Talk:Burma/Request for mediation

This was the comment that I have moved to this talk page (Deamon138 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)):

#Agree (note) in principle but strongly doubt this mediation will help reach any common ground between parties and therefore help resolve this dispute. Still, I shall join in for the moment, but I will walk out if I see several other users refusing to take part. Nonetheless, I applaud this initiative. Húsönd 00:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If users reject mediation then the case won't be accepted. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think most of us want closure, Daniel. We've been questioning the legitimacy of the move from Myanmar to Burma since it happened in October, and every time it has resulted either in "Speedy close" or "No consensus, so keep at Burma". If the mediation looks over our past discussions and honestly determines that Burma is the better name (or that Myanmar is, or that a split is the best answer), then we'll finally have something legitimate to base the article's title on. It would've worked earlier with the Cabal, I think, if the Cabal members had reached a consensus among themselves. -BaronGrackle (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

On the question of whether this can produce a conclusion: this is a naming convention dispute which chooses between the use of two non-neutral names (see this source I recently found) the use of neither of which is intended to make a statement about which name is more legitimate. All we expect in a choice of name is that the best reasoning is used to land on that name, so it appears the most natural within the article. The dispute here is that people disagree on the reasoning.

The Medcom could do a very good job here by subjecting proposed reasoning to proper scrutiny and making conclusions about their legitimacy as arguments. I don't know if this would be acceptable in the way that you operate, but it might be worth constructing a structured list of "findings of fact" à la Arbcom and Medcom members voting their support. For example, many initial comments, although we have by and large got past this issue, argued that Burma should be used to make a political statement of support of freedom/democracy. A "finding of fact" about the role of political agenda in naming and in Wikipedia generally would provide an easy point of reference to anyone who questions the final decision based on such grounds. A more difficult issue is that a lot of arguments (and indeed one of the closing bureaucrat comments) were based around one of the names being "more common" in one context or another. The Medcom is in a position to assess whether this is the case.

The trouble with past approach is that rather than agreeing on the steps which lead up to a choice of name, people instead jump straight to the name they support and discover that they disagree. If we can get over this style of approach I see no reason we cannot reach a decision that all parties can agree to settle with. BigBlueFish (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Beamathan

Perhaps should also be added as a disputant. (I've no experience with this so am not sure if I can just plonk in an additional name.) --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 13:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He has participated in past discussions on this. I left a note and a link on his talk page... I have no idea if it's the case of "sign yourself up as a party", but many of us can vouch for Beam's participation. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen any comments from him lately, but he was originally part. It's a complicated RfM, and having it be overinclusive on "involved parties" may lead to it failing the administrative requirements for mediation because some of those parties have moved on and are no longer interested in participating. Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have seen his name around. I agree though that there have been so many users involved in this that we can't add everyone. That was my main problem when it came to filing the request really. I felt those that had commented recently on the talk pages or commented as part of the dispute on the Cabal pages would be a good start, and if there were others needed such as Beam, then those who have been involved longer would add them, which seems the case here. Deamon138 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Opposition

