Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Myanmar (Burma)/Archive 1

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 →

Contents

List of Myanmar-related topics

I've compiled a list of all the Myanmar-related articles that I've found so far. Perhaps this would be a good starting point to find articles to improve, expand, and cite. --Hintha 02:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a way to automatically add articles to your list, just by putting our project tag on talk pages? Chris 06:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be nice, but I don't know how to program bots. --Hintha 00:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 15:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessments

If the members of the project would wish, I could add assessment parameters to the project banner, so that the members of the project could better be able to determine which articles are in most need of the attention of the members of the project. Just let me know on my userpage if you wish to do so. Badbilltucker 23:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Project name

I can't be certain of this, but I have the sinking feeling that the ambiguity of the current project name (Burma/Myanmar) might be somewhat offputting to individuals who might be interested in the project, as it seems to stress the countries old, colonial, name over its current name. Maybe changing the name to WikiProject Myanmar might be beneficial. Like I said, just an idea. Badbilltucker 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the difference is not a colonial one but a philosophical one. If you see the talkpages of many of the major articles on the country, to include the main national article, there is a discussion as to what name should be used. Myanmar is favored by the current military junta; Burma is favored by the democratic government in exile. One is based on the literal transliteration of the words; the other is based on pronunciation. It's like the catholic church using Latin, but pronouncing it as though it were Italian. Even nations cannot agree as to what the name should be. The same discussion is had with Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast, where the local dictatorship favors only one way to transliterate their name. Hypothetically, should say Saudi Arabia's rulership insist on the rest of the world call their nation al-Arabiyah as-Saudiyah, I am sure there would be similar discussions. Many of the folks who edit these articles (and their views are all valuable for balance) refuse to recognize one name or the other, so that's why I intentionally chose both.
Great question, though, and many don't understand the complexities of the issue, so thanks for bringing it up. Chris 04:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Chris has given the same reasons that I would. If a democratic government of Burma decides to adopt a new international name for the country, I'll go along with it happily (but they probably won't spell it with a final -r)! Andrew Dalby 09:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Really good points. Yeah, if the country itself isn't agreed on it's name, then there's no reason for the project to be agreed on one or the other. Right now, the project is set up for assessment with the current name of the country Category:Myanmar .... However, it is always possible to change to Burma or Burma/Myanmar if such is believed warranted. All that would have to be done is to change the names of the categories in the "hidden" text in the project banner so that for instance Category:Myanmar articles by quality would read with whichever name for the country is decided upon, and then either move the existing categories to reflect the new change, or, more effort, create new ones. If you want to change the category names, but feel uncertain as to how to do so, please let me know and I'll do it. Unfortunately, for various reasons (being in St. Louis, Missouri one of the biggest of them) the amount of international news coverage available to me is rather limited, and it's been basically impossible to keep up with recent developments as much as I would like. My apologies if my ill-informed comments above caused anyone any degree of offense. Badbilltucker 14:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No offense taken, Bill, that's kind of one of the reasons it is good to have a separate project for the nation, rather than mixed in with a larger Southeast Asia one or something-the issues are so complex and most, myself included, have only a scant basic knowledge. You've done a great vast volume of work toward improving the Project, for which I thank you, you've made it vastly better than I could on my own, and provided a great foundation from which to recruit, which we are slowly doing. :) Thanks again! Chris 22:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if I am being ignorant? but so far as I can see in this thread, all the people who seems to be making decisions are foreigners (no offence or disrespect to anyone here). Now the question is - dont we, myanmar people, have a say in this too? It is true that there have been a whole lot of debate and political spatting on both sides regarding the name, but the fact remains, our country name has formally changed and recognised by United Nations. It may not be a democractically elected change but it has been changed legally and endorsed by United Nations nevertheless and I am certain, new democractically elected government may change the name back in the distant futur, who knows, but we have to cross that bridge when it comes to it. Right now, i feel as though it is some form of discrimination against my country as people insists upon calling the old colonial name. It is much like using the "N" word on black people. It is rather demeaning. On top of it, it confuses the hell out of people. So if you dont mind, could we please change the project name to "Myanmar", after all it is a sovereign country and we as contributors of wikipedia does not have the right to make such a choice and should observe neutrality.Okkar 18:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, both names are current (Bamā and Myanmā), and I think they were already current when it was an independent kingdom. And both English spellings are glaringly Anglocentric (the -ur- of Burma and the -r of Myanmar). Still, that's life and there are bigger things to worry about.
If there is a real consensus within the country, as User:Okkar says, that the old spelling is offensive and the new spelling is fine, then I wouldn't want to stand against it. Do we have any other participants from Myanmar? Andrew Dalby 23:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Andrew for your reply, it is indeed offensive to us and if you do look around, many country has changed their name, democratically or undemocractically. For example, Thailand is used to known as Yodaya (based upon their ancient capital Ayodayah), the western people called it Siam, and the military government of Siam changed the name to "Thailand". Thai people take it as a offense if you call their country Siam or Yodaya. You can walk into your local Thai resturant and ask what they think, polite ones will simply smile and walk away, other may just blatently attack you and man handle you out of the resturant. Anyhow, it was just an example mate :-) Okkar 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew asked if we have participants from there, we do.

