Talk:Burma/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Changes

There should be something limiting editing of this page. Many people have been vandalizing it so if it could be brought down to a few honest people who will only put in necessary edits, that would be good.

Name conflict

It should be called Burma. The US and UK Governments do not recognise the change of name made by the unelected military junta. Even the BBC does not use the word "Myanmar". [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOKRAPP (talk • contribs) 01:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be called either, Burma (Myanmar) or Myanmar (Burma). -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It is inaccurate to refer to the country as Myanmar on the English Wikipedia, as its proper English name is Burma. It's no different than calling Deutschland Germany, Ísland Iceland, etc. End of discussion. Xizer 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's time to call Burma "Burma," and to rename Wikipedia's article accordingly. "Burma" is an English rendering of a name Burmese use for their own country. No one calls it colonialism when we refuse, in English-language documents, to call Germany "Deutschland," or to call Ireland "Eire." If there is any issue of colonialism in this discussion (and I don't see one), it's that those outsiders who comply with the whim of the country's rapacious oligarchy by assenting to their renaming of Burma as "Myanmar" by fiat are complicit in a gross form of colonialism by native elite. If Qaddafi decided to rename Libya "Earth Paradise One," must the world comply? Yes, "Myanmar" has a legitimate use by Burmese themselves, but the question is not what should Burmese call their own country. That is their business. The question is: what is the English word for this country? The answer is "Burma." English people do not object to French people who choose to call England "Angleterre." Americans do not object when Bulgarians call America "Sasht." What the people of other countries choose to call them is their business. Congress could not decree that the Bulgarians must refer to the United States as the United States, and the "State Peace and Development Council" cannot decree what English speakers must call Burma. (What would the "State Peace and Development Council" think if we decreed that its new name is "The Gathering of Pigs at the Trough"?) "Burma/Myanmar" is NOT "neutral point of view," because it legitimizes an arbitrary interference in the English language. Besides its clumsiness, it makes no more sense that a decree from London that the French must call England "Angleterre/England," as a compromise to insisting that the French call England "England." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LapisQuem (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Since 1989 the military authorities in Burma have promoted the name Myanmar as a conventional name for their state; this decision was not approved by any sitting legislature in Burma! Therefore we should change the name from Myanmar to Burma! This is the correct name of the country. The change will reflect a neutral POV as opposed to Myanmar which infers a recognition of the military rule in Burma.

I agree! I don't think it should be listed as Yangon, or Myanmar. The renaming is not recognised by most countries, and is a symbol of the military dictatorship. Many local people still refer to it as Myanmar, and use this name as a symbol of non violent resistance to the military government. I need not mention of course, that the military government changed the name in the ninties. As Wikipedia is meant to be a symbol of freedom of speech and democracy, we should not recognise this name and instead have it as "Rangoon" and "Burma". Segafreak2 22:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is politically biased, it means it supports the West and censors oppositions. It recognises what has officially been recognised in the US. Wikipedia is not a symbol of freedom of speech and democracy, it is simply a propaganda rag, it is a political PR tool and a propaganda website. I suggest you read Wikipedia Policies and understand what it wants you to believe what it stands for. Okkar 08:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Many countries do not have democratically-elected legislatures nor any institutions of democracy for that matter (e.g. China, Laos, and Vietnam, to name a few). The military junta may be illegitimate, but that does not mean that we cannot ignore the local conventions of English name spelling (MOS conventions), which were changed in 1989. Showing "support" for nonviolent protest itself presents a POV; besides, Wikipedia is meant to be a neutr

al source of information, not a bastion of pro-democratic ideology. And you yourself said something about how many locals refer to Burma as Myanmar in English, which is correct. Expatriate Burmese are more likely to use the same terms recognised by pro-democracy movement (e.g. Burma, Rangoon, Pegu). --Hintha 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the names "Myanmar", "Yangon", etc. are in use by the United Nations and other international organisations, even though some of their members don't like the use of the name - it's in use for official purposes, so it should probably be left. Whilst I don't support the illegitimate regime and its alleged abuses, let's stick with what's on recognised internationally. JROBBO 01:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
In my view even if every sngle Burmese rose as one and acclaimed the name of their country to be Myanmar we should still use Burma. It's Burma in English. I don't care what it is in Burmese. (Yes I know I'm losing to the PC advocates but I'd say the same for Calcutta, Madras and Florence.) Avalon 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You should care what it is in Burmese, because this article is about their country. Have you no respect for burmese people? English doesnt rule the world and you should stop living the dream of old colonial empire. Okkar 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
(Shakes head wearily.) I will try to explain once more. This is an English encyclopædia. We use English. The English word for that country is "Burma". It has a different name in Burmese and probably different names in German, Italian and Japanese. All of these are important for German, Italian and Japanese encyclopædias. I do not take offence that Germans call my country Australien or that Frenchmen call it Australie. Why should you be offended that we want to use English? Avalon 08:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
More importantly, why should you have a say in what we should call our country? this maybe English wikipedia, but it doesnt have the right to insist upon calling other people country any name that is convienient in English. Do you insist that "Thailand" be called "Siam" and Mumbai be called "Bombay", because these are the English names? Isnt it a bit ignorant to suggest that "we call it what we want, cos it is English wikipedia"? Okkar 09:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
No, Yes, No. Avalon 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Okkar is disingenuous by bringing in Mumbai-Bombay as some sort of justification for a spurious us-and-them argument. Read up about this and you'll find exactly the same kind of political loading there and in many other cases of name-changing around the world as in the Myanmar-Burma question. Plenty of Hindi-, Bengali-, Tamil- etcetera-speakers call the city Bombay both in their language and in English. There are well-documented political reasons why Hindu nationalists (BJP-aligned) went through the renaming exercise during their brief term in power. In a similar way, for instance, some placenames in Zimbabwe were renamed at independence. This renaming was done to "Shona-rize" names that had an Nguni bent. (ZANU, supported by the largely Shona majority, defeated rival liberation movement ZAPU, supported by the minority Nguni-speaking Matabele. They then mounted a purge of the minority Matabele, which included the well-documented Bulawayo massacres.) For example, Gwelo became Gweru. But (and this is my point) the change has been repeatedly painted, whether out of ignorance or mischief, as being a move from Europeanized to authentic Africanized forms. Think about this before getting swept along in some sort of misguided PC fervour for new names. Things aren't always as simple as they seem or as some would have us believe. Brockle 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It is amusing to read the funny and childish discussions by some editors that to use Burmese is an insult like 'N' word. (May be they need to please their political masters. If not they would be arrested again!) We all Burmese knew that Myanmar is associated with SLORC/SPDC and most of the opposition is using Burma as a sign of resistance. Calling Burma is not an insult to anyone. If some of you think so, try to avoid using yourselves Bama/Bamar/Burmese. May be start to use Myanmarese? (I am amused that the person who said it is an insult, call himself Burmese. Is he trying to insult himself?
In a certain sense, it is an insult like the 'N' word, which is exactly why Bush and the British use it. It's their way of deriding the uppity Wogs who think they can use some name for their country other than what is acceptable to the Big White Guys. --Marvin Diode 22:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki should stand on the neutral ground by using Burma/Myanmar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darz kkg (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I support this view. Let's use Myanmar/Burma. I will change the article if nobody have contrary views. 80.202.209.139 23:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Article name remains as it is according to UN charter. We will not allow the use of Wikipedia as a political playground. Keep your politics out of here please. Okkar 02:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I agree the article name should be changed. Many people refer to this country as Burma. 80.202.209.139 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
United Nation refer to this country as "Myanmar", it stays as it is. We are not here to accomodate the political divide. Okkar 10:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Accomodating political divide is exactly what we do by using Myanmar as page title158.37.149.25 14:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
According to History and treaty signature of King Thibaw , He used Myanmar and all the old kingdom use Myanmar , Burma was only use by colony governmet and Pro imperialism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.81.64.34 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
The name conflict of Burma to Myanmar becomes a popular context in the Western arena. Over here, my argument is that the Burmese made mistake and confusion themselves. Since the conversion(adaption) of Burmese language from Mon and Pali, they have wrongly pronounced about 5 alphabets Image:Mon alphabet.jpg and they can't pronounce 3 vowels such as Image:Mon alphabet1.jpg. In the case of pronouncing Rangoon was right because they have a letter 'Image:Mon vowel.jpg' stand for 'Ra'. In the case of pronouncing Sri Lanka, they prounance 'Thiri Linka' which is wrong. The alphabet 'Image:Mon conson.jpg' stands for 'Sa' in Pali. Then, Burmese language was regarded as 'writing is the correct, although reading is the phonetics'. Kwantonge 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This is really a pointless argument, that has been exacerbated by various western governments. I have lived in Myanmar, and to the people that live there, and in their language the country's name is Myanmar. They identify themselves according to their ethinicity as Burmese, Mon, Shan, Rakhine, Kachin, etc. I rarely ever heard anyone, except perhaps the generals, call themselves Myanmar, in the sense of the nationality. Regardless, the name of the country now, is the Union of Myanmar. Burma is a legacy name imposed on the country by the British colonialists. No one seems to bring that up. The country's rulers (whether they are legitimate or not) want the country to be called Myanmar. Accept it and move on! I am not trying to defend the regime on this point, I am just saying that I think it is really a moot point. There is so much more to write about Myanmar, we should just drop the name issue and move on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Surmuppen (talk • contribs) 13:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