• I don't see what more can be usefully said on this subject and how this process will assist. Where do I sign up to oppose the initiation of this process? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've figured this out - one signs up to the process and then disagrees with it. Strange... Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, CW did not participate in the RfC or the MEDCAB case. He has participated in previous discussions of the topic (this appears to be the most recent activity), but has not been an active part of the attempt to resolve this. I don't believe that his lack of participation or objection to the process is particularly relevant, as there have likely been a hundred or more users that have made some comment about their opinion on the name and not all are represented here. SDY (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah but it seems a single disagree is enough to veto the whole request. (Although this isn't relevant to CW, I do wonder what is to stop a random user from listing there name, and then adding disagree, even if they've never participated in any of these discussions before?) Deamon138 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN, this article or dispute is not the property of any particular group of editors. I have an interest in the matter, as noted above. I have not chosen to wrangle over it lately as the status quo seems a reasonable result and further discussion seemed unlikely to be productive. I oppose further attempts to disrupt the current position. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How is a request for mediation an "attempt to disrupt the current position"? We've tried other methods to resolve this dispute, and nothing has come to a consensus yet, so a request for mediation seems like the next step. I appreciate your right to refuse mediation, but I'm afraid I don't really understand the purpose of doing so. Why do you feel like it would be "unlikely to be productive"? Thanks, Rundquist (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• My purpose is to terminate continued wrangling over the matter so that we may move on. I do not consider that this process will be helpful in this respect. We already have a resolution which supports both names - the redirect and the mention of both names in the article. The point remaining is the continued wrangling over which name gets top billing. It does not seem likely that this resolution process will terminate this wrangling since we have a vexed question to which there is no perfect answer. Perfect is the enemy of good. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Terminating the process is the opposite of moving on and will just lead to continued wrangling. One of the main repeated problems has been the disputed RM that got the situation where it currently is and successive RMs either being speedily closed because of that or getting no consensus, as did the crats, just perpetuates the problem. Hence trying to find a lasting solution. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point but my position is that this is a vain hope and that you would be throwing good process after bad. At some point one has to say, "enough!". Colonel Warden (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If being tired of the whole process is your primary motivation, surely you will support bringing this case to the ArbCom?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand Colonel Warden's point. I have agreed to enter mediation simply out of good will, but the more I think about it the more skeptical I find myself. I really don't know what good could this mediation bring, since everybody has already stated their positions ad nauseam, and it's clear that those positions are valid but unfortunately antagonistic and irreconcilable. People sometimes simply cannot find a common ground, and this is one of those times. Repetition won't bring a solution. I will change my position and refuse mediation. Despite the best intentions of this proposal, I think that mediation will just waste everyone's time (in this particular case). Húsönd 14:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with letting it stand, but a rigorous examination of the facts means that the next time the country pops into the news we won't have another game of name-pong and exactly the same wrangling, repeating exactly the same topics. I suppose that's the doom of this article. I'd appreciate it if the move protection stayed on the article indefinitely, though. It may be, in my mind, at m:the wrong version, but stability is more important than rigid interpretation of policy. SDY (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Húsönd 17:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, we seem to have Colonel Warden and Husond voicing their concerns, but I'll try my best to address your issues with this post.

I sorry to say this but as Timrollpickering said, terminating this request won't end this. I may be one of the users who believes this article is at the wrong name, but the main reason I and a number of others wanted this is not because we want it to be Myanmar. The main reason we want this mediation is because we weren't happy with the Cabal's logic, so we want an official procedure to try and get an answer. This is the whole point of the Mediation Committee. It is the first of two official places where an outsider can work out what to do. I mean, the Mediation Committee wouldn't exist if it never worked. It's the penultimate resort in a dispute. Clearly every time one of these requests has been made, the dispute looks unresolvable, but it must have been resolvable sometimes! Everyone here may feel that everyone else is too stubborn to change their minds, but some official mediation may work. I know that for me at least, it will make whatever decision it comes to, easier to accept, even if no-one changes their minds.

Surely trying every possible option available is better than refusing to address the problem? Even if me and the rest of the users unhappy with the name get bored, eventually a whole bunch of new users will pop up and try and change it again, so surely getting an answer with some clout now is likely to put a stop to that? Try and you never know what might happen. Deamon138 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Warden and Husond, I understand getting jaded with something going on and on forever without any end in sight, and just wanting to say "enough!". But what makes you think that rejecting mediation now will stabilize the article? I wouldn't call the current state of the article stable; rejecting mediation is maintaining the current state. How long do you think it will be before another new user comes on and asks, "Why isn't this page called Myanmar? That's the country's name."? Then, someone on the page will say, "This argument has come up again and again, but the consensus is to keep at Burma." Then someone else (possibly me) won't be able to resist pointing out, "No it isn't. Burma won a majority vote by users who wanted to proactively oppose the regime, this was called consensus, and any attempt to move the article back since then has either been speedily closed or rejected because of no consensus for either name." Then we'll fill up another talk page with the same arguments.

Now, change the scenario to a world in which this mediation takes place. Imagine that any decision at all is made... anything other than "No consensus, so keep at Burma". When that same person comes to the page and says, "Why isn't the page called Myanmar/Burma?", someone else (again, possibly me) can say, "This argument has come up again and again. It never ended, so we agreed to a mediation, and the current title was chosen. Here's the link."

