Talk:Myanmar/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

A small point on numbers - apologies if all this was known before

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but this is my finding. To ensure we get English reuslts and main text citations, I've used Burma and Myanmar with everyday prepositions.

• To Myanmar - 2.7 mil.
• To Burma - 1.75 mil.

• In Burma - 8.2 mil.
• In Myanmar - 11 mil.

• Burma regime - 27,000
• Myanmar regime - 46,000

• of Burma - 6 mil.
• of Myanmar - 5 mil.

• Myanmar is - 1.3 mil
• Burma is - 700,000

No clear winner but both are extremely rife in English. I cannot conduct a case by case study but there is every chance some of the references to Burma may be referring to pre-name change periods. Numbers for everything are high but I just thought I'd point this out. Note, I cannot use "Burmese" and I don't think there is a true adjective for Myanmar because its proponents continue to use Burmese for the demonym in much the way United Kingdom still invites the term British. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't like to do the search engine test since it seems to be about as accurate as a random number generator. I've had better luck with Google Books where the numbers are smaller and more manageable but I still find through paging through the results that Google greatly exaggerates its returns. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Definitely, I don't disupte that. I wasn't producing the figures for the purpose of pushing my favoured Myanmar over Burma, quite the opposite, I was merely reflecting that BOTH are extremely widespread in English usage and that there is no outright leader. When we are talking tens of thousands of results for every entry, there are bound to be multiples and negligible instances (by multiple I mean where "in Burma" could have been used 12 times in the same source) but there is evidently no "common name" decider. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The words "to", "in", "of", "is" and "regime" all exist in multiple languages (although not necessarily with the same meaning as in English). Searching for Burma and Myanmar together with the listed words does not guarantee that the results are in English. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• A Web search for multiple words returns heavily ghosted result numbers. This guideline gives the example of "the green goldfish". Not only that, but the above results are not restricted to English. You should try this with ngram or GBooks. Kauffner (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Google Insights for Search is often more useful. It shows what term people are searching, and the naturalness criterium in WP:CRITERIA asks that we consider what readers are more likely to search:

• Burma vs Myanmar in the USA: [1] - Burma slightly more common
• Burma vs Myanmar in the UK: [2] - Burma more common (~2 to 1 ratio) and gaining more favor in the last year.
• Burma vs Myanmar in Australia: [3] -Burma slightly more common.

The difference is not big, but Burma seems to be prefered by readers in the English speaking part of the world. MakeSense64 (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem inherent in your assessment. Though the UK, US and Australia form a significant portion of the English-speaking world, they are definitely not the whole representative. India is a country with the largest number of English speakers. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We use the names of countries that are generally recognized. For example we call Deutschland Germany, although they have never called themselves that. During decolonalization, many countries, such as Northern Rhodesia and Persia, changed their names and the new names were recognized. But the world refuses to recognize the name Myanmar. TFD (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And wp prefers to take no stance in that kind of disputes, so we recognize "usage" as our main criteria. If the world changes and Myanmar becomes the most commonly used name, then that will be the time to move this article. For now it seems that Burma is still most common in the English speaking world.

I think this article is put in RM so often, because some people hope that changing the title here in the wp article, will help the world to accept "Myanmar" as the name. Just like the EU keeps organizing referenda until they get the desired result, editors put in RM until they get the desired result. That's where you wished that wp software would be changed to accommodate for multiple article titles. Burma would appear as the title when the reader has searched for (or clicked on) "Burma", and Myanmar would appear as the title when the reader has searched for that term. Everybody happy, and enormous amounts of editor time would be saved, because this kind of RM would become unnecessary. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And I'm going to point out, of course, that while Google Books has reliably leaned toward Burma, Google News has reliably leaned toward Myanmar. And in terms of the United States, consider that both the Associated Press and Rand McNally use Myanmar. That means Myanmar is the name that appears in the majority of U.S. news and on the majority of U.S. maps. Keep all this in mind when you're weighing in the influence of books, many of them probably about the time period before the regime change. -BaronGrackle (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the reason this article is so often brought up for a name change to the actual, real name of the country is because it is THE name of the country and has been for decades. That is the sum total of the argument. I have never seen anyone co-opted by the government of Myanmar to do their bidding. It is simply a desire to do things properly. Further, as can be seen in the "Oppose" votes above, the majority of people voting to remain Burma are making a political statement against the current government. It is abundantly clear everyone knows the name Myanmar. It is not Wikipedia's objective to be common; it is our objective to be correct and teach people i.e. be an encyclopedia. There is no problem stating that governments that are against the current government refust to recognize the name change in the article and that some people follow suit. However, if we are to be objective, how do we call it Burma when it is Myanmar. -^StormRider 09:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you may be interested to read the recent discussions on Talk:Ivory Coast. It was moved away from the "real name" to "common name" and the decision was upheld in RM review. Pretty much the same thing here. "Real name" is not the only argument, in the end it is "usage" that decides. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't impute political motives to other editors. It would seem that the consensus opinion is that the common name was Burma and that, if things continue on broadly current trends, it will be Myanmar. The main discussion is over whether that point has been reached, as per WP:CRYSTAL we do not wish to pre-empt it. The secondary discussion is whether this is too soon after the previous debate. It is important tor realise that "the actual, real name of the country" is rarely the name of the article, take for example the United States and the United Kingdom. Rich Farmbrough, 11:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I am not imputing anything; when they say they are doing it for political reasons then I am sort of stuck with their reason being political. After complaining about being objective and not putting Wikipedia in the position of appearing to support a political agenda, then you begin to see those who oppose and you don't see the political agenda. I am not addressing those voters or votes. As I have stated from the beginning; my reasons are stictly for objectivity. I am an American living in Abu Dhabi and have no other agenda; never been to Myanmar, don't really care about Myanmar, but I do care about an encyclopedia being accurate. I find this appeal to common name less than convincing. I understand that common sense is not a requirement to vote or have an opinion. -^StormRider 11:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Cote d'Ivoire does not apply here. One is French and we are talking the English language. Nice try, but again not a very convincing argument; more apples and organges. -11:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's quite correct that political rationales are more-or-less inadmissible (although I have some sympathy with the view that, where it is impossible for us not to take sides and there is no other method of deciding we can reasonably use, we should take the side most commonly taken by reliable sources).

