Jump to content

Talk:Burma/Myanmar/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Rangoon

If this city name has been changed on wikipedia from Rangoon to Yangon, even though the BBC and the rest of the English speaking world still refer to this as Rangoon. Even though i think this page should remain as Burma, how can there be double standards here?--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar is a political debate (who has the rights to change a country's name), whereas this is linguistic/cultural issue. Danes don't call their capital Copenhagen, yet I see no petition for renaming said page into København.Geira (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of English language sources refer to it as Yangon, same as Myanmar Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the point though is that the Rangoon/Yangon naming issue is largely the same as the Burma/Myanmar one. We should either have Burma and Rangoon, or Myanmar and Yangon. Having Burma and Yangon is inconsistent. Cynical (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason Yangon was not changed was because there was no overwhelming vote drawn there after the monks were in the news. The swarm of people came to the Myanmar article and, though there was no consensus, their sheer number of votes allowed it to change. Yangon had neither consensus nor a voter swarm. To make the articles consistent, we'd need either consensus or an overwhelming vote to change either article. It's not likely. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more on this one. We should use/combine either Myanmar/Yangon or Burma/Rangoon. To be more precise this "dispute" always turns around Arakanese (Rakhinese) vs. Burmese.Sovann Maccha (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why the everyday person isn't reliable on this

I've seen lots of arguments for naming the article "Burma" because everyone in the everyday world (e.g. friends and family) know it as Burma and most people have never heard of Myanmar. So what if they've never heard of it? Most people have never heard of a Riemannian manifold yet that exists. Most would be confused that triangles don't have to have 180 degrees. Besides the consensus of the layman is irrelevant when it comes to encyclopaedic topics on politics. Here, what the experts say is what matters. If you still think what "Bob"down the street matters on this issue, then clearly you've never heard of say snopes. As an idea of how wrong Bob can be, look at this example. Most people I've ever known (including myself) have believed that urban myth, but it's not true.

Besides, our job on Wikipedia is not to tell people that an undemocratic system is wrong: if we're good enough, they should be able to work that out themselves by reading a balanced article giving the fors and againsts for the Myanmar regime. We don't go "the regime is wrong," we go "here are the arguments for this regime by some people, and here are the criticisms of this regime by other people." Then it's left up to the reader to decide is opinion on the regime. Simple as.

Simple as in dumb. Arguments like "democratic" and "wrong" are derailing the debate. The only valid point is if the current regime is the nation's accepted government, de facto or otherwise. If they are not, they have no legislative powers to change the name of the nation, and accepting the change is legitimizing their rule (which is why most alienated Burmese refuse to accept the name change). Geira (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We should make it clear that the countries name is Myanmar, but also show in the article that the name change was controversial. Deamon138 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Just like to point out that the article China is about the People's Republic of China. Just because PRC is the official name doesn't mean the article should use it. The article should use the most widely-accepted name. There are many precedents for this: spelling in the English language is based on how wide acceptance is. Same with scientific facts on Wikipedia (albeit the acceptance in that case is based on people that are scientifically trained). --24.3.21.56 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
People's Republic of China IS the most widely accepted name as is Myanmar n00b. "Just because PRC is the official name doesn't mean the article should use it" Err no that's exactly why it SHOULD use it. Also, China has an authoritarian oft-criticized government yet the UN recognizes it as PR of C, yet it doesn't recognize Taiwan because China doesn't recognize it. That is how Wikipedia should present the facts: that Taiwan is an unrecognized country and Burma is now Myanmar. Criticisms of this belong in the criticism section of each article. I come to Wikipedia and the general internet for information about politics when I want a balanced viewpoint. We get the Daily Mail (right biased newspaper) and my family and some of my friends tend to have opposite political positions to me so this is where I come to see both sides of an argument. Don't ruin Wikipedia!
United Nations member states#Seat of China: "With the understanding of the Governor and the Chairman, I will briefly mention that membership into the UN ultimately needs to be decided by the Member States of the United Nations. Membership is given to a sovereign country. The position of the United Nations is that the People's Republic of China is representing the whole of China as the sole and legitimate representative Government of China. The decision until now about the wish of the people in Taiwan to join the United Nations has been decided on that basis. The resolution (General Assembly Resolution 2758) that you just mentioned is clearly mentioning that the Government of China is the sole and legitimate Government and the position of the United Nations is that Taiwan is part of China." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamon138 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Riemannian manifold thing, most people don't refer to it as that because they don't refer to it at all. However, lots of people do refer to Burma/Myanmar, and if the majority refer to it as Burma (which, incidentally, it seems they don't), then that defines what the English word for it is: we, as with dictionaries, are just here to record what people call it, not to decide. --87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Peeps in Thailand be referring to the place as Burma. I was all up in that place in 03'. They be like "don't call it Myanmar or you be recognizing the military junta". They like all serious and stuff when they spittin out they thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.51.120 (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Word. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason for the renaming?

Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but when scanning the article and this discussion I didn't find an answer:

Why did the junta decide to change the name from Burma to Myanmar? Is there a particular rationale behind this?

From what I gather there is precious little difference in ethnological or ideological meaning behind it, so... what gives? --Syzygy (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question! Possibly an attempt to distance themselves from Colonial times? --87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The name change is briefly mentioned in the Etmology and origins section, and then discussed further in Names of Burma. To put it shortly, both Burma and Myanmar have the same origin, but through the different tones of the word, a practice common in East Asian languages, the words have become distinct. The name change happened because the government wanted to abandon the colonial spelling of the country and adopt a more Burmese spelling of the country, similar to what India has done with its cities (Calcutta/Kolkata, Bombay/Mumbai, etc.) Kaiser matias (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone summarize the sides in the naming dispute?

I was surprised to find that the article title was Burma and not Myanmar. I thought the nation had officially changed its name, but what do I know. There's a lot of discussion on this page. Can someone summarize the reasons for/against renaming the article to Myanmar? Morecromulent (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it'l be Myanmar again as soon as the radical minority thinks the public exposure opportunity has passed. It's happened twice already that I know of at Wikipedia. It'll keep happening until that activist they have under house arrest dies of old age, I think. Robbiemuffin (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, it'll be Burma again as soon as the right-wing majority find out they're backing the wrong horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geira (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't oversimplify the issue. I'm here because I was telling people what a great-sounding word Myanmar is (yes I'm a giant geek) and none of them knew what it meant. Not just a PR stunt, a genuine linguistic issue resulting from the wonderful diversity of the English language. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For Burma

  • More westerner recognize the name Burma than Myanmar. (there is more asian who recognise Myanmar)
  • Burma is the country's historical name.
  • The country's government that changed the name was not elected and is not legitimate.
  • Major English-speaking governments, including the United States and United Kingdom, officially recognize Burma over Myanmar. (but US State Dept used the term Myanmar as much as Burma.)
  • Historical books and scholarly articles use Burma overwhelmingly.
  • Many Western English-language media sources use Burma.
  • Both the people of Burma and their language are known as Burmese, despite any name change.
  • Most international aid and Human Rights organizations use Burma [1] [2] [3] [4]
  • The article was previously called Myanmar but was changed after "a significant majority of editors" favored Burma (by more than 2:1). See more arguments on previous discussion here. —Preceding comment by 76.236.65.49 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For Myanmar

  • Just as many people recognize Myanmar as Burma.
  • Myanmar is the country's current name.
  • Myanmar is the name used by the United Nations.
  • English-speaking nations that choose to not use Myanmar do so for political reasons, not for reasons of identification.
  • Online encyclopedias and other resources use Myanmar overwhelmingly.
  • A large majority of English media sources use Myanmar.
  • There are other examples in which the name of a people is different than the name of their country (e.g. Dutch, British, in some cases Persian).
  • The article was previously called Myanmar but was changed without consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BaronGrackle (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 May, 2008 (UTC)
Some people are opposed because most English-speaking governments (US, UK, Canada, Australia) don't recognized the name change as it was done by what they consider an illegal revolution. They officialy know the country as Burma, and therefore so should Wikipedia. Others feel that since the official name of the country is indeed Myanmar, which is recognized by other nations and organizations (Russia, China, UN), and Wikipedia has no place to decide if ruling governments are legal or not and have the ability to change the name of the country. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

- Both "More" and "Just as many" can't be true in the description of how many recognize each name. YAC (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct; the answer lies in disagreement. I would say that just as many recognize Myanmar; but, I wanted to be fair to the Burma position. This is one of the primary disagreements in the article naming discussion. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the majority of media organisations use Myanmar, I've not seen any news outlet use Myanmar. BBC, ITN (Channel 4 and C5), Sky News (and checking on the internet) RTE, Deutche Welle, France 24, Voice Of America and Radio Australia use Burma. The only one I can find that uses Myanmar is NHK. Duke toaster (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was basing it on the Media sources listed above and the Google News hits. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Removed the parenthesized counter-arguments from the Burma section because there were none given on the Myanmar section.
The reason for the 'more' and 'just as many' thing is actually that more Western people use Burma but roughly the same number of English-speaking people from all places use it. Personally I don't see how where you are geographically gives you more of a right to define how language is used, so I think only the 'just as many people say one as the other' is relevant. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold off, then rename

