That sidebar is where you found “World Factbook”. If you instead click on Encyclopedia or Dictionary, you’ll find Myanmar. Also, to my surprise, Yahoo! Maps uses “Burma (Myanmar)”. I’ll yield that Yahoo! Maps uses Burma… however, would the Burmese-namers here say that Myanmar is placed in parenthesis as a clarification to us English-speakers? :-) If not, I’d suggest that argument be dropped elsewhere for when we see “Myanmar (Burma)”… such as Google Maps.
• Spartacus- The information on this site ends with World War II.
• AboutUs.org- Yielded. However, again I see the use of “Burma (Myanmar)”. And again, as I question whether Myanmar is really used as a translation for helping English-speakers understand which country is being talked about (or if the parentheses names are for political reasons), the same question comes up for cases of "Myanmar (Burma)".
• Free Burma Coalition (links 102 and 103 in your list)- Well, it looks like even an organization called the “Free Burma Coalition” uses “Burma/Myanmar” for our sake. And they’d better, because their map uses the word “Myanmar”.
• Lonelyplanet.com (link 106 in your list)- This last link actually uses Myanmar exclusively. I’m surprised you included it. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the previous editor probably just did a search for "Burma" sources and posted them up without checking them, BaronGrackle, you probably spent more time looking at them than they did... Often a page will come up in search for "Burma", but actually use "Myanmar" (or a combination), and vice-versa. The point they make is a good one, though. Burma is still commonly used by many authoritative sources. (And it's in Transformers too!) - Angstriddenyouth (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps there are more to these links than meets the eye. -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we make it clear that no isolated list of sources using one name or the other is any argument at all? It has been shown quite clearly that there are notable reliable sources using both. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting quote from Gustaff Houtman, who has been quoted previously on both sides of the naming debate, and is one of the World's foremost authorites on Burma: "The army is caught up in a network of lies of their own making. They tolerate no dissent and have silenced intellectual life. Instead of holding them to account, it is disappointing to see how inaccuracies are being perpetuated as history, sometimes even by reputable, well-meaning academics."

Full interview here.[23] Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting interview. The thing about Burma is that it is not a well-studied country and has never been one. A bit of an afterthought during the Raj, and almost forgotten today until the events of last Fall, it is quite easy to reinvent history. Even here we see the argument presented as fact that Burma is a name imposed on the country by the British while Myanmar is its historical name. This is patently untrue, of course, because the country hardly ever bothered to go by any name, was rarely united as a single whole, and Myanmar historically refers to the dominant ethnic group rather than to the country. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 21:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't be bothered getting into what seems to be an endless discussion, but I'm more than happy to vote in polls so give me a yell when one comes up. I am pro Burma, that is what the country has always been called and still is. I don't give a crap what some junta says. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Understand that this attitude is why Wikipedia is not a democracy. Here we prefer to reach a consensus through intelligent discussion rather than count all the single-minded individuals with no interest in any other ideas but their own, especially if it is based on political reasoning such as the above which frankly has no place in the editorial methodology of a serious encyclopedia. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that the article should be called "Burma" because otherwise the Monty Python "Penguin on the Television" sketch will make no sense.

That's just my opinion; do with it what you will. --Captain Infinity (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry, but calling it Myanmar won't alter the hilarity of the brilliant Python. Rather, the article will still mention that it used to be called Burma and people will be able to work out that that was when the sketch was. Nice try though ;) Deamon138 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the people whose opinions should matter most in this debate have largely been ignored - those from Myanmar.

Live for any length of time in 'Myanmar' and you will realise how stupid it is to call the country 'Burma'.

Those in favour of 'Burma' may have their own agenda, and many exiled groups and politicians want to change the name back to what it was called - the name of the country when they used to live there, or when their opinions on the issue were polemicised (during the 1988 popular uprising, and its brutal supression by the army). Some Westerners and journalists continue to use the term 'Burma' (like George W. Bush), because it's now become a sticking point to emphasise that the name change was not subject to a democratic vote. It's been politicised, in other words. But my point is simply this - the debate does not consider the opinions of the people who matter, the people of Myanmar. Just because an undemocratic military government changed the name of the country, does not mean that the people living under that government automatically hate the decision. In fact, this remains one of the few things that people in Myanmar actually agree with. Anyone who tries to use the name 'Burma' in Myanmar will soon feel like an idiot.