However, glancing through the above discussion, the political argument that has been put more than any other is "it's the official name". This is just as much a political statement as "we must do what the opposition does" (which I don't think anyone has even tried to argue). If you hold a view that decisions taken by governments must always be respected, regardless of the legitimacy of the government, international recognition of the decision or any other factors, then you are making quite an enormous political statement, even if you are not explicitly backing the Burmese junta. Formerip (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it wikipedia's job to decide the name of a country, contrary to it's official name? The United Nations recognizes Myanmar, not Burma. Because Burma was colonized by Britain and another former colony of Britain (Australia) supports retaining the colonized name of Burma is not a reason to disregard what the citizens of the country prefer.

As mentioned above, the country with the largest English-speaking population is India, which recognizes Myanmar. And as SarahStierch says above, "the folks I know who are from Myanmar would rather be introduced as being from Myanmar, not Burma." I have found that to be true also. Should wikipedia be taking a political stance regarding "the legitimacy of the government" in deciding to override the United Nations, the preferences of the country's own citizens etc. Should we do that for other countries also that wikipedia has decided it disapproves of its politics, e.g. in South America? How many countries are run by "political juntas"? (Quite a few.) Because the BBC insists on using Burma we all must? (In the US media, the country is called Myanmar, sometimes with the additional phrase "formerly known as Burma" on stations that carry the BBC. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you not appreciate that what you are expressing is a view about a political question?

Your questions can all be quite easily turned around. Why should we follow the usage of the UN rather than the major Anglophone governments? Why should it be relevant that Burma is a former colony? Are the Burmese opposition colonialists? Formerip (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why allowing for multiple article titles would be a real step forward for wp, and allow it to stay completely on the neutral side in this kind of disputes. By (currently) having no other choice than decide for one version vs another, wp fails to stay neutral, despite all our talk about NPOV. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't solve anything. We already have redirects, but we still have to choose some name in article text. Kanguole 13:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, one more point, then I'll stop. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. What do other online encyclopedias call this country? Myanmar. Resoundingly. Even Britannica, the iconically British one. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So iconically British, it's American. Formerip (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha, I learned something new! -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that we are meant to go by other encyclopedias anyway, but they see the need to say "also called Burma", recognising the fact it is known by that name too. They do not say.. Formerly known as Burma. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Three-way agreement among Britannica, Columbia, and Encarta is recommended in the guidelines as a test for common name, but so is ngram. The point of these tests is to determine which name is more likely to be recognized by readers. But various RS state that "Burma" is the more widely known name.[4] So unlike a typical RM, in this case we don't need to research the common name issue ourselves. Kauffner (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If you actually read the opening paragraph of that source you'll see it's clearly referring to UK usage (i.e. the BBC's intendended audience by charter). Timrollpickering (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the Canadian Globe and Mail, they use Myanmar however on a dozen occasions they say the country is better known as Burma. [5], [6],[7] ,[8] ,[9] ,[10] ,[11] ,[12] ,[13] ,[14] ,[15] ,[16] ,[17] ,[18]. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And this one from earlier today talking about the end of pre-publishing media censorship. Again clearly saying its better known as Burma. [19] BritishWatcher (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The tag "better known as Burma" is more to appease our(Canada's) government which has only started using Myanmar officially just recently and to anyone not fully up to date in current affairs. The fact that we are using "Myanmar, better known as Burma" rather than just using Burma shows that Canada (as a country) now considers that country to be called Myanmar. Like I said before in Canada Myanmar is used more often than Burma in local talk, government usually takes a while to follow suit. JoshMartini007 (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Same thing in the US. People from Myanmar dislike being called "from Burma". Only broadcasts on the BBC still use Burma. It's like referring to Sri Lanka as Ceylon. What's the BBC's reason? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

1) "people from Myanmar dislike being called "from Burma"" - this is a huge blanket statement and certainly does not apply to the majority of NLD voters (just one example). It may also be unreliable to canvass opinion from Burmese people at this time, since they have a choice of either using 'Myanmar' or risking their families spending time in a gulag at the hands of the junta. 2) There is a very long list of other organisations/people/governments aside from the BBC who use 'Burma' listed elsewhere on this page so I won't repeat them. The BBC's reason (like other media in the UK) is simply that most of its audience will recognise 'Burma'! This is often very difficult for non-brits to comprehend (many tend to throw around the word 'ignorance'), but 'Myanmar' has had so little exposure in the UK media that a large section of the population will have never heard of it. And what media organisation wants to put out a story that its audience will not understand? 3) I've never heard of Ceylon, and I suspect neither have the vast majority of native English speakers. We use Sri Lanka because that's the "common name"! And this whole debate is (supposed to be) about the common name and NOT the "official name", the "indigenous people's preferred name", the "United Nations name", "my politically preferred name", "the name in [insert non-English language here]", or anything else... C 1 (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I just need to correct something that 2 different editors have stated above. India is NOT the country with the largest number of English speakers, the United States is. According to our article List of countries by English-speaking population, India only has 125,226,449 English speakers and the United States has 267,444,149, over twice as many. In addition, India only has 226,449 native English speakers, while the United States has 225,505,953 or about 1,000 times as many. The English Wikipedia's focus should be primarily on native English speakers, as non-native speakers of English will generally be reading Wikipedia in their own native language, not English. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Indian users access English Wikipedia more than any other language project. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Rreagan007, most Indians will access the English language wikipedia - note that almost all higher education in India is in English - so your analysis is a trifle faulty. However, this for Sir Nick, there are a couple of reasons why we shouldn't use the "Indian" argument here. First of all, despite the use of Myanmar rather than Burma by Indian newspapers, Indian users are also familiar with Burma and I would argue, unfortunately with no evidence other than personal experience, that Burma is probably more recognizable than is Myanmar to most Indians. There will be no surprise there. Second, we should be looking at geographical variety in usage rather than the number of speakers of this English or that. If we just focused on the number of users from various countries, we would probably need to rewrite the entire Encyclopedia keeping only Americans and Indians in mind! --regentspark (comment) 12:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that, according to this article, there are fewer than 200,000 native English speakers in India. Millions of other Indians may have varying degrees of proficiency in English, but they will not all be proficient to the extent that they have a developed "feel" for whether "Burma" or "Mayanmar" is more natural. Formerip (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope you were not trying to be condescending. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a really stupid comment, but well done for trying ;). Formerip (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Indian nation does constitute a part of the English speaking world and literature is produced in India just as it is in New Zealand. The name in Indian English is Myanmar and probably all people will know that this is Burma. I contend that anyone familiar with Burma in countries such as the UK will also know of Myanmar but none of this is relevant, it is speculation. Bottom line, British press use Burma, Indian use Myanmar. This encyclopaedia is open to everyone, I don't know exactly which form is more common because people produce mixed results. What is certain is that there needs to be a very solid reason for where the article goes, and common name is too near the knuckle to be a major factor - it would have been different had we debated India vs Hindustan. Mention "Hindustan" to many people in the English speaking world and they will be clueless. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "native language" means the language of the community they belong to. You'd be surprised at the number of Indians who can read and write in English but are unable to do so in their "native language"! However, I agree that this entire thread is a distraction from the Burma/Myanmar naming issue so let's just ignore the languages of India and return to our regular programming :) --regentspark (comment) 14:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia appears to prefer unsettled (and, ultimately, unsettlable) arguments over logic in certain cases. Perhaps somebody can tell me who Wikipedia's style god or goddess is so that I can off the person and the rest of us can relax and have our Burma/Myanmar (and Reversi/Othello, etc.). There is no reason not to make this preferable change other than that it requires a little note at the top of the article (which is no reason at all, for more than one reason). Somebody please make this recommended change (i.e., second my opinion).173.15.152.77 (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Burmans of the Kingdom of Nanzhao