So, according to the official naming conventions above, the lack of consensus here means we should simply use Myanmar. If you have a disagreement with that we would need to take this debate one level up, to the policy itself. Unfortunately changing the name right now would probably cause an edit war in the cyclone article, as it did last fall. The constitutional referendum is also this Saturday. How about we hold off until next week and then change the name across all Burma-related articles? Shii (tock) 22:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Suddenly changing the name of all "Burma" articles would certainly get you a warning and possibly get you banned. :-) Despite my whining, those of us pro-Myanmar folk failed to act appropriately when the article was changed without consensus (I personally thought it was meant to be an actual majority-rule vote; I learned differently later), so now the weight is on pro-Myanmar to gain consensus before the name is changed. If a constitutional referendum is coming up this Saturday, though, then perhaps the country will be in the media even more... showing off how frequently it is called Myanmar. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Baron Grackle. You decribe yourself as being "pro-Myanmar." In God's name, why? It's like saying "I'm pro-torture, rape and oppression." In all honesty, I'd like to know why you are so keen to use the name imposed by the Military Junta??Angstriddenyouth (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yikes! Good thing I was rereading most of these comments; I missed this one in the deluge! I am Anti-Myanmar's government. I am Pro-Using-The-Correct-Name. I'm so "keen" on using this name not because it was imposed by the military junta, but because it is the name of that country. It's used in English media and resources. Did the Soviet Union or the Third Reich crumble because civilized nations of the world pretended they didn't exist? -BaronGrackle (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol -- yeah good point. If you're against the government, be against the government. If you just want to free the lady over there, that's a nice, noble thing to believe in too. I think the correct vs right argument above adresses that fairly eloquently, though. With wikipedia, I want neutral material: or at least material that is as neutral as neutral can be. So: I'm pro torture, rape and oppression. At least in that, I'd rather they weren't called almost-killing, sexual conquest and tredding. Robbiemuffin (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

US State Dept just issue a statement addressing Myanmar, so if seem that Bush is only useing Burma because of his lack in vocab. :P 60.54.105.186 (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've read this whole thing and this "hold off and rename" idea makes the most sense to me. Both sides make good points. This is still a new issue. --Npnunda (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be voted on. I also don't think your (our) interpretation of the official naming conventions is necessarily correct; perhaps they need to be clarified. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Voted on? Is this a referendum?

OK, then, consider this is a hand raised for using our own naming conventions. If we don't hold ourselves to our own rules, then what becomes Wikipedia? Time and time again we as editors with great intentions have scrabbled over these points, and what we usually remember, in the end, is that it is our neutrality that must prevail - no matter how impassioned, how strongly we may feel.

Myanmar (Burma) - Politically, I hate it. But we call it "Wikipedia" not "Elizabeth's Encyclopedia of Opinionated Opinions."

Just saying. --Elizabeth aka EBY3221 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Style

The article states that it was formerly known as Burma, but is now known as Myanmar. That says that Burma was the historical name, and Myanmar is the current name. It may be unknown to the masses, but that is not the point. The article says that Myanmar is the "proper" name of the country, and only political reasons prevent use of Myanmar. So, either the article should be titled Myanmar, or the introduction (in particular) should come up with a better justification for going against the official name. Since the "Union of Myanmar" is given for the title the country would like to be known as, Myanmar ought to be the title of the page, with a redirect from Burma, and from Union of Myanmar (if one does not already exist). Alex Holowczak (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree this should be done. Surely we've reached a consensus on this by now people? Deamon138 (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a vote, if you like, to get a general idea. But see my suggestion above. The Jade Knight (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken the article does not say "Myanmar is the proper name of the country and only political reasons prevent its use". And if it does, then all you are pointing out is that there is a contradiction in the article: the article says Myanmar is the proper name, but it's called Burma. There are two ways to resolve this, change the name of the article, or change where is says Myanmar is the proper name. Regarding countries having official 'given' titles, I have already pointed out that language is not dictated by a minority. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Burma-Shave v. Myanmar-Shave. Sorry, I couldn't help it ;-) --hydnjo talk 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy

And this quote comes directly from Larry Sanger:

Wikipedia does not officially take a stand on what the country should be called. (diff)

-76.236.65.49 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That was six and a half years ago and, more importantly, Larry Sanger is no more an authority here than anyone else. Yes he played an important role in Wikipedia's founding, but he's just another editor, just like all of us (well, maybe not Jimbo :P). Don't know if anyone else has seen it, but Slate just ran an article about this very topic. Cheers, faithless (speak) 08:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


As one who believes in Democracy as the most natural political system in use today, I believe the people who comprise a nation's populace control the name of their state and not necessarily the government. It has been reported that the people of Burma still refer to their country using the historical reference and not Myanmar. For this reason, and until the People of Burma decide to change the name, Burma should remain Burma. Tmurt (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

How the hell do you know what the people of Myanmar do? Most of them are too busy being beaten up by the government (who don't let them speak their minds so no one knows what they want) and don't speak English so I suspect your claims are complete nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well said Nil. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Zaire

There are valid arguments on both sides of the naming. But I think some people are missing the point altogether. This isn't an issue of common usage, or Deutschland vs Germany. The "fact" of the matter is that there no longer exists a country called Burma. The best analogy I can think of is to Zaire. To the extent that English speakers know anything about the country, it's Zaire, not the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But that doesn't change the fact that Zaire no longer exists. Now, if you want to contest the SPDC's legitimacy in changing the name, that's valid, and an appropriate discussion. But the name of the country, now, is The Democratic Republic of the Congo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.140.240 (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I always hear "DR Congo" in the media an elsewhere now, and assume most people know Zaïre changed its name. OTOH Burma is still the widely-accepted English name, at least in the UK media, and the opposition groups oppose the name change. So retaining "Burma" seems best. --79.75.109.181 (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't even know what Zaïre referred to until someone told me the other day. I always call it DR Congo. Also, see the Britain articles above: different articles for different entities. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Add "Myanmar" in Parantheses

The simplest solution is to title the article "Burma (Myanmar)". It's an accurate title. TobyzMama (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)TobyzMama

-No, because people will want "Myanmar (Burma)" instead... :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.94.62 (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Google maps uses Myanmar (Burma) 87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why not call it "Bmyuanrmamar"... o.o 84.202.236.123 (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

English

English is not just what the U.S or British government says English is.

So the point that the U.S or U.K government calls it Burma is moot. The U.S and U.K government can call shoes "XXXs" but if no one uses the phrase, it doesn't matter. Governments don't hold a monopoly on language, especially not one as widespread as English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.225.211 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

However, the majority of people who read this encyclopedia are from the United States or Britain, along with many from Australia and New Zealand who also use Burma. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
And an equal amount of people also use Myanmar in those countries. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I reason, the United Nations call it Myanmar, so Wikipedia should call it Myanmar. Who cares what the English-speaking governments think? Wikipedia doesn't represent them. The UN, however, represents the world. --78.149.134.38 (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

When did that happen? 72.134.41.242 (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol the United Nations doesn't represent the world where the hell did that 'fact' come from?? --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The UN, by the way, represents member governments. Or rather, member governments represent themselves at the UN. I reckon that most people do not feel properly represented by the UN anyway. Trom120 (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks precedent

Looking at similar issues in wikipedia, is there a neutral name that could be used for the country which can be the basis of a reasonable consensus?

Just as a point of view, "Union of Myanmar" is probably a more appropriate name than "Myanmar" if we wanted to go with "what the government wants us to call the country," but I largely WP:DGAF.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The government calls the country Myanmar for short, or Union of Myanmar in full. They don't call the country Burma Nil Einne (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Use Parnentheses

No matter what, you are going to offend, but would the party who doesn't get the title they want really be MORE offended to see their preferred name in parenthesees? Unfortunately, a NO CONSENSUS doesn't get you too far since you HAVE to title the article something. But the parenthesees idea, whether Burma (Myanmar) or Myanmar (Burma) seems to be an incremental improvement. Balonkey (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


There is no argument whatsoever for calling this article 'Burma'

(Obviously there is. See above. Let's do without the Grand, sweeping, "I am right and you are wrong" statements please.)Angstriddenyouth (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Imagine my shock upon finding this article's name, that there isn't an article for Siam, Rhodesia, or Formosa!

I'm sorry folks, I hate the Burmese government, I really do, this week more than ever, but this is an online encyclopedia. And, like it or not, this country's name is MYANMAR. I realize the political history behind it, yada yada yada, but letting something as silly as politics get in the way of information on an INFORMATIONAL encyclopedia is petty and illogical. I would certainly however, be willing to have the name be Myanmar (Burma), but that's it. The name of that country east of Bangladesh and west of Thailand is Myanmar, and it has been for twenty years. Sure, the country's had a lot of history under the name of Burma, but names change. There is no article named Abyssinia. There is no article named Ceylon. There is no article named Persia. And where are people getting that 'Burma' is an English term for Myanmar??? 'Cause it's not. The official name is Pyidaung-su Myanma Naing-Ngan. I see something translate-able into 'Myanmar' but I see nothing resembling Burma. As for usage, it's interchangeable, and when it's interchangeable, you go with the official term.

The country is Myanmar, the article is Myanmar. End of.TheLemonOfIchabod (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved comment from main talk page to this dedicated page since this is where it belongs.Somedumbyankee (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The CIA World Factbook calls it Burma. And they even provide their reasoning:
note: 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, and the US Government did not adopt the name, which is a derivative of the Burmese short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw
In other words, the name "Myanmar" is a name that is only approved by their military authorities, and this is not even approved by the people through their representatives, the legislature. It is not as recognized as much as Burma, and thus many people still call it Burma.
Besides, this is the English Wikipedia, which is meant to be used by American, British, and other Western democracies. And as stated in the article, most of them still use the term 'Burma' to refer to the country, and the people as 'Burmese'. --124.107.144.45 (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What? Only Western democracies are allowed to use wikipedia? I guess we should tell all the poor Indians et al who work so hard on FAs to bugger off then Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree with 123.107.144.45. As discussed above, the CIA World Factbook reflects U.S. policy, which recognizes the country as "Burma". However, since the country's government changed the official English name of the country from Burma to Myanmar, it would make sense for Wikipedia to do so, as that would reflect the intentions of the state that is being named, and whether or not that state was democratically elected (Wikipedia should not be making political judgments), the state is what controls the region. There are several countries that don't have democratic regimes for which Wikipedia uses the regime's chosen name. --Alethiareg (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, isn't the English title "Burma"? And since this is the English Wikipedia, the title would then be correct. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The English title is Burma or Myanmar, depending on which source you look at (see discussion above; most English media sources and virtually all encyclopedias/atlases use Myanmar). The Burmese title (Burmese the language; like Persian the language) is Myanma. Since Myanmar is commonly used AND official in English, Wikipedia conventions prefer its use. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar? No!