You should really only say you refuse the mediation if you believe that you yourself would not abide by a decision that was made here. But I'm not sure if either of you are saying that. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We most certainly should have the Mediation. Let's just hope when it's concluded? the country-in-question doesn't change to another newer name. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your positions, but it is not just a matter of wanting to say "enough". Were this the beginning of a dispute resolution, and by all means I would enthusiastically join in and try to work a solution that would please everybody. But this is the nth attempt to establish consensus about the name of this country, and all previous attempts have successively and unequivocally shown that there is no such consensus to be found or forged. Answering BaronGrackle, I don't think that refusing mediation will stabilize the article. I just think that accepting it won't either. Húsönd 00:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much what I said the first day this was posted. Now, I have neither a problem with the Cabal's decision nor in the Cabal's logic (as Deamon138 does). My concern is why a vote that basically said "I don't know" means it stays at Burma. By the Cabal's conclusion...If the article had happened to be frozen at Myanmar before the mediation, and we had the same Cabal, it would now be a Myanmar article. I can see where the Myanmar side would be unhappy. However why should the Burma side agree to abide by the next decision? You can bet that with every panel of mediators that might side with Myanmar you will find at least as many panels that side with Burma. Husond is right, where does this end? When I first looked at this mess I said, and posted, that with the current evidence on both sides editors and mediators will NOT be able to reach a FAIR compromise that will appease both sides of this issue... no matter how much thought is put into it. There are good points for each argument. I'm in the Burma camp but that is how I see things. So I'm looking at 1) leave it where it is now, 2) split it into 2 identical articles, 3) some bizarre bot that switches it back and forth daily, 4) a new type of mediation that imho will not end this by any stretch of the imagination. Choice 4 just doesn't look that appealing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if this isn't gonna go to Mediation? Then the next step is Arbitration. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I frankly doubt the Arbcom would accept this. Húsönd 02:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Husond:

• "Were this the beginning of a dispute resolution, and by all means I would enthusiastically join in and try to work a solution that would please everybody." If this were the beginning of the dispute resolution, we wouldn't be requesting mediation, we would be doing a request for comment or getting a third opinion or a lower form of resolution. But we've tried all that. It failed. Surely higher up forms of resolution are MORE likely to work?
• "I frankly doubt the Arbcom would accept this." If you doubt that the ArbCom would take this, then that means the highest form of dispute resolution is this. Mediation. Since we have tried everything below that, and you disagree that Mediation will work, then you are resigned to the fact that NOTHING will work. Seems a bit pessimistic. If you believe it nothing will work then you have no answer to how to solve this. I have provided my best answer to how to solve it, surely trying won't harm anything, and if nothing will solve this in your view, then the problem isn't going to go away. All the more reason to try. The process of Mediation exists, and there aren't huge calls for it to be suspended, therefore it works sometimes. If it works sometimes then there's no reason why it wouldn't work in this, a seemingly irreconcilable dispute; I bet it has in the past. And even if we try this and it fails to help, at least then the Arbcom would be more willing to take the case, and then the solution would be binding! Therefore the problem (while there may be complaints from new users etc) goes away.

Fyunck(click):

• "Now, I have neither a problem with the Cabal's decision nor in the Cabal's logic (as Deamon138 does). My concern is why a vote that basically said "I don't know" means it stays at Burma." The fact that I don't know means stay at Burma is what I meant about having a problem with the Cabal's logic.
• "You can bet that with every panel of mediators that might side with Myanmar you will find at least as many panels that side with Burma." Well I'm optimistic. I believe it is possible for other people to be objective and not subjective. Call me naive if you want, but surely there's a chance that we might get a balanced, fair and rational mediator who can talk us round? Deamon138 (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that 12 out of the 14 who have agreed/disagreed have agreed, so the majority of us believe that:

• As individuals we will attempt to reconcile our differences in this dispute
• And we believe that everyone else will do the same