And there is a long history of its usage to suggest why the name is more acceptable among the people. For one thing, as another 'Burmese' poster mentioned above, the country is composed of many ethnicities, and the name Burma was adopted and popularised under British colonial rule. The name was borrowed from the country's main ethnic race - the Burmar. Calling the country Burma is offensive to those who are not 'Burmese', and thus belong to one (or many of) the other main national ethnicities - Shan, Karen, Mon, Arakan, Kachin or Chin people.

An earlier 'expat' poster also explained that it is mainly the older generation who use the term 'Burma'. I'd like to concur with that statement, but add that it's mostly confined to those elderly people who *have lived outide the country for many years* who continue using 'Burma' rather than 'Myanmar'. There are no obvious means to substantiate the popularity of the name change in the country, as their are no democratic, polling or public opinion institutions at our disposal.

I would urge those interested in this debate, before they add any more remarks, to consider some or all of the following suggestions - 1) seek advice from a range of people who were bought up in the country, and/or speak one of the native languages, like Burmese (and not just those over the age of 50, who are ethnic Burmese expats); 2) research the history of the country; 3) consider the ethnic composition of the nation; and 4) speak to anyone who has visited the country in the past 20 years.

Many of those with strong opinions seem to base their arguments on faulty logic, erroneous comparisons and unsubstantiated knowledge of the country. I urge you, PLEASE reconsider posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.139.246 (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't make much sense. You say that Burma is offensive to the non-Burmese because it refers to the main ethnic group but don't seem to know that Myanmar is the name used to refer to the main ethnic group inside Burma. The majority of Shan, Karen, Mon, Arakan, Kachin, or Chin people don't like the name Myanmar because of the ethnic hegemony implied in the name. You say, research the history of the country but don't seem to know that the country was never called Myanmar except during a brief period at the time of Mingdon Min and Thibaw when they started referring to their kingdom as the kingdom of the Myanmar people. At that time, the Ava kingdom was largely confined to the Burmese heartland which is essentially Myanmar in nature (no Chin, no Arakanese, no Karen, tributary Shan and Kachin). You say consider the ethnic composition of the nation. Well it is composed of many ethnic groups, not just the Myanmar ethnic group. Whatever the country is called after the junta goes, it is unlikely that the nation will survive if it retains the name Myanmar because that would be not be PC with the other ethnic groups. You say speak to anyone who has visited the country in the past 20 years. Anyone with more than a superficial relationship with Burma knows that both names are used. You may encounter more uses of Myanmar but think about the implications of being a Burmese in contact with a foreigner and using a name that is associated with the NLD. The Karen, who you are unlikely to meet when in Burma, use Burma almost exclusively. Travel in the Kachin hills (take a trip outside Myitkyina for example) and see what happens if you insist that the country should be called Myanmar rather than Burma. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 10:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So if both names are used, does this mean we should call the article "Myanmar (Burma)" or "Burma (Myanmar)" or some other awful, awkward one-of-a-kind contrivance? mike4ty4 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

i think the first post has some better points in this mini argument...

- Burma used to refer to the Burmese. - Karen people are simply everywhere in Myanmar, as are the other ethncities, and don't just reside in their own states. Since, over the past two years, those living in the refugee camps in Thailand have been given the go ahead to leave for better countries in the west, you will find thousands of Karens all over the developed world now. Thirdly - there is no ethnic group called Myanmar. I would say that, politically speaking, there is an issue with Myanmar because it is a Burmese word. Lastly - i'd just like to emphasise that it's not really a political issue at all in the country. people everywhere just call it Myanmar.

i personally think there should be the right of ethnic groups to make their own countries, and then the country's name will have to change for sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.47.191 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought Burma changed its name to Myanmar in 1989. So we should respect that and call it Myanmar.

