Wikipedia

Talk:Myanmar/Archive 4

< Talk:Myanmar
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Duja in topic Requested move
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Requested move

Latest comment: 17 years ago238 comments73 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to Burma. There are equally valid arguments on both sides of the debate: a significant majority of editors prefer Burma though, according to the "principle of least astonishment". I suppose that there's an emotional level of revolt towards the junta involved, and that "Myanmar" would likely be accepted per similar precedents if there's a democratic government. Oh well. Duja► 08:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Myanmar → Burma — The fresh turmoil in this country has apparently reignited the discussion on whether should this article here be named Myanmar or Burma. I am requesting this to be moved to Burma, as that seems to be the most commonly used name among English speakers. Furthermore, the name Myanmar has never been recognized by the Burmese opposition nor has by many countries (including the United States). —Húsönd 23:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • I used the same argument to oppose Ulaanbaatar -> Ulan Bator (The US State Department uses Ulaanbaatar) but that was ignored. Note also that the UN uses Myanmar overwhelmingly. Do we want to list how every government or international organization in the world refer to Myanmar/Burma and tally it up? --Polaron | Talk 00:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The uniqueness of this situation does not lend itself to comparisons with most other naming arguments. Also, some international organizations/governments have more influence than others, so a simple tally wouldn't really help us. --Hemlock Martinis 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of validity, it's a matter of weight. Also, the UN and IOC's naming conventions are chosen by the states themselves. So of course the UN will call it Myanmar, because that's the name the junta wants. --Hemlock Martinis 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Just as I expected. Those that don't conform to your view do not have weight. I will reply with the response I got from the Ulaanbaatar naming: Wikipedia is not an arm of the US State Department. --Polaron | Talk 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not just the US using Burma, I shouldn't have singled it out. I should now perhaps remind that common usage is not just about something that is written but also something that is spoken. I believe that despite "Myanmar" seemingly occurs more frequently on the web for whatever reason, "Burma" is orally far more widespread. It could be a good idea if users taking part in this survey stated which form they personally use if we are to determine what's common usage.--Húsönd 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - Burma is not more common by a long shot. Myanmar receives 42,600,000 hits on Google[1] and Burma receives a mere 7,120,000 hits[2] (note that the search is modified to only include English pages). Reginmund 00:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no evidence that Burma is the more common name. Burma is overwhelmingly used only by the UK Government. The EU uses Burma/Myanmar. The UN overwhelmingly uses Myanmar. News sources vary with US/Canada/India-based sources generally preferring Myanmar and Australia/UK-based sources preferring Burma. In the absence of evidence for the what the common name is, the name that the entity calls itself should be the fall back name. --Polaron | Talk 01:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • So again where should we look for common names? Only the EU and the US government count? Everything else does not count? News organizations do not count? Then who determines common names. Searches on Google Scholar turn roughly equal numbers. What about current encyclopedias? Which sources count for determining common usage? Do you want a counter list of news organizations that prefer Myanmar? --Polaron | Talk 01:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh and while Time and The Telegraph prefer Burma, Reuters overwhelmingly uses Myanmar. --Polaron | Talk 01:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do English-language news sources and English-language academic journals count? Or do they not count because they can "call a country whatever they like"? And these governments don't call countries whatever they like, how? Please stop cherry-picking sources. What about modern dictionaries and encyclopedias? What about other governments of countries that have English as an official language? --Polaron | Talk 01:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is an international relations issue. Governmental and academic sources are far more useful to us than some cub reporter. And as for cherry-picking sources, I couldn't find anything about Burma on Jamaica's foreign ministry page and I forgot New Zealand. And I still have yet to see why we should use Myanmar instead of the country's proper name. --Hemlock Martinis 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Myanmar is currently the country's proper name. Who is it that defines a country's proper name i your view? For what it's worth, hits on gov.ie are at 1:1, gov.au at 2:1, gov.uk at 18:1, US gov at 2.3:1, gc.ca at 1:1, govt.nz at 0.75:1, gov.jm at 0.25:1, europa.eu is at 0.5:1, and un.org is at 0.04:1 (all written as number of hits for burma only : number of hits for myanmar only) Aside from the UK (which overwhelmingly uses Burma) and the UN (which overwhelmingly uses Myanmar), the results are mixed. There is no overwhelming common usage of Burma. Of course the UN doesn't count but the UK does. --Polaron | Talk 02:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The term "Myanmar" is an invention of the junta from when they were consolidating power after the 1988 uprising. Burma is the name of the country. Besides, the links to the respective foreign ministries and their official press releases have already shown which ones officially refer to the country by what name. I'm sorry, but I have to trust their press releases more than a simple Google search. --Hemlock Martinis 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not sure if there is a standard policy on this, but IMHO, it should be called what the occupying and controlling forces call it. That's Myanmar. That seems like it would be a good rule. It removes the politics from the situation. I imagine this is an issue because President Bush called it Burma at the UN. He did that for political reasons. We shouldn't introduce the Presidents politics here. This sounds like an attempt for diplomacy through Wikipedia, which I think is a bad idea. And, calling the article, or the state, Burma, would give the idea that the opposition forces have taken control and changed the name again. —Slipgrid 14:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The standard is not to follow the occupying forces, but to follow the bulk of English-language sources. The appropriate argument to be making is whether "Myanmar" or "Burma" is more common in sources. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This is the English Wikipedia; "Burma" is the English term. By what authority would we consider elevating "Myanmar" to official status in English? Its similarity to the local reference is invalid; if it were, we should rename "Hungary" to "Magyarorszag", "Finland" to "Suomi", "Japan" to "Nippon". This is EnWiki, not UNWiki. István 15:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Having grown up and gone to school in the English-speaking world, I've learned that it's called "Myanmar". I don't see how that name is any less English than "Burma". The Wikipedia standard is to use whatever's used by more English-language sources. Very few English-language sources refer to Finland as "Suomi", but quite a lot refer to "Burma" as "Myanmar". -GTBacchus(talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

  • Support Not sure if this BBC article has been brought up yet (it covers the reasons why either Burma or Myanmar is used), but according to it, the opposition (i.e. the democratically elected government) does not recognize the change, as it was imposed by the illegitimate military junta. Same goes for the US, UK etc. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 15:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - the name in day-to-day English is Burma. SteveRwanda 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    That depends which day-to-day English speakers you're talking to. I think the name in day-to-day English is Myanmar; how do we decide who's right? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no evidence that has yet been shown that Burma is the common English term. The most that has been shown is that the UK Government and the US State Department use it it in their official pronouncements, which they actively do so for political reasons. News agencies are mixed (some prefer Burma while some prefer Myanmar). The UN (which of course doesn't count since only the US and UK count) uses Myanmar. Most other governments have mixed usage. Please do not inject politics in naming issues. What is the most common name used to refer to the country in the English language? If that is not obvious (as is the case here), what should be the fall back name? Who should be the one to determine a country's name if the common name is unclear? Also, the arguments for naming Japan to Nippon, etc. are a red herring. The UN does not use those terms in English language documents.