If any of these four above members verifies that it is indeed offensive and they would like the name changed, I would support it. Without their input, I would oppose such a namechange, for reasons listed above, and because, as the English-language Wikipedia (and yes, I take offense at being called a foreigner), the two largest English-speaking nations use Burma-both the British government and the Court of Saint James's refuse to recognize the junta's name change, as does the U.S. Department of State. Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is not against either variant, and I respect the four above named users and will abide their wishes. Chris 01:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting English wikipedia is a policy tool for US State Department and British Governement? the two largest english-speaking nations does not represent the english speaking rest of the world just as the above 4 users does not represent the rest of the country. The rest of the english speaking world's opinion is just as important as the so-called two largest English-speaking nations. Are you also suggesting the recognition of United Nation is irrelevant? This is pure discrimination and the use of wikipedia as a political tool - I shall seek for mediation as it is politically biased discrimination. Okkar 02:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Settle down, nobody's discriminating against you, this is a talk page, you get to say what you think, I get to say what I think. Chris 02:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
not to me personally, but you are discriminating against our country by insisting to call the given name of the colonial masters. This is as insulting as calling Bombay to Mumbai, just because US state department doesnt recognise it. Since when did wikipedia become part of US state department? on the note of being able to say what you think, werent you the one who reminded me about personal attacks? so how come you are carrying them out yourself now? Okkar 02:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to reiterate the point 4 of Wikipedia Policies - it states:
"Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.", according to this, it would appear, juding from the comments that comes from the project coordinator, this Project is politically bias and it is against the core principle of Wikipedia unbias policy.Okkar 03:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We are not happy about them making decisions on our country's name. MgMinGyiTharMgMyaPhay 03:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Our country name has formally changed to Myanmar and recognised by United Nations.Plus,we people,burmese people are not calling Burma since it changes.We burmese people don't want foreigners making decisions on what our country's name should be called as.It is Myanmar,long live Myanmar.N.Linn 03:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Having a few sockpuppets who will not contribute to Wikipedia other than argue in this discussion is fruitless. (e.g. [1], [2], [3]) Personally, as a Burmese-American, I believe that the name of the project as is, is perfectly fine. But my opinions should represent the views of only myself, and not of anyone else. Most ordinary English speakers would not recognize "Myanmar". The current official name of the country is disputed, having been changed by the military regime (the government-in-exile still uses Burma, although it has no power within the country). If we all wanted neutrality, we would add the Arakanese dialect's pronunciation of Myanmar, as "Mranma", and so forth. One user who has origins in Myanmar should not be the deciding factor; recognition of the names in English should be. I do not find any offense in the using "Burma/Myanmar". And on a note, "Myanmar" follows Oxford English (British) spelling, using the final "r" to show lengthening of the vowel. It seems just as "colonial" as Burma does. --Hintha 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of sock puppetry, these are genuine Myanmar people living abroad and back home, you can contact them directly.. more so, you can chat with them direct on Myanmar Online IRC Chatrooms, that is ofcourse if you can still speak burmese (after all as you said you are "burmese-american"). For your information, I have put this thread's URL in the topic of #ygnchat, so that people in Myanmar can see how you people are deciding the name of their country based upon what US State Department believe it should be. They do have a right to express their displeasure in your discrimination. Accusing ordinary Myanmar people as sock puppets, I believe you owe everyone an apology for you misguided insult. Okkar 04:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
And we should be focussing our attention on more important issues. --Hintha 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What could be more important than having our country misrepresented? ok, it might not be important to you because you are a "burmese-american" as you said, but to those of us, who are burmese, it means a lot! So please, less of this discrimination and have a little respect for people of Myanmar. We maybe poor and live under dictatorship, but that does not give you the right to insult us by calling us "sock puppets" and wholesale dismissing our opinions. The real burmese people opinion is as good as a burmese-american's opinion here. have some respect please? Okkar 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't think you understand the issue at point; internet chatroom users in Myanmar are not the only Burmese people in the world. Secondly, most English speakers would not recognize "Myanmar". It's like calling Mainland China "Zhong Hua Ren Min Gong He Guo", merely to honor Mandarin speakers in China, because "China" is some European concoction. Thirdly, the argument for using Burma is not only because of what the U.S. State Department says; the democratically-elected parliament did not change the country's name, but a military junta that annulled election results, and changed the country's name without consulting the representatives of the country's citizens. Using "Burma/Myanmar" helps to sideline any ambiguities as to what "Myanmar" may be, because the name change was not established