This is an interesting conversation and it would be interesting if there were an entry on naming and colonialism. I will start off by stating that I believe "unbiased" is a myth. And people that I have met from the 'land of pagodas' have used "Burma". Their reason was that the junta, the men with the guns, changed the name and not the overwhelmingly popularly elected government. It is true that Burma was the name given by the British colonialists. The junta uses this for the reason for the name change. The thing that always bothered me about the junta's reasoning was that I had always seen colonialism as the exploitation of a land's people and resources, which is exactly what so many trans-national corporations had been doing with the junta. Too me it seemed Orwellian (in a strange twist of fate, George Orwell also happened to be stationed in Burma as a colonial ----fill in blank---- before coming to hate imperialism). Many corporations have in the last decade and a half ceased operations in the country often stating that business cannot be done there without directly benefitting the junta and the human rights abuses done by the regime, including forced slave labor. It is of course, understood all that pay attention to such things, that the reason is a business one by the corporations. Consumer boycotts and bad P.R. are bad for the bottom line. It is thus less profitable to do business in the country than to continue exploiting the people, land, and/or the general "business climate" that authorities influence. It had seemed that the junta was colonizing its own population with the corporations, which have been a historic tool of imperialism/colonialism.

If one moves their mouse over links to the various languages, some list a variation of Myanmar and some Burma, with local pronunciations no doubt, since some spoken languages do not have certain sounds. Perhaps what is the dominant usage leads? They all seem to have something like "also known as the other name". It seems like this might be the best bet. Yet it shows wikipedia's bias: to dominant power structures, but not necessarily popular. Good or bad? Just noting and important for readers to recognize the bias and perhaps for wikipedia to acknowledge this to its readers? I am not merely saying the ruling junta, but dominant power structures in general. The United Nations, the United States which has been the most dominant power structure there, corporations which are the most dominant power structure in the US (and perhaps globally), and states in general which along with corporations are the two most dominant power structures in the world today. I am not advocating for a popular vote on the name of the article on Burma/Myanmar, as this too would have biases towards those with access to a computer with internet. Here again, towards those with power; i.e. those who can use their resources on such instead of survival/food/shelter/etc.

The argument the junta uses for Myanmar is compelling and with the ability to redistribute power/respect to those who have historically been abused as less than human with colonization. Since colonization cannot happen without the dehumanization of and labelling of 'the other'. Self identity, you respect us for who we are and what we call ourselves, our land, ways we see the world, etc can/could go a long way towards decolonization. I believe Edward Said has written on this type of topic. I've never read any Said, only read about whay he has written.

Personally I believe we should use the terminology that people living in an area call things. Like Thailand instead of Siam or Côte d'Ivoire instead of Ivory Coast. But how do we adjust when names in another language are in such popular usage? For example English speakers use Japan rather than Nihon or East Timor rather than Timor-Leste. Then again, perhaps even all these new names bow down to dominant power structures of the area? Maybe in a very rural setting someone has never even heard of the name of the dominant power structure, i.e. the country in which they live and just call "the land" where they live by some other name. Here we should not consider such people "backwards". Isn't this rather arrogant of us and kind of how colonization begins? The view that the modern day nation-state is superior to other forms of human organization is too a bias. Anyway, I still think it sad that the UN uses the name Myanmar and simply see this as bias towards the dominant power structures. Dominant in this case meaning powerful because of money and/or guns. Wikipedia too is a power structure. I'd go with Burma with a cultural/historical explanation that some also call it Myanmar because of X reasons. But since wikipedia has its biases, naming both seems like the best it can do. 68.78.215.244 00:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so we use the English name as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). As English is not an official language, the name used by the government is of little consequence to the English name. If English speakers call it Burma then Burma is, by definition, its English name. Thehalfone 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Kind of like English speakers use the words "Japan", "Germany", and "Korea", while in those languages there are different words for those countries? Makes sense. Then the words should be reversed and Myanmar should be a couple sentences in like the word Burma currently is or maybe not even until further in the article talking about Burma's form of government/unresolved political situation. I just entered the word "Nihon", the pronunciation for the Japanese word for Japan, into the wikipedia search and it redirected me to the page for Japan. User:Theralforne's argument makes a lot more sense than the "UN uses it argument". Since the UN is a political organization it is not neutral. 67.53.78.15 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia. The disputed name-change of the country was for the English iteration. The major English-speaking countries in the world are Britain, Ireland, USA and Australia. The article specifically says that all these countries' governments use the name Burma. So surely the article should be moved? By the way, Thehalfone, exactly how is English "not an official language"? U-Mos 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
One presumes he means it is not the official language of Burma, U-Mos. XINOPH | TALK 00:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that given this dispute over the name, this article should be slapped with an NPOV tag until this dispute is settled. How can an article using the military regime's name for the country be from a neutral point of view? All in favor?XINOPH | TALK 00:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I, uh, 2nd that. 67.53.78.15 01:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Aye! The countries name is Burma. Supporting 'Myanmar' is to support an illegal military junta. Wikipedia doesn't want to take a stance. Fine, but Wikipedia *is* taking a stance by calling the article Myanmar, and the stance is the wrong one! What's next? Taiwan being considered a part of China because the Chinese government fails to recognise it as an independant nation? I vote for NPOV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.160.72 (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok so a country was named (however) So the people use the name So the people are happy with it ...and they call themselves Burmese. So then (recently) an illegal military junta steps in, removes the democratically elected government, by force. They change the name, purely for arbitrary reasons, without public approval. The Burmese people continue to call themselves Burmese. The illegal military junta renames their country Myanmar. The vast majority of nations refuse to acknowledge the new name, because of the status of the illegal government. Wikipedia claims to not want part in politics, so calls it Myanmar. In my mind's eye, that's tantamount to endorsing the junta, which is tantamount to endorsing every evil thing that happens to the people of Burma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.160.72 (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The illegal military junta is hardly a recent thing. They've been ruling for significantly longer then Myanmar/Burma was a democratic republic. Heck even the new name has lasted longer then Myanmar/Burma was a democratic republic. Also, I don't see any evidence the vast majority of nations refuse to recognise the name. The vast majority of Western governments perhaps but the vast majority of nations are not part of the 'West' and I strongly suspect the vast majority of governments acknowledge the new name. Also your claim that recognising the military government as the current government, illegitimate or not somehow means you endorse or the evil things said military government does is ridiculous. If anything, refusing to recognise that the military government is the current government just makes it worse IMHO. Nil Einne 06:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
So the U.S. steps in because they really like Alberta's oil sands. Our puny country of only 32 million people is easily over powered by the 300 million+ machine that is the U.S. So they oust our government and call us Kanata State. So this guy will just go - "Sure, ok. It's now called Kanata State." Even tho' every heart living here calls themselves Canadian. ...feels wrong, doesn't it? ...and that's an invasion - a legitimate reason for a name change once a war is decided. We're talking about a country whose *democratically elected government* *still* calls itself Burma. The military junta is *not* the real government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.166.15.245 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