There is no need for a "fall back name" as Burma has been and continues to be the official name of the Country in the English-speaking world. Specifically, by who's authority are we to change this? Its an important question. István 16:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. Who's the authority that dictates it should be changed to Burma? As I said, Burma is the name used only in official pronouncements of the US State Dept and the UK Govt. Other references to it are mixed. Other countries have mixed usage as well. The EU uses a mixed name. The UN uses Myanmar. Does the UK have more weight than the UN in what countries are called? What does the ISO say is the English short form name of this country? --Polaron | Talk 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Dictating a change to Burma? Burma's the country's name. If anything, Myanmar is the name being forced upon the international community by the junta. And it's not just the U.S. and UK, as I've shown. And as I've said before, governments choose what name the UN refers to them as. --Hemlock Martinis 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Why is the UN's usage somehow "invalid"? The UN position is that it will respect and use the name the government of the country in question uses. That's an entirely valid form of reasoning and indeed the names used for most countries have come about precisely because of people using the name the country's government uses - e.g. "Iran" rather than "Persia". Timrollpickering 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It's invalid because the junta decided that in the UN, Burma should be referred to as Myanmar. Thus, the UN calls Burma Myanmar not because they decided to, but because they have to out of diplomatic courtesy. --Hemlock Martinis 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
How is that less valid than the case of Iran? A major organisation opting to use the name the country's government uses itself is not just "diplomatic courtesy" - it is an act of recognising the country's autonomy. Governments that choose to use "Burma" are equally making a decision ultimately based on whether they recognise the country's autonomy or not. We shouldn't let the nature of the regime push us into POV soapboxing. Timrollpickering 09:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
How the UN chooses its names and how a language evolves its words are two different things. What's getting lost here is that there is often a difference between the formal name a national government selects for its country and the word for that country in other languages. The formal name a national government selects is naturally important to the UN, since the UN, as an assembly of the representatives of national governments, must to some extent honor the preferences of any government it recognizes. But this name is not always the same as the word for that country in another language. Every government represented in the UN can insist on the formal name it prefers the UN to use, or withdraw from the UN if it is dissatisfied. But the government of no nation on earth--not the United States, not the United Kingdom, not Iran, not North Korea, and not Burma--can dictate to the speakers of any other language what the word in that language shall be for any country. Although the Burmese government's claim to legitimacy is one of the weakest of any such claims on earth, this is ultimately beside the fact. If Switzerland's legislature, through a pristinely democratic referendum, were to decree that the people of all other countries must henceforth refer to Switzerland solely as "Helvetia," the absurdity of the claim would be obvious. They may refer to themselves as they please, but neither the Swiss government nor the Burmese can decree what the words of another language shall be. "Persia" became "Iran" not by decree of Iran, but by an acceptance of the word "Iran" by English speakers. The spread of "Myanmar" as an English word, however, is based on misapprehensions: that governments choose the word for their country in foreign languages, that the UN's selection of formal names for nations is relevant, or that there is colonialism in any case where the people of one country have a name for another country that is different from that country's own name for itself. If we grant control of our language to governments (domestic or foreign), we also invite abuses. Governments could decree (and have decreed) that they represent the "German Democratic Republic" or the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea," making neutral POV impossible because the very names lack neutrality. Wikipedia wisely chose not to play along, selecting instead "East Germany" and "North Korea" as neutral terms. --LapisQuem 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes and whose lead do you think the world was following when it accepted the change from "Persia" to "Iran"? With the exception of historic names, the names used for most countries are ultimately the bulk of speakers in a particular language following the lead of the country in question. If Switzerland opted to rename itself "Helvetia" in all languages then it's likely that a lot of the world would follow suit (as they did over Cote d'Ivoire) - some media organisations would chage their style guides and call it "Helvetia", with the wider population following suit. The tourist board would market the country as "Helvetia", the national sports teams would play as "Helvetia" and again usage would follow. The UN usage is based in the idea that a country can decide what its called and that decision should be reflected. That is an entirely legitimate opinion to hold in deciding what name to use for a country. Timrollpickering 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - with redirect from Myanmar. But ultimately - unless we are trying to push a particular POV - it's not really that important what the article is called as long as it is well-written and easy to find for those looking for it. Dlabtot 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to Burma provided we get a rediect from Myanmar. The majority of English sources (at least all UK broadcasters that i've seen mention it) use it and, according to the beeb, Burma is used in the country. Duke toaster 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    The Associated Press prefers Myanmar. Reuters overwhelmingly uses Myanmar. Is this going to be a contest of what governments/institutions/organizations prefer? Why look only at the BBC? Why ignore other news agencies? --Polaron | Talk 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Here's the thing: The AP and Reuters may overwhelmingly use Myanmar, but English speakers overwhelmingly use Burma. Same for most of the world. So why sticking to a few governments/institutions/organizations that decided to abid by the decision of an authoritarian regime to change the well known name of its country, especially when that particular decision has an overwhelming lack of recognition? Húsönd 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    But how do you know that Burma is much more predominant over Myanmar. Britannica uses Myanmar, Merriam-Webster uses Myanmar. The OED does not have an entry for the country but it does for "Burmese" which refers to Burma. At best, you can say that usage is mixed and Burma is not obviously the dominant name used. What do people in India or the Philippines use? --Polaron | Talk 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    I know because everybody I know, no matter wherefrom, says Burma and not Myanmar. And that's obviously a personal experience, but I highly doubt someone would now come and say, "why that's strange, because everybody I know says Myanmar!". Common English, there couldn't be a simpler argument. Húsönd 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, Whenever I hear "Myanmar" mentioned it's always quickly followed by "that's Burma", whereas "Burma" never needs explanation. That's the smoking gun... (speaking of which...) it is deliciously ironic that most who quickly adopted "Myanmar" in the early 90's did so to be "politically correct"; mistakenly assuming it an expression of solidarity with a struggling ex-colony when in fact they were following orders from a military dictatorship which is not a legitimate government. When a legitimate government does request we use "Myanmar" then this Wikipedian will consider it favourably; until then we should stick with its (English) official and common name "Burma" István 19:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    People I know call it Myanmar. Are my acquaintances less representative of English speakers than yours? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Apparently so; I would have to remind people what Myanmar was to use it, even in a university setting. The Politics department may differ. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Surely we can find something better than anecdotal evidence on which to base this decision? Simply asserting that "Burma" is more common is not convincing; I'd like to see evidence of this commonness. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    See #data. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Ok... it doesn't appear entirely conclusive. I see evidence pointing in both directions. Some English-language sources favor "Burma"; others favor "Myanmar". I don't see such weight of evidence as to justify moving from one controversial title to another. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    The data shows a 2:1 ratio in favor of Burma. That's conclusive sounding to me. --Hemlock Martinis 03:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, if you cherry-pick the data. Other data show more than 2:1 in favor of Myanmar. If you refrain from cherry-picking, it appears less certain. Do you really think it's so clear-cut? It seems to me that reasonable people may disagree which name has greater currency in English language sources. I would say that neither is clearly the most common. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Myanmar is a well-accepted name. Coined by the regime or not, if that is what the country wishes to be called, it ought to stay there. FWIW, the language page lists the language as Burmese.Ngchen 17:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • On Wikipedia, articles are named according to their most commonly used forms by English speakers. They do not abid by trends or whims of a particular government. Húsönd 17:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to Burma, I have always called it Burma, people I have talked to have always called it Burma and the news media I read always call it Burma. The only time when I come across the term Myanmar is when the actions of the Junta are being discussed. Tim Vickers 17:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    That may be your experience. I learned in school that it's called Myanmar, people I know call it Myanmar, etc. Is my experience less valid than yours? Arguing from our personal experiences isn't really conclusive for this reason. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to Burma. This comes under the same argument as MOS:TRADE: it's a fancy spelling installed by management, which may change tomorrow. English usage is more stable, and should be followed. Wikipedia does not follow diplomatic usage; we say East Timor and North Korea. So here. (And so does the US Government, when it is discussing Burma, rather than addressing the present regime. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    English usage in my experience tends to be "Myanmar" - whose experiences is more representative, mine or yours? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Burma is the common English name for the country. As already mentioned we don't need to rename articles at the whim of governments. A common name is preferable. Alyeska 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to Burma. Mynamar was never accepted by the UK nor USA [3] and this wikipedia is in English so should follow the choices of the major English speaking countries. The BBC uses Burma. In addition the 1989 change to Mynamar was ordered by an unelected military regime. Plexos 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC). This survey goes round in circles and I don't think you can decide based on logical points like the UN uses Mynamar and the UK uses Burma which are contradictory. At the end of the day Wikipedia ought to do what is *right*, not what is politcal, just what is right, and it is right to oppose murderers. Therefore any prior decision by murderers ought not to be recognised by Wikipedia just like vandalism and other evils are opposed here. Crooks, vandals, and killers should have no authority. It was changed to Mynamar by force of the gun so the title should still be Burma. Plexos 15:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. "Burma" is an English word, just as "Germany," "Spain," and "Japan" are English words. There is no more reason to call Burma "Myanmar" in English than there is to call Japan "Nihon" or Spain "España" or Germany "Deutschland" in English. It is not colonialism because every language has its own names for other countries. Bulgarians call the United States "Sasht," and so what? It's their language. UN practice is no grounds for preferring "Myanmar," since the UN is an international body representing speakers of many languages, not a body that arbitrates English usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.34.172 (talk • contribs)
    Quite a lot of English speakers say "Myanmar" - very few English speakers refer to Germany as "Deutschland". I haven't seen any evidence that "Burma" is more common among English speakers. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Exactly. English speakers don't say "Deutschland." But "Deutschland" (or "Bundesrepublik Deutschland") is Germany's official name, as decreed by the Bundestag in 1949. Now suppose the Bundestag decreed tomorrow that "Deutschland" was now the official name of the country in English too. Would English speakers comply? Of course not. But this is exactly what the "State Law and Order Restoration Council" did in 1988, and (I think we all can agree) with far less legitimacy. So why do English speakers--who would laugh at such a decree from the Bundestag--comply? Some apparently imagine that there is something "colonial" about having a name for a country that is different from the name the people of that country use for themselves. The absurdity of this claim is exposed by the numerous cases in which the former colonial powers themselves are called by different names in different lands. "Myanmar" exists in English only out of a misguided assumption that a country's name in any language is determined by the government (however illegitimate) of that country. The proof lies in the fact that almost no Enlish speaker called the country "Myanmar" before 1988. But if use of "Burma" is wrong, then for English speakers to persist in calling Deutschland "Germany" should offend every German. Shall we then have a discussion about renaming Wikipedia's article on Germany "Deutschland"? The claim would be just as legitimate. Until SLORC's decree the English word for Burma was "Burma," so, because SLORC is not an arbiter of English usage, the term already in use before the decree should stand.--LapisQuem 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bush uses the term Burma and we all think that's what this article should be called? I think not. How about we delete the article on Israel, a lot more don't recognize them than Myanmar. — 68.90.211.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).
  • Support move to Burma per nom. Jooler 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Burma is the common English name, used much more frequently than the artificial "Myanmar". See anything from Burmese Days, to Burma-Shave, to Mission of Burma. (For the same reason I'd also suggest moving Yangon to Rangoon.) Biruitorul 23:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Myanmar" is used heavily in English and there is no evidence that Burma is used overwhelmingly more for the country today (novels and products have the names anchored). The various media and foreign government usage is split on this and citing one over another is not the best way to show one term is preeminent. The nature of the regime that made the name change should not influence the article naming - that would be to indulge in POV soapboxing. There's no clear evidence that "Burma" is overwhelmingly the common usage in English and "Myanmar" a name that hasn't caught on (compare to say the failure of "Czechia" to catch on in English) and as the article is currently at "Myanmar" I see no clear case to move it. Timrollpickering 23:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    Your assertions are good, but you've overlooked the fact that Burma is the name recognized by the English-speaking governments, as I've shown. Since we are an English encyclopedia, I don't think it gets much clearer than that. --Hemlock Martinis 00:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    It gets a lot clearer than that. There's no sense pretending this case is simply open-and-shut. We don't base our usage on what English-speaking governments do - we look to all kinds of reliable English-language sources, and such usage is clearly mixed for the nation we're discussing. If there's one thing this decision isn't, it's obvious or clear-cut. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    Well, this does have a lot to do with international relations, so governments are very important to this discussion. Google Books and Google Scholar have a noticeably higher Burma to Myanmar ratio. Those facts tip it pretty heavily in favor of Burma in the grand scheme of things. --Hemlock Martinis 03:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that governments are very important to this discussion; I would add that other English language sources are also very important. We try to reflect English usage, of which the English of international relations is a very important part.

    That said, Google News seems to favor Myanmar pretty heavily, and the English news outlets of the world cover a pretty large and diverse audience.