in the 1950s, like Thailand's name was. General acceptance of "Myanmar" among English speakers is slow. As per Wikipedia policies, in the case of controversial names, both names should be used (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names). Hence, considering this naming situation is indeed controversial, the current naming of the project satisfies the policies laid out in Wikipedia. --Hintha 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting internet chatroom users dont have a say in this? because they are not the only burmese people in the world. The point here is, they responded to your friend's Chris 's posting. Please read the threat before you jumped in the bandwagon and calling internet users of myanmar "sock puppets" and discriminating against them. Internet users in Myanmar are the people more likely to want to contribute to this project, but it put them off most of the time because the project appeared to be leaning towards the political slides, while it could have been neutral and unbias. Who could be more effective contributors about the subject on our country then myanmar internet users? Your actions are not only discouraging these people to come forward and help but also convincing them that what they have long suspected is true - this project is politically biased. While it may conformed with Wikipedia naming conventions, it blatently contradict with Wikipedia's founding principle policy - point 4 and also it is against WP:NPOV. Okkar 05:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Your biases seem to be against the MPs, the government-in-exile, other organizations, colonial rule in Myanmar, indicating that your viewpoint is not necessarily neutral. And I wholeheartedly welcome contributions from the Burmese public living in Myanmar. And you argued that Nigger is offensive to African-Americans (or as you would put it, with quotations), but a lengthy article exists on this. Just because Nigger is an offensive word to some does not make it wrong to create an article about the word. --Hintha 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If you do welcome the contribution from the Burmese public living in Myanmar, how come you have still not apologised to them for slandering and calling them "sock puppet"? I am not against anybody, I simply just want our country name to be recognised, it's been more than a decade since it has changed, our passports carries the name and yet when someone pointed out about this project name, i simply contributed my thoughts, only to be told that it would not be recognised because US State Department hasnt recognised it by project coordinator, who supposed to be politically neutral and unbias. My view point is plain, simple and as neutral as it gets, have you any idea how confusing it is for our people to live, work and travel aborad because of all this silly fuss about the country name? you are contributing towards the opposition's political stand while you should be neutral. It doesnt make it wrong to create the articles, but it does make it wrong to call the project of the nation with the wrong name. Okkar 06:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the country's name is already recognized as is, "Burma/Myanmar", to appease both sides. I apologize for any accusations made; in my experience, in heated discussions such as this, one user will create several new usernames to show "support" for one side. I should not have jumped to conclusions. And I'm sure for Burmese throughout the world, they would recognize the name "Burma", even if they were born after 1989, so this is not an issue. --Hintha 06:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
And there is no "misrepresentation" going on here; if there is, explain it. Even by using "Myanmar", one is misrepresenting other alternative names for the country. "Myanmar" is not even used alone in Burmese. Should we just tack on other names, "Mranma", "Mranmar", "Myanma Pyi", "Mranma Pray", "Myanma Pyee", (and what minority groups call Myanmar) etc? --Hintha 05:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You insistance to use the name "Burma" because exiled opposition governement refused to acknowledged the official name chages. If you dont call that misrepresentation, I dont know what is. Perhaps we should ask Wikipedia to mediate on the ground of political neutrality? Okkar 05:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten about another Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Controversial_names, which is focused on naming, rather than general issues of neutrality. Please ask for mediation. -Hintha 05:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears that this project naming was adpoted uniliterally by Chris without any consensus amongst the majority. It also appear that the name was adopted in support from the users and contributors who lean towards the opposition side of the political spectrum, as such, this project is no longer politcal neutral and unbias. I would like propose for the immidiate mediation from wikipedia for that matter and also propose to include a noncompliant check and POVCHECK on the project as a whole. Okkar 05:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You have still not apologised for slandering and insulting Myanmar Internet users by calling them "sock puppets". Is that because they are from Myanmar and not worthy of your apology? even though you insult them in public for them conrtibuting their opinions which are obviously contradictory and against the will of you and exiled opposition government? Okkar 05:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That's true! if our country name Myanmar didn't recongnized by United Nations. How would our country Myanmar also included in International Time Zone GMT+6:30 MYANMAR? US government has no rights to discriminate. My opinion is just to think as logically, see what is happening in the real world. Please just don't post what is in your mind or in the book. Just open your eyes to see the real thing. It would be bad image of your life when you know the truth in one day. Well, my post is turning into personal thing. My point is we, Myanmar people never ever will accept the name of our country changing by others. I love Myanmar and being proud of as I am Myanmar.