The BBC has chosen to use the proper name of Burma since it is an illegal regime who has picked a fake name - if its good enough for the BBC it should be for wikicensorpedia. --IceHunter 15:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the BBC comment. -172.216.183.174 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The European Union uses Burma/Myanmar on the European Commission external relations page as well as in the names of resolutions linked on that page. From this page is appears that the EU recognizes "Union of Myanmar" as the official name, but uses Burma/Myanmar and sometimes Myanmar/Burma as reference names. With several other states including the USA recognizing the name Burma I think I can safely say that the name Burma is recognized internationally at least as much as the name Myanmar. I suppose we could find out what name the foreign ministers of each state use to come to a consensus if necessary. From a quick search on a couple of Western countries it appears to me that both names are always used to avoid confusion. I would recommend we use the name Burma/Myanmar like the European Commission does to avoid confusion.--Burzum 23:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Until this article is moved to my:United States of America, or even my:United States, credence cannot be given to any arguments that the English WP article should be at Myanmar instead of Burma. Putting it at Myanmar to begin with was a result of someone's hypersensitivity to the possibility that they might be seen as less than 100% neutral, which apparently in their mind means "English is wrong by default". Hardly neutral. 71.87.23.22 15:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Burma's democracy movement prefers the form 'Burma' because they do not accept the legitimacy of the unelected military regime to change the official name of the country. Internationally, both names are recognised." So I can only assume that Wikipedia calling it "Myanmar" is an endorsement of legitimacy for the junta that has controlled the country for 45 years against the will of the Burmese people. --75.58.86.135 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support moving the page to Myanmar/Burma, to reflect common usage in the English-speaking world, while recognising the official name for the country. Tim Vickers 03:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually...I am a Burmese, and in our language, we call the country "Myanmar-pyay", which means "country Myanmar". "Myanma Naingngandaw" is an extremely formal name which has the same meaning. We also use "Burma-pyay" (I use this, actually, a lot of people use this). Oficially, however, "Burma" is in English, for international use (a long time back). "Burma" is actually like an ethnic group in the country, and all the ethnic groups, combined, were referred to as "Myanmar". That is why the name of the country was changed to "Union of Myanmar"; to include and unite all the ethnic groups. Just wanted to add that because I heard so many different infos about the name here. Wikipedia might have explained this somewhere, but still, I wanted to add it again.

However, people are against the new name due to the reasons Wikipedia, and some users here, noted. Even though the real name IS Myanmar, they feel it need not have been changed officially, especially because it was the regime which changed it. I have a neutral opinion..having been born and grown up in another country. However...if I were to choose, I support changing the name to Myanmar/Burma. Sumhtun 12:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


The safest course is to maintain a respectful distance and err of the side of conservativeness, nomenclaturally speaking. The name in English has been and remains Burma. The renaming by SLORC is controversial. Until such time as the people of Burma make it clear that it is they and not a repressive military junta that prefer the name to be Myanmar (and Yangon, &cet.), the present name should be conserved. I agree with the many edits here expounding this view or other views that nevertheless support the conservative argument (unsigned per LapisQuem, Xinoph, U-Mos, IceHunter, Avalon, Thehalfone & mult. anon. al.) Additionally, no matter what the people decide, the English name for now is Burma. If the people do decide on Myanmar, the English name may eventually transmute to Myanmar (or it may stay as Burma). SLORC may try to change the name by diktak. Burmese people may reject or eventually accept that. But the name in other languages cannot be decided by diktak and will be decided by usage, gradually. However, to insist on calling it Myanmar at the present time is so politically loaded it makes you wonder why there's even any debate about this (and why Myanmar prevails in the wiki article). Brockle 14:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The US Department of State lists the country as Burma. Cmdrnmartin 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the use of "Burma" as describing the post-1989 Myanmar nation is offensive. The country's official name is Myanmar. Why should certain westerners impose their will on an independent nation? The days of colonialism are over. The Burmese government which represents the Burmese people whether you like it or not, wants the country to be called Myanmar. And the argument that English speakers collectively refer to Myanmar as "Burma" is FALSE. I call Myanmar by it's proper name of Myanmar. So does CNN, NBC, The New York Times, and plenty of other English speaking media outlets. Most importantly the United Nations, which Myanmar is a member of, calls the country by its correct name of Myanmar. --Tocino 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The United States does not recognize "Myanmar" as the country name in support of the PEOPLE that are in current struggle with the military over the country. In support of this movement the light is being taken away from Myanmar to focus on Burma. English-Wikepedia the United States Government does not recognize Myanmar! Burma for the people of Burma. A future that is grim awaits these people. All they want is your support. Will you give it? Gisela Gurdado San Bernardino, California

Who said that the people want their country to be called "Myanmar"?? They are against the name change. They may call the country Myanmar, but that's because it's that way in their language. They want the name to remain as "Burma", for the rest of the world to continue using the name "Burma". "Burma" is seen as the English name for their country, and there is nothing offensive about that. I myself use Burma only (even when speaking Burmese), and not Myanmar. On another note, CNN refers to Burma as "Myanmar, also known as Burma". Some countries, like USA for example, use Burma. The new name was created by the regime which should not have been in power at all. That's why I think the name of the article should be changed to Myanmar/Burma. Sumhtun 06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to the idea that Wikipedia should be taking a political stand by preferring "Burma." I refer you to WP:SOAP. Bush and the British government, and the media which follow their lead, use "Burma" to express their disapproval of the government of this country. That's condescending and dismissive of the nation's sovereignty. The United Nations approach is correct. Wikipedia should take its cue from the UN. Find some other way to express your support for "regime change." --Marvin Diode 06:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Here, here. And while we're there, let's change all references of Germany to Deutschland, Japan to Nihon-koku, India to Bhārat Gaṇarajya, etc, etc.
I admit to disagreeing with the junta, but WP needs to either follow the "English" spellings of names, or the official ones. Mixing and matching is pointless. IanYates 08:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
As I stated earlier the argument that most English speakers refer to Myanmar as "Burma" does not hold up to the facts. First of all there is no way to prove what the average English speaker prefers. Also the majority of American media call the country by its official name of Myanmar. Do the majority of American media also call Germany "Deutschland" or Ireland "Eire"... No. --Tocino 16:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If I would have known it was wikipedia's policy to defer to the language used for confusions over naming, I would have agreed with "Burma" a long time ago for being non-political on wikipedia rather than being long-winded above. (for a while I wanted both toe be used, leading with Burma/Myanmar) Using Myanmar is when wikipedia is being political and violating its own policies. I don't care what the US government uses or even the UN. As a native English speaker, I will continue to use Burma. The major corporate media in the US defer to power structures and profit. They could not get interviews otherwise. So I ignore their - at this point in history - wrong English usage. 67.53.78.15 22:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If, after having invaded Iraq, the USA decided that Iraq was now called "Georgebushland", would those who go with the military government of Burma's unilateral decision to change the name of that country also use Georgebushland? Hell, if you're going to swallow the Burmese government's line you may as well also call the treatment of protestors a legitimate and proportionate means of dealing with wholly unjustified protests.-Riedquat 23:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Human rights are closely related to economic development. So I think Burma needs stability and economic development, not revolution. So, I support the government. No government allows rebellions, including US government. If I organize a lot of people with the purpose of overthrowing the US government, I guess I will be arrested or beaten to death too.