    I really can't tell which is more common. In the absence of compelling reason to move, I would tend to support staying still, until such time as a genuine consensus forms. Otherwise we'll just see a request to move it back to Myanmar a few months down the line. (We may get other requests if we stay here, but the inevitability of further move requests is not an argument to go along with them.) -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

    I dunno, currently we're hovering at about 75% consensus to move it to Burma, so we may not have to wait a few months after all. --Hemlock Martinis 15:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to Burma. This article encompasses a geographic location ("Burma", in English), rather than simply the current government (kind of similar to the article on Tibet, rather than the Chinese govt). As many nations still refer to it as Burma and as there is a government in exile the region should be referred to as Burma. --LEKI (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support or better yet move to Myanmar (Burma) there seems to be some doubt over the validity that Burma is more popular usage then a mixed approach, but I see no argument at all for Myanmar to be perfered, by any orgainazion besides the UN. And while the UN counts it is vastly overshadowed by the other nations, news sources, etc... I feel that Google searches can't be representative in this argument due to the fact that the vast majority of web pages will use both terms at least once... --T-rex 05:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Qualified support for a move to Burma. Generally, I'd be the first to want Wikipedia to move articles to new names when organisations or countries decide they want to be known by a new name (I'm all in favour of Côte d'Ivoire, and have tried to get East Timor to be moved to Timor-Leste twice now), but in this case, the name change is not universally internationally recognised; thus, a case could be made to have the article at Burma. —Nightstallion 08:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per "It's general practice at the BBC to refer to the country as Burma... because most of its audience is familiar with that name rather than Myanmar". Number 57 09:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for a move to Burma because as a native English speaker who grew up in the United Kingdom that is what most people understand, especially those over a certain age. My school dictionaries all date prior to 1989 and Myanmar is completely absent from them. My various newer bilingual English dictionaries (Cassels, Collins) always include Burma with Myanmar as a new addition. In 1992 when speaking with British expatriates (over 30s) in Germany and the subject of Burma came up, we were aware of the new name but always used Burma. Those asking for evidence for this online will be disappointed. However I can well believe that certain circles of English speaking people would use Myanmar over Burma but these would tend to be the young, in my opinion. Also Wikipedia needs to not neglect the older who are not so vocal. In any case whatever happens I would like to make a small plea that whatever edits are made do not change the actual words people are quoted as having said with the various Burmese articles.-Wikianon 09:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for a move to Burma. This is indeed the English language Wikipedia, with both the UK and the USA officially recognising the name "Burma". All the UK news media (most notably the BBC) refer to the country as Burma, in fact most UK citizens will have never even heard of "Myanmar" (I had not until recently).C 1 09:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support- move to Burma, common English language name for the country, and even used by the citizens. Astrotrain 10:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Common usage among reliable sources is what governs Wikipedia's WP:NAME conventions, not "official." GizzaDiscuss © 11:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Nightstallion's reasoning is similar to my own. I think when there's no clear-cut preference between two names, we should go with the older name, because the newer cannot be deemed to have supplanted the older (my rationale within the confines of WP:COMMONNAME). PLook at it from another angle: If the article were at Burma, would there be consensus that the article should be moved to Myanmar? If not, then perhaps the new name is not so established. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes but equally would there be positive consensus to keep it at Burma beyond the "no consensus to move" and "if all else fails, use the name used by the first major editor" rules? The problem is that both names are used in English and the balance varies quite considerably between different English speaking countries (to say nothing of its use amongst English as a Seconfd Language speakers). Timrollpickering 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to Burma for reasons of clarity, consistency and accuracy. --71.42.142.238 12:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose- the current regime, linguistics, and a steady history of reverting old colonial names of places are all on this side. I guarantee that, had the Soviet Union not fallen, the Wikipedia page for that country would be "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" instead of "Russia", regardless of the fact that "Russia" is more recognizable. -BaronGrackle 13:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps this is an irrelevant comment, perhaps not. My old mobile phone had the option to have language set as "portuguese, english, blah, blah, myanmar". Not burmese. I am inclined to leave it as Myanmar, but there's no real documented strength on either side of the discussion so i'll have no final opinion on this subject - i am sure whatever comes out of this discussion, if i look for either name on wikipedia i'll find the other too. :) So, enjoy your slightly POV-ish discussion, and make a nice decision for me. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.135.10 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - on the grounds of "Myanmar" not being any less valid than "Burma". ASEAN uses Myanmar, for one. Singapore uses "Myanmar" exclusively, both in the media and in the education system, as does English media in Malaysia. All I'm saying is that there's no justification for the claim that "Burma" is the "proper name" of the country. -ryand 14:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support moving the article to what the country is actually called. dcandeto 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Didn't notice this section until just now so I will echo my comments posted above in the ==Name conflict== section... "IMO, the use of "Burma" as describing the post-1989 Myanmar nation is offensive. The country's official name is Myanmar. Why should certain westerners impose their will on an independent nation? The days of colonialism are over. The Burmese government which represents the Burmese people whether you like it or not, wants the country to be called Myanmar. And the argument that English speakers collectively refer to Myanmar as "Burma" is FALSE. I call Myanmar by it's proper name of Myanmar. So does CNN, NBC, The New York Times, and [the majority of American news media]. Most importantly the United Nations, which Myanmar is a member of, calls the country by its correct name of Myanmar." --Tocino 16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:Examining these arguments carefully should lead the unbiased editor to decide for "Burma". Firstly, the Burmese government does not represent the Burmese people. The colonial legacy argument is fallacious; most Burmese favour using Burma over Myanmar in English, and do not find it offensive. Use of "Myanmar" is more AMBIGUOUS than "Burma" as the former normally begs explanation whereas the latter does not. Moreover, what is then the adjective derived from "Myanmar"? Myanmarian, Myanmarese, Myanmarish, Myanmartian? Myanmartial (as in "Myanmartial law?) Burma/Burmese is established, well known and unambiguous. Finally, preferred usage among news wire services are hardly authoritative, as they are decisions taken by editorial boards and I would suspect that some might change in the near future. The UN will use whatever the member requests, regardless of common usage. In Burma, both are used, either "Myanma" (formal, literary) or "Bama" (colloquial, familiar). WP:NAME mandates the name most commonly used by english speakers, minimizes ambiguity, and prefers a general (public) understanding over a specialist understanding. That being the case, it is a difficult decision yet "Burma" is clearly the least ambiguous, most used colloquially - even by the Burmese themselves, and therefore preferred. István 17:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"Most Burmese [favor] using Burma over Myanmar..." The Burmese who favor "Burma" over Myanmar, favor it just to spite the current government. As for the overall population, I do not believe there is an independent study (without a pro-democracy bias) that supports your conclusion. --Tocino 18:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • First, a junta that held elections and then imprisoned the winner does not represent the Burmese people. Second, how is it "colonialism" and "certain westerners imposing their will" if Aung San Suu Kyi and the rest of the opposition calls it Burma as well? --Hemlock Martinis 17:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious, why do you have to comment after every single Oppose or Strong Oppose statement? I don't see the users who Oppose doing the same to the people who Support. The PRC government represents the Chinese people. The Vietnamese government represents the Vietnamese people. These countries don't necessarily have free elections. It doesn't matter what form of government the country has, it still represents the wider population. It's colonialism because the