" Burmans of the Kingdom of Nanzhao " (from lead) Burmans of Nanzhou? The inhabitants of Nanzhou were Shan (Thais)! PiCo (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Both the Bamar and the Shan migrated from Nanzhou around the same time, so the statement is accurate. Besides, the Shan aren't Thais either; a few live in Thailand, but a majority of them live in Shan State in Burma. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 04:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? I think the Burmans came from modern Kachin state, and before that from the Tibetan higfhlands, while Nanzhou was an entirely Shan kingdom and dates from a rather later period. The Thais, by the way, are definitely Shan, and the Shan are Thai (more accurately Tai) - as indeed are the Assamese (or Ahom). Anyway, do you have sources for this? PiCo (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. It’s an understandable question especially if you’ve read really old books on Burmese history. My comments are as far as I know, as a lay person interested in Burmese history.

1. Name: It’s Nanzhao, not Nanzhou. They have different meanings in Chinese.
2. Migration path of the early Burmans (Mranma): Early colonial scholarship (Phayre 1883, Harvey 1925) conjectured a possible migration path of the Mranma might have been from the Tibetan highlands via Assam. (Even then, the scholarship was skeptical.) But since at least since the 1950s, if not earlier, the mainstream scholarship view (led by G.H. Luce) has been Nanzhao (Yunnan). Prior to Yunnan, the home of original Tibeto-Burmans (not just Burmans) is believed to be Qinghai and Gansu regions of present-day China, based on archaeological evidence. Tibetans went west to the highlands whereas the ancestors of the Burmans came south to Yunnan. Now, Luce’s proposal isn’t without controversy. But the points of controversy aren't about the migration path—no one has disputed the Yunnan path—but about the timing and the leadership's ethno-linguistic character. His proposed dates on the Burmans’ entrance to the Irrawaddy valley (8th and 9th centuries) have been questioned as early as 1970 as being too late. That didn’t see the light of day. Only recently, has there been any questioning by modern scholars, who also believe that Burmans came centuries earlier. It’s still a minority view, AFAIK.
3. Nanzhao's ethnic and linguistic character: That Nanzhao was a multi-ethnic kingdom has never been in dispute. For decades, at least to the 1970s, scholarship (including Luce) believed that the *leadership* of the kingdom was Tai-speaking. That view has been overturned since. The mainstream opinion now is that the rulers of Nanzhao spoke a Tibeto-Burman language. (Language experts can shed light on when exactly the view changed. I suspect the 1980s.) At any rate, the change in the scholarship’s classification of the leadership’s language doesn’t impact the view that Tibeto-Burman-speaking Burmans and Tai-Kadai-speaking peoples (among many other peoples) lived together in Nanzhao.
4. Mixing of ethnic and linguistic families. To say that Thais and Shans are the same is mixing linguistic heritage with ethnic heritage, and to ignore eight centuries of separate histories. It’s akin to saying the modern-day Dutch and Germans are the same; or modern day Mexicans and Spaniards; modern day Turks and Kazakhs, Uzbeks; Burmans and the Kachin; and so on. Inter-intelligibility between Thai (central Siamese) and various Shan languages, AFAIK, is low to very low. From an ethnicity standpoint, the Thai people have Khmer and Mon (Chinese and other backgrounds) whereas the modern-day Shans have absorbed many other smaller ethnic peoples in various Shan states. Of course, even when we restrict the locale to just one place, say, central Siam/Thailand, modern Thais aren't the same Tai-speaking peoples who came down in the 13th century both from ethnic and linguistic standpoints; just as modern day Burmans aren't the same as the Mranma of the first millenium CE.
5. Sources: You can find sources in the Pagan Kingdom article for the Mranma/Nanzhao question. See the Bibilography section. I recommend (Lieberman 2003) for a fairly detailed overview accessible to lay people like me, and (Moore 2007) for those looking for more details (archaeological finds, etc.) Now, for the original thesis, see Luce's 1959 publication "Old Kyaukse and the Coming of the Burmans" and "Old Burma-Early Pagan" (1969-1970). Unfortunately, I don't have either book but I've seen those publications referenced in other books several times.

HTH, Hybernator (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the exhaustive and useful reply :) PiCo (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection?

Regretfully, due to the extraordinary percentage of reverted edits, this page should be protected (imo). ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Various article title discussions

Moved to Talk:Burma/Myanmar

Moondyne (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Coverage of human rights section

First of all, I would like to say that there are 60 millions people in Myanmar. No less than one-sixth of them are struggling for survival amid of various on-and-off civil wars. A million refugees in Thailand alone. So in comparison, Rohingya, with a population less than one million at most, are victims of just one of the no-less-than 20 internecine conflicts. Devoting an entire paragraph for Rohingya is acceptable at best. But following the tide of media hysteria and covering virtually all of the human rights section for Rohingya is not a good idea. The recent riots casualties are 100 people, probably less than that of the contemporaneous civil war in Kachin State.