Then it would break into a whole lot of countries, each with different names. One of them just might be called Myanmar. :) mike4ty4 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't call the USA the "British colony of America", therefore we shouldn't call Myanmar "Burma". Names change therefore we should jeep up to date. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't even believe this is being debated. The country is Myanmar: fact. There is no debate. That is how it is. Have Burma redirect to Myanmar has yes, those of us with a systematic bias will use that term, but the page should be named Myanmar. Period. Hooper (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's debated because a bunch of thugs who bullied their way into power and continue to use that attitude to stay there arbitrarily decided what the country will be called. That's not really any different from an invading army deciding to rename everything in a conquered country. Who can decide on something as fundamental as the name of a country? Does getting yourself into power, whatever the means, mean that everyone else in the world should agree with your every whim? That's the issue here, although it's somewhat confused by the fact that less some less dubious characters might also prefer the name Myanamar. Riedquat (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then this is tainted through-and-through with politics. I'm amazed this goes on with the politically-neutral Wikipedia. By choosing Burma OR Myanmar for political reasons would be endorsing a political viewpoint and hence would be breaching Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point-of-View) Policies. We need an apolitical standard by which to find an acceptable name for the purposes of the encyclopedia. mike4ty4 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to say firstly that I'm fairly new to this kind of thing, so I was wondering, when will it end? I mean either we stick with Burma, move to Myanmar, or have two articles. Now either we have this discussion and we all agree (which seems unlikely) or this discussion just keeps on going. What policies are there governing that? When is it acceptable to acknowledge the fact that we might be getting nowhere and need to try a different tact to resolve this? And what different tact is there? Vote/Poll/what? My views should be somewhere above but just in case: I'd be most happy I reckon with two articles, but wouldn't mind renaming the current one to Myanmar. As long as there's a Myanmar one I'm happy. But when will it end, with a result either way? Deamon138 (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the end we will stick with the most common, sensible name, which is Burma. --Doctor Bojangles (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There appear to be many people who disagree that Burma is the most common name and/or the most sensible name. At any rate, the RfC appears to have gone on for its two weeks, but no action has been taken. I'll toss something at the noticeboard.Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Bojangles, I was basically asking for people to describe what happens next in this seemingly eternal process. Note I said, "But when will it end, WITH A RESULT EITHER WAY?" BTW Somedumbyankee, I like your previous edit summary! Deamon138 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this is hardly surprising. As with most controversial discussions on Wikipedia, especially ones involving significant use of unencyclopedic arguments, the discussion dies out when people get fed up of discussing or arguing. I doubt this argument will be fully resolved until either a regime change radically changes the circumstances or enough time has passed for Myanmar to become the prevailing usage. While I doubt that any body is likely to change its stance from pro-Myanmar to pro-Burma, as influences like the AP make the name Myanmar more widespread in common parlance, more and more sources may follow. We will see though. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't fret it hasn't completely died down. Some are still involved. Over at Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma#Steps to take for resolution, Somedumbyankee has proposed a WP:MEDCAB to solve this. Have a look over there. Deamon138 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Alot of Burma pushers have mentioned that Burma is more commonly used (thus Wikipedia should use it). Does this mean, if the United States is (or becomes) more commonly known as America, we should move that article too? GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually yes. I may be a "Myanmar pusher" but WP:NCGN says to use the more common name, "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." SO it would be called America if that was the case. However, where the "Burma pushers" are wrong is that Burma is not more commonly used, it seems about 50-50 between the two. The same policy says if this is the case, we use the official name which is Myanmar. However, why have you posted that message under this heading? This heading isn't intended for discussing Burma v Myanmar reasons, just the process of this discussion itself. Deamon138 (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is about time people realise that WP:NCGN is not the be-all end-all. It is a naming convention...(which) should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. And in fact, we do have exceptions. Note that its 2008 Summer Olympics (not Beijing 2008), New York City (not NYC), Franz Josef Strauss International Airport (not Munich Airport), etc, etc, etc. Special circumstance can warrant exceptions, and I have a feeling that we may soon need a naming convention dealing specifically with country names besides the general "place names" guidelines[24].--Huaiwei (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well surely 2008 Summer Olympics, New York City and Munich Airport are the more common names for those things than Beijing 2008, NYC and Franz Josef Strauss International Airport respectively? Those aren't exceptions to WP:NCGN as far as I'm aware, those follow it to the letter i.e. they use the common name for those entities, which is what the policy states. The situation for Burma/Myanmar is different, as there is no common name, so those wanting Myanmar like myself state that the policy then says use the official local self-identifying name of the entity, which we reason is Myanmar