You will see that the article Burma is called Burma, not Myanmar. Beyond all else Wikipedia should use one name as a constant, not Both. To summarise this issue, Burma was always called Burma until the Military Junta renamed it, what power does the Junta have to rename the country in English? If Germany demanded that all english speaking countries referred to it as Deutschland, well we'd laugh at the suggestion. The BBC and CBC refer to Burma as Burma, and nearly all english speakers know the country as Burma, so based on the argument below for keeping the name 'Bangkok' Burma should be used in all places on Wikipedia.

Bangkok Article:

Surely the capital is not Bangkok? It's every pedant's pet "fact" that the capital is Krung Thep (well, at least the short name is). We're talking about the same city here, but it hasn't been called Bangkok by the Thais for over 200 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.9.80.254 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, it is called Krung Thep in Thailand. But this is the English language wikipedia, and almost everyone who speaks English will know the city by the name Bangkok, and not Krung Thep. Why else is the BMA uses that acronym and not KMA? The information that in Thailand it known by a different name is placed as a footnote directly after the name, that should be enough for the pedants. andy (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comes up again and again. If the vast majority of media news sources, atlases, encyclopedias, and textbooks referred to the country as Deutschland... or if the U.N. recognized its English name as Deutschland, while the U.S. and U.K. released very specific instructions over why they do NOT call the country Deutschland... if the BBC published a news article called "Germany or Deutschland?"... if Wikipedia's article on "Deutschland" had been moved to "Germany" without consensus... then yes, we'd probably be having this argument there. Cross-apply to Bangkok, or any other country/city you want. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have never, EVER, heard of Bangkok referred to as Krung Thep or Germany as Deutschland in English either by Thais, Germans, at the UN, or anywhere else. On the other hand, I very often hear Burma referred to as Myanmar in ENGLISH. Clearly your argument is nonsense and Baron's explaination may help you understand why. Perhaps it helps when you consider there is a difference between an ENGLISH NAME and an English transliteration of a foreign name. The former may be the latter, but the latter is often not the former Nil Einne (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Check this out:

Check out Talk:Kiev/naming. Going by the consensus and resulting precedent set there, this article should surely remain as Burma. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Not much precedent. Compare the number of Google News hits of Kyiv to Kiev, and see which name takes the lead in Encyclopedia Britannica. Then, after studying Kiev's predominance, explain how Myanmar creams Burma in those very same sources. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia

The French Wikipedia call it neither Burma nor Mynamar, they call it Birmanie [5]. So surely if the French use their French name for it, surely on the English wiki we should use our English name? --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You would be correct if it weren't for the fact you're wrong. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
And you would be taken seriously if it werent for the fact that you were filibustering. Sarvagnya 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Standards

The criteria for NPOV demands that the decision for what to call a country does not depend on majority opinion or even what a particular government prefers. The government of...well, the country we're talking about here...is not qualified to determine what Wikipedia will call it, nor is the government of the United States, China, Mozambique, or Lichtenstein.

Nor is any person on this site. Wikipedia contributors are individuals, each with an opinion, and I'm sorry to say that when it comes to cold, hard facts, nobody's opinion matters at all. It matters not if ten thousand contributors insist that 2+2=5, it still ain't so. In fact, it matters not if they say 2+2=4; it is not a legitimate fact until it is properly sourced. When The Journal of the American Arithmetical Society says that 2+2=4, it's a fact worthy of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia standards require that only independently verifiable facts may be included in articles. Since the "correct" name of this country is a matter of opinion, like many other countries, I suggest that Wikipedia recognize an international governing body as being an authoritative source for this sort of data. Furthermore, I suggest that Wikipedians arbitrarily accept the judgement of the United Nations as a relatively neutral international governing body in matters of the proper names of sovereign nations.

If the United Nations refers to the country as Myanmar, then Wikipedia can title the related article Myanmar using the United Nations as the authoritative source. Likewise, any other name change endorsed by the UN ought to be reflected on Wikipedia without dispute.

71.110.219.107 (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually while I support the usage of Myanmar, basically the UN just uses whatever the government uses, so basically by arguing to use the UN's name, you are arguing to use what the government prefers. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, I support it, but it's important consideration for the discussion Nil Einne (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Use UN own convention in English

Many recent changes are adopted by all when cities or country change names. Pekin = Beijing, Bombay = Mumbay, etc.

Anyway, an easy solution for this controversy is to use the list of countries as per the United Nation´s own English language page listing its members: http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml

It would also match our own "featured" list article: United Nations member states. It would be somehow ironic that our own article is "featured" and says things that we consider wrong. The lists (as well as the UN´s list of members) says Myanmar. Anagnorisis 01:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved comment to appropriate page.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The UN is obligated to call a country whatever that country's leaders tell the UN to call it. If someone took over France tomorrow and renamed it: "UNcowards", then the UN would be obligated to call it that. Of course the rest of us would still continue to call it France. The article does a good job of explaining the differences in names. Also, we still call East Timor, East Timor and not Timor-Leste Roxi2 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The UN does not have to refer to a country by what that countries government says. Example would be Macedonia. The Macedonian government refers to themselves as Macedonia, and some other governments do as well. But Greece is opposed to this, as they have a region called Macedonia. So in all international bodies (the UN, the IOC, etc), Macedonia is referred to as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." The UN does follow what local governments want; it follows what the Security Council, and to a lesser extent, the General Assembly, want. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The UN only refers to a country in the manner that the UN-recognized government prefers. I couldn't go to the UN and demand that the United States be called "Doodooland" because the UN does not officially recognize my legitimacy. Once the recognized government settles on a name, the UN will adopt that nomenclature. I suggest Wikipedia adopt the UN as a recognized authority on national identity in the same way that the American Cancer Society is an authority on cancer, NASA is an authority on space travel, and the New York Times is an authority on current events. Not every Wikipedian will agree with the UN's judgement, but it at least establishes a somewhat neutral, external source for resolving these sorts of questions. 71.110.219.107 (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm from Singapore, one of the countries in South-East Asia where Myanmar is located. In Asia, and in ASEAN, the country is officially called "Myanmar" (by the various officials in SEA countries, by Asian media, etc.). Pure and Simple. I don't understand what is there to argue about. The Western media (that's you, BBC and US media) would like to call the country Burma because they dislike the Myanmar junta-rule, just as they are pretty much non-neutral over the Tibet situation in China. I hated the current military rule in Myanmar as well, but until the regime is changed, the official name IS "Myanmar". Atticuslai (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ISO 3166 International Standard

The International Standard on country names calls it Myanmar - they've got some fairly smart people to think about these things, so maybe we could follow their lead Tom.kirk (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ISO also only recognizes BC/AD dating, however on wikipedia we also encounter the ridiculous BCE/CE dating. So the ISO is hardly a widely accepted source on Wikipedia --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the ISO clause or number for the BC/AD? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to streamline out some of the chaff...

This is a big discussion with lots of strong opinions; it's unlikely it'll be resolved soon. But we can probably make a lot more progress if we strive to avoid a few arguments that're important, but not entirely germane to this precise issue (I'd also recommend avoiding the constant "well the name _is_ X" statements, which add exactly nothing to the discussion--it should be clear at this point that your opponents don't accept your authority on the matter ;) ).

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names):

Our naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. By following English usage, we also avoid arguments about what a place _ought_ to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it _is_ called. If English usually calls a place by a given name, use it... This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers. English does not have an Academy; English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government.

I hate the military junta too, but concerns over whether "Myanmar" endorses that government are entirely misplaced here.

I hate the lingering effects of Western imperialism too, but concerns over whether "Burma" endorses that imperialism are entirely misplaced here.

Before you respond further to this discussion, please examine your motives to see how much your personal "ought" is playing into your position. I know we're all passionate about this issue (and we should be--either way, it's about people who've been oppressed!), but we need to compartmentalize our decision making, find the "most widely accepted English name in a modern context", and use that English name despite our other feelings on the matter. I personally despise "Myanmar" for political, linguistic, and sociological reasons and think that English speakers shouldn't adopt it; but if it can be demonstrated that it has been adopted by the majority of native English speakers (and the Google results make me fear that it may have), then the name change will be appropriate for Wikipedia. The conversation here should stick to the relevant issue--determining native English usage--and not detour into politics, "respect", condemnation of dictators, or which governments and organzations prefer which names. Elmo iscariot (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I had a rather good solution to the issue (up at civilization vs. regime), but it seems to have been rather ignored so that people could continue to bicker over the name? The Jade Knight (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


I think we should identify what the minor sub-issues are and prune them off by trying to reach a consensus on them.87.194.217.99 (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

De Jure Versus De Facto

To judge this, we must decide if Wikipedia is going to go by technical terms or commonly accepted ones. (de jure vs de facto) Wikipedia and wikipedians need to be consistent here, because if you look up China, you will not get the country. You have to look up People's Republic of China.