people who are leading the anti-Myanmar charge are the British. The British who invaded Myanmar and created the name Burma. --Tocino 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That is simply not true. In Burma, usage is "Myanma" in formal language (literary) and "Bama" in the familiar (colloquial) language. Neither were invented by the British or any other outside entity, neither bear negative connotations in the country. István 19:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm just a talkative guy, I guess. --Hemlock Martinis 22:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose In my mind the issue is not what is most widely known, or which term has the most number of Google hits. An encyclopedia should be up-to-date, not reflect prevailing beliefs simply because they are prevalent. It is very easy to have a redirect from Burma to Myanmar, and as far as I can tell, Myanmar is the current (english) name chosen by that country. If it changes in the future then move it to Burma. "A Modest Proposal" -- if this issue continues to be so contentious, get rid of both names from the title, have redirects from both Burma and Myanmar, and have the title of the article refer to "The Region Bordered by Countries X, Y, and Z" 209.242.154.132 17:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • GTBacchus put it quite well above when he said "The standard is not to follow the occupying forces, but to follow the bulk of English-language sources." If we did a king-of-the-hill type mentality around here we'd have a whole new assortment of geopolitical issues to have fun with. --Hemlock Martinis 22:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What occupying forces? This isn't Iraq and there are no occupying forces in Myanmar, to claim otherwise is purem POV pushing and is wildly inappropriate on the talk page of this article, go tell it ot a forum, here we are intereested in building an encyclopedia not in discussing politics, SqueakBox 01:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not what you said it is what you quoted Bacchus as saying. If by king-of-the-hill you mean governments then that is exactly the mentality we need to write an encyclopedia, SqueakBox 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Would you care to elaborate on how following the whims of every government in the world would make us a better encyclopedia? The Great Soviet Encyclopedia already exists; we need not reproduce it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Whims re naming? That is a colossal piece of original research which has no place on wikipedia. What precisely are you suggesting? That we make the decision ourselves. That we let American and British people make the decision. Myanmar is a sovereign country and that makes for a sovereign governemnt who, of course, decide wha\t the country shall be named. Your comment is pure POV pushing and that is strictly prohibited by our policies. And we have an article on the Soviet Union because that was the name of the country at the time. We don't say Stalin was a lunatic and we know better as that would be presumptuous, SqueakBox 16:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I am suggesting that we follow policy and use the "most common name that does not conflict with other names", as Burma does not. Do what Rnglish does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
        • We are an educational encyclopedia and policy does not justify pandering to people's ignorance. Many people mistakenly still believe the country is called Burma, but it isn't. It wiould be like we would have had to wait a number of years to stop calling Sri Lanka Ceylon and start calling it Sri Lanka because most English speakers were unaware of the name change. That is not creating an encycloepdia and if other rivals saw that we, as an encyclopedia, prefer to pander to people's ignorance based on an entirely mistaken readin gof policy, then we will become the laughing stiock of the encyclopedia world, SqueakBox 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

  • Oppose as we should let the Burmese governemnt (which even in a dictatoprship is still the nearest to "the will of the people" that exists) decide their name. its a sovereign country and the legitimate government has the right to decide. No other country wants to call itself Myanmar (ie not a similar a similar situation to China/Taiwan or the 2 Koreas) nor can the oposition be considered a legitimate alternative government in this case. Similarly Yangon should not be called Rangoon. This seems very straightforward, if the government falls and another governemnet renames the country Burma we, following this logic, could then immediately change the name without debate, SqueakBox 20:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    But our naming conventions call for us to use the most common name, not the one chosen by whichever government is in power. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that is actually so, its a reading of the policy but it also original research and very presumptuous of us to call it anything other than the English version of the name the country uses, so while the United Kingdom isnt actually called that (its a longer name) but the common name is that. Myanmar is an Enmglish word that is the common usage of the term the country is called and to cal it Burma is POV pushing OR, besides its called Myanmar by CNN so the argument that Burma is the common usage term is not true anyway, SqueakBox 00:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • GTBacchus put it quite well above when he said "The standard is not to follow the occupying forces, but to follow the bulk of English-language sources." If we did a king-of-the-hill type mentality around here we'd have a whole new assortment of geopolitical issues to have fun with. --Hemlock Martinis 22:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Burma is quite common, and Myanmar is somewhat common. 132.205.44.5 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support: As shown by the wild array of pronunciations in dictionaries documented at the beginning of the article, which even the BBC is confused about (erroneously using a/A, the BBC's symbol for æ = a as in man, for all vowels in all variant pronunciations) Myanmar is not a well-established English name. As also explained here and as honest defenders of the use of Myanmar in WP probably admit, most English speakers have no idea where Myanmar is or perhaps even what it is. Very many more English speakers know where and what Burma is. Despite the common appearance of Myanmar in the media and even some specialist literature, it is therefore completely erroneous to say Myanmar is commonly used or even understood by the general population. The current lemma is therefore clearly in disagreement with the whole spirit and meaning of Wikipedia:Naming conventions: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. --Espoo 01:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose "Myanmar" is the name of the country. It's pretty simple. This is not the forum to argue politics. When is this nonsense going to end? Do any of you actually believe that having the Wikipedia article named "Burma" instead of "Myanmar" will make conditions for the people there any better? This is an encyclopedia not a political debate society. Both the academic arena and the media favor "Myanmar" by a wide margin. For all the bleeding heart, "you're-just-following-the-occupying-forces" crowd, your time would be more wisely and effectively spent on lobbying Congress and the UN, not on POV-pushing on an free internet encyclopedia.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 01:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    To quote Hemlock Martinis, your assertions are good, but it seems you didn't read what i wrote above and that you overlooked the fact that Burma is the name recognized by the English-speaking governments, as shown. Since we are an English encyclopedia, I don't think it gets much clearer than that.--Espoo 01:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    The determinant in this discussion is the acknowledgment of the form that is most commonly used by English speakers, not so much the politicized reasoning about the rightfulness or legality of the name. Húsönd 01:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OpposeI use Myanmar, I've only ever seen it Myanmar in news sources, Google gives over twice the amount of hits to Myanmar, and that's what the government (or junta, whatever) wish to be called. Therefore, I believe it should be kept as Myanmar. — i said 01:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Almost all news sources that use M add the explanation "formerly called Burma". Most English speakers have no idea where Myanmar is or perhaps even what it is. Very many more English speakers know where and what Burma is. Despite the common appearance of Myanmar in the media and even some specialist literature, the current lemma is therefore clearly in disagreement with the whole spirit and meaning of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Espoo 01:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't say most sources used Myanmar, I said that from what I see, Myanmar is much more widely used. And I don't like catering to unintelligent people who don't even know the country changed their name. And hey, if they search for Burma, but get redirected to Myanmar, they learned something. Whereas making it Burma with the (also called Myanmar by a considerable amount of news agencies for instance as well as by the junta) doesn't sit well with me. — i said 01:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • [0) I never said that you said that most sources use M. I said that even those news sources that do use M need to explain it.] 1) WP can't be based on what sources you happen to have seen, especially since this shows you haven't bothered to look at many provided in this discussion and obviously not even bothered to read much of this discussion. 