Another point is about genocide. Does any reputable international organization call it? No. Over the past sixty years of civil war, there has been millions of news entries about the conflict. So there can be entries which label the conflict as genocide. But the mainstream viewpoint is that there were human right abuses, but not in a magnitude of a genocide. The repeated mentioning of the word "genocide" in human right section, is definitely not neutral. Thank you. 203.81.70.132 (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Supporting protection request

I was just taking a look at the Burma page due to recent events. Then I saw in the revision history section that somebody recently vandalized and reversal was done by reputed user. Precisely the reason why protection is needed, it doesn't block users with reputable rank anyways but it be harder for disrupters. Evidently Wikipedia's open policy may be one of their great strengths that draws in talent yet also a questionable weakness. Iwwiki2012 (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Curious, why is this written in British English? If there's no local variety of English, shouldn't it use Indian English instead? Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it should use Burmese English if anything. I don't think it matters too much. Is it a reasonable compromise to endorse no English variant? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It uses British English because it is a former colony of Britain and most reporting, scholarly work, and historical works tend to come out of Britain. In practice, English speakers are a rarity in the Burma of today so I doubt if the Burmese care that much. Indian English is not really a variant of English (no dictionaries or references to figure out what it is) so I suggest not using that. --regentspark (comment) 14:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with that explanation I think the matter is even simpler than that. WP:RETAIN is pretty clear on this point. There is normally no compelling need to switch any aricle from whatever variety of English it is was originally written in. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If it were written in Indian English it might be more elegantly written, though the differences are too slight to worry about. Howard Alexander (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I made an edit today in the attempt to assist readers in understaning the names of the country. There may be a better way to state it, but my objective is to introduce the names of the country as well as to aid readers in understanding that Burma, the common name, is the previous name of the country. It is covered later in the article so it is unnecessary to provide a long explanation. I hope I was not jumping the gun and just trying to move forward. -^StormRider 08:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally unacceptable change referencing burma as just the "previous name". I believe we should wait for the outcome of the review before moving on to deal with the introduction. I believe the introduction should continue to say Burma first, but go on to say officially Myanmar or the full name. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Myanmar is the name by which the country is commonly known in South-East Asia. Like we no longer refer to Rhodesia or Ceylon but to Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka, we should also get used to call this country Myanmar. As explained elsewhere on this page, the name "Myanmar" is not really "politically incorrect", and even if it were, it is common practice to adopt geographical names as locally used: we also referred to St. Petersburg as Leningrad and to Chemnitz (Germany) as Karl-Markx-Stadt for many decades. The only exception IMHO is Ho Chi Minh City which continues to be called "Saigon" by the locals - so in that case we should follow them as well. Rbakels (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Burma, alone, does not give readers any context for why Wikipedia is naming it so. It was the reason that I began with the offical name. Do you think it is helpful to let readers now why it is being called Burma? Is it not what the country was previously called or am I mistaken? What do you think we should note about the name Burma? I guess it could also be recognized as "commonly known", but then we would have to also state the same thing about Myanmar since both names are "commonly known". Do you disagree?

As I stated above, I probably jumped the gun. As long as we aid readers in understanding why the name of the article is Burma, I have no problems. The current wording is totally unacceptable. -^StormRider 10:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

it was the old name of the country, the trouble was wording it like that sounded as though its only commonly known as Burma because that use to be its name, rather than the fact it is continued to be called Burma by numerous sources. I think saying "Burma, officially Myanmar" would be enough of a change with the full title in the infobox title already. However i would not oppose "The Republic of the Union of Myanmar officially Myanmar and commonly known as Burma is a sovereign state in Southeast Asia. If there was consensus for such a change, but best to wait awhile especially until after the review has taken place and see how others feel. After the title Burma being reaffirmed some may not agree with such a big alteration to the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest: "Burma or Myanmar, officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, is a sovereign state..."

And while we're talking about the lead sentence, is it really necessary to have 6 different pronunciations of "Myanmar"? It adds a lot of clutter and really seems like overkill to me. Perhaps there could be 1 pronunciation in the lead sentence with a link to an explanatory note at the bottom of the article with alternate pronunciations. Actually, an explanatory note or an internal link to the "Etymology" section might also be useful. Attempting to qualify or explain the different names in the lead sentence will either be inadequate or will add way too much clutter. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I rather like the six pronunciations: they imply how little used the word is (and I have thought of a seventh, but never mind). Rothorpe (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

But is it useful to readers to have that many different pronunciations in the lead sentence? And yes there are even more. In fact, the 2 pronunciations listed on Dictionary.com (mahy-ahn-mah and /maɪˈɑnmɑ/) aren't even ones that are listed in our article....yet. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps 'various pronunciations' and dump them all in a footnote? Rothorpe (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Having so many pronuciations in the lead is never good; I would not have any problem putting them in a footnote or addressing it later in the article if someone else feels strongly that it needs to be in the article. Different pronunciations has nothing to do with use of a word; it only deals with how different peoples pronounce the word.

I still think you need to provide a reason for calling the country Burma. It is quickly, easily understood by a reader when Myanmar is used for the Republic of the Union of Myanmar; it is not understood why Wikipedia is referring to it as Burma. Do we explain that we call it Burma because GB calls it Burma; or BBC uses the term Burma? Maybe we use an explanation of how Wikipedia is concerned about common names and even though it is evident that the country is Myanmar. This seems a bit absurd. It is called Burma because that was the previous name of the country and some people still use the term. Is this incorrect or is it a fact? Why resist explaining the use of the term? -^StormRider 08:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it necessary. The reason we title the article Burma is because the consensus amongst Wikipedia editors is that the common name of the country is Burma. That's based oh Wikipedia's policies and we don't need to explain our policies on the article page. The very next section deals with the names of Burma and interested readers can go look at it, or at the subarticle, for more detail. --regentspark (comment) 15:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This does not explain Wikipedia's policy at all? Where did you get that? What it explains is why the article is called Burma, a previous name of the country, and what the actual name of the country is. This is not rocket science and is very straight forward. It would be similar to if an article was entitled "Stingray" for the Chevrolet Corvette. Stingray was a previous name of a corvette, but it is not the name of the car. The car is called a corvette. So if we call the article Stingray we need to explain that it was a previous name and the actual name is Corvette or the official name Chevrolet Corvette. -08:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. I misunderstood your question. The country is called Burma (and it is, equally in my opinion, called Myanmar) and that doesn't really require an explanation. I thought you wanted to explain why we title the article Burma rather than Myanmar which is a different question. The titling choice is entirely a result of Wikipedia's policies.--regentspark (comment) 13:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Myanmar" is and always has been the common name of the country used by the Burmese themselves - it was called that by ordinary folk in Rangoon when I lived there in the 1980s, for example. There are not any "various pronunciations", just the one - though the English spelling doesn't really give a good idea of the actual pronunciation. "Burma" is what the British called it. The Brits got that from the Arakanese in the late 18th/early 19th century, just as they got the name Rangoon instead of Yangon from them. PiCo (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I had acquaintances visit a couple years ago who were from the more rural parts of Burma. They and their elders in the local towns have always called it Bama and still do today. They told me some of the more urban areas of the country call it more like Manma. Maybe it's dialects or simply the way certain groups consider themselves, but it sure sounds different than what you're saying. I know of at least three US companies that if you are an international buyer... you are required to use the term Burma. No idea if that's the norm. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a sort of interchangeability between "my" and "b", and there might well be a Rangoon dialect effect. One odd example was the Beautiland 2 guesthouse - Rangoon streetkids (completely uneducated) called it "Myutilatu". I'll be over there in October and I'll make some inquiries - it is interesting. PiCo (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A possibly interesting news article - the country's independence leader calls it Burma and regards Myanmar as a politically loaded term [20] 124.169.167.84 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