Human Rights in Myanmar

I have created a seperate heading for this as is found the in DPRK and Iran articles given that the lack of respect for any form of human rights in Burma. A seperate section would highlight this whereas as it is currently subsumed under the "politics" section it is not immediatly obvious Cxk271 10:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the lack of respect for human rights in the United States of America? You know, the whole throwing out of habeus corpus, Gitmo and the war crimes of Iraq. It's one thing murdering citizens of your own country. It's quite another to do so in a foreign war of aggression.-anonymous observation 28-9-07
Is there a policy on random, irrelevant comments like the one above? Because I wouldn't just want to go deleting or crossing out other people's entries, no matter how irrelevant they are.68.225.147.109 05:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"That may play in the sticks, but this is Capital City"

What's the deal with the capital? Editors keep switching it back and forth from Yangon to Naypyidaw. The only source I've seen other than Wikipedia that claims a change of capital is this Chinese "People's Daily". Does anyone have a cite for this from a more reliable source? L0b0t 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian provides an article ([2]) as does BBC News ([3]). There are many other articles if you search "Pyinmana", "Naypyidaw" or "Nay Pyi Taw". I believe anonymous editors keep on reverting the capital back to Yangon because of a bias (favouring the stances of western countries, and the exiled government) because they believe the current government is illegitimate, although it has jurisdiction within the country. --Hintha 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not think this is a bias attitude to take. It isn't some fringe US-imperialist stance to say that Aung San Suu Kyi is the properly elected and rightful leader of the Burmese people. This happens to be the stance of the vast majority of countries whose readers use the English wikipedia, not to mention the UN. Therefore, I see no reason why any creedence whatsoever should be given to any decision made by the illegal government. If the Chinese and Japanese apologists want to propagate the revisionism by the illegal government on their language wikipedia, fine, but not on the English wikipedia. This is just one of those cases where there is no ambiguity at all over who is right and who is wrong. So continue to expect prompt removal of the illegal government's revisionist propaganda. --130.127.121.188 16:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Aung San Suu Kyi was not elected (she was General Secretary of her party)--National League for Democracy parliament members were elected to office. Provide me with a reference that states that Aung San Suu Kyi would have assumed the office of Prime Minister in the 1990 election. --Hintha 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Nope-- the NLD is the ruling party. In the 1990 election, even if those statistics are right (where did you get them? I've always seen that the NLD got 60% of the popular vote), it's irrelevant, because it's not how the system works. The NLD won 392 seats in the parliament out of an available 485 seats-- 80.82% of the parliament seats. That's a clear majority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.230.130 (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
How do we proceed to name this area of land/'territory' if we take the stand that all governments are illegitimate or rather not being biased towards the legitimacy of governments? It is not a matter of one (the junta or the popularly elected NLD) being legitimate or even the defacto rulers of a land/'territory' being able to have their say on what the land/'territory' is called. Doing so gives legitimacy to governments, and thus a bias existent in wikipedia. To further attempt to reach the unreachable point of unbiased, we can say the powerful of the land, in this case being those with guns, call the territory Myanmar. Other centers of power call the territory Burma. Also, most of the people living there as well. We should not fail to note how these centers of power are centers of power. That is, how they got to be this way. In the case of the junta, by guns and by the power centers of other lands allowing it to be named as such. So, yes, other power centers, each individual person, bodies attempting to lay and legitimize the basis of conduct outside ones land/'territory' such as the UN, as well as the power center that is wikipedia. In at least not naming both as the name of the entry Myanmar/Burma or Burma/Myanmar, whichever, and instead choosing Myanmar alone, wikipedia is endorsing the name and the regime's rule. Wikipedia IS being biased, taking a POV. Whichever, it does not matter. Choose Myanmar/Burma if you wish. Just be slightly less biased. And yes, unbiased really is a myth. The seat of power from which the rulers operate should be noted, but the name of the entry should be corrected. It might also be noted what other power centers across the land do or do not recognize the change. Saying simply: the capital has moved, is a defacto endorsement of the regime. VeriGGlater 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Use the junta and opposition capitals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.48.231 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, the notion of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a government is entirely subjective. Many individuals in post-World War I Germany thought the declaration of a republic, without the consent of Emperor Wilhelm II, was illegitimate, and that the true government was Imperial, i.e. non-democratic. The Taiwanese Nationalist Chinese government considers the Communist government of the mainland illegitimate, and vice versa. The only objectively correct statement on one government or another is whether it is, de facto, in control of public affairs. --Chr.K. 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The German comparison raises an interesting point - democracy isn't the issue, it's legitimacy (or at least acceptance). -Riedquat 23:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation

Could someone please change the pronunciation guide to IPA, or else add a link to whatever system is used currently? As it is, the pronunciation key doesn't help.--345Kai 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pronounced "Mee-an-mar" (got it from Seinfeld) but I'll go check. └Jared┘┌talk┐  23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's pronounced in 2 syllables, "meean - ma" (rough transliteration), and not in 3 (e.g. "me-an-mar").--Hintha 04:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
In fact, several different English pronunciations are possible and used and recorded in dictionaries.[4] And Merriam-Webster’s was obviously quoted incorrectly; US pronunciation does not drop r at the end of syllables, and modern British pronunciation guides also usually include it and add that it is not pronounced in some kinds of English. --Espoo 08:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Fighting Peacock

I believe SimonBillenness seems to be misrepresenting "Fighting Peacock" as NLD "emblem". "Peacock" represent our country's flag before we were colonised by the British, hence why ABSU flag included a peacock emblem to represent our nation's struggle to gain independance from the British. Fighting Peacock on the other hand is the emblem of the "Student Front" (Kyaungthar Tat Oo) of ABSU. "Student Front" represent a wing within ABSU that includes a group of students, who sworn to sacrifice their lives for the greater cause in the name of their country. They are always at the forefront of ABSU and student lead demonstrations and they are the ones who always take the first strike from batons and galloping horses during the colonial era. It is a fact that many students have died under the flag of "Fighting Peacock" througout the history of our country. Although, "Student Front" was officially disbanded and banned along with ABSU during BSPP era, the stories of "Student Front" with their dedication, sacrifice, courage and honour has masmerized and captivated every generation of young students.

At the beginning of 1988 uprising, it was the students from High Schools, came out carrying "Fighting Peacock" flags along with their school banners when they marched through the streets of our cities. The 88 generation high school students immidiately assume the position of "Student Front" during the 1988 uprising and it was them who paid the highest price. NLD, as political party adopted the symbol of "Fighting Peacock" into their party flag after the uprising in order to honour the students of Myanmar, who were always at the forefront of the struggle for their country and those who lay down their lives in the name of "democracy" and "freedom". Fighting Peack is not just a mere representation of courage or freedom, nor is it a mere logo on the flag of a political party, it is much more than that. It a symbol that represents courage, honour and sacrifice of the "students" of Myanmar, it represent the history of our country's struggle from both foreign invasions and tyranny, it represent our forefathers and it represent the fighting spirit of the "students" of Myanmar. NLD and ASSK would not be where they are today, if it wasnt for those students waving "Fighting Peacock" flags in 1988. If you said you are for freedom and democracy, then honour those students who brought about the change, honour those students who gave up their lives so that NLD can sit and complain about how they have won 1990 election and still not in the office.