You have got to be kidding if you think "2008 Summer Olympics" (1.2 million google hits) has more common usage than "Beijing 2008" (7.7 million), or that the intials "NYC" is less used then the full phrase "New York City". And for Munich, sorry I cited the wrong airport. How about Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport and Touat Cheikh Sidi Mohamed Belkebir Airport then? Still, I happen to hold the exact same view with you over the Myanmar/Burma affair in that it is the self-identifying name which will prevail ultimately when common usage cannot be used convincingly.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well fair enough on Beijing 2008 being more popular using a Google search. It does seem odd I agree that the name is "2008 Summer Olympics" to me now. However, there are so many other combinations that you could name that (e.g. "2008 Olympics", "2008 Olympic games", "Beijing Olympics" etc etc with varying combinations of those words), that it would be hard to work out for definite which is most common (I mean how many of the uses of "Beijing 2008" on google were actually "Beijing 2008 Olympic games" or some other combination starting with "Beijing 2008"?). Still I agree that the name of that article is a little contentious perhaps, but to me it isn't factually incorrect or anything so it doesn't bother me really, and could get bogged down in common use more than this debate! Besides, "Beijing 2008" doesn't really have anything to do with WP:NCGN anyway, since the Olympic Games isn't a place! Anyway I don't follow the airports you mentioned: their articles didn't seem to mention a more common name for them, do you contend that there is one for each of them? Finally, using a Google test like you did for Beijing 2008, it seems NYC has 120,000,000 hits and "New York City" has 134,000,000. So New York City just wins the google test. However, I would say that a lot more people around the world use New York City than NYC anyway, since if I went said to someone in the UK, Africa or even Burma/Myanmar (lol) and said I was going to NYC, most would have trouble knowing what I was talking about. In fact, "New York" without the city is probably more popular, but of course there is the state with that name, so the article needs the city on the end to avoid confusion. I would say that since the US does have somewhat of a monopoly on the internet and therefore Google, then that could be the reason for "NYC"'s near equal usage on Google, if of course that is what American's use (judging by Friends it isn't but then that's only one show). Deamon138 (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know. Feel free to move my posting to the proper place. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Burma & Myanmar are just 2 names for the same place, what would these two articles be? Copies of each other? That's silly and awkward to maintain (you'd have to keep mirroring the two back and forth!). The only way I could see that working would be to have one of the two containing the information on the country, and the other explaining it is an alternative name. But that would still lean heavily in the direction of one particular name, so it does not really solve the dispute. mike4ty4 (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, you're replying to my comment from a long time ago, but I'll reply to you anyway. When I said "two articles", I didn't mean two articles with duplicate content; that would be absurd (though I have seen it suggested in these debates). By "two articles" I meant splitting this article, or at least moving some content elsewhere. So we could have one article focusing on the pre junta history, and the other focusing on the current entity. That is in fact what I favour out of those 3 options. Deamon138 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has even heard of this Myanmar thing, I didn't even know what it was until some n00b had moved the Burma article to Myanmar without a consensus because I was looking up information on countries, and I found out about Burma while playing Making History (it's a nation in the game). Also Burma has embedded itself in popular culture, do you really think that all the video game companies out there are going to make a patch for a video game that all it does is rename 1 tiny South Asian country that is terroristic and has a illegitimate government, I think not. Check out Greece, the official name of Greece is Hellenic, but people don't go around saying "hi, I'm from Helenia." Also I see some people tried comparing the two Chinas, well by the way, the Republic of China and the Republic of Taiwan are two different countries, The Republic of China is China, they just had to retreat to a small island which they own, Taiwan was a country known as Formosa but then the Japanese pwnt them prior to World War II. The Republic of China (despite common belief) doesn't own just Taiwan, they have some other islands, part of Mongolia, part of Southeast Asia, and a few other small territories throughout Asia and Oceania.--4.244.36.174 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment "1 tiny South Asian country that is terroristic and has a illegitimate government" is enough for me to dismiss the entire rant as yet another politically-influenced opinion.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even a debate, its obvious that Burma is more common than Myanmar.--4.244.36.174 (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to all the information above, you are incorrect. Hooper (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Could we change the wording on the template? Something like: "The decision has been made to Keep at Burma, after consensus could not be determined at this page." :-) (Note: the smiling emoticon is only partially smart alec; a good bit of it is benign exasperation, defeat) -BaronGrackle (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how no consensus = Keep at Burma myself. I mean, silence implies consensus, so since there was no silence, and no consensus by their reckoning, then any decision can't be "Keep status quo." In a dispute between two sides, you have to decide one way or the other. However, here we apparently have no consensus (i.e. 50/50) so people can't suddenly go "It stays at Burma since it's a tie" that doesn't make sense and seems pretty unfair. Why should Myanmar have to gather consensus to be the "winner", but Burma only has to be it's equal to be the "winner?" If they