The 12 of us therefore think this has a chance of helping. Of course even if we all go in with our best intentions, it might fail, true, but if we go in optimistic, the better the chance we get a result from this. Deamon138 (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, both of those who are opposing are satisfied with the current location of the article: one, two. SDY (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, we have something called WP:AGF. I find your remark rather inappropriate and it just convinced me (should any doubts remain) that this mediation is so doomed that it can't even have a beginning. I'm not playing this game. Responding to Deamon138 above, I am not being pessimistic, just realistic. Húsönd 02:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond on your talk page. SDY (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I happen to observe the same thing as SDY, and I fail to see why the citation of opinions held by two users as a general observation is inappropriate in any way. I have also observed Husond's behavior[1] in response to User:Nichalp's recent renaming exercise[2] which he disagrees with bitterly. As User:WJBscribe said, "Husond, I really think you need to take a step back. One of the things I have found most troubling is that you seem to be unable to look at this situation calmly - a sure sign you are too involved to be acting as an administrator here." I hope this advise remains fresh in everyone's heads today, regardless of whether they are admins or not.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Deamon138: You say that 12 of us feel this has a chance of helping? I didn't want to check who is who but for clarity how many of those 12 are pro Burma and how many are pro Myanmar? And one other note... I am not optimistic at all but I do agree that we can find objective mediation. We found it last time with the Cabal. My point is that objective or not, fair or not, truthful or not, this mediation imho will not solve the issue. It is divided for a reason and that's because both sides have facts that support their views. Like a split decision prize fight if you get 50 fair judges you will still have a judgment that is all over the place, maybe even 25-25. I don't recall where but I believe it was said that by "agreeing" we agree to accept this new resolution. I cannot in good conscience sign my name to the agree side based on that condition and the fact I can't see how this will really bring things to an end. All the facts are already there for mediators to see... no more are needed and it does start to waste ones time to do it again. However I also will not sign onto the disagree side because the last decision, while in the books as 2-1 for Burma, has that one dubious vote that is bothersome to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, according to the rules of requesting mediation, if any user doesn't sign Agree, then it is taken as a disagree vote i.e. not voting means voting no in other words (seems a little unfair, what if someone goes on holiday or something?). Also, you agree we can find objective reasoning, but you disagree that such objective reasoning can find the answer. That doesn't make sense. If people are objective, then they discount everything not relevant to what is the correct name, and tell us what the correct name is. If you're objective, you find the correct answer. And there is a correct answer to every question. I think it is Myanmar and you think it is Burma. We can't both be right, so it is obvious that one of us at least (even if we don't realize it) isn't being objective. If we were both objective, then we would both come to the same conclusion. It might turn out that I am the one being subjective, and if an objective mediator comes along, he might say it should be Burma. But either way, tere is a correct answer, and by definition, objectivity finds it. Deamon138 (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that the current medcab decision isn't a decision at all, it's "1 for, 1 against, and 1 retain status quo." Since there is no status quo, the third statement has been broadly seen as dubious. I don't care strongly either way, but the current decision is extremely weak and inconclusive. If a formal mediation is "not the way", we should try to address this in some other fashion to get a more rigorous decision. Some options, in vaguely increasing order:

• Ask the 'crat who gave the ambiguous answer for a more conclusive statement.
• Find another 'crat to get a more conclusive decision to the MEDCAB case.
• Mediation.
• Arbitration.
• Appeal to Jimbo!!!!one!! (just kidding)

This issue isn't settled, and just throwing our hands up in despair isn't a viable option. SDY (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I support using Myanmar; I'd be happy with a 6-months rotation of the article's name (rotating Myanmar & Burma). It's highly irregular on Wikipedia, but it might work (we won't know, until we try it). GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

So we have discussed for ages, conducted several rounds of page move requests, went to the MedCab, and now to the RfM, which is set to fail because one individual chooses to object for no better reason than being scepticle about its potential for success. And so we have one group destined to push for dispute resolution because the "status quo" is not in their favour, and another group determined to hamper the resolution process because they want the "status quo" to remain. Clearly, it all points to merely one direction for a solution...the Arbitration Committee, where no user will be able to disrupt its process for whatever motive he may have, and the results are binding, putting an end to further debates. I suppose this will save alot more precious time for alot more people! :D--Huaiwei (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of dynamic databases in a dynamic World

It seems to me that one issue not brought up in previous positions on the naming of the article clearly was that the name of the state has changed several times, and can very likely change again if an when there may be a significant change in the government. The good thing about Wikipedia is that it, as a dynamic database, can cope with very rapid change in data to keep up with the changing World, and we need to keep this in mind.