Thanks to a mixure of political correctness and pure ignorant, we all have forgotten the fallen heroes and the spirit of "Fighting Peacock". Instead of honouring them for their sacrifices, we sat by sideline and watch people like SimonBillenness exploiting "fighting peacock" to promote NLD and NCGUB. Is this the way their death should be honoured? They didnt die for NLD, they died for our country and now we are repaying their deaths by letting political parties exploit the "Fighting Peacock" symbol. It is an insult to suggest that "Fighting Peacock" represent NLD as NLD has done nothing to earn the honour and respect that goes with the symbol of "Fighting Peacock". It belongs to the students of Myanmar. It should be clarify in the description of NLD flag, otherwise, we are effectively rewriting the history of "Fighting Peacock" and dishonouring those students who gave up their lives during the struggle. Okkar 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This misses the fact that the NLD flag includes the "fighting peacock." Mentioning the peacock in the description of the flag is simply stating a demonstrated fact. I'd suggest keeping the flag where it is but including the history of the symbol in another article. SimonBillenness 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
If you read properly you will see that NLD exploited the "fighting peacock" emblem in their flag. You mentioned in the description of the flag as though NLD's own fighting peacock, which constitute misrepresentation and disrespectful. I suggest you clarify the description accordingly or remove the flag all together. I'd rather remove the flag. Okkar 09:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment. SimonBillenness 15:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous comment and the one before, the flag should be removed since it is misrepresenting and misleading. Okkar 17:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We appear to be at an impasse. Let's figure out a mutually acceptable compromise. I would be comfortable with you creating a new Wikipage specifically on the "fighting peacock" where you could include the full history of the symbol. Much of the information is in your post above. But leave the flag alone. SimonBillenness 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Like i said before, you need to edit the flag description first else it would get removed as it is misleading. Okkar 09:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please just edit the description of the flag yourself but leave the flag itself in the article. SimonBillenness 13:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you dont remove the claims, i will remove the flag alltogether. Okkar 10:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If the description of the flag is inaccurate, then edit the description or add the information you provided above for better balance and context. The current description of the flag is: "The flag of the National League for Democracy includes a 'fighting peacock' that is generally regarded as a symbol of freedom." Please tell us what is inaccurate about that description. SimonBillenness 13:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fighting Peacock does not represent "Freedom", it represent courage, honour and sacrifice of burmese students, it is the emblem of "Student Front" of ABSU. Your description is not only inaccurate, but also misleading, misrepresenting and above all disrespectful. It appears that you are just using the word "Fighting Peacock" in order to promote NLD, instead of actually understanding the full meaning of it. If you dont know the meaning of it, you shouldnt include it. For someone of your standing, i.e. being Director of US Campaign for Burma and Amnesty International, it goes without saying that you should be well verse in this kind of information, after all you have been representing and campaigning for democracy in burma, right? (according to your organisation's namesake). How can you lobby for democracy in Burma and understand the struggle of our people, if you dont even know the meaning of "Fighting Peacock"? Perhaps you should change the name of your organisation to "US Campaign for NLD" instead? seeing as you clearly have not a lot of knowledge on the burmese democracy struggle, the role of students and the meaning of "Fighting Peacock". It seems you lobbyists have no idea about anything else if it doesnt involved NLD or DASSK. Okkar 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited the description of the flag as per your suggestion. In future, if you dispute the text included with the NLD flag, edit the description and don't just delete the flag. Thank you! SimonBillenness 14:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the NLD flag description, Okkar. I just edited it for spelling and grammar only. I appreciate our collaboration over this. My best wishes to you. SimonBillenness 15:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dont get all cheesy on me Simon, just becase we collaborated on this, that dont mean we gonna be having cold shower together on hot summer days! :-) Okkar 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.181.122 (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Good Grief - these two dudes must have a lot of time on their hands. Far Canal 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are we insisting on Recognizing Militia Rule?

We are we insisting on recognizing militia rule in Burma, by havng soley Myanmar as the name? --Hayden5650 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. The so called "government" is little more than a bunch of bullies who are defying the will of the people through overwhelming arms and the support of its neighbours. 204.52.215.13 07:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it not also be the case that describing (in the section "Government and Politics") the military junta as a socialist military dictatorship is surely a contradiction in terms? Soarhead77 16:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Although the military dictatorship may claim to be socialist, the World Social Website in it's article "Burmese military cracks down on escalating protests" (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/burm-s27.shtml) describes the protesters as "... students, workers, monks, and the urban and rural poor challeng[ing] the military dictatorship, demanding democratic rights and improved living standards." The article notes that people cannot afford to send their children to school or buy medicine -- both of which are free in socialist societies. The ruling military junta began decentralizing economic control in 1989. Furthermore the military junta’s slashing of fuel subsidies last month is entirely in line with IMF and World Bank’s free market policies. It is a member of ASEAN, a a free trade organization whose policies include of opening up the country to foreign investors. And various global corporations and foreign governments have financed with the military junta government to gain access to Myanmar’s natural resources and have have been criticised for profiting from the brutal dictatorship. The characterization of the military junta as "socialist" is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rczach (talk • contribs) 19:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Etymology section

According to the etymology section, the written/formal form of the country's name has always been, and still is, transliterated as "Myanma". Yet, the government requests that the country's name in English be called "Myanmar". Is this correct? The native language calls it "Myanma", but the native government specifically requests that English add an "r" at the end? In my little mind, that would be like Côte d'Ivoire asking other countries to call it "Côte d'Ivoira", or some such. Is there something more to this? -BaronGrackle 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's something more, from the CIA site: "local long form:" Pyidaungzu Myanma Naingngandaw (translated by the US Government as Union of Myanma and by the Burmese as Union of Myanmar)". So weird. You'd think we'd be able to agree on that sort of thing. Okay... if Myanmar uses "Myanmar" as its transliteration, while the U.S. uses "Myanma", then should we note in the etymology section that the native government has always called itself "Myanmar"? It sounds like "Myanma" is just the U.S. interpretation of how it transliterates. Thoughts? -BaronGrackle 17:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone who speaks Burmese would better be able to help you here, but my understanding is that with Burmese being so different to English, you can't just transliterate each letter of Burmese into a letter of English. So maybe the 'a' sounding vowel at the end of Myanma is often pronounced with a slight 'r' sound too. Just speculation though. --Nathan (Talk) 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't speak Burmese but I do know the Burmese alphabet from being able to read and speak languages that use similar alphabets. From this I can tell you that the scholarly transcription of Myanmar would look something like "mran'mā", pronounced myanmah [mjənmɑː]. The last "a" is broad, as in most English dialects' pronunciation of "father". I suspect that the regime intends the terminal "r" to indicate this, based on (irony alert) colonial-era British English usage. One sees similar usages in Thailand (e.g., "far" for [fɑː]). Mrrhum 15:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

okkar

Would you mind declearing your political stance or stance on Burma/Myanmar? I have just gone through a lot of your edits and you refuse the agree with the stance of several democratic nations and refugees, inclding the exiled politicians, on about every count. You contantly accuse others for being a spokeperson for NCGUB and revert their edits. You have several warnings for your misuse of reverts on your user talk page. Claiming that you are neutral is a joke. Zarkow 125.24.209.24 10:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Name of the Article