On January 6, 2012 a user with the IP address of 203.81.175.247 deleted the second lead paragraph and replaced it with the lead paragraph from the history section which was cut from the lead of that section. 203.81.175.247 also repeatedly vandalized the page by removing the Civil War sub-section from the history section, a subsection for which two main articles exist and extensive citation had been provided. I undid these changes but 203.81.175.247 continued to revert these. Because this user's IP is based in Burma and the user consistently has vandalized information relating to the Burmese Civil War I believe he/she is probably someone pushing an POV and therefore vandalizing the page. What can/should be done about this?

I think it's very hilarious to see some editor try to change the name to Myanmar without knowing ANYTHING whatsoever about the history of this article, let alone the history of Burma. It's so funny that I just spilled my morning coffee reading "Storm Rider's" writings. How can you beat free entertainment like that? You can't! Beam 08:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions are over

"Many nations, including the United States and Canada, and the European Union, have imposed investment and trade sanctions on Burma. The United States has banned all imports from Burma.[181]" This is no longer correct. Since the opening of Myanmar the sanctions were lifted by both the US and the EU. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/world/asia/eu-suspends-sanctions-on-myanmar.html?_r=0 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-usa-myanmar-sanctions-idUSBRE84G0XQ20120517 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7C0:409:40E4:C0AD:EF9A:2AE7:95B4 (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right and it's fixed. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

How many Bamars are there?

Some figures are not right. Article infobox says that population of Burma is approximately 60 000 000 and that Bamars consist of approximately 68% of population. On article about Bamars, infobox says that there is about 30 000 000 Bamars in the World and from thet number about 28 000 000 in Burma. I don't know, but I think that's way below 68% of population. So, what are really correct figures? --Milan.j (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Request minor edit

This page currently links to Register (linguistics) but should link instead to Register (sociolinguistics). The former is a redirect to the disambiguation page Register. Cnilep (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Added sudo template. Vacation9 03:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done - change has been made by BD2412 (talk). JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Corruption in Burma

Any room for a section on corruption? The article on politics of Thailand has one. PiCo (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Tone and accuracy

I have only looked at a couple of sections of this article, but the tone and accuracy needs to be reviewed for the entire article, as it appears that previous copyeditors have edited the page in accordance with a particular political persuasion.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with you. Let's say for example, this article says "Genocide allegations and crimes against Rohingya people". It deliberately confuses the reader that there is a genocide against Rohingya. The cited link, however, shows that there were allegations of genocide against ethnic minorities like Shan, not against Rohingya. (link). By the way, take note that the link is 7 years old. This article also presents "allegations" as facts. Totally biased politically and one sided. Moreover, I also question the neutrality of the lead section. Where is the history prior to 1962? 203.81.67.122 (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. I will continue to look at the article in its entirety.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

While I agree about the genocide against the Rohingya issue, the article generally is fairly neutral. For example, they say that there were allegations of things, but that they were unsubstantiated. This merely means not proved. As a history major, I can tell you that it does not seem to be, overall, biased. In fact, it seems, for the most part, to be quite the opposite.

Rhinoceros, wild buffalo,

Has Burma Rhinoceros and wild buffalo?Jesper7 (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Rcats needed

­This redirect needs Rcats (redirect categories) altered. Please modify it as follows:

• from this...

#REDIRECT [[Burma]]{{R from alternative name}}{{R with possibilities}}{{R printworthy}}

• to this...

#REDIRECT [[Burma]]
*WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE ERASE THE TEXT ON THIS LINE & LEAVE THIS LINE BLANK.
{{Redr|move|from historic name|rwp|protected}}

Template {{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. This request replaces the general nickname Rcat, {{R from alternative name}}, with the more focused {{R from historic name}}, since both "Burma" and "Myanmar" are historic names for the same country. Template {{rwp}} is short for "Redirect with possibilities", which also automatically populates the Printworthy redirects category. Thank you in advance! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 00:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Redrose64! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 17:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

why?

Why don't the flag and coat-of-arms links presently display in the infobox? Usually they do.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like they're displaying to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This could be the result of the browser you use, or the settings for image display in your browser. The flag and CoA images do display in IE 10, Firefox 21.0 and Chrome 27.0. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 21:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

He isn't talking about the actual images of the flag and coat-of-arms not displaying, he's talking about the links to the separate articles on those topics that usually appear underneath the images of the flag and country seal in the country infoboxes (i.e. see in the United States article how underneath the flag and seal there are text wikilinks to those separate articles). There should be text wikilinks in this article's infobox to "Flag" and "State Seal" underneath the images, but they aren't displaying for me in this article either in Chrome, Firefox, or IE. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. I have no idea why it won't display. I tried removing everything in the infobox after and before the flag and seal, to see if maybe something weird was holding it back. It didn't work. I changed the name to Flag of Burma... still won't show. No guess as to what the problem is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done - I Changed common name to Burma and it now works. It must be some software item where the article/common name/flag/seal all work in unison. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Rohingya issue and lead section

While I do not have the burden to prove that Rohingya case doesn't belong to lead section, I will make the case to initiate the discussion. Firstly, this article is about the country of sixty million people. Lead is to provide "a board overview of the subject", not what is reporting in the news. Rohingya is a tiny minority and the issue hardly affects most people living in Burma. While I am not using other stuffs exist argument, good examples include United States article lead which has no 9/11, and Thailand article lead which has no Southern Thailand Insurgency. Compared to 9/11 and Southern Thailand Insurgency, Rohingya issue, which claims just 100 causalities from both sides, is hardly notable in a chaotic country like Burma. For example, Khachin conflict claimed many more causalities. Tens of more than four millions internally displaced people die every week. But they are not in the news because it's not new.