truly believe that there was no consensus, then they should've said "no consensus, higher discussion needed" or said "no consensus, no decision attained." As it stands, the current decision makes no sense. Deamon138 (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's funny, I'm much more in the Burma camp yet I agree with this assessment... it is unfair that Myanmar looses on a tie and Burma wins. Because the ball stopped on the Burma side of the net before arbitration, Myanmar got the short end of the stick. I'm happy with the result but not in how it got there and as I said from the start, there was not going to be a good ending, either way. I'm not faulting our jury either... they just did an impossible, thankless job (on their own time) and made a decision that had to be made. Gosh we just had a couple of US Supreme Court judgments handed down today that went 5-4 and 6-3... and they had a lot more information to make their findings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a fair and reasoned reflection. You could easily have accused us of complaining because we "lost", so well done and thanks for the restraint! Deamon138 (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Which therefore means a formal dispute resolution process will need to be launched next, after the conclusion of the recent Mediation Cabel. Interesting to note that the two "experienced users" who voted to keep at Burma had one saying "Burma is the more common name" and the other saying "No consensus, so keep at Burma". It has been obvious that neither side could show convincingly that neither name was a "more common name", and it is obvious that no concensus will be established, hence the need for a MedCab in the first place. Since a Medcab's recommendations are not binding, I would strongly recommend that this issue be brought to formal mediation soon.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion! (Don't ask me why I linked to that). Deamon138 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I third the motion.MethMan47 (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fourthed. Who wants to make the formal application? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a little look at the Requests for mediation pages. I personally wouldn't be able to make the application, mainly because the guide they have for filing the applications isn't finished! Also, it asks for the person doing it to give the names of all users that are involved. I don't think we can get away with what was done for the informal mediation (i.e. "too many to mention"). How do we decide who are "involved"? Deamon138 (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I think all four of the bureaucrats involved acted prudently and interpreted events as they saw fit. They were asked to help find consensus; the result was that they found none. I just disagree with the conclusion: that stated by Deamon138, that lack of consensus equals consensus for Burma. Something like, "While there is no consensus that Burma is the most common or correct name, there is consensus to keep it as the article title for the sake of stability." Though, looking at that text, I'd doubt there'd be consensus for that either. Whew. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the "status quo ante bellum" is hard when the war has lasted as far as recorded history. The very first edit to the page and the first comment on the talk page were quibbling about the name. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and each time anyone quips that the "status quo shall prevail when no concensus is reached", it invariably invites a reminder that the "status quo" for a far longer period of that article's history has actually been at "Myanmar", not "Burma"!--Huaiwei (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just claryifying, there were 3 crats, one went with burma, one with myanmar, and one with no consensus favouring burma. So really the majority would rest with burma for now, unless you wish to bring some more crats in (you are more than welcome, but its your responsibility).  Atyndall93 | talk  01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with your first sentence. What troubles me is that two crats cancelled each other out while the third said: "No consensus, so keep at Burma". So yes, it is true that 2 of 3 crats agreed to "Keep at Burma". It is equally true, however, that one of those crats said, word for word: "No consensus", while the other two crats joined the rest of the page in demonstrating that lack of consensus. This is why I feel using that word in the template is troublesome. -BaronGrackle (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No consensus should mean a decision either way is troublesome. Deamon138 (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The template doesn't even matter, I whipped it up in like 5 minutes. Change the wording if you want, its called {{mfc}}.  Atyndall93 | talk  09:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I find this all to be quite absurd. Myanmar is the official English name used by the country itself and all international organizations Myanmar is a part of. The question is not whether Myanmar is a legitamate name; it is the official common name used by the the official government entity of that country. As far as the eye can see, this article is about the nation-state of Myanmar. It has the country's flag in a box to the right with information about the government and the presidency which would be inappropriate if it was just talking about an area and not a nation-state. It may include information that of some history that precedes The Union of Myanmar, but like with most articles about new nation-states, that merely serves to give background information about the topic. Think about it; even if everyone agreed that Than Shwe is not the legitimate ruler of Myanmar, it still wouldn't change the fact that he is and that this encyclopedia should report that he is. No one in or out of the country can disagree that Myanmar is the official common English used by the Myanmar government, nor the fact that the Myanmar government currently has control of the nation-state. The governments of America, Great Britain, Australia, and other parties in Myanmar that do not control the government can have no say on what the official name should be. These are all facts that cannot be overcome by opinions. We report facts and the article, including its title, should be based on facts.