China = Commonly Accepted Name

PRC = Wikipedia Article Referring to China

America = Commonly Accepted Name

United States = Wikipedia Artical Referring to America

Russia = Commonly Accepted Name

Soviet Union = Wikipedia Article Referring to Communist Russia. (which has collapsed)

Wikipedia obviously tends to lean towards the de jure side, taking the side of what the Government calls a country. Be consistent. OtherAJ (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither "America" nor "Russia" is accurate for those entities. Wikipedia does not repeat common inaccuracies - similarly my country is at United Kingdom not "England". Both "United States" and "Soviet Union" (neither of which is/was the English language long form) are the most common accurate names for those countries.
As pointed out above, the problem with China is that there are two entities claiming to be China hence the need to differentiate. It's misleading to pretend that Myanmar/Burma is in the same category. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
So then how is "Myanmar" less accurate than "Burma", anyway? mike4ty4 (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am agnostic on the situation. I have no opinion, I was just posting so that we may get to a conclusion more quickly. --OtherAJ (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


China and Russia are hardly models for what to name countries. PRC is the "Official name" of China, we just call it China as it's shorter. Same with Russia, the official name is the Russian Federation. Likewise with Australia, the official name of Australia is the Commonwealth of Australia. But who calls it that except in formal occassions? If we go by this convention, we have Burma as Myanmar.
Remember, a nation is little more than an idea and the people (whether a lot or a self-appointed few) call it that because they wish to have some form of identifyer against other countries and/or past events. A good example of this is the US, who went to extraordinary lengths to differntiate themselves from Britain in the 1790's. There are no lines on the world.Katana Geldar 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

There seems to be a greater number of comments on this page by wikipedians favouring Myanmar to Burma. I want to conduct a straw poll to check who are in favour of the respective names. Please state the reason alongside your !vote. Keep it brief to a single line. This does not imply that a renaming might be carried out or not. Its just to track who is in favour of what and the reasoning behind it. We can use the other sections for debate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You will always get more comment against the status quo than supporting it. István (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Burma option

  1. Burma. It is still the name used by Burmese people, and the unelected Military leadership had no authority to change it.Angstriddenyouth (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Burma, for all the reason I have previously stated. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Could you please briefly summarise your reason for the change? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Burma is the name i know and the name everyone i know knows. When i saw "myanmar" in the news, i thought, "where is that?". after looking it up, i realised it was Burma. Ahh i says. Anyways, the country is Burma and the people are Burmese. Masterhatch (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. For what it's worth, most people I know have never heard of the word 'Myanmar' (mostly people from the UK, though my girlfriend went to a school with people from all over Europe and she has never heard of Myanmar either (compelling evidence, eh?!)). 87.194.217.99 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Burma is the commonly used and English name of the country. Most Burmese I know (excepting a few from other ethnic groups who call it Burma in any language) refer to their country as Burma in English and Myanma in, um, Myanma. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Burma. Until it's specifically demonstrated that "Myanmar" is "the most common English name" among native English speakers, there's no WP-relevant justification for changing it.Elmo iscariot (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia's naming policy is based on common usage, not common usage specifically among native English speakers.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think that it has been demonstrated anywhere that Myanmar is the common usage amongst non-native English speakers either. Official does not make it common.--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    The naming of articles on the English Wikipedia is based on common usage among English speakers - so the page for the capital of Austria is at Vienna rather than Wien, capital of Österreich. Having said that I believe that in the case of Burms / Myanmar the balance has now shifted to favour Myanmar over Burma.Filceolaire (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Let us not also forget that the page was once at Myanmar as well, so this isn't just about having enough "evidence" to change it from Burma, its what fits better. Jared (t)  17:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    And an "English speaker" refers to any English speaker, native or non-native inclusive. Well practically all "English speakers" regardless of geography or political affiliation refer to "Wien" as "Vienna" in English, they refer to "Myanmar" as Myanmar" or "Burma" in English. This is the distinct difference here.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. I think this is still the most widely used name. --Howard the Duck 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Being a dictatorship doesn't mean you can change reality if it pleases you, and wikipedia shouldn't play along. As above, there is no assertion that Myanmar is universally used by english or non-english speaking people. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. To what I said before I should add this in regard of certain doubts. Of course, we can stick to the name of Burma, we can even call the town Rangoon, following the old naming conventions. After all, who in the USA or UK - just an example - cares whether the name comes from Rakhinese (Arakanese) or Burmese. What matters is that it can be pronounced and related to certain country. In the past British have "absorbed" and transcribed many foreign languages and names, adopting and incorporating everything from Latin and Greek till nowadays Burmese and Rakhinese (Arakanese) - like a huge sponge. The name Burma is no excpetion to this rule.Sovann Maccha (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. "Burma" and "Myanmar" are still both commonly used in the English language. No need, at least not yet, to change the title of the article. Kaldari (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    I guess I just don't understand why you'd want to keep it at Burma if you believe they are "both commonly used in the English language". If you look above or below in the sections, there are links showing that Wikipedia prefers the official, self-given name if no name is proven as more common. That official name is Myanmar. -BaronGrackle (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Burma is the name of the country. Myanmar is the name forced upon Burma by a military junta. The choice is clear. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Burma. I can't speak for other English-speaking countries, but as far as the UK is concerned, the more common name is undoubtedly Burma. Andrew Yong (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. Burma; read Andrew Yong's comment. Ironholds (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Burma is clearly the name that should be used, but it's not like this poll has any meaning one way or the other. Roxi2 (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes this poll has a meaning. It summarizes the viewpoints of all. It's not an RFA where consensus has to be determined, rather understanding each sides viewpoints. Notice it's not a voting exercise, else we would be hit by ballot stuffing, and IPs would not be able to !vote. Do give an objective reasoning. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. Burma is the common name in English, so the article should stay there for that reason alone. I have never heard "Myanmar" used except in very formal contexts, or by the military government on Burma itself. Even if Myanmar is the official name, it does not seem to be used widely enough to justify moving the article. In the same way, we have Los Angeles, not El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula.
    Now, with that said, I would support an article on Myanmar or Union of Myanmar that deals purely with the governmental aspects of the current régime, with Burma being a separate article concentrating on the geography and people of the reason, similar to the article on China. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC).
    I agree, I think the best compromise we can make is to split the articles into Union of Myanmar (which will be about the current government) and Burma (which will be about the geography), as we have done with the People's Republic of China and the China article.MethMan47 (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. Burma. On en-wp we use the most commonly used name in English speaking countries. Let us not be confused by the machinations of an illegitimate government. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. Burma is most used among English-speakers around the world. This is the primary criteria set in WP:NAME. To some Well-intentioned Wikipedians, Myanmar usage may seem comparable, but there are two important considerations, i.e. factors which bias the comparison: 1. the AP has adopted Myanmar over Burma and this name is used rigidly across the North American press (whereas the UK press uses "Burma" but operates differently; it does not generate near the mass of bylines and hits); and 2. It is a (perhaps not too gutsy) assumption that the average age of Wikipedians is less than of the general English-speaking population; as "Myanmar" appeared in broad US usage only in 1989, those born later than the mid-80s would naturally give less weight to Burma than it deserved. But the Wikipedia guideline on names is very clear: it requires what is most common among the entire English-speaking population, not EnWiki users. István (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  18. It should be Burma because %99.7 of the world's population calls Burma "Burma", %0.1 doesn't even know that Burma is a country and they say "whats that?", and %0.2 of the world's population call it Myanmar. Also in the new video game, Making History - The Calm & The Storm there is a country named Burma, and I never even heard of this Myanmar shit before I read that they tried to change thier name or something like that. Also, Myanmar is the name of an illegal regime led by a fascist and so it might bring up bad memories for the families of the over 300 high school and college students that get shot each year protesting the Nazis for a democracy.--xgmx (T (UTC)
    Also, Myanmarese.....that just sounds stupid, I mean I would be insulted if someone called me that.--xgmx (T (UTC)
    The preceding comments were added by an indefinitely blocked user. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  19. Burma - per common name policy. Must we bring this up again every single month? --T-rex 01:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  20. Burma. What people call themselves and what we call them are not one and the same (or visa versa). I say Finland, they say Suomi. I say England, the French say Angleterre, the Vietnamese say Anh. If the murderers in Naypyidaw want to push for this nonsence let them, but I see no reason to aid them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  21. Burma. This is the traditional and commonplace name in the English language which is the basis of this version of the encyclopaedia. This name is better than the alternative per WP:NAME and WP:NEO. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  22. Burma. The SLORC holds no power to redefine the English language, regardless of if they are de facto rules of the country or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geira (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  23. Burma. It is the most common name used in English, it is still the name used by Burmese people, and the unelected Military leadership had no authority to change it. JohnMGarrison (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    No authority? What one art are you talking about? They have authority over the country whether you like it or not. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    I am talking about the fact that the unelected military hunta has no authority to change the name against the will of the people. Whether you like it or not the people of that country do not support that new name. JohnMGarrison (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Whether you like it or not, you can't cite a single convincing source to support your notion that "the people of that country do not support that new name".--Huaiwei (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  24. Burma. Quite obviously, both names hold significant meaning behind them. The name Burma refers to the people, history and customs held within the country, whereas the name Myanmar is the official name used globally, created by the current military force leading the country. I believe that the name Burma should be seen as the countries official name due to the links it has with the development and growth of the country, as well as the meaning it holds for the people of the country, as opposed to the military controlling the country. Magically Clever (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  25. The SLORC is a millitary regime, Wikipedia must be a beacon for freedom and democracy therefore we must not name it Myanmar but the true name of Burma. Down with tolitarian police states, democracy for ever. :)Wannabe Wiki (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, Wikipedia is not a democracy and is supposed to write from a neutral point of view and this includes political ideologies. Consider this. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  26. Burma Simply the more recognisable and used name in English, nothing to do with politics. Deworrall (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  27. Burma WP:COMMONNAME (in English) triumphs everything else. It is that simple. GizzaDiscuss © 07:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar option