Shouldn't this article be at the title that reflects common usage in English? In most news articles to this day, Burma is the term used (recent example). The article can of course also reference the name used by the military government. Icsunonove 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The article gives me the impression that the UN calls the country Myanmar when refering to it in English. Since the English world is somewhat divided on the issue, we should go with what the UN says. Or we could apply our own naming conventions for the British/American difference. While this isn't the exact same issue, it is in principle. And while those conventions say to go with what the first major editor used, in principle they really just want you to leave things alone and not engage in any controversial movement. Though many English sources use Myanmar and many citizens of Myanmar use Burma, either of the most unbiased methods (in my opinion) support using Myanmar. Atropos 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think your point about the UN is wrong; the UN doesn't "say" anything. They simply list what member countries ask them to list. I'm not sure what you are talking about with the major editor and the bit about "they really just want you". If most English sources use Myanmar, then that is correct usage. It is like Constantinople; Istanbul was not used in English until the 19th or 20th century. Icsunonove 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Note some people have argued the most common usage by English speakers in Myanmar/Burma is Burma but there has been no evidence for this. We know that the most vocal supporters of the democracy movement retain the name Burma and we also know that the majority of the population appears to support the democracy movement. However this doesn't prove that the majority of the population retain the name Burma. The reality is we don't know precisely because the military doesn't allow these sort of things to be known. Also, whether or not the government is legitimate is kind of irrelevant IMHO. The fact of the matter, is illegitimate or not, they are the current government. If and when a more democract government takes over and if they decide to readopt the name Burma then we can change the name. Finally I disagree with the view that only native speaker of English matter. What the country is called by non-native speakers of English is just as important. E.g. India, ASEAN etc Nil Einne 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh, I don't know where the last comment came from. Soap boxing? :-) So should non-native speakers of Chinese go change some Chinese dictionaries? hah. We are simply supposed to use what is common usage in English. If it is Myanmar, or Burma, whatever. It seems that by just looking at BBC articles, they use Burma, and my own opinion is that Burma is the more well-known term in English to describe this area. We'd have to figure out how to prove either one, I guess. Icsunonove 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The last comment came in response to the numerous comments I've read in this thread an above seemingly claiming that only native speakers matter and that we're somehow legitimising the government by recognising that they've changed the name which a number of people have adopted. It was also a response to the unproven claim that Burma is preferred in Myanmar/Burma. The fact is, non native speaker have just as much right to influence a language as native speakers. If a Malaysian or a Singaporean or an Indian speaking English calls the country Myanmar then you have to consider their usage just as much as you consider an American or a Australia. Also, BBC is not the authority on naming countries Nil Einne 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
How does one measure common usage in English? Is there any evidence at all that Burma is predominant over Myanmar in the language? If one term is the dominant usage (by an overwhelming amount), then there is no question about what to use. If both terms have similar usage, meaning the dominant usage is unclear, then we should fall back to the one that the country calls itself. --Polaron | Talk 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You can start off by reading Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Some recommended methods are looking at what is used in major news sources (BBC, etc.), referring to encyclopedias, atlases, and also doing Google searches (for example, Google Scholar). Also, a bit of common sense? In this day and age, if you ask some of your friends if they've heard about Burma versus Myanmar, which one do you think will honestly be more well known? Icsunonove 00:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the BBC have given up and gone back to useing Burma boston globe burma The Press Association Burma sydney morning herald Burma wall street journal burma.Geni 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Al Jazeera uses Myanmar, as does Xiahua, The Star Malaysia, at least 3 Indian papers I found [5] [6] [7], Channel News Asia, 2 South African sources use Myanmar [8] [9] one uses Burma [10] (of the 3 I found). Even the New Zealand Herald often uses Myanmar; Spiegel [11] [12] & DW-World sometimes do as well seemingly (I noticed Burma was used as well sometimes by both German sources. Fact is you're not going to get anywhere with these who uses what arguments since all it reveals is what we already know. American, Canadian, British, Australian and New Zealand sources often use Burma but some use Myanmar. Some are also inconsistent or don't appear to have a clear editorial policy and the usage various (presumuably based on who wrote the story or where they sourced it from). Most Asian countries use Myanmar. Nil Einne 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Congrats, you just made their argument. English language sources most often use Burma. The argument is that since this is an English encyclopedia, we should use the common English name. You just provided the proof that the common English name is Burma. What non-English countries call Burma is irrelevant. Alyeska 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No I didn't. These sources ARE English sources. And if another country calls Myanmar/Burma, Myanmar in English then that is relevant. English native countries don't get exclusively rights on the English language as hard as that may be for you to accept Nil Einne 15:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


This nonsense of naming English Wikipedia articles according to the latest whims of local government is not restricted to "Myanmar", although two other examples of the ridiculous extent to which this is going can be found at Ayeyarwady River (that's the Irrawaddy, in case you were wondering), and Yangon (Rangoon, for those who weren't sure...) If a stop is not put to this, soon English speakers won't be able to find any articles about places in the non-English-speaking world...Hong Kong will be moved to Xianggang, China will be moved to Zhongguo, Japan to Nihon (Nippon would, of course, be "too English"), and South Africa to (pick your favorite from an array of bewildering names, my guess is) yaseNingizimu Afrika. Another form of the same "English is the problem" sentiment has long since gotten Bombay, Calcutta, Benares, and Madras moved to names nobody outside India uses (and in most cases, names nobody outside India has ever even heard of), and has filled Desi articles with the word "crore" which, while used in Indian English is regarded as an unrecognizable typo everywhere else. Imagine the uproar about POV and "biased preference for a regional variety of English" if someone went through and changed Soft drink to Coke or Dragonfly to Skeeterhawk. 71.87.23.22 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I'm well aware of Mumbai, Kolkata & Chennai and they would probably be the names I would use in normal usage and I've never been to India nor am I Indian. I've never heard of Varanasi but then again I've never heard of Benares either so... Just because you're incapable of learning new words doesn't mean the rest of use are. Nil Einne 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to wax nasty. I am well aware of all the "new" names for Indian cities, including Varanasi/Benares. You don't make yourself appear intelligent by proclaiming your extensive knowledge in one area and then proclaiming your ignorance in the same area...and attempting to imply that other people are stupid doesn't help your case. See vainglory. 71.87.23.22 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You specifically said you consider the new names unrecognisable typos, I was commenting on that... Also you seemed to be completely missing my point. The whole point of what I was saying was that I'm not familiar with India. I freely admit I know very little about India. Despite that, I'm able to learn that names can change and when they do, I'm able to learn the new names. According to you, most people including you can't. But I don't see any evidence this is true. If you did have to know everything about India to learn the new names then you might have a point. But you don't and by your own admission I'm proof of that... Nil Einne 15:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Doing various searches on Google News using news sources based in the major English speaking countries, one comes up with the following. This is a search that uses only one term and not the other (i.e. excludes searches that use both terms):

  • US prefers Myanmar by 4.7:1
  • Canada prefers Myanmar by 4.5:1
  • India prefers Myanmar by 2.2:1
  • UK prefers Burma by 1.9:1
  • Australia prefers Burma by 5.0:1

If no exclusions are made (i.e. include hits with both terms present), the results become:

  • India prefers Myanmar by 1.5:1
  • US prefers Myanmar by 1.4:1
  • Canada prefers Myanmar by 1.3:1
  • UK prefers Burma by 1.3:1
  • Australia prefers Burma by 1.8:1

--Polaron | Talk 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Infiltration of Protestors

I made a change about the infiltration of protestors. I don't know how to add a link to the page, but the info came from here: http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/pm/weblog.php?id=P278 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.85 (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Official name

Burma, unofficially the Union of Myanmar..

Officially I think it's Union of Myanmar, but many like to call it Burma (even officials).

84.202.208.245 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I was referred to this Myanmar / Burma naming debate, and I read all the comments carefully and with great interest. I ended up, as it seems most of us are, with a slight preference in one direction, but without an overwhelming feeling one way or the other.

So I can add nothing substantial or useful to the debate, except for this: I find this discussion to be delightful, rational, kind, thoughtful, and respectful. And I want to thank everyone involved for handling the issue with sensitivity and thoughtfulness. It is a "borderline case" in the true sense of that word: there are good arguments for both sides, and it all seems somewhat balanced. Sometimes debates like this go downhill into flames, and this one has not. Everyone involved should feel proud about that.--Jimbo Wales 05:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Garbled English

"President Thabo Mbeki called respect for peaceful protests versus junta ruling Myanmar. Buddhist monks were at a riot police road block, as Myanmar crackdown drew outrage, protests and demonstrations worldwide against Myanmar violence. George Bush demanded an end to Myanmar violence, as 9 dissidents were killed." I propose to change this to "President Thabo Mbeki called for respect for peaceful protests versus the junta ruling Myanmar. Buddhist monks were at a riot police road block, as the Myanmar crackdown drew outrage, protests and demonstrations worldwide against Myanmar violence. George Bush demanded an end to Myanmar violence, as 9 dissidents were killed." I am not sure whether this is what the original writer intended in the sentence about Mbeki. Is Mbeki supposed to be calling for the protestors to respect the juntaor for the junta to respect the protestors? Edison 13:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming controversy - something to consider