Phothar 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to argue too many things , Burma/Myanmar, don't need to use Burma anymore . I'm living in Myanmar so we can name it our country what ever we like in officially. Topic was wrong, discussion about Myanmar, not about military so think twice before you post it. Myanmar don't have any war in the world. So if you want to post like military, go to War topic. sayar203.81.64.34 05:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
In addition, other languages you may have heard of also use Burma, to include French (adjective), Italian, Norwegian, Russian (adjective), Catalan, Danish, Esperanto, Latin, Polish, Albanian, and Swedish. Chris 20:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It is quite insulting to see the arrogance of Chris, who think it is fun to make mockery out of the name for other people's country. While he maybe the project coordinator of this project, his comments are not only rude, but also disrespectful to myanmar people as a whole. I cant help but wondering why he is leading this project at all if he has no respect for the country or the people this project is representing? Okkar 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The historical transcription Burma cannot be absolutely avoided, also in the case if Bush and UNO tomorrow order to everybody to call the country Myanmar :-). In Russia the name "Myanmar" was oficially accepted many years ago, but russian Google shows the same quote for both names. What does Bush think - it does not matter at all, but to change the traditional spelling in heads of many million ordinary people, getting very seldom information about Myanmar takes a lot of time. I think, both names should be kept. TheNeon 21:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the Project facilitator Chris seems to think it only matter "if" US States Department and British Government recognise it, according to his words - "the two largest English speaking countries"!!! I am very much dismay to have read such an arrogant and discriminating remarks from a Project facilitator and very much disturbed by the fact that there was no official public apology from the part of the project as a whole. Does his view reflects the view of this project? Okkar 00:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Then you've not been paying attention, for I said I would support the rename of the project if other longterm members of the project (not your sockpuppets) supported it. You and I have already discussed your personal attacks, which you have now used against Hintha as well. There is no need for anyone to apologize to you, no one insulted you personally, though you go out of your way to insult others. You have been a disruption since you've gotten here, and no one owes you anything. Respect is earned. Chris 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
These people are not sock puppets, please get on irc and join irc.myanmaronline.org and speak to them yourself. You can verify these people. Dont jump on conclusion just because people are disagreeing with you. Is it all that hard to accept that there are myanmar people who simply does not agree with your comments? why would you accuse someone of socket puppetry without actually confirming this first? Your attempt to report me for sock puppeting without actually verifying shows your desperate attempt to silence me. Long term members of the project are not the only people of Myanmar. This project is about our country. We have as much say in this you and these long term project members. I have not insulted anyone apart from pointing out the facts. If anyone has insulted anyone here, it is you - first you discriminated my country, second you accused me of sock puppting without any valid proofs and lastly, you trying to get the upper hand by claiming that I am the one who is doing personal attacks. It is rather astonishing!!!! Okkar 01:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[01:18] * Topic is 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Burma/Myanmar#Project_name <== go have a say about your country's name!!' <== see for it yourself! that is the irc server for Myanmar people from both outside and inside.. you can verify these users who opposed you their nick names are xcore, phothar, gadone and sayar. Okkar 01:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with any new user who is civil, and does not unduly push their viewpoint. As per the matter of the mediation, I publically stated in this talk page that I will support the move if it is supported by the members of the project who were here before Okkar showed up. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am discriminating against you or anyone-that's the joy of living in a free society-I can speak my mind without getting in trouble for it. Chris 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
read what they have written above by these users, are there any uncivil comments? no one is unduly pushing their views apart from you, and you are the only person who made uncivilised comments by saying our country name was not recognised because US State Department doesnt recognise it. You are talking about someone's country here and we do take offence to the fact that our country's name recognition solely depends on the recognition of US State Department?? if you dont call that uncivil comment, i dont know what its. Please do not try to lecture us about free-society, we have already witnessed the ways of free-society works in this projects here with you doing everything you can to silence the opposition, you even went to the degree of faking sockpuppet claims. So much for living in free-society, things arent much different under dictators boots - at least we wont have to put up cheap tricks and fake claims to keep the opposition at bay. Okkar 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that you have been uncivil, calling me a "Burmese American" (with quotations), as if I am not a real Burmese person, and even questioning whether I know the language still (and I do). And, you only keep referring to the US State Department, when there are many other opposition groups (including elected MPs and such) that do not use Myanmar. And the claims of sockpuppetry are still "suspected"; they haven't been proven. So, you shouldn't worry so much about the "suspected" sockpuppets unless you are directly proven to have created these other user names. And it's extremely rude to say others are "discriminating" against you if they have not done anything other than voice their opinions without making ostentatious claims of "discrimination" (against who?). The matter at point should not be one's patriotism, but recognition of both terms in English. And, unfortunately, Burma is still far more well-recognized in the English-speaking world. This same issue continues to cause edit wars in the naming of "British India", which continually is reverted back to "British Raj", which is less well-recognized. The Wikiproject is recognizing the Myanmar before British rule, the "Burma" during British rule and until 1989, and the "Myanmar" afterward. It would be historically incorrect to say that the British ruled "Myanmar Province", because it did not. --Hintha 01:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I called as you stated in your post, please scroll back and see, you actually stated that you are "Burmese American" and I simply just reused what you have said. If you find that uncivilised, you should not have use the phrase in the first place. Please dont try this double standard thing here. I dont worry about the suspect, but it seems a bit cheap to go the length of reporting if you are only suspecting, for what it is, neither you nor chris doesnt have any proof or foundation on suspicions of sock puppetry apart from the fact that these people disagreed with you guys. That is no reason to assume that these people are sock puppets simply because they dont agree with you. It is extremely rude to suggest that it is ok for a friend of yours to say "US State Department doesnt recognise your country's name" and say it is no discrimination. For your information, US doesnt rule the world and just because you are "burmese american" that doesnt make it alright for you to say that is no discrimination. We are not questioning historical correctness here, but rather we are protesting against the name of the project. It does not represent our country if it is not called "Myanmar" that is the bottom line and that we will not go quietly about this and let americans decide what our country name should be. Please dont try to turn the table around, judging from your comments, you have proven that this project is politically biased and leans towards oppositions instead of being neutral. Surely you realised that wikipedia is a neutral "Encyclopedia" not Burmese oppositions' PR website. Okkar 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
First, Burmese American means a Burmese person in America. It's a commonly-used phrase, just as African-American, Asian-American, etc. are used by the U.S. goverment in its censuses. And the source of suspicion is not that those users disagree with my viewpoint, but that suddenly, a number of new users voicing their support for "Myanmar" exclusively emerged right after this discussion was created. And Americans are not the only users who are working in this project; users from Russia, Britain can be found collaborating in this project. And jingoistic patriotism and an illegitimate military regime should not merely justify usage of "Myanmar" exclusively. And now I'm now suspicious if the new users, you included have political leanings favoring the regime, considering that the chatroom states the following:
- * Our People Desires                                           * 
- *  + Oppose those relying on external elements,                * 
- *    acting as stooges, holding negative views.                * 
- *  + Oppose those trying to jeopardize stability of the State  * 
- *    and progress of the nation.                               * 
- *  + Oppose foreign nations interfering in internal affairs    * 
- *    of the State.                                             * 
- *  + Crush all the internal and external distructive elements  * 
- *    as the common enemies.                                    *