  1. Myanmar is both commonly used and the official name. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Let's see if reason prevails this time round. --   Avg    19:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    Could you please list your reasoning? =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Per Wikipedia:NCON#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms. Wikipedia describes, doesn't prescribe.--   Avg    18:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Myanmar is what they call themselves, Myanmar is what UN calls it, Myanmar is what a significant (perhaps majority) part of the media calls it. On wikipedia, we report facts and dont bother about inadvertantly "legitimizing" regimes by our actions. Sarvagnya 20:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. If this article is to be neutral, it cannot have the position that unelected governments are not "legitamate" especially since every country around the world recognizes a plethora of unelected governments. Myanmar is used by the government of the country which is in turn recognized by the majority of people in the country. The government of the country has asked that people call it Myanmar for whatever reason, and today, most international institutions recognize it's English common name as Myanmar. Myanmar is used by the country's people and also by many major English news organizations. Out of the two names, Myanmar and Burma, it is the one that is the most neutral and accurate. "Burma" has never been the official name of the country in its own language. Instead, its a leftover from the colonial era that has now been rejected by a significant amount of people.JohnWycliff (talk) 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Myanmar seems more prevalent in the media internationally. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Used by several international agencies, including UN, IOC, etc. Also used, at least in official correspondence, by most governments. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. For many reasons, but for one this article was named Myanmar for the longest time until the monks incident, then without consensus it was changed to Burma. Also lately I havent heard any news source call it Burma during the cyclone incident, it was always referred to as Myanmar MethMan47 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Simply a matter of Wikipedia naming conventions: If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. In this case, that is Union of Myanmar, although I would prefer simply Myanmar for its wider usage. I would also accept Myanmar (Burma).Rundquist (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. I support Myanmar because the October 2007 RM (which happened right in the middle of the Monks' protests) is invalid because there was no consensus to move. Both Myanmar and Burma are used by English speakers in general (Myanmar seems to be dominate in the U.S. while Burma is popular in U.K.), so I think in a case that is not clear cut as to which name English speakers prefer, we should go with the official name, Myanmar, which is recognized by the U.N. and all but a handful of nations. --Tocino 05;55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. I have previously supported the article name at "Myanmar" in previous straw polls, and if anything, I believe there is more compelling evidence now (May 2008) than before. The Associaed Press, CNN, even Google are consistenly using "Myanmar" instead of "Burma" to report cyclone news, to a higher degree than I remember from the last time the nation was in the news a few months ago. Apparently the BBC is the only major holdout, but that should not be a reason to keep the historic name. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. I have similarly always taken the view that especially where common usage cannot be used to decisively single out the best name for a country, the official name should prevail as per the naming conventions. Constant reference to "what the English world calls it" is highly contentious, because statistics continous show that there are far more numerous English speakers outside the USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada combined, and by several times over to boot. All Southeast Asian nations where Myanmar is geographically located in refers to it as Myanmar officially in English. Both China and India, with a bigger English-speaking population than all of the USA, uses Mynamar. Even as Burmese proponents say there are *some* sources within those places who use Burma (such as some Thai human rights groups), there are also *some* sources in the "anglophone" world who uses Myanmar too. It is clear the the "common usage" and "English-speaking world" arguments cannot stand in all past discussions, and will likely remain so.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    While the government of India calls it Myanmar, almost no one on the street does. Don't know about China. While the official usage argument may or may not stand, common usage being Burma certainly does, at least wrt India.--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 16:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    So are you able to provide compelling evidence on what the laymen uses in each country to be examined, India included, before concluding that "common usage being Burma certainly does"? It is clear from the extensive disucssions here that the contrary is actually true.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    I see no discussion here about what the layman in India or China calls the country. Perhaps you have compelling evidence that the lay person in India or China or the United States refers to the country as Myanmar? --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. We can't make a political statement here. As much as I'd like to call the page Burma, there is no doubt in my mind that it should be Myanmar. We shouldn't name it what it should rightfully be called. Jared (t)  17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. I don't see it as realistic Myanmar reverting to its precolonial name of Burma. First, because the majority of Bamars has always referred to their country as Myanmar, and to others as Myanmarese. Second, because of the Bamars who have the overwhelming majority part in ruling junta. Personally, I really coudn´t care less about how other countries call Myanmar, far more important is what the very citizens of Myanmar consider to be the appropriate name or usually call their country - be it Burma or Myanmar. Besides all afore mentioned we have the actual situation where UN and UNHCR use the name of Myanmar, and not Burma when they officially refer to Myanmar. On the other hand American, Australian and UK policies refuse to acknowledge this reality, sticking to their own "misconcepted preconceptions" and naming traditions. All in all, I´m for Myanmar. Sovann Maccha (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Myanmar is what the country is officially called. Also, the article Yangon is not named Rangoon, which I think is backwards, because Yangon is an even less common name for the city of Yangon/Rangoon than Myanmar for Myanmar/Burma. Fix the inconsistency. Someone the Person (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  15. The official English name of the country is Myanmar (or more correctly, the Union of Myanmar). It has comparable usage to Burma within English media. The UN refers to it as Myanmar. ~Cr∞nium 08:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  16. This is the official name of the country. I don't see a reason why the article should be renamed into the colonial name of the country. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  17. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an editorial. This is the official name. We wouldn't make the Philadelphia article redirect to Philly simply because that's what the inhabitants call it. At best, Burma should redirect to "Myanmar". Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  18. Re our WP:NPOV policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  19. I arrived here as an uninvolved party via the Community Portal, and it seems to me that people, especially Avg (talk · contribs), have made an unequivocal case for Myanmar based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I also see a lot of political arguments for Burma, which are void. I am particularly disgusted by the notion that the choice of Western governments to use Burma should affect this decision. It's NPOV not WPOV. If any government should have weight in the choice of the country's name it should be its own. We should bear in mind of course that the history of this country is far from over and we may need to reverse this decision. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  20. For the same reason Beijing is not Pekin here (many here may be too young to remember, but yes, China changed the name of Pekin in English long time ago). And Mumbai is not Bombay. And Chennai is not Madras. And Sri Lanka is not Ceylon .... and so many more. Why would Myanmar be different? Anagnorisis 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • By your own account, you are not a native English speaker and it shows since the long-standing name of that city in English is Peking, which is still commonly used. You are perhaps thinking of French or some other language. Can we please exclude the opinions of editors who are not competent to judge English usage. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry but I am a native English speaker and if you have heard anyone say that the Olympics this year will be held in Pekin then I'd like to know where. All users have the right to voice their opinions, but all opinions will be overruled by matters of verifiable fact and convention where it exists. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Your comment borders on trolling, Colonel Warden. Would you care to refactor? This debate is open to anyone not merely to those who identify as native English speakers, and your comment re "is he confusing it with French?" is deeply insulting. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  21. Well, I'm a native English speaker and I agree completely with Anagnorisis and the UN. Self-identification is key - if the government of the country wants the counrty to be called Myanmar then that is what we should call it. To use any other name is to take a political stance. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  22. It's the name of the country. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  23. Myanmar is what it should be based Wikipedia policy and not political discussions. While the government is repugnant, that is not relevant to what we call the article. Jpgs (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  24. Myanmar is the correct name according to the UNO, and gives 80M hits on google -Burma gives 31M- Iunaw 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. The "truth by consensus" view isn't going to help anybody. Perhaps the best way to decide this issue is the have a disambiguation page stating: Myanmar/Burma - two names for the one place. If the currently unstable government there wants to call itself Myanmar then let it. If at some point in the future it changes back so should the reference. If the want to call themselves the "Annotated Conditions of Zee" are you going to stick to an anachronism? For my opinion we should strive to call places by the local name if there isn't an established name in English (such as Vienna) so I vote Myanmar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sippawitz (talk • contribs) 00:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Whilst Myanmar seems to be the globally more comman usage, I think we all need to acknowledge that the prevalence of media usage does change significantly between countries and not keep playing the "nearly all media outlets where I am call it this" card. However overall globally it seems that Myanmar is the more common name for this country. I agree that all the arguments about the nature of the regime, colonialism, the policies of the UN and whether or not governments can change the English language (since it's not a yes/no question - it's whether or not government usage catches on) should all be irrelevant to this discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A popular comment seems to be that the un-elected military government has no authority, or no right to change "Burma" into "Myanmar". But still, the official name recognized and used by every major Asian countries, and many other countries in the west (regardless of what the western media likes to call it), is "Myanmar". By accepting the name change, these countries recognize the authority of the unelected military government in Myanmar.Atticuslai (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This straw poll has left out an important option: splitting the article. I'll go ahead and add it in. FYI: 9 votes for Myanmar and 3 for Burma were present before this option. The Jade Knight (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is very hard to judge what the majority everyday (non-media, non-governmental) usage is. All we can do is say 'well this is how it seems to me'. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In regards to the proposal for separate articles, would the Myanmar article begin with the military regime (1962) or with the martial law and official name change (1989)? I'd go with the 1962 cutoff, myself. If you're discouraged that this idea isn't getting much support, keep in mind that it was attempted earlier and had virtually no supporters. I'd also imagine that, for it to gain substantial support, it would need to be voted on separately and not as a third option in the existing survey. Don't know whether policy would encourage that, though. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Too much is made of the "most common English name" meme. There simply is no sure way to incontrovertibly determine which usage is "more popular". Ghits is often cited as one of the ways to go about it.. but it is flawed from the get go for several reasons. Foremost being that ghits only reflects online usage and also that ghits is hugely influenced by the usage on Wikipedia (and consequently its hundreds of mirrors mirroring every article and talk page and more) itself. So when there are multiple English names and we are in doubt, the "official" one surely has the upper hand. Sarvagnya 03:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it not everyone has a 'doubt'. I, for example, are convinced about the mathematical certitude of my argument that more people are aware of Burma than are aware of Myanmar. I will reiterate that argument here: Every English speaking person who has heard of Myanmar knows that the country was formerly known as Burma. There exists at least one person in this world (I've come across many) who have never heard of Myanmar but are aware of a country known as Burma (can't find it on a map, imagine that it is the size of a peanut, but do know that it is out there somewhere). Therefore the number of people who are aware of a country known as Burma is greater than the number of people who are aware of a country known as Myanmar. (I have never met an English speaking person who knows the country only as Myanmar - not in India, not in the United States, and definitely not in Burma.) --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 15:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
And again, as with Gdansk and Mumbai, those people must not watch television or read newspapers... even the BBC mentions Myanmar in passing. Or (and this is why I had only heard of Danzig instead of Gdansk), they play too many WWII video games. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You miss the point of my argument which has nothing to do with the availability of the term Myanmar in the news. Of course people who read the newspaper (shockingly few these days) and watch the news on TV have heard of Myanmar. But these same people also know that the country is also called Burma. It is the people who either don't read the newspaper (or their eyes glaze over at the words 'cyclone' or 'protests') or watch anything but local news on TV (shockingly too many these days) who form the population from which the Burma knowers but not Myanmar knowers are drawn. (Some parents at my daughter's school are in this set.) --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but those people you describe who glaze over the words 'cyclone" or 'protests' will see Myanmar in the majority of headlines; maybe not in the U.K., but throughout the world. That's where the media usage factors in. These are our people who know Myanmar but now Burma. Even local news stations briefly mention international events, in my experience. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
They never even get as far as Myanmar. "Cyclone in Burma!" says the BBC. Then, half way into the news "Oh, it's also called Myanmar these days." By then, the glazed eyed ones have clicked away from the BBC or have already turned to the doings (or is it undoings) of Lindsay and Brittney. BTW, have you run across people who know of Myanmar but have never heard of Burma? Be honest!
Honestly? It just doesn't come up. I know the Massachusetts state school standards make their students learn about "Myanmar" among the countries of southeast Asia. I know that at my church service we recently prayed for "the people in Myanmar, Burma" (whatever that means). But it's usually not in conversation. Many people probably recognize neither. But with your point about people never getting "as far as Myanmar"... with the majority of world news headlines, "Myanmar" is the name that appears first. In the U.K., those people wouldn't get as far as Myanmar. In the majority of news media, those people wouldn't get as far as Burma. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If that list further up this page has any truth to it, then there are plenty of media outlets that refer to the country as Burma. My own local paper (The New York Times) always calls it Myanmar but every article that I can remember mentions Burma as well. On the other hand, newspapers that call it Burma may not mention Myanmar at all (admittedly for political reasons). For example, The Hindu, an Indian paper, rarely even mentions Myanmar as an alternative name. If one read only the Hindu, one could easily be forgiven for being unaware of the existence of Myanmar. If one read the New York Times, one would be aware of the existence of Myanmar, the existence of Burma, and, to some extent, the controversies behind the names. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 16:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Issues