The changes in names of any state are based on what the state is known as by those who govern it regardless of how much those on the outside like of dislike these names. Every change of name past is immediately transformed from the status "current affairs" to that of "history". I would suggest that we accept this, and take the pragmatic approach that the current name is what the government in Naypyidaw says it is given the default acceptance of the change in the capital city--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have asked the 'crat whose decision has been the source of this confusion to clarify his or her stance. If he or she provides a clarification that makes the MEDCAB decision less unclear, how many people here would still want to seek mediation? SDY (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Gotta say, that was a smart thing to do. It may or may not help but it's surely worth a try. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "clarification"; his decision seemed awfully clear to me. "No consensus, so keep at Burma". If he for some reason CHANGES his decision to "Burma is the common name; Myanmar is not a common name and the name dispute conventions therefore don't apply"... well, you can understand how some of us might be doubtful of the sincerity. -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Warofdreams

People seem to have asked this user (who made the "no consensus, therefore keep at Burma" comment on the MEDCAB decision) for his reasoning. I did have a discussion with him a little after he reached that decision, and would like to present said discussion which took place mainly on my userpage and partly on his (sorry if the formatting makes it hard to follow, I've done my best):

Hi Warofdreams, I noticed your decision on the Burma/Myanmar name Mediation Cabal discussion. I don't mean to cause offense, but I am a little confused with your decision. You mentioned that there was consensus on a few issues. I'm not going to argue whether that's true or not, it's more that I don't follow your reasoning from that point. You said there was consensus on, "Myanmar...is now in widespread use. "Burma" is also in widespread use." You also said there was consensus on, "the country's de facto government has officially named the country "[Union of] Myanmar."" Finally, you said there was consensus on, "Wikipedia needs to take into account common usage and self-identification in choosing titles for articles," which also happens to be the official policy of Wikipedia anyway. My problem is thus: if everyone agrees that Burma and Myanmar are both as common, and that Myanmar is the official self identified name, then since you say we agreed to take into account common usage and self identification, then by that reckoning, doesn't Burma only fall into one of the categories that we supposedly have consensus on, but Myanmar both? If we had consensus on all three of those things you mentioned, then it seems logical to suggest we had consensus on it being Myanmar. Whether we had consensus on those points you mentioned or not is debatable of course. However, if we did, then saying "No consensus" overall confuses me. Sorry to be a nuisance. Deamon138 (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It's certainly not a "pain" to respond to queries! In relation to "doesn't Burma only fall into one of the categories that we supposedly have consensus on, but Myanmar both?", my answer is not necessarily. There doesn't appear to be a consensus on how the country can be said to self-identify. Certainly, the government has named the country [Union of] Myanmar, but there is a distinct thread arguing that the opposition's choice of Burma is of equal or greater significance, given its victory in the last democratic elections. Even if Myanmar was accepted as the official name by which the nation self-identifies, it doesn't necessarily follow that meeting both criteria trumps meeting one. It may well do so, but I don't believe that there is a precedent for saying that it must. Warofdreams talk 00:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry for replying on my own talk page, I just think it might be easier to keep any discussion in one place, however don't feel obliged to reply here if you don't want to.

Okay I agree that the what the government says being not necessarily the self-identifying name is an argument that was used. However, the victory of the other party in the democratic elections may not have been because party wanted the name to be Burma. I would say it was more that they wanted to end the human rights abuses and get rid of a totalitarian regime was the reason people voted for them in their droves. I'm obviously not up on my Burma/Myanmar politics, but could it not be a similar situation to a likely victory of the Democrats over the Republicans in America, and the same with the Conservatives over Labour i.e. that the people become disillusioned with the government, and just vote for anything that goes against them, and not specifically for a particular party. I mean, I'm 18, so when I get to exercise my opportunity to vote for the first time, I don't think they'll be a single party that I'll agree with ALL their policies, but there might be one I'm mostly in agreement with. I also think (and as sad as this sentiment sounds) but when deciding an official self-identifying name (and we don't have an idea of what the people say) then we go with the name used by those with the power. I think going with Burma because "it's used by the ones that were democratically elected" seems to me to have a little unintentional POV in favour of democracy which obviously we can't do.

Also, the fact that there was consensus on the issues you said there was, is contentious. It depends I think on your definition of "consensus." If you use the definiton that "there is a majority in general agreement" then no, there was no consensus. However, if you use the definition that Wikipedia gives, which I think I mentioned in the debate (that someone on that page's opinion has to be taken into account when forming consensus only when it follows policy), then yes , there probably was the consensus that you mentioned.

Still, I (and a couple of other users) are a little confused over another issue that has been brought up on Talk:Burma/Myanmar: that the fact that you said, "No consensus" therefore "keep at Burma" doesn't appear to have a causal link between those two statements. You'll see what I mean if you have a gander at the newest section on that talk page.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way or anything, or that me and the others on that page are just upset that we "lost" or anything, these (or at least the one mentioned on that Talk page) are real concerns. Thanks for participating in the Medcab thing on this issue anyway, and thanks also for continuuing after to reply to mine and other's issues if you have the time to do so. Deamon138 (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. There's no need to apologise!