This is the same reason "China" is used in the English language rather than "Zhongguo", and the English language uses "Thailand" in preference of "Prahet Thai". The latter versions are not well-recognized in English. --Hintha 02:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your choice to call yourself "Burmese American" is your parogative, but if you use it in a posting, dont accuse others of being uncivil when they use in their reply to you. Theres nothing uncivil about calling you "burmese american" when you called that yourself in your posting. so there's no ground for your accusation of me being uncivil towards you. secondly, the existence of this project and thread discussion regarding "Project Name" was made aware to people of Myanmar, because it was put on the topic of the main channel #ygnchat, which are frequented by myanmar users from all over the world. The chatroom's political leanings has nothing to do with wikipedia nor does it represent international community at all. It is merely a place of "chatting" for myanmar people. These issues are completely unrelated. While Myanmaronline chatroom is the creation of myanmar people for myanmar people, whereas Wikipedia represents international community and founded on the principle of unbiasness (i refer to the point 4 of wikipedia policy), therefore, once again you have no ground in making comparision between this project and myanmar online. While MyanmarOnline's political leanings maybe warranted (if there ever was one), your use of this project to lean towards Burmese Opposition is not warranted at all, since it is in direct contradiction with Wikipedia policy. Again, your political orientation should not be the deciding factor for the name of this project. After all this project is part of wikipedia and it must adhare to nobias policy of wikipedia. Surely, your views and support for opposition party must not reflect on the work of this project, and at the sametime, this project must not be use as a PR tool for the oppositions either. English language uses "Thailand" because it is the name that is recognised by United Nations, and the same goes to "Myanmar" - name of the country, recognised by United Nations and it represent our country, whether the opposition groups and exiled refugees like it or not. They can change the name back when they are in power, right now, it is the name that is on our passport, it is the destination on our plane tickets and it is the name it should be on this project. Okkar 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
But you're accusing the project and its members of propagating "democracy", even though it's not. Let's use an example on Wikipedia. The French Wikipedia uses "Les États-Unis" when describing "the United States", even though the UN doesn't recognize "Les États-Unis". Does this give Americans sufficient argument for telling the French Wikipedians to use "the United States" instead? That is essentially the argument you're making. --Hintha 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It is French Language and it has nothing to do with English Language, just as we would have written "Myan Mar" in Myanmar version of wikipedia, in English Language our country's official name is "Myanmar", it has been recognised and endorsed by United Nations. It does give us sufficient argument for "asking" English Wikipedia to use the official name as opposed to unofficial name favoured by opposition groups in exiled. If this project does not propagate and paddling the views of oppositions group and it is indeed "politically neutral", why is it so hard to use our country's "legal" name as Project name? This is the case I am making. The project name is just a tip of the iceberg here and the more we discuss the more it become apperent that this project has been used as PR tool to promote oppositions group's propaganda. Okkar 02:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking from the legal viewpoint, the military junta that took over had no legal right to do so (unless you can explicitly find me a legal document or constitutional amendment that allows the military junta to usurp power), which invalidates everything the current "government" has done since 1988. And anyhow, the project intends to encompass both pre-1800 Burmese kingdoms, 1800s-1989 Burma, and 1989-present Myanmar. By exclusively using "Myanmar", the project excludes what occurred in the past, unless the Wikiproject explicitly focuses on 1989-present Myanmar articles. And I am in no way supportive of using exclusively Burma for the project (which I clearly stated earlier), as that would indeed be misguided and would fail to include pre-1989 Burma. --Hintha 03:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Again you are dragging Wikipedia into political arguements. The bottom line here is Wikipedia is not a ground for political score settling. Whether or not Military Junta have the legal right does not concerns Wikipedia, however, United Nation would not have recognise and endorse the name of the country if it doesnt believe it is legal. Now are we questioning the neutrality of United Nations here? again this is out of scope for Wikipedia. As far as Wikipedia is concern, it is not a ground for political score settlings. Please keep your political issues out of Wikipedia and discuss only the reasons that are valid and relevant to Wikipedia.
As for including pre-1800 Burmese kingdoms, 1800s-1989 Burma, and 1989-present Myanmar, these will have no bearing on having the project name as "Myanmar". It is the name of the project, it has nothing to do with the content. Project Name represent the name of the country and can still cover the subjects and articles on before and after the changes of the name. Just like any other country project would have done. Please dont bring in the issues that are completely unrelated and have no valid basis to support the arguement.Okkar 03:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
And another legitimate example on Wikipedia is shown here. The UN recognizes Vietnam as "Viet Nam" in English, but because the English language has accepted "Vietnam", it is rarely spelled as it is in Vietnamese. Does this legitimize a name change for the article, because the Vietnamese government approved the Vietnamese spelling, while English language dictates otherwise? And yet another. East Timor is recognized as "Timor Leste" by the UN, but is used as "East Timor" in English. Does this signify politically-motivated name usage? --Hintha 03:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Vietnam is the country's name, and English Wikipedia used it is, without any variation. So why cant we not use Myanmar without any variation? after all Myanmar is the name of our country. Using the name paddled by oppositions in order to support their cause is groundless as far as Wikipedia is concern. Please you are mixing your political affiliations with Wikipedia. This it not what Wikipedia is about. To give you an example, English knows Thailand as "Siam" before formal name change, how come there is no WikiProject Siam/Thailand to accomodate both names? nor do i see WikiProject Bombay/Mumbai Okkar 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
So far, all the reasons that you and chris has come up are either politically motivated or some minor language issues, which are neither here nor there on the scale of significance in terms of the project name. Please restrain yourself from using Wikipedia to use as a poltical PR tool. Can we please discuss the relevance of the name of our country and the relevance of the project name to it, without using completely unrealted political reasons? This is not a political debate! Okkar 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not an exclusively political issue. It is about recognition in the English language. Timor Leste is not used in favor of East Timor because the latter is more well-recognized. Same goes for Vietnam. -Hintha 03:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case how come there is no WikiProject Siam/Thailand? Okkar 03:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikiprojects for Thailand and Mumbai do not exist. --Hintha 03:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Doesnt exist, does not mean it cannot be use as an example or neglected, it is an example of having two names. If we have to include all the previous names of the country this project name should be Wikiproject Bagan/Innwa/Bamar/Burma/Myanmar 'etc and the same would go for all other countries. In order to avoid confusions, the project name should simply be the current name of the country as it has been changed for over a decade now. Also, having the dual name only serves those oppositions group who uses Wikipedia and internet as a political PR tool. It is neither benefitual or productive and it only contribute to putting off would be contributors because they end up thinking they are support/contributing to oppositions group's political agenda and propagandas. Okkar 03:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
But you will notice that in the Mumbai article, Bombay and Mumbai are used interchangably throughout, because English language acceptance has been slow, especially because the name change was recent. I'm pointing out that the name change of Myanmar was recent as well, and English language acceptance has been slow. It's the same reason East Timor and Vietnam are used. Are we blaspheming the natives of the respective places by using the English versions rather than the local versions? No, it's merely to illustrate that geographical name changes take long to be absorbed. --Hintha 03:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The use of the name throughout the article is somewhat different from naming the whole project in both names. I am not disputing the use of the name in articles as the name "burma" is part of our history, however, the project name must represent the present as it is the name of the country. Please focus on the issue of the "Project Name" not the content of the articles as I am not disputing those facts. As for the taking a long time to absorb, how can you say the name change was recent when it was changed over 18 years ago. It has indeed been more than long enough absorb or are you suggesting it takes two decades to have the geogaphical name changes to be absorbed? Here again, it is not the valid reason to keep the old name in the project name as it only add to confusion. Okkar 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Here with I would like to quote the scope of the project:

This project covers the creation and editing of articles related to the nation of Myanmar, its political subdivisions, geography, transportation, culture, history, people, and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on Myanmar in a fair and accurate manner.

As you can see from the scope, it stated "articles related to the Nation of Myanmar", so why cant we have Project name as "Myanmar"? even the scope of the project betrays the use of Project name. Okkar 04:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes in their definition of Sockpuppet "to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once", and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Forbidden_uses_of_sock_puppets says

"Voting and other shows of support" "Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in a discussion at polls and surveys, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages."

"In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists."

Nobody is trying to silence any opposition, as stated multiple times a name change would be supported if the vote is clean. I stand by Wikipedia's definition of sockpuppets when it comes to bringing in ringers to skew a vote. Chris 14:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is one person, one vote, you just simply cannot accept the fact that people dont agree with you and you have resort to cheap trickery in order to silence genuine opposition. This is quite sad for those claim to be living in free society. Okkar 14:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I find it extremely insulting that you would claim that I, along with the other respectable members of the Wikiproject, have political agendas. I have repeatedly reverted countless edits by anonymous users/vandals who change the capital from Naypyidaw to Yangon on the Myanmar article, until I was able to appease them by adding a note indicating some governments do not recognise the new capital. In addition, I have repeatedly opposed Myanmar article "moves" to Myanmar, arguing here (dated over one month ago), for instance, against the name change to Burma (check my user contributions to see all of the reverts I have had to do). Recently, there has been a surge of anonymous users adding POV material about Thandar Shwe on Than Shwe's article, but I, acting in good faith, removed them all. You should actually look at my user contributions. If the name of the country article were "Burma/Myanmar", I would clearly understand why you would have such objections, but it isn't. Purely political motivations are not the only reasons why "Burma" is still used. --Hintha 09:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
If there was no political agenda, why is it necessary for you to even "appease" the demands of the oppositions? we supposed to contribute the contents that are fair, netural, impartial and verifiable, not accomodating the poltical blackmails in the form of vandalism. Every controversial articles on Wikipedia have problems with vandalism and but adding contents simply to "appease" vandals isnt the way to resolve the issue. Further more, if the name of country article is simple "Myanmar", why would you still insists upon having the project name as "Burma/Myanmar", not only that it doesnt make sense, it is counterproductive in the sense of adding confusion over already complicated matters. The bottom line is .. "is the country name Burma or Myanmar", it's one or the other, not both. Even the scope of Wikiproject contradicts the project name as I have already pointed that out in the other thread. Needless to mention the fact that our country's project is the only project with "two" names in Wiki Country Project. While you are "appeasing" people with political agendas, we as a country paying the price for it. Please try to look things from a wider perspective, this isnt just a simple WikiProject, it is "our country's" wikiproject, have a little pride! Okkar 09:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia the mouth piece of NCGUB? (Military of Myanmar)