Again, it does not matter what the parties that were popularly elected say or what the people there think it should be. They don't control the government. Especially when English common usage cannot be verifiably proved, the official common English name should be used until the government expires and the name is officially changed. JohnWycliff (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have created Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Burma. I have added 19 users (including myself) to the list of involved parties. The ones I have listed are ones who have commented recently, or who commented on the Mediation Cabal case (except if they solely made a neutral comment). If you disagree with me listing you there, remove yourself from it if you wish. If you feel someone else should be involved, add/ask them. I hope those I have added are alright though. I also hope this step is what finally ends this dispute! Sorry if I've messed up while doing this, one thing I will say in my defence is that the instructions were only half finished! Deamon138 (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'm wondering is what will this really accomplish? Are you asking for another 3 person decision? If it goes 2-1 in favor of Myanmar what is to stop another person from calling another mediation where it could go 2-1 in favor of Burma? Unless there are side by side articles of an identical nature I can't see this ending anytime soon. Even then there will be mediation requests to merge the articles. And writing more pros and cons is certainly a waste of time since it's already written down on the last mediation page. Either a new mediator will impanel a new jury, read what was already written and make a new judgement or a mediator will look at what has gone on before and say to himself "this was already done and I can't do any better." Just my observations. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The advantage (as I understand it) to a RFM is that it lends a little more formality to the process. If the RFM and the MEDCAB case come to different outcomes, then I doubt this will be resolved, but if the two reach the same conclusion, it will lend more force to the arguments. If someone comes up with a new reason to change (for example, if the US government and the BBC started using Myanmar, or the dictatorship gets kicked out), then we will have to re-evaluate, but if the two mediations come to the same conclusion, any further requests for move can reasonably be rejected as intentional disruption to make a point. Neither name is ideal with the current reality, so at this point all that's necessary is a firm decision that will resist wheel warring. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The way you phrase that kind of scares me, Yankee. If this committee decides that Burma is the most common name, that'd be fine. But if they just do another, "No consensus, so keep at Burma"... then I guess we'd be stuck anyway. Though I'd advise them, if that were the case, to just PRETEND they felt the name should be Burma. :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that I believe Myanmar agrees more with established naming policy makes it especially disturbing, since I really have a conflict of interest now between supporting Burma and maybe putting the dispute to rest for a while or following my preferences and supporting Myanmar. Ah well, we may just have to have a bot move the page back and forth on a daily basis after all. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a thought! Also, see my comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Burma for why this can work. BigBlueFish (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Following the rejection of the request for mediation, I have set up a page on which to carry out some structured mediation, to establish exactly what we do and do not agree on, to save any more recycling of the same arguments over and over and to find a solution based on this. The participation and cooperation of all would be most appreciated and I think gives us the best chance of ending this debate. Please participate at /Structured mediation. BigBlueFish (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen people arguing for some position based on political issues (legitimacy of the country's government). But Wikipedia is Neutral on political issues, so I think these arguments should be kept out. Do you agree? If not, why not? How do you consider this in light of Wikipedia's neutrality policies? The way I see it, accepting one of these names (Burma/Myanmar) based on political issues would be politically unneutral and hence contrary to Wikipedia's neutrality policies.