If we're ever going to make a decision, we need to know what criteria we are using. Let's vote on what should, and what should not, be taken into account when deciding this. These are some of the separate factors as I have identified them, if anyone can think of any others, please put them here. After each, please say support if you think they should affect what we decide to name the article, and oppose if you don't. Please don't base your opinion on this on whether you think it will ultimately lead to your personal favourite getting used. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


1. Media usage

support - as a gauge of general use, but be wary of bias. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

2. What the Junta wants

oppose 87.194.217.99 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

3. What English-Speaking governments want

oppose 87.194.217.99 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

4. What the UN calls it

oppose 87.194.217.99 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

5. Whether the history or current events of a country are more important in deciding what Wikipedia should call it.

support 87.194.217.99 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

6. Miscellaneous others who have had to make the choice, such as CIA world factbook, ISO 3166, Encyclopaedia Britannica (perhaps this section is a bit broad)

support - if we are able to know they chose to do it how they did it. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this idea is a non-starter. The whole discussion is implicitly about which criteria to use; if we all agreed on the criteria, the name would be determined automatically. Pol098 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has already set a guideline, however people choose not to follow it. Please see WP:NCON.--   Avg    18:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually it seems we're deciding how that guideline applies to our article. Also, perhaps I should refer you to this part of the guideline: "In those unsolved cases a poll, for example via Wikipedia:Requested moves, can be conducted." 87.194.217.99 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not true, half of the discussion is about what is the most commonly used name by English speakers, there was some discussion of what the media called it, and most criteria have only been commented on by a few people so we have no idea of how much support each idea has. What's more the same things are getting suggested multiple times so we need to make it a little clearer what the issues are and what has and has not been dealt with. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Aren't we trying to describe it? Shouldn't that be what we want to do? If we had a disambiguation page that would help. Sippawitz (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Burma/Myanmar"

Regardless of all issues of politics, "official" name, diplomatically recognised name, etc., the country is widely known by both names in the English-speaking world. Which name is MOST used doesn't seem relevant, as neither usage is uncommon. Most countries are known by a single name, not necessarily the official name (Japan=Nippon). In many cases the world has agreed to drop a name, and use another exclusively (always Zimbabwe never Rhodesia, Sri Lanka not Ceylon, etc.) As this country is widely known by 2 names, then perhaps the article's title should be "Burma/Myanmar". It could be mentioned briefly in the article that the alternative names are simply in alphabetical order (to forestall this discussion restarting re "Myanmar/Burma"). Redirects from "Burma" and "Myanmar", of course. Pol098 (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Rundquist, I, and others have pointed out from Wikipedia naming conventions: If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name. If you believe that Myanmar is at least as commonly used as Burma, the guidelines point toward using it as the name. As for the slash, I think the main problem is Wikipedia style. No other articles (that I know of) use a compromised name divided by slashes. I would personally be okay with "Burma/Myanmar", the chronological listing, but Wikipedia wouldn't. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Call me stupid but I didn't see where you said that before. Well I retract everything I've been saying and support it being called Myanmar. Why is there a problem at all? 87.194.217.99 (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem, of course, is that if you stood on the streets of New York and asked 'Burma or Myanmar?' you'll get an overwhelming Burma response. (Even the two New York Burmese restaurants, which with good business common sense don't bother advertising themselves as Myanmar cuisine, use Burma exclusively). The 'no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English' is not really true. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Burmese cuisine is no more telling than Peking duck, Siamese cats, or Persian language. I can't go to the streets of New York to ask that question, but I can look through the majority of English news media (stop me now if we decide Google News is unreliable; Myanmar takes the majority anytime you search), atlases, encyclopedias, Google, or Yahoo. I'd say that this at least places a question on Burma's common use, to the extent that the different Wikipedia policies would take effect (all of which point toward the official or self-given name). -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Burmese cuisine is hardly analogous to Peking duck. Peking duck is a well known dish with an established name and cannot be compared with a relatively unknown ethnic cuisine trying to muscle its way into New York's ethnic restaurant mix. The way to do that is, of course, to use the name that people will recognize. Thus 'Spanish Restaurant' not 'Restaurant of Espana' or 'Burmese cuisine' not 'Myanmar cuisine'. Color it anyway you like but Burma is easily a more recognizable name than Myanmar whatever google pages may say. (Though, I must admit that one consequence of the fall protests and the recent cyclone is probably an increasing awareness of Myanmar.) Still, I think this is a particularly fruitless discussion because hard statistics are hard to come by. So, que sera sera, c'est la vie and all that. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Because "Myanmar cuisine" is not grammaticall correct. Duh. Note that we still say "Burmese language", in the same way we say Dutch for many things related to the Netherlands. Are you going to call that country Dutchland then?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have always called it Holland, personally --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
So have I; though I realize that Holland is not correct and that it is really only a region of the Netherlands.72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. So if so many people use the term "Holland", can you explain why it is not used in place of "The Netherlands" as the article title?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well another example is that here in London there are a lot of restaurants serving the cuisine of Iran. And they still use "Persian cuisine" and "Persian restaurant" to describe themselves despite "Iran" being the almost universal name used for the country in question. Sometimes these adjectives survive despite the name they derive from being superseded. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of the people in New York have not heard of either Burma or Myanmar.talk) 13 May 2008 (UTC)


some food for thought

some food for thought: the official name of South Korea is Republic of Korea, yet the most common name and the name used on wikipedia is South Korea. The official name is not always the best title for an article and the most common name is not always the best either (take Ivory Coast for example). Masterhatch (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, as someone else pointed out, we call a Spain a Spain. Not an Espana! --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
So then there are cases obviously where neither name is "best", so you have to pick one anyway even if it's not best and settle for a less-than-best solution. Consistency is what I prefer, a consistent set of naming rules. mike4ty4 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you don't have to stick with one. You can separate the two into their two different meanings (one cultural/historical, and one for the current government). The Jade Knight (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Countries with different names in English and their native language

I note a lot of people raise examples like "we don't call Germany Deutschland" or Japan/Nippon, Spain/Espana etc... However it's important to recognise two key points where these examples aren't really relevant:

  • For most of these countries there has never been any effort to get the native language name used in English and indeed the countries' governments do not use those names in English - "Germany" appears in English language versions of, variously, official treaties, visa forms, embassy signs, the output of the country's tourist board, statements by German ministers and so forth; ditto "Japan" and "Spain".
  • There are other countries where the English language name is the same as the native language - e.g. France.