Hintha, If you do not have political agendas, why did you remove Myanmar Category from Military of Myanmar article? It is the article about the military of myanmar, and it certainly belongs under Myanmar category. Why are you so desperate to hide this article from public? How can we see that you are being political neutral, when you are actually going out of your way desperately trying to hide articles that doesnt conform with your political orientation and affiliation? You have again proven that this group is politically bias and using Wikipedia to serve as PR tool for opposition groups in exile. Okkar 14:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't aggressively accuse others of being biased without prior knowledge. If you actually took a look at Category:Myanmar, you would find that there are very few articles that exist in that category, because more specific categories have been created, which in the case of "Military of Myanmar" is the category of that same name. For this same reason, articles like "Economy of Myanmar", "Culture of Myanmar", "History of Myanmar", "Politics of Myanmar", "Communication in Myanmar", "Education in Myanmar", just to name a few, appear only in those specific categories and not the general "Myanmar" category, which is mainly for uncategorised articles and the "Myanmar" article. Next time, before you accuse me of trying to "paddle articles that [have been] sanctioned and blessed by NCGUB [National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma]", you should see how Wikipedia categories work and check out other country cats (e.g. Category:Singapore, Category:Australia) just to name a few). And don't warn me for vandalism without providing a more reasonable explanation. (This is a response to the following 3 posts: 1, 2, 3) --Hintha 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well i would not have to come to such conclusion if you weren't persistance about "appeasing" opposition groups. You said it yourself in your posting that you have been trying to "appease" them in order to stop them vandalising. If you have been neutral and unbias from the beginning, I would not be forced to accuse you of having political agenda. Bal thu ma pyu, mi mi mhu par. Okkar 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Civility, and other Wikipedia policies. Thank you. --Hintha 22:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
And please do acquaint yourself with Wikipedia Policy also. It states clearly regarding the biasness. Thank you. Okkar 09:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Completed requested articles

I'll write a stub if no one else does; I don't have materials at hand for a full article. I have put a picture at commons:Image:TipHtila.jpg Andrew Dalby 14:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Please! That is my favorite image of her, by the way-she looks formidable, doesn't she? :) Chris 22:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Andrew Dalby, longtime scholar of Burma (at least two decades-although as a member of the Project himself, he should not write his own article) :)
It has appeared -- coincidence, I swear. I sort of thought it was on the way, although I'm not the author. AD
Congratulations-I'm glad someone did! Chris 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Is Inyale "Inya Lake", a man-made lake in Rangoon? --Hintha 05:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it could be-it is within Rangoon, and the national Scout camp was there at one time-that would make sense for it being on a lake. Chris 05:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the article link to "Inya Lake", because I know of no other "Inyale" in Rangoon. --Hintha 06:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Stub created.
Stub by Hintha, expanded by Wagaung Andrew Dalby 08:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

*Thura Shwe Mann - Joint-Chief of Staff of the Burmese Armed Forces, and third-highest ranking member of SPDC.

exists at Shwe Mann Chris 01:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

*Japanese occupation of Burma :(thank you, I felt that absence too) Chris 04:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

done, but it's a rough chop from History of Myanmar, with the new template in, please help clean it up. Chris 06:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Deputy Senior-General Maung Aye - Vice-Chairman of the State Peace and Development Council
    • created stub article. -Hintha 06:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Languages of Myanmar - history, influence, and descriptions of official/minority languages in Myanmar (tie to Demographics of Myanmar)
    • Created stub for now, will expand later

* Police in Myanmar, to include George Orwell's history

Created article stub. -Hintha 08:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Created article. Dividing the contents by what is censored (e.g. magazines, television, film, press, etc), may be better though, rather than the chronological format I've done.--Hintha 02:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Created article stub. -Hintha 08:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Completed Burmese language requests

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Military of Myanmar

Can we stop adding politically motivated informations into purely military article? It is so hard to find any real information about Myanmar military without having to trawl through a whole load of political facts. While I whole heartedly understand that military and poltics in Myanmar are intertwined, but there should be a place for simple information purely to serve as a platform for research purposes.Okkar 23:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I oppose, obviously. Stating facts as they stand are not POV, and the facts are that the Tatmadaw holds more sway in Burma than does the French military in France or the Australian military in Australia, and for that reason it stands out; also oppose on general principle, as has been gone into in great length today. Chris 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Those facts have nothing to do whatsoever with the Military Article. I have written the article as per scope of WikiProjects Military History and no where in the scope that said we must include the generals business dealings and personal wealth. Military of Myanmar < > Generals of Myanmar. If you want to add your yellow press style gossips, I suggest you start a new article under category befitting to such contents. Do we see such facts in British Armed Forces, Indian Armed Forces, Royal Thai Army pages? no, we dont, because it is not related to the article's principle, so why should we accept such blatent vandalisim in the disguise of facts? is that because we are burmese and we arent allow to have a decent article about our country's military? Your should not think wikipedia is your own personal political playground. Also the article is part of WikiProjects Military History, there is no such thing in the scope to include some villia of a general, please do you home work before you vandalise the articles. You are doing all this out of your political motivation, again please read WP:NPOV!Okkar 02:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Chris 11:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no personal attack here. comment on content, and content should be facts and within the scope of article, again neutrality is important here. we must not forget what wikipedia stands for. Thank you. Okkar 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we split up Army, Navy and Airforce to their own seperate pages out of Military of Myanmar? just as other countries have done? Okkar 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't have to argue too many things , Burma/Myanmar, don't need to use Burma anymore . I'm living in Myanmar so we can name it our country what ever we like in officially. Topic was wrong, discussion about Myanmar, not about military so think twice before you post it. Myanmar don't have any war in the world. So if you want to post like military, go to War topic. Sayar203.81.64.34 04:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We should rename/move this article to "Myanmar Armed Forces" to be consistent with other countries. Please make your points here if you have any objection to this. Okkar 11:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy Compliant Check