As far as I am aware referring to 'Myanmar' as 'Burma' is pretty much the same as people referring to Great Britain as 'England'. The name also pre-dates this Junta and is a term which is inclusive of all the ethnicities and not just the Burmese. If the governemnt of the day in Myanmar (whether democratic or not) wishes the country to be called and be known as 'Myanmar' then so be it, 'Myanmar' it is. This reminds me of a well written comment on the Cote d'Ivoire discussion page, where there is a similiar argument that Cote d'Ivoire is French for Ivory Coast and because this is English Wiki then Ivory Coast should be used even though the government of the Cote d'Ivoire wishes that this be the official name (in all languages). The comment made was along the lines of the following. Burkino Faso (formerly known as Upper Volta in the English language) is a native African name which means "Land of Upright People", now does this mean we should ignore the name Burkino Faso and start referring to the country as "Land of Upright People" ?! It seems that just because a country may have a name in another major international language that we think its fit to use an anglicised version, whereas we don't mind indigenous language names. Whether or not a place name has an alternative English name or not is irrelevant. True, people will still call 'Myanmar' Burma in 50yrs time, names and habits do stick. However it does not change the fact that the official name of Myanmar (at the moment, pending regime change) is 'Myanmar'. There has also been reference to the BBC calling 'Myanmar' Burma, So what? Since when was the BBC the authority on place names or even pronunciation? Christ, a lot of the time they are hard pushed to get a geographic location in the United Kingdom right, never mind half way around the world! I believe the BBC's official policy of naming convention (or it used to be) was that it referred to places etc as they are commonly called or known as, which as we all know does not necessarily mean it is correct (e.g referring to 'Netherlands' as 'Holland'). Another example I could use is the present state of Zimbabwe, should we disregard this 'African-ised term' (its not English word is it) and instead use Rhodesia, should we also do the same for Harare and revert to its original name Salisbury? One could go on and on, fact is place names change and evolve, just as countries are born and then disappear, just look what happened to Poland once upon a time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.97.173 (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Burma and Myanmar are the same word. Second, governments cannot dictate what proper English usage is any more than you can dictate that "ain't" isn't a word, and splitting infinitives is improper. People call it Burma; therefore, it is Burma, regardless of what the Burmese junta prescribes. Most people call Zimbabwe "Zimbabwe," and most people call Burma "Burma." dcandeto 15:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Except, one gets the impression from Google that most people call it Myanmar... -GTBacchus(talk) 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
1) Google hits indicate how many websites, not how many people use an expression. 2) Most people writing in the Internet about current events use the same expressions as or directly copy news sources. 3) As explained in the discussion above, most news sources follow some style guide, so the number of news sources using M instead of or before mentioning B does not indicate the same number of independent decisions for M. They're simply following, for example, the AP style guide. 4) Even those that use M first almost always explain that this means B because 5) Most English speakers except in some Asian countries have no idea where or what M is, but most know that B is a country and have a vague idea of in what part of the world it's located. 6) Based on 4 and 5, it's obvious that most people outside of Asia never use M, and the extreme confusion about how to pronounce M proves it is not at all widely used. --Espoo 21:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1) I'm pretty much aware of that, but I don't mean to use ghit counts as anything other than a rough guide. 2) and 3) I don't see why it matters whether we're counting "independent decisions". Is most English usage determined by independent decisions, or don't most of us rather repeat words and phrases we've heard others use? Nowhere in WP:COMMONNAME does it say we need to consider why a name is common. 4) When I search Google news for "Myanmar -Burma" and "Burma -Myanmar", I see twice as many hits for the former, which seems to belie your claim that M is almost always explained as meaning B. 5) and 6) I see that you're asserting what "most English speakers" know about, but I don't see any evidence for these claims. I've never been to Asia, and I think I've seen more usage of Myanmar than of Burma. Am I to believe that my experience is so remarkable and unique? Do you know "most people outside of Asia" better than I do? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
GTBacchus, I would say that your experience isn't necessarily "remarkable" or "unique", but I would say you are more travelled than the majority of Anglophones, and, as a teacher, hopefully have read more than the "average" intelligent but not-so-widely-travelled or so-up-to-date-on-international-naming-intrigue, Anglophone. I perceive in your above statement that you are trying to portray yourself as an "average" Anglophone, and I rather doubt that that portrayal is even remotely accurate. A cursory review of my contributions in related discussions will reveal that I am a stickler for distinguishing between simple: as an online encyclopedia for "dumb Anglophones", and [[:en:]] for the literate. This is not, however, in my view, a distinction between "dumb" and "literate" Anglophones, this argument is over a distinction between "literate" Anglophones, and a minority of Anglophones (overrepresented among Wikipedians) who consider themselves, pompously in some cases, I daresay, "literati". (And no, I'm not accusing you...) Tomertalk 08:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. You and Espoo talked me into it. I think Burma really is more common, and should be used per the principle of least astonishment. Well argued. (Oh, and I've been called worse than 'literati', and thrown out of much nicer bars than this one! ;) ). I suspect I'm too involved to close the move request, though. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What about referring to the United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Northern Ireland] as 'Great Britain'? Biofoundationsoflanguage 12:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

News organizations' usage doesn't count.

Sorry for repeating myself but I'll do so because I see a lot of citing of magazines' and newspapers' usage that isn't relevant.

Surveying news organizations for their usages of "Burma" or "Myanmar" is strongly suspect because most newspapers and news magazines in the US refer to the AP Stylebook for all such decisions. If the AP Stylebook says it's Myanmar, then nearly all newspapers in the US will use Myanmar. Evidence that 58,000 newspapers and news magazines use the term "Myanmar" doesn't mean that 58,000 newspapers have judged the situation and made a careful decision; it just means that a few people at the Associated Press have made a decision, and 58,000 newspapers and news magazines subsequently slaved themselves to that decision. Tempshill 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The regime changed the name but they are unelected and they rule by force. The protesters I see on the news both Burmese in their own country and the ones in exile, carry banners clearly with the name "Burma" on it. I lived next door in Thailand for 3 years and met many Burmese born people and Karens too. They refer to "Burma" as their homeland and where there from. They pronounce "Myanmar" with a scowl, which directly relates to military government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.64.201 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Our policy says to follow the most common usage in English-language sources. It doesn't say to decide whether each source's reason for their usage "counts" or not. That strikes me as a POV decision to make. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It makes no difference to us whether a government is elected or not, we are an encyclopedia not a political activism organisation. We should use the common English term for what the country (ie its government) calls itself, and that is Myanmar. Were there more sources in English for Burma doesn't affect that at all, or if more people use the word Burma doesn't affect it either, the latter especially not as we are here to educate the ignorant, SqueakBox 23:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Google is one form of evidence, beyond the anecdotal, for what the common English term is; others can be found at WP:NCGN; the same page has several cautions about Googling, and advises against trusting raw www.google.com searches. I am convinced that Myanmar is not (yet, if ever) the common English term; and we are not here to ladle information down our readers' throats, but to communicate with them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
We are not here to pander to people's ignorance but to inform people so if do not realise Burma is now called Myanmar we are here to teach them, SqueakBox 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, none of us is here from the pro-ladling contingent, right? So, if we're all agreed that we'd like to use the most commonly recognized term, perhaps we can agree that it's not entirely clear which name is more commonly recognized. I see anecdotal evidence for both sides... Google-based evidence for both sides, and... um... I can't tell. Maybe "Burma" is still more common. Maybe "Myanmar" has supplanted it, in the English of most speakers worldwide. I don't think we've been presented with the right information to say for sure, nor do we know whether such information exists. How can we tell which is more commonly recognized? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:NCGN has six suggested methods, one being the usage of Google Scholar and Google Books. It does not mention, and should, an assertion by a neutral and reliable source; but then that doesn't happen that often. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Railroad history

Unfortunately the article can't be changed by anonymous or new members. So I have to ask if the phrase explaining that the first railroads were built in the 1800s means that we have to rewrite the history of that technology? Between 1800 and 1810 there didn't exist so many railroads and until now I hadn´t heard anything about important Burmese contributions (or a simultaneous discovery). Someone should write "19th century" or preferably give a better number. 84.178.118.252 08:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1800's is more naturally the century than the decade; but this fix seems harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

pronunciation: unsourced edits

Timeineurope keeps adding pronunciation variants using /æ/ (= a as in man) without providing a source. I have reverted his edits already twice, so now it's time for others to step in if he does it again.