Another is about recentism. We should view these events in the sense that how likely they would be remembered in the long run. Similar religious strikes include 1990s religious riots under junta, riots during 1988, mass killings of Rakhine and Rohingya during world War II and several more. They are all much more notable than Rohingya issue here. But in the context of the country as a whole, they couldn't be included. So to conclude, in the context of Burma, Rohingya issue doesn't belong to lead section. SWH^{® talk} 01:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a brief mention in the lead is warranted but it needs to be properly contextualized. Since the installation of the partly civilian government, the human rights situation in Burma has improved dramatically with hundreds of prisoners released and with making the media free of censorship. In the Burmese heartland, there is no question that things are much better. But, there is the lingering issue of ethnic groups - human rights issues at the fringes so to speak - that continues, and this is best exemplified by the situation in Rakhine state with the Rohingyas. If someone could craft a sentence or two that incorporates the improvement in the HR situation in Burma with a caveat about the minorities with special mention of the Rohingyas, that would be perfect. As a stand alone addition, I'm not in favor of including the material added by Sopher99 but we do need to say something about it in the context of the "new" Burma. --regentspark (comment) 12:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Yes, I agree with you that it should be included in the context of new Burma in a way that would explain the improvements along with the shortcomings like the religious conflicts. Also, it would be great if we avoid using controversial terms like genocide and ethnic cleansing unless there is a consensus in international community. SWH^{® talk} 14:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been editing based on consensus in this discussion. User:Sopher99 has been adding materials. Please stop arguing, challenging on edit summary and discuss here. For the two sources you have added, none is about Rohingya or Rakhine. It's about a separate event in Meiktila. And the Muslim victims were Burmese Muslims. SWH^{® talk} 08:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. What we have now appears to be the consensus on how to include the Rohingya issue in the lead and continually edit warring to change it is disruptive. --regentspark (comment) 11:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with this version, representing a board overview of the country including brief mentioning of Burmese history and many recent issues including religious clashes, avoiding controversial words. In my opinion, there should be a brief mentioning of recent peace talks for ongoing military conflicts in the lead section. PhyoWP *click 13:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Human Rights

I read the citation from the Human Rights Watch and nowhere does the report claim that sexual violence is used as "an instrument of control." Nor do I see any mention of the military taking in "sex slaves." However, the report does note that the military grossly abuses its power; for example, "the Burmese military continues to be responsible for abuses against civilians in conflict areas, including... sexual violence." Therefore, the statements about sexual violence and rape were left in the Wikipedia article. Connecting rape with "instrument of control" sounds like original interpretation. If you can find a reliable source that avers that one of the Burmese regime's "instrument of control" is rape/sexual violence, then please cite that article instead. Likewise, please cite where you got the information about "sex slaves" – while it is highly possible, the given citation does not make any references to the "military taking sex slaves," and therefore cannot be included on Wikipedia. Eyeofpie

I am also concerned about the neutrality of the Human Rights section. It seems to me that this tinted from a Western perspective – i.e. European, liberal democracies. The United States have plenty of political prisoners – from Guantanamo Bay to Julian Assange, and have also been accused of torturing prisoners/accused terrorists in discrete foreign facilities. Yet, Wikipedia does not dedicate a 'Human Rights Violation' section for America as it does for Asian countries. Eyeofpie

Removed the stuff not in the HR report. --regentspark (comment) 00:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit

I noticed in the mark-up of an edit made on October 21, 2013, with the edit summary, "updated gdp data to most recent report", the year 2018. In the edit, among other things, the year was changed from 2011 to 2018. I have no way of knowing if that is correct and whether the edit was intentional or not, but I thought I would point it out just in case it was a typographical error and should have been 2013. – CorinneSD (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the time frame. The editor chose the time frame from 2011 to 2018 to obtain the report. But the data the editor entered was correct, for 2012. SWH^{® talk} 05:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Expansion needed in the lede

The UN calls it ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is a neutral term.

http://www.undispatch.com/the-8-stages-of-genocide-against-burmas-rohingya

Other sources that call it ethnic cleansing:

Bangkok Post [21]

CNN [22]

The Economist [23]

The Guardian [24]

Human Rights Watch [25]

The Independent [26]

New York Times [27]

Sky News [28]

Spiegel [29]

Sopher99 (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly there are allegations of genocide and ethnic cleansing. But, isn't that covered by the blanket "continued criticism"? Details of the criticism are perhaps better addressed in the section titled "Genocide allegations and crimes against Rohingya people". Are the allegations of ethnic cleansing widespread enough to be included in the lead? --regentspark (comment) 00:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

ABC News [30]

Al Arabiya [31]

Al Jazeera [32]

Bangkok Post [33]

BBC [34]

Channel 4 news [35]

CNN [36]

Daily beast [37]

The Economist [38]

Forbes [39]

Fox News [40]

GlobalSolutions.org [41]

The Guardian [42]

Huffington Post [43]

Human Rights Watch [44]

Ib times [45]

The Independent [46]

Nation.com [47]

TheNational.ae [48]

NBC News [49]

New York Times [50]

Reuters [51]

Sky News [52]

The Star [53]

Spiegel [54]

Yahoo News [55]

Widespread enough? definitely. Sopher99 (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead section is to provide a broad overview. And this article is about Myanmar. Rohingya issue is just a subset of ethnicity issues, similar to numerous other issues such as violence in Kachin State, which are subsets of human rights which also includes other issues such as censorship, worker's rights etc. Given widespread coverage, there are many sources for any viewpoint. US, EU praised the response as improvements while HR groups criticized it. (Just to clarify, UN dispatch is not UN, and opinion pages are not official viewpoints). It would be over-magnifying to expand the Rohingya issue. I agree with current version and there is not a need to add further. SWH^{® talk} 07:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The government's human rights abuses and the rohingya killing are in the top 5 most notable things about burma right now, so I disagree. Sopher99 (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

For example, in the past month, US government shutdown is unarguably the most notable thing about the United States. But that doesn't mean we should include in the United States article lead (WP:UNDUE). But I am not implying that we should not include Rohingya issue here. But rather, the weight we have given is already neutral and balanced as already discussed above. Any more inclusion would change the balance. (Just a point. Rohingya issue is easily confused with 2013 Burma anti-Muslim riots, which are related but separated in many ways) SWH^{® talk} 14:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The US shutdown was a 1 week period (and is now finished). The ethnic cleansing have gone over a year, and defines most of the news since then. Second of all the shutdown could most certainly go in USA's lede because the actual government was shut down- seems pretty notable to me. But that's not the point. The point is Burma, where the ethnic cleansing is notable enough for the lede. Sopher99 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Secondly it will not "change the balance of neutrality". Massacres are massacres. There is no subjective point of view to that, especially when we have reliable sources to back it up. Sopher99 (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99, of course there are many sources that use the label 'ethnic cleansing'. But, there are also many sources that don't. Will our lead be enhanced if we add an "allegations of ethnic cleansing" to it - I don't think so. If there was an almost uniform outcry, that would be a different thing but that's not the case here. I could easily come up with a list of articles critical about the Burmese handling of the Rohingya issue that neither claim ethnic cleansing nor claim genocide. I think 'criticisms' is adequate in the lead with details about the allegations left to the body of the article. We should be very careful in our use of terms such as 'ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide' because they are big claims and always need to be properly contextualized. In this case, the lead is not the place to do that. --regentspark (comment) 17:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That would only work if there were sources denying ethnic cleansing. There aren't. Just because there are sources which talk about Burma's GDP, gini index, typhoons, rebels and rubies doesn't mean the ethnic cleansing is insignificant. Sopher99 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No. If there are many sources that describe the situation with the Rohingyas without calling it ethnic cleansing, then we don't put ethnic cleansing in the lead. It is as simple as that. The correct place to include qualified views is in the body where explanations and context can be added. Just because sources don't say "it's not ethnic cleansing" doesn't make it ethnic cleansing. I'm sorry, but the second part of your comment makes no sense at all.