Timrollpickering (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But (virtually) no one in the English-speaking world is calling Mount Everest "Mount Qomolangma" these days, despite the fact that that is now the official (according to China) English name for the mountain—Chinese English media now use the term extensively. The Jade Knight (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Very true. Compare the use of "Mount Qomolangma" to "Myanmar" in English use, though. Myanmar has become at least one of the commonly used terms. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about that. I'm sure that English speaking Chinese use Mount Qomolangma and there are plenty of those around. Now, if only we can figure out what the Indian government officially calls it ..... (I wonder if Huaiwei will accuse me of selectively highlighting viewpoints of others when I am selectively highlighting viewpoints of others?) --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 21:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
In regards Everest/Qomolangma, a situation I'm not at all familiar with, it sounds like this is a renaming attempt that has not yet taken off. (It's complicated further as the mountain is on a border so a single country will find it much harder to successfully promote any name change internationally.) And again this is not the same as Myanmar/Burma - here the usage has taken off in part and "Myanmar" is used a lot in English around the world. I've even seen it used in the British media, albeit through imported material (for example the other night Sky News ran a feed about the cyclone aftermath from a US news channel which used Myanmar).
As I wrote above, most names for countries were not left under some gooseberry bush by persons unknown. They have usually originated with their authorities and those that don't are very often taken up by the authorities anyway. And people around the world usually follow suit. How long that effect lasts can vary widely for all manner of reasons and is quite varied in different countries - for example the UK has historically had ties to Burma and so the older name is quite familiar, whereas the US has had fewer and so the older term has less reason to linger. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

news database search results

Hi, just to inject a little data into this discussion, I did a search of the Factiva database, which allows full-text searches of many thousands of journalistic publications in English from many countries over many years (as opposed to Google, which is probably biased towards very recent online sources).

  • In the last year, "Myanmar" gets 42687 hits, while "Burma" gets 33142 hits.
  • For the last 10 years, from 1/1/1998 to 1/1/2008, "Myanmar" gets 214205 hits while "Burma" gets 151504 hits.
  • For the 10 years before that, from 1/1/1988 to 1/1/1998, "Myanmar" gets 30054 hits, and "Burma" gets 69899 hits.
  • For the 10 years before that, from 1/1/1978 to 1/1/1988, "Burma" gets 4430 hits and "Myanmar" gets zero hits (not too surprising since the name was changed in 1989).

Various claims (above) that one term or the other is vastly more prevalent in English do not seem to hold up to scrutiny. "Myanmar" seems to have a slight edge in popularity in recent years, but the margin is small enough that popularity alone doesn't seem to be a good way to decide the name of this article.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, if we believe that neither term is "vastly more prevalent in English", then Wikipedia standards point us toward Myanmar. Two of them do:
  • Wikipedia: Naming conventions states: "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name." The local official name is Myanmar.
  • Wikipedia:Naming conflict states: "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name... Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is." Note that, while many Burmese people may self-identify their nation as Burma, the entity that this article is over self-identifies as Myanmar. The rules do give an exception example: "Japanese" is used instead of "Nihon-jin". Our discussion here has already established that Myanmar is the official English word for Myanma, not just a foreign word, and it appears in many more English resources than Nihon or Deutschland.
Many have said that Myanmar must proof demonstrably that it is used more than Burma. I believe it has been proven to be used at least as much: the media (again, search the two on Google News), all the encyclopedias (including Britannica), Yahoo, this Factiva database that just got mentioned, and so on and so forth, any criteria for "common use" you use other than Google Books, Google Scholar, memories you had growing up, or the guy you apparently know who says "Burma". Myanmar has covered its burden of proof. The burden of proof now lies on "Burma" to show it is used overwhelmingly more than "Myanmar"; if not, we have two different Wikipedia policies that strike it down. As sections like this show; Burma cannot be proven to be the overwhelming majority use. Myanmar is the default answer. -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Since BaronGrackle brings up the naming conventions, let's take a look and see what we get. The first principle of the naming conventions is The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. A simple statement. Now, let's look at the English speaking world and see what we have. It seems fair to assume that almost everyone who knows what Myanmar is, knows what Burma is. It also makes sense that there are many people out there who know Burma but do not know Myanmar. Therefore, it follows that more people in the English speaking world know what a Burma is than know what a Myanmar is. Therefore, the article should be named Burma. Unless you argue that there are enough people in the English speaking world out there who know the existence of Myanmar but not of Burma, I don't see how you can say that 'more' people know of Myanmar than of Burma. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Media hits does not a widely accepted make, especially in this case. The Naming conventions deal with acceptance in English. Simple common sense tells me that almost every English speaking person who knows the name 'Myanmar', will also know the name 'Burma' while there will be many English speaking people who know the name Burma but will not know the name Myanmar. Given that, no one can possibly argue with a straight face that more English speakers recognize the name Myanmar over the name Burma. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. Since more English speakers recognize Burma, the article should be named Burma.--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd maintain that the number of people who recognize Burma but don't recognize Myanmar is negligible, comparable to the number who would recognize Danzig but not recognize Gdansk, which is itself cited as an example on our guidelines page, despite the fact that I bet anyone in New York (or here in Texas) would identify Danzig first, and despite the fact that I do not even know how to type an accent mark over the "n". I can say that much with a straight face. Media hits may not a widely accepted make, but they do mean that anyone who glances at the news will come into contact with Myanmar. Even the BBC notes that the country calls itself Myanmar, so anyone who reads that source will recognize the name. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Did I actually reply twice to the same point? Senility has arrived for sure. (Or, perhaps, one for Myanmar and one for Burma!)

Support?

There doesn't seem to be many people here wanting this to be called Burma compared to those who want to call it Myanmar. I know wikipedia isn't a democracy but come on you have to draw the line somewhere! Surely we have enough consensus to change the name back to Myanmar? Deamon138 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think we have enough consensus to change it back to Myanmar, plus people can then stop bitching about the dispute tag. Let's just get this over with, for once and for all. MethMan47 (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding?? You have a weird definition of consensus. Kaldari (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Then what would be your definition of consensus? 50 more people? 120? The majority of people that posted in the straw poll believes the name should be reverted back to Myanmar, and I do not see that changing anytime soon. What more do we truly need to decide?MethMan47 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
After Just reading the disccusion i feel that while Myanamar has more users on there hand, Burma people make a more convincing argument for it to be burma. RoyalOrleans 02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I very much doubt we have consensus now. The last vote was tied exactly between Myanmar and Burma, therefore "no consensus", therefore no change. I was informed that even if Myanmar had won the vote, the disagreements meant there was still no consensus, so there still would have been no change. The article changed from Myanmar to Burma because the vote was overwhelming and, despite lack of consensus, it slipped through. And now, Wikipedia stands as a Rock of Chickamauga, with an article titled differently than EVERY OTHER SINGLE encyclopedia online.
BonesBrigade, you really believe the Burma-name has a more convincing argument? Which part of the argument convinces you? The argument is, from what I can tell: "People call it Burma more." What about all of the uses of Myanmar in news media and Google and Yahoo and encyclopedias and atlases and classrooms? They don't convince you that that name is used at least just as much, if not more? Point us to where Burma is used more. Google Books, and Google Scholar. Namely, academics and historians; not modern times. I guess I'm just a little disheartened. :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you talking U.S. or the rest of the world? Just check UK atlases and mapmakers and you'll see Burma... this is a world encyclopedia. I don't doubt it's the same down under. Let the knuckleheads running Burma call it what they want inside the borders but to the world it's Burma. 72.134.41.242 (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Along those lines, are YOU talking U.K. or the rest of the world? U.K. atlases and mapmakers I cannot speak for, but I've been a broken record in mentioning that Britannica uses Myanmar. Plus, what of countries like India? And what of the other sources? The news media, google, and yahoo majorities? -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If we went by what Britannica says, might as well just throw in the trowel on Wikipedia. Isn't that the whole point of what we all are doing out here? Google (maps), interestingly, used to use all the good old names till late last year. Then they switched to Myanmar from Burma but, just to be different, still use Rangoon. Does that mean we should switch Burma to Myanmar and Yangon to Rangoon?--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 02:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That is a very simple question. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, it is a definite yes.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha! I actually wouldn't make much fuss if we were to do that. I'd bet Myanmar is much more recognizable than Yangon. So much more recognizable, in fact, that people didn't swarm to the Yangon talk page after the monks protest, to have the article's name changed. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But seriously....how many votes would it be to consider consensus being reached? MethMan47 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

More than 44%, to be certain! (According to the current straw poll, support for changing to Myanmar has less than 44% of total votes cast.) The Jade Knight (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually 47% of the votes are for Myanmar, 43% for Burma, and 9% for slitting the two articles. So by your logic....MethMan47 (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's see. The general principle in an Rfa is that 'consensus to promote' requires about 75% support votes. Applying that logic to 'consensus for changing the name of an article' (in both cases, there is a change to the status quo), should also require 75% of the vote! --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

If one ignores the pro-Myanmar editors, who really don't matter, then there is quite a clear consensus in favor of Burma. Can we now close this discussion? --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC) t(-_-t)

If there were a "Wikipedia classics" archive this would definitely be there :-) --   Avg    07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha, well of course there is a clear consensus for Burma if you ignore us pro-Myanmar people. MethMan47 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I may have to dispute this... I seem to remember three or four votes for splitting it into two articles. If you also erase that from existence, though... -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lazy People

OK, even if there is a consensus for Burma, and even if the media uses it, there is a clear consensus from the Burmese people, the Government of the Union of Myanmar, and the United Nations, that the country has been called Myanmar for 17 years!