All the dictionaries found here and here and here provide different variants that use only the sound of A in father for the two As in Myanmar, and none provide variants with the sound of A in man.

Timeineurope however insists on misinterpreting the pronunciations provided by the BBC here. These use only the symbols a/A, but Timeineurope feels free to interpret some of these as /ɑ/ (= a in father) and some as /æ/, which is an incorrect interpretation of the BBC pronunciation guide, whose symbols are explained in the link provided at the bottom of the same page.

What complicates the matter is that the BBC guide erroneously uses its own incorrect symbol a/A (as in man) instead of its own correct one aa/AA (as in father), but this is no excuse for interpreting some of these a/As as /æ/ and some as /ɑ/.

To make a long story short, there are many variant English pronunciations of Myanmar in use (both in the same and in different kinds of English) but they all only vary in where to place the stress and how to pronounce the Y. All reputable sources listed record only the pronunciation /ɑ/ as in father for both As.

In case Timeineurope again adds the following unsourced edit (which is contradicted by all the sources provided):

/ˌmjænˈmɑː(ɹ)/, /ˌmjɑːnˈmɑː(ɹ)/, /ˈmjænˌmɑː(ɹ)/, /ˈmjɑːnˌmɑː(ɹ)/, /miˈænˌmɑː(ɹ)/, /miˌɑːnˈmɑː(ɹ)/, /ˈmiːənˌmɑː(ɹ)/, /ˈmjɑːnˈmɑː(ɹ)/, or /ˌmaɪənˈmɑː(ɹ)/

please replace it with the following edit (which is based on the dictionaries listed above):

/ˌmjɑnˈmɑː(ɹ)/, /ˈmjɑːnˌmɑ(ɹ)/, /ˈmjɑːnˈmɑː(ɹ)/, /ˌmaɪənˈmɑː(ɹ)/, /ˈmiːənˌmɑː(ɹ)/, or /miˈɑːnmɑː(ɹ)/

--Espoo 18:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the BBC Pronunciation Unit should follow their own transcription system. They should definitely write "maar" rather than "mar" when they mean /mɑː(ɹ)/. However, that they don't doesn't mean that there's any doubt as to how their transcriptions are to be interpreted. As they write themselves, it's "-ar as in 'bar'".
Timeineurope 11:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. And in no way do they indicate that some of the As should be transcribed as /ɑ/ and some as /æ/, which you kept doing. That was my point, and you didn't respond to that. Your repeated edits with /æ/ and /ɑ/ in the same word had no source to back them up and were contradicted by all sources provided, even the BBC guide since it uses the same (albeit incorrect) symbol all the time. --Espoo 13:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
While there is no doubt whatsoever that my interpretation is the one intended by the BBC, I won't respond to your comment now but instead suggest you save yourself and me a lot of time and effort and simply contact the BBC Pronunciation Unit, who will confirm my interpretation.
Note that my interpretation is in line with the BBC Pronunciation Unit's previous pronunciation guide – they probably just forgot that they had changed their phonetic spelling system.
Timeineurope 15:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The BBC lists, for example, MYAN-mar and myan-MAR as the first variant and the one it recommends. You transliterated these as /ˈmjænˌmɑː(ɹ)/ and /ˌmjænˈmɑː(ɹ)/, which are both simply incorrect according to both the BBC and all dictionaries listed as sources. There is nothing in the new or the old "pronunciation guides" (phonetic respelling guides) of the BBC that can be interpreted to mean that the sounds of the first and second syllables in either MYAN-mar or myan-MAR are different. That is simply your invention, and you have still not provided as source for that simply erroneous claim. The guide clearly states "Stressed syllables are given in CAPITALS", so the upper and lower case As in MYAN-mar are clearly the same sound, and your addition of /ˈmjænˌmɑː(ɹ)/ was simply erroneous. I hope this is now explained clearly enough for you to understand. --Espoo 16:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The old "pronunciation guide" (you were the first to use that term) says "a as in cat" and "ar as in bar", which, if applied to "myan-MAR", means that the first syllable has the cat vowel and the second syllable has the bar vowel.
Timeineurope 17:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Pronunciation "guides" that use phrases like "a as in cat" are worthless as pronunciation guides, since "a as in cat" is not pronounced /æ/ in all dialects of English. In fact, while I am loathe to use Wikipedia as a source in support of arguments over how anything should appear in other WP articles (except when it comes to discussions about article formatting and other stylistic issues, which this is not), if you look at Burmese language#Vowels, you will see that /æ/ does not, in fact, appear there...making the claim that any pronunciation guide indicating /æ/ is correct is, quite probably, incorrect. Tomertalk 17:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You're confusing English with Burmese. We are talking about the pronunciation of M in English. --Espoo 17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you're confusing IPA with "a as in cat", both of you. :-p Tomertalk 17:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That pronunciation (applied to "myan-MAR", means that the first syllable has the cat vowel and the second syllable has the bar vowel), if indeed what BBC intended, is not recorded in any of the dictionaries found here and here and here. Since it is also not the pronunciation that results from the guide linked to on the relevant page, it cannot be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia. --Espoo 17:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I think you're wrong. It's quite clear from the BBC's guide that the default interpretation of "a" in their system is the vowel in man, /æ/ or /a/ depending on your preferred transcription. If the BBC meant to show /ɑː/ in the first syllable, they'd have written it as "myaan", which they didn't. (As pointed out, there is a problem with the transcription as far as the second syllable is concerned, but Timeineurope's explanation about the old version of their guide seems entirely plausible.)
I'd also point out that the dictionaries you're quoting are American, and British and American English often differ on how to interpret [a] sounds in foreign words (e.g. pasta).
--JHJ 17:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the first plausible explanation i've heard, but in fact one, Wordsmyth, is probably British, although they neglect to mention anything about their dialect of English, which shows how provincial and unreliable they are. And since the BBC's explanation of the variants says nothing about US variants, i assumed that they of course meant /ɑ/ for all uses of the letter A as in all the US dictionaries and encyclopedias listed since the BBC normally is not so provincial... Please provide a quote from a UK reference work! --Espoo 18:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The Wordsmyth pronunciation guide is almost certainly American: you can tell because it doesn't distinguish the vowels of father and hot. There aren't any good online dictionaries which include place names and which give British English pronunciation that I know of, so I think the obvious solution is for someone to find a copy of J. C. Wells's Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, which is quite comprehensive, and see what he has to say. (I expect that a pronunciation with /æ/ will be included, partly because I think the BBC's page is actually clear enough on the first syllable, and partly because as a native speaker of British English myself I just find /ɑː/ there unlikely.)--JHJ 19:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, the ghæstliness of "pæsta". Wouldn't it be nice if the dictators in Burma had specified whether they intended "Myanmar" or "Myænmar" (or "Myanmár" or "Myænmár")? Tomertalk 17:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The relevant page says "-ar as in 'bar'", superseding anything the guide might say on what "-ar" means. Timeineurope 17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
So then the /r/ really is pronounced, since for the majority of native English-speakers "ar" in "bar" is pronounced /ɑɹ/, right? Tomertalk 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It says that only and specifically next to one variant, so that says nothing about the others. Its mention next to that one variant can very well be understood to mean it does not apply to the others. In any case, it's clearly ambivalent and not marked by the precision shown by good journalism or good scholarship, so this BBC page should be removed from WP until and if it's been corrected. --Espoo 18:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this instead "Myanmar, pronounced /'bɝ·mʌ/..."? I like that better. Image:Teeth.png Tomertalk 17:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)