2) WP is not based on what you do or don't like. If you consider Wikipedia:Naming conventions to be "catering to unintelligent people", then start a discussion on that policy's talk page but don't muddle up this discussion with such irrelevant personal opinions that clearly violate WP policy. --Espoo 20:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • My comment about people being unintelligent was foolish. I have since changed my reasoning, but not my opinion: According to the naming conventions, we use what the majority of the English-speaking population use. How do we determine that? Short of a poll of everyone who speaks English, we have to base it on published sources. We can't really go by "what people I know say", because there is no way to quantify that.I know I just contradicted myself; I disagree now with what I said So we should go by published sources. And as best I can tell, there is not a large portion of news and other published sources that use one over the other, largely a political statement against the junta. So, I support keeping it as Myanmar, because I fail to see evidence that a good amount more of English speakers use Burma than Myanmar, but the government does. — i said 01:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support move to Burma Most commonly used English name. Also the only name used by any Burmese governments with a democratic mandate (and by the military dictatorship itself for over 27 years). The idea that the country was only named "Burma" by the British Empire is refuted in this extract from Ethnicity in Asia, ed. by Colin Mackerras (RoutledgeCurzon, 2003), p. 174 [4]. Foreign governments don't dictate what their countries are called in English anyway. I've never heard anyone use the term "Myanmar" in conversation except as a joke. Only a couple of weeks before the latest uprising, I finished reading The River of Lost Footsteps: Histories of Burma (Faber and Faber, 2007) by Thant Myint-U, who also wrote The Making of Modern Burma (published by Cambridge University Press in 2001). --Folantin 10:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You've obviously not lived in Southeast Asia then where English language media and English language education use Myanmar (yes they do have English media and education there). And what's more, they actually pronounce myanmar correctly too! --Polaron | Talk 12:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Your argument being what? I should go to South-East Asia to learn English? Sorry. I don't need to since I live in England. Burmese exiles who speak English tend to use Burma, although they can no doubt pronounce "Myanmar" even better than Thais or Cambodians or whoever. --Folantin 13:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The point is that people outside your local circle do use Myanmar in serious (i.e. not as a joke) English conversation. Of course, those people probably don't county in your view since you do not know them. --Polaron | Talk 13:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, a joke. It's called black humour. You know, like using "Democratic Kampuchea" to refer to Pol Pot's Cambodia (which no doubt would have been the name urged on us by many editors had Wikipedia existed between 1975 and 1979). If we're going to stoop to the level of your last "argument", I'll counter with the observation that you clearly don't care about the views of Burmese exiles. --Folantin 14:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't inject political views in this debate. It's a technique used by a few here to shut people up so they can't respond to you on the merits of debate which name is more common. And, mind you Cambodia was called Kampuchea in English in the 70s (look at old news reports and encyclopedias) before the official name change. --Polaron | Talk 14:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've read some of those things. They make (ahem) interesting reading today... The clinching argument here has been mentioned by other users' above: when people say Burma, nobody has to explain where it is, whereas the reverse is true of Myanmar. Plus, looking at this very article in its current form, we have nine different phonetic transcriptions for "Myanmar". Doesn't suggest there's much familiarity with the term in English!--Folantin 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia practice is to use the most common English-language name. There is no reason why this article should be any different to everywhere else. Every single news report I read from the BBC, ITN, whatever, calls the place "Burma". UseCommonSense is relevant as well...Moreschi Talk 10:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that there are other news sources that use Myanmar instead of Burma. Only if you cherry pick your news sources can you conclude that Burma is more common. --Polaron | Talk 12:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, the vast majority of news reports use both: Lexis for the last month shows 1315 with both, 448 for Myanmar without Burma, 365 for Burma without Myanmar. Looking at the results shows articles like "Signs of revolt in Burma (or is it Myanmar?)" from the Times of London, and an report from the Asia-Pacific monitoring service of the BBC. (They reflect the usage of the original, but most original reports use Burma after the first reference.) How are these to be counted? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I tried a search using Lexis-Nexis Academic with a setting of "News, most recent 90 days (english, full text)" for the source with a date of "previous week". I get 522 hits for "burma AND NOT myanmar", 1882 hits for "myanmar AND NOT burma" and 2983 hits for "myanmar AND burma". I'm sure I can find instances of the other situation where the article uses burma in the first sentence and the rest of the text uses myanmar exclusively. --Polaron | Talk 01:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Burma's much more common as far as I'm concerned. Makes me think of an old and not very good joke too. Q 'What's the national song of Burma?' A 'Me an' ma shadow'! Biofoundationsoflanguage 12:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose there is absolutely no evidence I have seen that Burma is the most common name in English. While it is perhaps more common in the UK and perhaps the US and Australia as well (I'm not convince either one is more common in New Zealand and have no idea where Canada stands in all this) English is an international language and it is deeply flawed to to only consider the usage of 'native' speakers.I strongly suspect that people in India and South East Asia, much more commonly use and recognise Myanmar then they recognise Burma Nil Einne 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Several editors have said that there is no reason to give the anglophones of South East Asia more weight than the rest of us; but Nils' "suspicion" also appears doubtful. The overseas monitoring report mentioned above quotes a dozen Indian and East Asian sources; only three use Myanmar. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't say we should give them more weight. I do think we shouldn't given them lesser weight particularly in this istance given the geographical and political relationships between the countries. Also I said South East Asia, not East Asia (and no I don't consider South East Asia to be part of East Asia). I can't comment on this monitoring report since I don't have access to it. But from my experience, having grown up in Malaysia and also supported by other editors here. Myanmar is used more or less exclusively in English in Malaysia. Also in Singapore. I also believe that it's used in Thailand and in in the Philippines although I'm far less sure about this. Presuming by East Asian your including Japan and/or Korea then they may use Burma. No idea about that. (Japan is relevant since they apparently are one of the biggest aide donors to Myanmar/Burma, no idea about Korea. However I strongly suspect that the average educated Japanese is far less likely to know what Burma/Myanmar is prior to the recent events then the average educated SEAsian or Indian) They weren't really who I was thinking about though (I said SEA, India and China). From my own searches for India, as mentioned above (I did not cherry pick, I searched for Indian news sources and reported all that I found) all of them use Myanmar. Also, presuming this monitoring service includes sources from Burmese dissidents/exiles from within East Asia then it get even more complicated. I think we all agree that Burmese exiles tend to prefer Burma. However they aren't generally representative of the population of the countries they're living in. Nil Einne 16:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Mainstream papers and news agencies from SEA, as far north as Hong Kong (Burma), as far south as Indonesia (also Burma) and Malaysia (Myanmar; Bernama, a part of the Information Ministry). East Asia was to include China. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. in the same manner that the colonial name, Bombay is no longer used for Mumbai. the United Nations as well as most every other nation uses Myanmar, and for any reason given to not refer to a country by its official name, is an issue of NPOV and politics, neither of which is appropriate. English Wikipedia =/= Britsh-American Wikipedia, and with far more people speaking english outside of those two countries, imho the article should reflect that global view. --emerson7 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • We use Mumbai because it is demonstrably preferably used by English-speakers, both of India and of the rest of the world. There is no evidence that this is true of Myanmar; and we are intended to be used by Americans, Canadians, Britons and New Zealanders, at least as much as other nationalities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • not one word just stated is supported by fact...it is 100% oppinion. --emerson7 16:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
        Unsupported?