With regard to the nature of support for the pro-democracy opposition, I suspect that you are probably correct. The amount of weight to give their position is therefore a matter for debate; there did not appear to be consensus on this in the discussion.

With regard to the definition of consensus in Wikipedia, it's true that it is possible to discount or give less weight to positions which are clearly illogical, jokes or contradict core policies. However, I was more interested in seeing how the discussions had developed. The points I raised as appearing to have consensus were ones which had come up in the debate and had either not been questioned, or had produced discussion which appeared to me to have reached the broad consensus I described.

Finally, on the no consensus therefore keep at Burma statement, the general attitude taken on Wikipedia is that if there is no consensus to do something, it is not done - there was no consensus to move the article to Myanmar, so it should remain at Burma. That differs from saying positively that it should be at Burma; there was equally no consensus that it should stay at that title, so I wouldn't expect my comments to be used as a precedent or argument against the article being moved, if a consensus does emerge in future. I was a little reluctant to just make the statement as I am aware that there was significant controversy around the move of the article to Burma originally. I took the view that in our limited role in interpreting consensus in the mediation discussion, it would be inappropriate to address that issue which had not featured heavily in the debate. Warofdreams talk 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks for clearing that lot up, it certainly makes sense what you've said. Obviously whether or not there was an overall consensus or consensus on some of the underlying points is very very hard to decide, and can get pretty subjective, so I respect your decision on that. On the "no consensus therefore keep at Burma statement" that you talked about, what you've said seems fair, I personally would've mentioned (in your decision summary) something along the lines of "That differs from saying positively that it should be at Burma" or whatever, more explicitly myself, but I guess you can't always get what you want. No worries. Deamon138 (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to quote my comment here, should you wish. Warofdreams talk 00:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this, I appreciate it. I reckon I'll probably be after some kind of formal discussion now on Burma/Myanmar, but the MEDCAB discussion was a good starting place. Deamon138 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Make of that what you will. I felt satisfied enough with his answer to feel therefore that further debate was required. Deamon138 (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, now we know. Thanks. Considering that the page was created at Burma and remained there for almost five years, I think that that should be taken into account as a "status quo" location, even if the article did open by naming the country as Myanmar. Maybe that's a reasonable compromise? Article is called Burma, but the name Myanmar is the bolded name in the lead? SDY (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't be SDY. The first mention of the subject must always conform to the title of the respective article. If the subject possesses more than one name, then all variants are to be mentioned right in the first sentence, and all must be bolded (just like they are now). Húsönd 01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with Husond's point here. Deamon138 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know the entire history of the article, but I know that the very first comment on the talk page (as has been pointed out before) was someone requesting it be changed to Myanmar, so has there ever been consensus on what the article should be called? I think choosing the status quo to be what the article was called God knows however many years ago when it was created is not really justified: a lot has changed since then. If the article had been created a few months ago and you were saying that should be the status quo, that would make more sense. Btw, I just noticed your most recent comment on WoD's talk page, and no problem, I'm just doing my best to get this debate to a conclusion which is what we all want. Deamon138 (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the very first talk page comment that was on this issue (although that was about "Burma" redirecting to "Myanmar"), it's also the subject of the very first edit to the page. (Note that although nominally earlier edits are shown this is a byproduct of the merger of two articles.)

In terms of the history of the location for the record I can't at a glance see any page move recorded in the page history before January 2006 although this seems to be a function of the software. However from August 2002 onwards the article is consistently calling it "Myanmar" and the 2003 comment says that at that point "Burma" was redirecting to "Myanmar" in spite of the claim above that it was at "Burma" in this period. On January 16 2006 it was moved from "Myanmar" to "Myanmar (Burma)". Then on January 29 it was moved back. On March 13 2006 it was moved to "Myanmar (formerly Burma)" but moved back to "Myanmar" two hours later. There was vandalism on July 3 2006 when it was moved to "GOD HATES JEWS!" and reverted within seven minutes. Then on October 1 2006 it went through a double name move going first to "Myanmar/(Burma)" then to "Myanmar/Burma" and finally to back to "Myanmar". Then it was stable until May 12 2007 when it was moved to "Burma (Myanmar)" but swiftly reverted to "Myanmar". Then on October 2 2007 it was moved to "Burma" after the controversial RM outcome. There was more vandalism on April 29 2008 when it was moved to "H  Á  G  G  E  R  ?  " but swiftly reverted. On May 19 2008 it was moved to "Myanmar" and moved back to "Burma" the next day. Almost immediately the move was made again and equally immediately reverted. And yet again that day but reverted two days later.

