Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08 Burma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Request details
The article currently held by a move block at Burma has been moved back and forth from Myanmar many times. Involved parties have conducted a request for comment that has not resulted in any consensus.
[edit] Who are the involved parties?
Too many to list, there are comments by something like twenty different editors on the RfC.
[edit] What's going on?
The involved editors cannot come to a consensus about common usage. Myanmar is more common in the press, but there is a notable outlier (the BBC) that explains that they use Burma because they believe it is more commonly recognized. Usage appears to be very split, and the next criterion in WP:NCGN is the locally used name. An elected but never empowered government prefers Burma, the military junta that is very much in power officially renamed the country Myanmar. The renaming isn't recognized by some notable groups, such as the US government.
[edit] What would you like to change about that?
The ideal would be a name that would stick and not be turned into a tennis ball every time the country comes up in the news. I've proposed a Gdansk-style naming convention, and a split article has been proposed (the article is over 100k anyway) with one piece "Burma" and one piece "Myanmar". I don't have a particularly strong opinion, but would like to see a resolution.
[edit] Mediator notes
[edit] Administrative notes
[edit] Discussion
See Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma and Talk:Burma/Myanmar. Just as a heads up, both contain a fair amount of WP:SOUP. Be aware that Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-02/In_the_news (Seattle P-I's blog) has happened.
- I don't know if I'm allowed to post here not knowing how this process works, but I'm sure I'll be deleted from here if not. Anyway, one point that I'd like to get across to you "Mediation Cabally people" is that if Wikipedia is about WP:NPOV, then your decision should follow that and not advocate democracy by settling on Burma. If you decide on Burma in the end for a better reason then I'd be more than happy with that decision, though there doesn't seem to be one so I advocate Myanmar or a two page split. Deamon138 (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hi Deamon138, the mediation cabal doesn't make decisions about content, our role is merely to assist the parties in finding a workable compromise. Of course, in naming disputes things are slightly more tricky, because there isn't usually much scope for a compromise. PhilKnight (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- For "decisions", substitute for a better fitting word of your choosing. However, the point I was making didn't seem to be made in the original entry by Somedumbyankee, hence my reason for posting it, and I hope it's taken into consideration in your mediation, thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
-
One of the problems that complicates this case further is the outcome of an RM back in October (at the time the country was in the news due to the monks' protests). Many commenting suggested it should be "Burma" for political reasons and the closing admin interpreted the result as Move to Burma and included in the closing comments:
- I suppose that there's an emotional level of revolt towards the junta involved, and that "Myanmar" would likely be accepted per similar precedents if there's a democratic government.
The result is that many feel the October RM was tainted and should not be the default determinant of the location of the article in the absence of consensus. But there is no mechanism to review the outcome of RMs and attempts to formally discuss things again were repeatedly speedy closed citing it. This I feel has complicated matters no end. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