        • The move discussion for Mumbai is on the archives of its talk page.
        • If there is evidence of worldwide (or, for that matter, Burmese anglophone) preference for Myanmar, present it.
        • Does Emerson really mean to argue that it is policy that we are intended to be used by Americans, Canadians, Irish, Britons and New Zealanders less than other nationalities? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes but that doesn't mean we should prefer them over other English speakers. Also, I remain unconvinced about the New Zealand part. From my experience (I live in New Zealand and looked into this recently), Myanmar is commonly used here, I'm not convinced Burma is more common. I'm not as I suspect not many people are saying we should ignore the US, Canada, UK, Australia and NZ. What I am saying is that so far, the only evidence we have is that Burma is more common in the UK, perhaps in the US and Australia as well. However changing for this reason is very bad idea and stinks of systemic bias particularly given the significance of Myanmar to SEA, India and China. You need to consider what is common usage amongst English speakers of these countries as well. Note also that common usage is not a black and white thing even if we tend to think of it like that. For example if A is slightly more common then B in the UK but A is unheard of in the US, B is exclusive then if the article doesn't relate to the UK then perhaps we should use B. Where Myanmar/Burma fits into all this I don't know, I'm simply using it to exemplify why it's very poor practice to get caught up in what's more common in the US & UK. Nil Einne 16:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Publications by Asian anglophones are included in the web as well, and so included in our data. I still no evidence for the proposition that they prefer Myanmar, anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
          • But you need to consider these seperately. You can't simply lump them all together. If there are significantly more UK & US sources then not surprisingly the fact that Burma is perhaps more common in the UK & US will overwhelm the fact that Myanmar may be more common in India, Malaysia and Singapore (and probably the Philippines and Thailand too). I've provided sources above and below in the data section (and based also on my own experience) which indicate to me that Myanmar is more common in much of Asia. It is up to you to accept my sources or dispute them. So far, the only evidence you have provided is your claim it's in some monitoring report which I can't analyse much. I have raised valid objections. The key thing to remember is that it is you who are arguing for the move so it's up to you to convince people who have valid reasons to oppose the move why the move should be made. Nil Einne 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Nil's other point raises profound questions on national varieties of English. I am glad, therefore, that it doesn't seem to apply; I see no evidence that Burma is "unheard of" anywhere. One could read the BBC's comments as showing that Myanmar is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't see any evidence the BBC has any special expertise in this matter. Did they carry out polls throughout the world to gauge which is more common? I doubt it. I strongly suspect they're mostly relying on what's most recognised in the UK and to a less extent the other anglophile countries (US, Canada, Australia and NZ in particular). There may be valid reasons for them to do so but it is systemic bias for us to do so.
          • Note that Reuters was asked a few months ago why they use Myanmar instead of Burma. Their reply states in part that "News organizations, including Reuters, frequently review their naming conventions, taking into account what countries/cities call themselves, what the public at large tends to call them, what implications there may be in a name change for our neutrality, what names are most commonly used by our customers, etc". (See the March 28 entry [5]) I'm sure people will read into it whatever they want. --Polaron | Talk 00:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
        • And our job is to educate people not to pander to their ignorance, SqueakBox 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Our job is to write English, not pander to your pedantry. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
          • That is just plain ridiculous, its you and your fellows who don't get to decide what a country is called, in English, no matter how loud you shout, and your calls to pander to people's ignorance is shocking given we are an encycloepdia not a political activism group. It is certainly not my or anyone else's pedantry to call the place Myanmar whereas it is your and others' pedantry and POV pushing to rename it to a name it isnt called anymore, SqueakBox 17:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
              • I agree with Pmanderson's points in this section. Plus I'm not sure "the significance of Myanmar to SEA, India and China" (i.e. facilitating their trade relations with the Burmese junta) should be any concern of ours on Wikipedia. --Folantin 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
              • And the gentleBox doth protest too much. I have intentionally said nothing either way about SLORC; it was SqueakBox who !voted on the basis that it was the "nearest thing to the will of the people". It is the worldwide consensus (not just in SEA) of the English language that determines what we should do; all my efforts have been to determine our mistress's will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
                • No governemnt exists unless by will of the people on some level, the owrldwide consensus is clearly that the country is called Myanmar and we at wikipedia are not empowered to do original reasearch and then claim otherwise based on that OR, SqueakBox 17:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I suggest Suu Kyi is more in touch with the feelings in Burma about what the country should be called than the government. Plus the BBC think Burma is more recognised. This is in the absence of any clear evidence that Myanmar is favoured by English speakers.Eiler7 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, that's not original research. She and her party have come out and said many times that their country's name is Burma. And since their legitimacy comes from the ballot box and not the gun barrel, I think she would be more in tune with the Burmese people. --Hemlock Martinis 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The article indicates that "Burma" is still more commonly used in countries where the English language predominates. Sandstein 20:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - official name. Most newspapers are now calling it Burma as well. The Evil Spartan 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I suspect a number of news outlets are now using "Burma" over "Myanmar" as a means of protest against the junta, just as I suspect a number of news outlets first used "Myanmar" as a result of the self-flaggelation Western journalists frequently engage in. At the end of the day, the usage of news outlets, however, does not translate to popular usage except over a longer period of time and under much more intense interest by the population (in this case, the world's Anglophone population). Witness, for example, the explosion (no irony intended) in the use of "Palestinian territories" in recent years. This misnomer has entered common parlance, while "Myanmar" has not. The country is best known by people who don't follow politics of what is, for all intents and purposes, to the mind of the common Anglophone, for whom the country remains an obscure backwater, as "Burma". Anecdotally, about a week and a half ago, I was chatting with my office manager, talking about the proliferation of [pet] rat breeds that I'd found in the WP article on the subject, when she mentioned that she really likes WP, and said that she'd just used it earlier that day to find out where exactly Burma is, and was surprised to see that the article was at "Myanmar", a name she'd never heard of. While there are those in this discussion who prefer to dismiss her lack of knowledge on the subject as "ignorance", I am compelled to dismiss such dismissal as bordering on (if not outright) "arrogance". The attitude betrayed by that dismissal, however, seems to me to be underpinned by a sentiment