As I said above, moves before 2006 don't appear to be recorded so it's hard to be 100% sure where the article was before then, but the evidence implies it was "Myanmar" for most of the time. I think I agree that what the article was called way back in 2001 is not really much help - there simply isn't a "status quo anti-bellum" here providing a past consensus on the matter. Hence the hope for some binding settlement. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I didn't see much in the move history, at any rate. So the question is: what do we do now? I'd hate to see it left as a scuttled RM, but maybe I'm just a process wonk. I don't know that it ultimately matters, but I have this disturbing feeling that this isn't the last time this page will move. Let's leave it at "H  Á  G  G  E  R  ?  " and be done with it. SDY (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I nearly died laughing when I saw "H  Á  G  G  E  R  ?  ", coincidentally I just found out about Grawp. Just look at how many pages he's moved to "H  Á  G  G  E  R  ?  " rofl! Deamon138 (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Warofdreams's comments are very enlightening. They confirm my view that we need to come to a consensus over specific aspects of the rationale leading to a decision, not just the final name. This kind of a consensus simply hasn't been sought yet. I would be much happier to accept a final decision of "Burma" (when the sum of my thought about this to date still concludes "Myanmar") if it were down to a 60/40 split vote on whether the country can be said to have self-identified as "Myanmar" or not, or any similar critical point in the reasoning, than on the kind of discussion we've had thus far, and I hope those who have backed "Burma" up to now would feel the same. Let's do this, let's do it properly and in doing so let's save ourselves any more wasted time on this otherwise interminable discussion. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The question of which name the country self-identifies as depends on which entity/group we are referring to, or what the article is about. Those who believe the country self-identifies as "Burma" believe the article is more about the people of Burma who support the democratic government in the U.S. I and others who believe the country self-identifies as Myanmar believe the article is more about the government that controls the country. If we decide that the former is the case, then we need to change the country's infobox information to reflect the government in exile (e.g. identify the government as a representative democracy instead of a military junta). I might've done this already, except Wikipedia frowns on disruptive edits meant to make a point. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not take political stances. The article is at "Burma" primarily because it has been determined that most English speakers refer to that country with that name. We're not making a political statement and I guess we need not change the infobox to reflect the government in exile (although such action would be feasible and probably valid). Húsönd 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Husond. The primary argument for retaining the name Burma is that it is the more recognizable English name. See my excellent argument in the previous mediation effort! --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to WarofDream's statement that "there is a distinct thread arguing that the opposition's choice of Burma is of equal or greater significance, given its victory in the last democratic elections", which I thought Bigbluefish was referring to when he was talking about WarofDreams' use of "self-identified". Clearly, neither of you are of that thread. And, yes, our arguments over which name is more recognizable in English have been very well archived! -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you are all completely missing the point. When I mentioned WarofDreams' use of "self-identified", I was suggesting an example aspect of the rationale which leads up to a choice of name. If another aspect of the rationale, the choice between the common name, makes further aspects redundant, then fine, but the point is that we have to agree on these rather than descending into yet another melée of people throwing their favourite argument at each other and expecting it to elicit a conclusion independently. RegentsPark, your "excellent argument" confuses me. It seems to conclude that modern usage is mixed, and then say that this is still enough to choose "Burma". Is this because of the availability of pre-1989 literature about Burma on top of the mixed modern usage? That's something I could get behind, but in any case we still need to translate that into a consensus on reasoning, rather than counting bullet points. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was being facetious (about the excellentness of my argument). However, the basic point is that both Burma and Myanmar are used (one of the references you've added to Names of Burma for example says "the usual English name" for Burma) in contemporary times. However, in academia in the English speaking world, and in available English language literature (both pre and post 89) the dominant name is Burma. Hence we should also use Burma. (Bullet points are used to separate argument points. I had, and have, no intention of using them as a countable stick to wield against anyone. Where did you get that idea?) --Regents Park (Burma 8-8-08) 15:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if we are to assume that you could convincingly support the claim that Burma is the dominant name in academia, the later, unfortunately, do not neccesarily constitute common usage, and in fact often do not in many fields.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I wonder how we're doing at convincing the committee that we need mediation. :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response RegentsPark; I now think I fully understand your reasoning, and it is certainly not bad. The situation remains the same in that as a community we need to agree on a reasoning. This is where the medcom can help. So I hope that incoherent unprogressing banter is making a very convincing case for MedCom intervention! If, however, the MedCom doesn't want to dirty its hands in this way, would others be supportive if I initiated a structured discussion designed to gain consensus on the fundamental reasoning behind a naming choice? My comment about bullets, by the way, referred to the general linear lists of people of each persuasion adding their views, not the structure of RegentsPark's comments. BigBlueFish (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting us all to agree on the individual steps might work, and you're welcome to try, though I suspect that even analyzing each individual step still might fail. I tried to have some sort of discussion on the individual steps in (his) reasoning with Warofdreams as you can see above. Personally (and I'm not trying to say "I was doing it all along" or boasting or anything) I always try and analyze scientific, moral, political, ethical and philosophical ideas using step by step reasoning if I can. I'm not someone who can just accept it when someone says "X is wrong." I then think, "Why is X wrong? What is the exact definition of X? Can X ever be right?" and I look for flaws in my reasoning. So far I have found none with my reasoning for Myanmar (but maybe I'm just bad at the step by step thing, and me doing it is admirable but still etched with failure for myself?). So if you want to do that kind of discussion, I will gladly participate, but I fear that these points that we have to agree on are all the same old tired points that everyone has been over en masse (usually then someone comes along and dissects someone's argument into individual quotations, and tries to falsify it, which seems similar to your idea) and can't agree on, and i think a neutral looker-on would be needed (like we have tried for here) to get us to agree. Deamon138 (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I wholly agree with your thoughts on past discussion. What I hope to achieve with a more structured approach is to make it easier for a neutral onlooker to do things such as discount fallacious arguments and judge how many people really are behind a certain point. I'll give it a go... BigBlueFish (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think it should be moved to Myanmar. We can always change it back to Burma, when the Junta is overthrown. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we could. Or, we could not. :-) Húsönd 22:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