As you can see from the Project Name debate, it becomes apperent that political neutrality of this project has become questionable. In order to ensure that the project meets the founding principle of Wikipedia's political neutrality and unbiasness, as a member of this project, I have requested noncompliant and NPOV checks for this project. Okkar 03:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In defense of this Project, while your tags are possibly well-meaning, you have not looked at enough of the articles we cover, else you would see, Myanmar is used in all geography articles, we have no problem using the name. Once and for all, the reason both names are used for the Project is that there is not concensus as to what the name should be. We chose to use both to reflect that there are opposing viewpoints, and neither name is favored. You have a viewpoint, I have a viewpoint, each of the contributors (there's a thankless job, so thank you, folks) have a viewpoint. NPOV does not mean none should be represented, NPOV means all should be represented.
That was not what you said above. You said along the lines of the name being not recognised by the "two largest english speaking country", please do not change your tune now. I standby what i said, our country name has changed, no other countries in WikiCountryProject have two names apart from this project. It stands out to say something entirely contradictory to Wikipedia policy. Also, the scope of this project, which you have written, also betrays the title of the Project. In the scope you stated this project was for articles relating to the nation of "Myanmar", and yet on the project title you chose to include both name. If it was your intention to reflect the opposing view, why did you not included the the second name in project scope? Again, your actions are contradictory to your words and reflect the impartiality of this project. As such I have requested the compliant and NPOV checks. If you have acted in good faith and have been neutral throughout there is no need for you to be alarmed about the outcome of this check. Okkar 15:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
To quote User:Andrew Dalby at Talk:Naypyidaw, "If there is controversy, neutrality means that we report the controversy from all sides, without bias." Nobody ever once stated that this is the "Burma Project", nobody is insulting anyone, both names were chosen so to welcome all participants-that includes you. Chris 14:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
How come there isnt any articles of controversy relating to opposition groups? If you had done the home as you said you did, you would realised that theres always two sides of the story. If you covered one on the ground that "we report controversy without bias", how come there is no article incriminating any opposition groups? Okkar 15:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not alarmed about anything. That you bring up my earlier mention of the UK and US naming conventions illustrates my points beautifully, thank you. I had said those things, in my own words, to show that the names are not agreed upon, just as I have just said. Good faith will bear me out, I've not shown any bias as you contend. And everyone writes articles on what they are interested in-I don't write articles on basketball or lobsters, for instance. So you would be most welcome to write such an article, and I encourage you to do so. Chris 15:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are not alarmed about anything then theres no need for you get all worked up about being checked against complaints and NPOV. As for writing basketball or lobsters, I would leave that to you as I am not a fun of neither. Okkar 15:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I never said I was worked up about the compliance check, I invite scrutiny into these conversations. I was encouraging you to write your article on opposition groups, sorry, I can see how you misread the two sentences into each other. I'll be interested to see your article about opposition. You have a great day. Chris 15:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The first thing this project should be doing as postioning itself as politically impartial and unbias project according to Wikipedia's policy. Project Members should stop paddling their political agendas and hiding particular articles from public view simply because it might end up offending NCGUB or other opposition groups they are affliated with. An example of this can be seen on the history of Military of Myanmar article, where Hintha removed the article from Myanmar category. This form of arrogant abuse should be stopped, otherwise, this project cannot represent our country as a whole. It is pointless to setup assessment, long term aims 'etc. when the project itself is becoming a unoffical mouth piece of NCGUB and opposition groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) Okkar
You shouldn't aggressively accuse others of being biased without prior knowledge. If you actually took a look at Category:Myanmar, you would find that there are very few articles that exist in that category, because more specific categories have been created, which in the case of "Military of Myanmar" is the category of that same name. For this same reason, articles like "Economy of Myanmar", "Culture of Myanmar", "History of Myanmar", "Politics of Myanmar", "Communication in Myanmar", "Education in Myanmar", just to name a few, appear only in those specific categories and not the general "Myanmar" category, which is mainly for uncategorised articles and the "Myanmar" article. Next time, before you accuse me of trying to "paddle articles that [have been] sanctioned and blessed by NCGUB", you should see how Wikipedia categories work and check out other country cats (e.g. Category:Singapore, Category:Australia) just to name a few). And don't warn me for vandalism without providing a more reasonable explanation. --Hintha 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

proposal to remove tags

Okkar has not been around for a couple of weeks, and as he was the only antagonist insisting we were out of NPOV with no support from other angles, I propose we give it a little while longer, not having heard from any of the Wiki hierarchy, and then remove the POV tags. Your thoughts?

Sounds like a plan.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)