Also, just for some giggles here are the Google search hit counts as of this writing, including more than just web searches, even though I doubt this is strong evidence for any position. But hey, at least it's a little less political... (Winner looks like this):

Web search:

• Burma: 51,500,000 hits
• Myanmar: 99,800,000 hits

Usenet search:

• Burma: 6,100,000 hits
• Myanmar: 11,500,000 hits

News search:

• Burma: 7,369 hits
• Myanmar: 11,783 hits

Book search:

• Burma: 8,463 hits
• Myanmar: 1,950 hits

Scholar search:

• Burma: 227,000 hits
• Myanmar: 103,000 hits

Blog search:

• Burma: 6,115,369 hits
• Myanmar: 11,462,868 hits

(Finance and Video were unsearched)

Make of that what you will... mike4ty4 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's been established here that the hard evidence supports Myanmar. It's just that doing the right thing is being obstructed by a bunch of keyboard activists and British Commonwealth-based people who still insist on using the old colonial name. --Tocino 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget America, Canada, Mexico, Portugal, etc. They also support Burma. Also in Batman: The Dark Knight Alfred tells a story of when he was in Burma and doesn't mention Myanmar.--4.245.88.227 (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of American news media use Myanmar. In American schoolbooks and maps the country is listed as Myanmar. Don't let the Hollywood activists fool you. --Tocino 16:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes but if Alfred was there before 1989 he would say he had been in Burma as that was what it was called then. Just as someone referring to their time in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in years past would probably use the name used then not the current name - e.g. in 1987's The Living Daylights reference is made to Brad Whitaker serving as a mercenary in "the Belgian Congo" not "Zaire". Timrollpickering (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Google hits are just as irrelevant as political arguments. We have a policy already: If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. Since neither name is widely accepted, our policy says that we have to use the local official name. The debate here should only revolve around what the official local name is. The junta's human rights record and google hits should not be brought up. All we have left to debate is who decides which name is official. With that in mind, let the debate continue. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The major cause of contention is that it's not a case of NO name being widely accepted; it's a case of BOTH names being widely accepted. Myanmar-namers feel this is close enough to the same thing. Burma-namers feel that it makes it an entirely different animal. Debating "who decides which name is official" is a losing battle for the Burma-namers, until they're ready to change the government information in the infobox. If they want to list Burma as a democracy (not a military junta) led by Dr. Sein Win (not General Than Shwe) and located in Rockville, Maryland (not in the land it calls Burma), then they can call Burma the "local official" name. I would've changed the box already to make the point, but disrupting to prove a point is against Wiki policy. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless if half the world disagrees with the naming conventions the country is today officially called Myanmar. Of course, Burma may be the common convention (out west) and such there will be a direct and mention of so, but like Abkhazia, South Ossetia and kosovo, which are not universally or majority recognized, they are listed as independent states with the mention of due recognition. So, in other words, regardless of what the world thinks of them, Wikipedia goes by the convention of what comes out officially from the country and those governing it. Regardless of approval from the West, East, North or South. Lihaas (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think this is about variants of the name; the English name of the country was officially changed from Burma to Myanmar, so Myanmar is the name of the country. Someone the Person (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is not consistent with the articles Yangon, Bago, Bagan, Pyin U Lwin, and Pyay, which are all titled with their new names. Someone the Person (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there has been a lenghty discussion whether this article's title should be Burma or Myanmar, and the community agreed on Burma. My question then is if the numerous other articles with "Myanmar" in their title shouldn't be moved as well?

• Myanmar Armed Forces
• Myanmar Army
• Myanmar Air Force
• Myanmar Navy
• Myanmar Police Force
• Myanmar national football team
• Myanmar national cricket team
• Myanmar national baseball team
• List of universities in Myanmar

and possibly several others. --DavidDCM (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll have difficulty doing that, I think. The community does not agree on the name for this country or whether the Wikipedia policy of using a country's official name should be used. The October 2007 move to Burma got through with a majority vote (many of us have claimed without consensus), and it only got through on the Myanmar/Burma page. Whenever such a vote has come up since then, on this page or the related pages, there is no consensus, so there is no change. This means that the Burma page will not change to Myanmar, but it also means that the pages already using Myanmar will not change to using Burma. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get that, consensus or not, there should at least be inter-article commonality until a final agreement is met, but okay. Thanks for the answer. --DavidDCM (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)