At least consider a 3-months rotation between the 2 names. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting solution. Among unpractical and unreasonable solutions, that is. Húsönd 22:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The last two suggestions can't really be serious? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the last two suggestions are serious. Ain't no joke, the words I spoke. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay's compromise

We should really consider a 3-months rotation of the 2-names. Then after 1-year? we can revisit this debate over which name to use. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This would make people even more scared of Wikipedia's reliability. One minute we're saying it should be Burma, then we're saying it's Myanmar, and then it's Burma again, and yet by WP:CRYSTAL, you can't know that in 3 months any facts on what name it should be have changed. Nor can you know that it'll be any different in a year. Postponing this debate is just running away from the problem, in a year some of use might feel less emphatic about joining in, or a whole bunch of new users will join in. Moreover, during that year, it's bound to happen that a new someone will post "this should be at Burma/Myanmar" and ignore the self-imposed Mexican standoff. Deamon138 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Unfortunately, even the notion of an imminent change to the politial status quo is pretty unrealistic when it has lasted almost 20 years so far. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I had exactly those sentiments in 1989. (About East Germany, not about Burma!). --Regents Park (Burma 8-8-08) 15:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But presumably also in 1969 (if you were alive then) :-) BigBlueFish (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well you never know. Still, I truly hope that all the arguments I, and others, have made for why it should be moved to Myanmar become redundant tomorrow, and the people's suffering ends, but we can't count on that to provide the simple solution to all our debates here. Sometimes I do wonder if the junta will just go "Bah, them Wikipedians are at it again, let's rename to Burma and shut them up!" Well, maybe not, the problems of that country far outweigh the problems we have here, and I guess that's the most important thing to remember. Deamon138 (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that the more you look for sources commenting on the choice of naming, the more you find which cite Wikipedia as the source. This makes it all the more important that we choose naming conventions with good standing. BigBlueFish (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes that kind of bias can exist. Try adding "-wikipedia" to Google searches perhaps? Deamon138 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh there are plenty of ways of judging our language's usage of "Burma" and "Myanmar", both those which are and those which aren't influenced by Wikipedia. My point was that Wikipedia isn't an entirely uninvolved party in this debacle so our choice is important. BigBlueFish (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)