The only reachable conclusion is that people must be too lazy to say the extra syllable. No one today calls Serbia "Yugoslavia," because it is two more syllables. Similarily, after the Republic of Yugoslavia was formed, no one called it the "Kingdom of the Serbs, the Croats, and the Slovenes." So why do we continually spit in the face of the Burmese people and government and insult them by calling them Burma? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.121.250 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are incorrect. The overwhelming majority of the Burmese people (who care) prefer that the English-speaking world refer to the country as "Burma" rather than "Myanmar" as they consider "Myanmar" exclusive to one ethnicity and illegitimately changed anyway. Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I keep seeing the phrase "The overwhelming majority of Burmese people". Does anyone have a citation for that? How does everyone know what the Burmese people call their country? It would be interesting to see, and may help everyone reach a consensus. Bluesmanjay (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit complicated. The overwhelming majority of Burmese people speak no English, so it doesn't matter what they call their country. The few who do either don't care that much (any educated Burman is aware of both Burma and Myanmar) except when they explicitly disapprove of the junta's right to rename their country. Thus, the stated position of the NLD is that the country is called Burma. The Karen's call it Burma (and are, in general, unhappy that their ethnic group has been renamed Kayin, at least those that get to talk to western media are unhappy). The Indians are too beaten down to care. The Shans, probably the best integrated ethnic group, consider themselves Shan first, Burmese (or Myanma) second. The Kachin's who practically run their own part of the country are not interested in the name of the country. The Nagas are not even recognized by the Burmese government (apparently, and this will come as a shock to the many Naga in Burma, there are no Nagas in Burma) so there is no point asking them. The palaung, the wa, one could go on and on. No, I don't think we can look to the Burmese people for help. My personal experience in Burma is that both names are used interchangeably when speaking in English to an outsider, with Myanmar dominating in public, and Burma in private. To be fair, this is complicated by the fact that most non-Burman visitors who communicate in English (French, Germans, Indians) call the country Burma or something that sounds like Burma. If you were a Burman involved in tourism, it would be much easier to say 'Burma' than 'Myanmar' when referring to your country. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 16:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
One thing that is certain about the overwhelming majority of the Burmese people is that they would be completely bemused by this discussion, by the very idea that there are people arguing over what name should go on a web page. They will think that we, all of us, are completely crazy!--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

MY IDEA

Let's call this page Myanmar and make Burma a redirect to it. Therefore, if you type in Burma, you get Myanmar and if you have an IQ with three digits you should know Myanmar is Burma. Mayakii (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your idea is that, by definition, half the people in the world have an IQ in 2 digits! --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think calling the article Myanmar with a redirect from Burma is the best solution. As the country's name is Myanmar (even if we all disagree with the government that changed the name, it's still did it, and that's what it's called) and a vast majority of people will be searching for Burma, and will be redirected to the appropriate article (which explains in it the name change). Anyone else agree? Bluesmanjay (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sad as I am to say, if you believe that the vast majority of people will be searching for Burma, you probably want to give your support to that name based on common usage. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

How about having Myanmar redirect to Burma. That way the few people who call it Myanmar would know that it is Burma, and the vast majority of people who search for Burma would get taken straight there. --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Modifying a line from Regents: The problem with your idea is that, by definition, half the people in the world are the "vast majority" while the other half are "the few people". Check out the last vote in the archives. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Other languages

So, how come only we English speakers care about changing Burma to Myanmar. Why is it that the French, the Spanish, etc. don't see the need to call the country Myanmar but continue, in their carefree way, with birmanie and birmania? --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bah! Irrelevant. We could discuss why the French get closer to saying "España" correctly than the English do, but it wouldn't affect anything. Besides... I thought I had heard that most non-English governments recognize Myanmar. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Not meant to be relevant. Just a point of curiosity on which I turned out to be wrong anyway. They're discussing the name as passionately in the French wikipedia as it is being discussed here. Vive la birmanie!
Really?! You learn something new... -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, perhaps not the same amount of passion. They've left it at Burma for a bit, but who knows what's coming up next. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Applying Wikipedia naming conventions

I know this has been mentioned several times already, but I think the most straightforward way out of this debate is to simply refer back to already established naming conventions. Now I know that blindly following policy won't always result in a good article, but in this case, I think the policy applies. After all, regardless of the word chosen for the title, the other name will redirect to the article (and probably be used in the lead as well), and a discussion of the difference between the names will follow in the article itself (indeed, the naming conflict has its own full article already). Thus, the specific title chosen doesn't affect that many readers; it is merely a matter of what is appropriate for Wikipedia. And what is "appropriate for Wikipedia" is easily drawn from its established policies.

Fortunately, the Wikipedia convention on naming conflicts has a specific section on how to choose between controversial proper nouns. Here is a direct quote (emphasis in original):

  • If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence (e.g. Munich rather than München; China rather than Zhōngguó).
  • If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself.
  • If the name is that of an inanimate or non-human entity, there is no common English equivalent and no dispute over the entity's name, use the official designation (or an English translation thereof) applied by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the entity is predominately found (e.g. Orlické Mountains from the Czech Orlické hory).
  • If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the commonest English-language name.
  • If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:

  • Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
  • Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
  • Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

  • Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
  • Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
  • Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
  • Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

As far as the objective criteria listed above are concerned, it is unknown whether Burma or Myanmar is more common in English (see below), but Myanmar is the official current name of the country, and both Burma and Myanmar are derivatives of words that the natives of this country use to describe it. Furthermore, the argument that "the military junta has no right to change the name" quite obviously falls under the subjective criteria listed above, and thus should not be used to determine the title of the article.

Thus, it seems to me that the only argument for choosing Burma over Myanmar is if it clearly is the more common English usage overall. As others have indicated before, this is quite questionable: Myanmar returns more Google hits (with 9,080,000 English-only results vs. 2,790,000 English-only results for Burma, last I checked), and other encyclopedias near-universally use Myanmar, but the news media is split in their usage, and the governments of the prominent English-speaking nations use Burma. However, they do so for specific political reasons, and the UN (which I think should be considered, as one of the most important "international organisations" referred to in the quote above) uses Myanmar. In my opinion, it seems that Myanmar is more common among English speakers on average (particularly if you include non-native speakers of English), but the concentration varies enough from place to place that that's going to be very difficult to prove.

So in the event of an inability to decide which term is more common, the other two objective criteria listed above should be used, which in this case seems to indicate using Myanmar, not Burma.

Rundquist (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. There are numerous assumptions in your reasoning that are the basis of this dispute but which you present as facts.
  1. That there is no "common English language equivalent". This is not true since Burma is the common English language equivalent. It has been so for the last four centuries and, unless it is proved otherwise, remains so.
  2. The name, Burma, is in common usage. You don't have to check google to see that it is in common usage. (Since it is the common English language equivalent, there is no need to compare google hits with Myanmar.)
  3. It boggles my mind that anyone can think that more people recognize Myanmar over Burma. (As I have argued before, if you've heard of Myanmar, you've heard of Burma.)
  4. particularly if you include non-native speakers of English. This is not backed up by any evidence. Just because the government of India uses Myanmar, it does not follow that the English speaking people of India use Myanmar. It is quite likely that the contrary is true because India has had long historical and personal ties with Burma and has few ties with what is now called Myanmar. No, they pretty much use Burma. (Of course, there is no statistical evidence but that should be provided by the wikipedians seeking change.) If you add the French, the Spanish, the Germans, the Swedes, to the mix, they are all probably more familiar with Burma than Myanmar because the name in their language is closer to Burma.

It seems to me that the only reason to change to Myanmar is because it is the official name given by the government. That, as any wikipedian should no, is not a good enough reason. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And it seems to me that the only reason to use Burma is because it is the official name used by the British and American governments? That, as wikipedia's policies should show, is not a good reason in any way either. You appear very selective when highlighting viewpoints expressed by others.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not very nice Huaiwei. I could say the same about you (but I won't). --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course you could say that. I was directly demonstrating what you just did by being just as selective, so thanks for acknowledging your own fallacy. ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, RegentsPark. Allow me to clarify my reasoning behind the assumptions that you list above:
  1. I never said that "there is no common English language equivalent." Indeed, you could say that Myanmar and Burma are both common English language equivalents. I merely said that "it is unknown whether Burma or Myanmar is more common in English," and proceeded to list the reasons why I felt the issue was in doubt. You say that "Burma is the common English language equivalent", and while that may be true historically, I have yet to see a convincing argument either way as to the current usage, which is what we are really worried about. I merely felt that since one term is not clearly more common than the other, we should revert to the other criteria: the official current name (which is Myanmar), or what the people identify their country as in their own language (which, as others have pointed out, has words that correspond to both "Burma" and "Myanmar").
  2. Here again, you merely assert that "Burma is in common usage." I don't argue that, but so is Myanmar. I, at least, have heard Myanmar more often lately than I have Burma. Allow me to respectfully suggest that different regions vary wildly with respect to the percentage of people calling the country by the one name or the other, and perhaps your region or community favors Burma, while mine favors Myanmar. This makes it extremely difficult to judge the actual overall usage.
  3. Why do you say that "if you've heard of Myanmar, you've heard of Burma"? I know some people who (I'm sad to say) had never heard of the country before it was in the news recently, and their usage strongly reflects the usage of whichever media source they regularly depend on. Indeed, the anonymous poster below attests to having heard of Myanmar before having heard of Burma.
  4. I agree, I did not offer any evidence for my assertion about non-native speakers of English. This is why I stated that it was merely my own opinion. Indeed, I would be glad to see some more thorough research on the overall English usage of either term. The article was at one point titled Myanmar--does anyone remember if any statistics were put forth when it was changed to Burma?

Again, thanks for your thoughtful opinion. I didn't mean this to be a definitive argument why Myanmar is better; I merely wanted to emphasize the idea that since it is in doubt which term is more common, perhaps we should try the other criteria in the Wikipedia naming conventions, as outlined above. Rundquist (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burma/Myanmar/Archive_2&oldid=1190128495"