That's nonsense. Just because there are many sources about pol pot which don't mention the Cambodian genocide of 2 million doesn't mean the genocide is not mentioned in his summary on Wikipedia. The jis of what I was saying is just because there are many articles about Burma and the Rohingya, it doesn't "cancel out" the articles about genocide and ethnic cleansing. Sopher99 (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me. Let's say 10% of the articles that explicitly discuss the Rohingya situation mention ethnic cleansing but 90% don't. Does that make it ethnic cleansing? Obviously, it is easy to find news articles that say that the Rohingya are being ethnically cleansed, but you can't ignore the many others, particularly academic papers (cf. [56], [57]) that don't make that claim. The more pertinent issues, if you really want to focus on them, are the statelessness of the Rohingya and the displacement of the Rohingya population but even those should not be in the lead. The lead is not meant to be a place to discuss nuances and qualified opinions but rather a place for general statements and "criticism of" covers that more than adequately. Note that no one is saying we don't talk about allegations of ethnic cleansing. We should definitely include those opinions, but in the body and not in the lead. Ethnic cleansing is, in the words of WP:LEAD, a "startling fact" and it should not be included without description. --regentspark (comment) 22:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And most articles from reliable sources that do mention "ethnic cleansing" do not state it as a fact. When they do mention, they usually attribute to HRW statement, and news about HR group accusations of "ethnic cleansing" itself is the only time they mention the term for most agencies. (Except for opinion pages, which are not official viewpoints). And of course, number of articles that do not mention "ethnic cleansing" outnumber the number of articles with "ethnic cleansing" by a wide margin. SWH^{® talk} 00:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The point I am seeing being made by the opposing side:

Most sources about the Rohingya conflict don't mention ethnic cleansing or genocide - therefore it is not noteworthy enough for the lead.

My response:

• So what if there are a variety of source which talk about aspects other than the ethnic cleansing? The conflict is wide-ranging - from refugees, to political jeopardy, riots, all the way to laws

restricting birth rights. The variety in concentration of subject matter does not invalidate noteworthiness - the ethnic cleansing is still the most noteworthy of a slew of issues surrounding the conflict.

• There are no independent sources refuting the ethnic cleansing/genocide claims

• I have 9 sources - the Bangkok post, CNN , the Economist, the Guardian, Human Rights Watch, Independent, the NY Times, SKY news, and Spiegel which identify the situation as ethnic cleansing/genocide directly, and many, many, more which relay ethnic cleansing reports by human rights groups. A trio of CNN, Guardian and NY times sources alone would do the trick. Those three are considered the top of the top in regards of reliability.

Sopher99 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99, there isn't much point in listing all these sources. No one here is arguing that "ethnic cleansing" is not a valid label to use in the article. What we're saying is that it shouldn't go in the lead. You need to explain why a label, that is not universally used, should go in the lead and you need to explain how it will go in the lead. Otherwise we're - all of us - just wasting time.--regentspark (comment) 17:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Then a simple answer to this is that I will prepare more sources. A lot more. Sopher99 (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency

I have removed the following section, as the citation does not back up the content: "This, however, has received little attention from the international community since it has been more subtle and indirect than the mass killings in places like Rwanda." This statement is also inconsistent with the larger figure ("an estimated 90,000 people") that is stated earlier in the paragraph: "It also displaced more than 52,000 people."

The figures are not really inconsistent. The 90,000 is the UN figure and 52,000 the Myanmar government figure. (Not a comment on the removal, merely a clarification.) Nicely cleaned up :) --regentspark (comment) 13:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Democratic reforms

I've made a few edits to the article to improve clarity and conciseness, while making an effort not to change meaning. I have no vested interest in the issues. I am only interested in clarity and accuracy. I am concerned about the third sentence in the second paragraph in the section "Democratic reforms":

"Here, transition does not refer to a transition to a full democracy, but transition to a quasi-military rule."

While the entire paragraph seems to be someone's point of view, the first two sentences of the paragraph make it minimally clear that these are the beliefs of only some people. However, this third sentence has no qualifying phrase. Thus, it is not clear how the information in this sentence relates to the previous two sentences. Who actually believes this? Also, where are the references?

Finally (and least important), it is not the best writing style to have the word "transition" three times in one sentence.CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

The vast majority of reliable media sources have been reporting on the ethnic cleansing issue

ABC News [58]

ABC News [59]

ABC News [60]

Al Ahram [61]

Al Arabiya [62]

Al Arabiya [63]

Alaska Dispatch [64]

Al Jazeera [65]

Al Jazeera [66]

Allvoices [67]

Asia Times [68]

Bangkok Post [69]

BBC [70]

Bloomberg [71]

Burmapartnership.org [72]

Burmatoday.net [73]

Businessweek [74]

The Canadian Charger [75]

Channel 4 news [76]

Channel News Asia [77]

Christian Science Monitor [78]

CNN [79]

CNN [80]

CNN [81]

Daily beast [82]

Daily Kos [83]

The Daily Star [84]

The Daily Star [85]

The Daily Star [86]

Deccanherald [87]

EA.org [88]

The Economist [89]

The Economist [90]

EU Reporter [91]

Forbes [92]

Fox News [93]

Global News [94]

Global Post [95]

Global Post [96]

GlobalSolutions.org [97]

Google News [98]

Greater Kashmir [99]

The Guardian [100]

Gulf News [101]

The Hindu [102]

The Hindu Businessline [103]

Huffington Post [104]

Huffington Post [105]

Human Rights Watch [106]

Ib times [107]

The Independent [108]

Jarkata Globe [109]

Khilafah [110]

Kuwait Times [111]

Los Angeles Times [112]

Malaysia Chronicle [113]

MCB [114]

Nation.com [115]

TheNational.ae [116]

NBC News [117]

NDPHR [118]

News Daily [119]

Newser [120]

New York Times [121]

Quora [122]

Palestinian Chronicle [123]

Palestinian Chronicle [124]

Pakistan Today [125]

Radio Australia [126]

Raw Story [127]

Reuters [128]

Reuters [129]

Saudi Gazette [130]

Saudi Gazette [131]

SBS [132]

SCMP [133]

Sify.com [134]

Sky News [135]

Spiegel [136]

The Star [137]

The Star [138]

Straits Times [139]

Think Progress [140]

Todayszaman [141]

Transcend.org [142]

Tribune [143]

The Times [144]

Upi.com [145]

Venn Institute [146]

Vice [147]

WSJ [148]

Washington Post [149]

Weekly Holiday [150]

Yahoo News [151]

Yahoo News [152]

It is noteworthy enough for the lede. Sopher99 (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

Recent edit [153] removed claims of Australia using Myanmar, and United States using both Burma and Myanmar. But this source [154] supports Australian Government refers to the country as Myanmar. Although US is not officially adopt Myanmar, The US government has begun to use both names, and allow limited use of the name Myanmar as a diplomatic courtesy. [155] [156] [157] [158] PhyoWP *click 18:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that there is no country that does not allow "Myanmar" as a diplomatic courtesy. The point is really what the official position of different countries is. It is very misleading to say that the US "uses both", because it has a clear official policy.

The source you found for Australia is good but, in general, we need sources explicitly stating a country's position, not examples of "Mynamar" in use. It is WP:OR to extrapolate from the existence of such sources what the position of a country is. It may have no position or it may not vet website content very actively on the issue (particularly if it is not an English speaking country). Also, the source cited for Germany did not mention Germany. Formerip (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edition. How about rewriting as "Offical United States policy is that country is "Burma", although Barack Obama sometimes referred to it as Myanmar." It may be acceptable because US president and his spokesman used it not only in November.[159] The source cited for Germany did not mention Germany, but France.[160] But, there are other sources for Germany, Norway and Russia.[161][162][163]PhyoWP *click 10:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Part of discussion moved to proper placement at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Population

Recent edit [164] changes Burmese population from 60,280,000 to 55,167,330 per CIA World Factbook [165]. However, government source [166] and ADB [167] estimate about 61 million. In my opinion, 61 million is more reliable before 2014 Burma Census. Is there any guideline for population in wikipedia articles? PhyoWP *click 20:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

British Burma

The sixth paragraph in the section "British Burma" reads as follows:

Although many Burmese fought initially for the Japanese as part of the Burma Independence Army, many Burmese, mostly from the ethnic minorities, served in the British Burma Army. The Burma National Army and the Arakan National Army fought with the Japanese from 1942 to 1944 but switched allegiance to the Allied side in 1945. Under Japanese occupation, 170,000 to 250,000 civilians died.

As I said in my Edit summary, after putting the clauses back in the order in which they were, placing information first in a sentence does not necessarily give prominence to it. If the information is in a subordinate clause, it indicates that the information in it is less important than the information in the main clause that follows it. Also, the adverb "initially" minimizes the information by indicating that it was only briefly. I removed "also" before "served in the British Burma Army" because it is not clear whether the same Burmese fought in both armies. If that is the case, then "also" can be added.

Another reason for putting the clauses in this order is that the sentence then parallels the explanatory sentence that follows.

However, there is still something that is confusing in this sentence, and that is the various names of armies. If, indeed, the second sentence provides information to further explain the first sentence, then the relationship between the Burma and Arakan National Armies and the Burma Indpendence Army ought to be clarified. If they were three distinct armies, then what is the relationship between the first and second sentences? – CorinneSD (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Demographics - Largest cities

I have no idea why there is Cache me if you can.gif above the Largest cities of Myanmar Template. I can't find it in the source and Template. Thanks in advance. PhyoWP *click 21:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 January 2014

Please insert {{WikiProject Burma|class=redirect}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Note The proposal above is for Talk:Myanmar. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

N its a redirect to this talk page it does not need that banner as it is visually confusing on a redirect. -- PBS (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Second request Please add Myanmar to Category:Redirects from alternative names. I don't know why it was removed from that category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

N It is not clear what you want. do you mean add Category:Redirects from alternative names to the redirect Myanmar? -- PBS (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. I added it to the {{redr}} invocation. (And yes, Koavf means on Myanmar.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Done I added the WikiProject banner to Talk:Myanmar, afaict this was the only outstanding action. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Myanmar

The following two subsections were copied here from copied from Talk:Myanmar where a naughty person had turned the redirect into a talk page causing confusion for other editors. The last posting to Talk:Myanmar was by JamesBWatson at 11:29 on 17 January 2014 -- PBS (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Categories Please remove Category:Redirects from historic names, as "Myanmar" is presently used as a name for Burma. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Borders of Burma

Insufficient material for stand-alone article at this time. Better to integrate into primary article for now. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Obvious support. There is no earthly reason for a separate article on such a minor aspect of a country. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Bazonka (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk not ported from Talk:Burma

@PBS: "Naughty person"? What are you talking about? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you are obviously not a naughty person. -- PBS (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly the messiah, though. PiCo (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Rhodesia any one?

Any one here support renaming the Zimbabwe article as Rhodesia? Thought I might find some support here!! Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that English is an official language of Zimbabwe, one of the most widespread of its sixteen official languages. Many Zimbabweans are native English speakers and thus have more impact on English language usage than do the Burmese. --Khajidha (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be best discussed at Talk:Zimbabwe. Also, WP doesn't allow to campaign as well.SWH^{® talk} 01:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Units of measurement

The last sentence in the section "Units of measurement" is as follows:

"On 10 October 2013, it was reported that Dr. Pwint San, Deputy Minister for Commerce, had announced that the country was preparing to adopt the metric system."[315]

I read the article, "Myanmar to Adopt Metric System", provided in a link at the reference (315), and I could not tell whether Dr. Pwint San was actually announcing the plan to adopt the metric system, and, if so, whether he announced it on 10 October 2013. If he did, then it would be good to shorten and simplify the sentence to:

"On 10 October 2013, Dr. Pwint San, Deputy Minister for Commerce, announced that the country was preparing to adopt the metric system."

"Dr. Pwint San...announced" is more concise than "...it was reported that Dr. Pwint San...had announced".

Does anyone know when this announcement was actually made, or perhaps understand the article better than I do? If the sentence were simplified as I have suggested, would it be accurate? CorinneSD (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)