that runs counter to WP's purpose: we are here to inform by reporting, we are not here to preach to the "ignorant", using our personal preferences and interpretations of world events as a basis for our presentation. This runs counter to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. WP:NC, especially WP:UE, clearly prefers "Burma", honest reporting clearly demands that significant mention be made of "Myanmar". While it is true that "Czechia" has not made as great of inroads into English usage in the media as "Myanmar" has, calling this article "Myanmar" violates WP policies as renaming Czech Republic to "Czechia" would. On another note, something that has received too little consideration in this discussion is the potential extent to which the article being called "Myanmar" has influenced usage...by which I mean that some of what is being written out there and cited as evidence of English usage supporting "Myanmar" is colored by the location of the Wikipedia article. And no, I'm not talking about mirrors. That's my 4¢. Tomertalk 04:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support While there is ANY doubt over the legitimacy of the name-change (which I don't think anyone would deny there is), the article should be named "Burma". U-Mos 13:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think opinions on the legitimacy of the regime that asked for the change should influence the location of the article one way or the other - Myanmar is far from unique in having a regime and/or name change of questionable legitimacy. "Rhodesia" was technically as questionable for the country (which hardly anyone recognised) between 1964 and 1979 - legally the colony's name was still "Southern Rhodesia" despite the colonial executive declaring it had become "Rhodesia" in 1964 and declaring UDI in 1965. And "Zimbabwe Rhodesia" (1979-1980) was an internal settlement without international approval. However all the names are used for the relevant Wikipedia articles. I feel it would be NPOV to let views on the regime influence the location of the article. Timrollpickering 14:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support It is inaccurate to refer to the country as Myanmar on the English Wikipedia, as the English speaking world refers to it as Burma. It's no different than calling Deutschland Germany, Ísland Iceland, etc. Xizer 18:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry but these comparisons keep getting trotted out and they're simply not comparable. There have never been calls for "Germany" to be referred to as "Deutschland" in English and consequently "Deutschland" is never used in English except in very specific contexts. But there have been calls to use "Myanmar" in English and as has been shown by many users on this page there are many who have adopted the new name. This is comparable to Cote d'Ivoire, a name that has also been adopted in English. Myanmar is a word used for this country in English in a way that Cote d'Ivoire is and Deutschland isn't. However the word has originated, Wikipedia should not seek to dictate use or say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Timrollpickering 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose but why don't we just settle with the south east asian trend,(myanmar), i think nowhere decolonisation immediatly brought total justice, however we can still respect these peoples wish to name their own country's (eg u dont start looking for india at "the dominion").77.251.179.188 20:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
WP should not change article names based on how we feel politically. WP is apolitical. -- Alan Liefting talk 05:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but either way you choose, you make a statement here. Is it then the corrupted military regime of the country that defines the name used in Wikipedia? --Drieakko 11:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose i think the title of the article should be "Burma/Myanmar" i have seen several news sources use this method of naming and it indicates the controversy in english language use that the section on etymology pretty fairly describes. Jieagles 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The nasty regime renamed it. The M-name has five different pronunciations. 'Burma' is quicker to type. Rothorpe 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Oppose - I don't wish to answer a call from Rangoon and reply "Oh, that's in Burma isn't it?", jeopardising a potentially beautiful relationship. I don't wish to post things to Burma and discover 2 years later that they never arrived. Yes, it's a real pain to send things to "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", but let's live in the real world and respect the things that other people have to live under - it makes their lives safer, even as it makes our lives easier. PRtalk 07:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

Data

  • Google Scholar: Burma 60,400; Myanmar: 48,000;
  • Google Books: Burma 41,000; Myanmar 3,800
    • This is not a typo. If it is restricted to recent books, there is still a 2:1 ratio in favor of Burma (and some evidence, btw, that Myanmar was not invented by the present regime). Many of the hits on Myanmar, including two of those on the first use "Myanmar (Burma)" in the title, additional evidence that Myanmar is not English, but requires translation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Snowulf's BBC article says: It's general practice at the BBC to refer to the country as Burma, and the BBC News website says this is because most of its audience is familiar with that name rather than Myanmar. (my ital.) This is the reason for WP:UE also. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

While Google searches are misleading, a search on English language pages for "burma -myanmar" gets 4.6 million hits (6.1 million for "burma" only) while "myanmar -burma" gets 34 million hits (39.8 million for "myanmar" only). Similar searches on Google News for the news sources located on the largest English-speaking countries are shown above. At a minimum, this shows that "Burma" is not the most common name in English. The question is, when the common name is not obvious, which name should we fall back on. --Polaron | Talk 00:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Google searches are not an accurate metric of actual English-language usage by any stretch of the imagination. dcandeto 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Google News results (copied from above for reference):
  • Doing various searches on Google News using news sources based in the major English speaking countries, one comes up with the following. This is a search that uses only one term and not the other (i.e. excludes searches that use both terms):
   US prefers Myanmar by 4.7:1 (actually though President Bush refers to the country as Burma, which is correct)
   Canada prefers Myanmar by 4.5:1
   India prefers Myanmar by 2.2:1
   UK prefers Burma by 1.9:1
   Australia prefers Burma by 5.0:1
  • If no exclusions are made (i.e. include hits with both terms present), the results become:
   India prefers Myanmar by 1.5:1
   US prefers Myanmar by 1.4:1
   Canada prefers Myanmar by 1.3:1
   UK prefers Burma by 1.3:1
   Australia prefers Burma by 1.8:1

I would like to point out that disregarding the news agencies because they "can call a country whatever they like" is not a valid argument. The governments of countries can also call countries whatever they like. In fact, governments are probably less reliable because they may have political motivation to use one name over the other. And please don't assume that the country names news reports use are due to some "cub reporter". News agencies have a manual of style that they follow for these things. There is still no evidence that, looking at the entirety of English language usage, Burma is the undisputed common name. Burma is only common in UK government sources and US State Department sources. Even the whole US government taken as a whole has mixed usage. --Polaron | Talk 02:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's a mischaracterization of my evidence. I've posted links for multiple English-speaking governments, and all of them referred to Burma by its proper name. It's all for the same event (the protests going on right now) so that should indicate the cohesion of the usage. I see no evidence of any mixed usage among the U.S. government - the Clinton and Bush administrations have always taken a hard stance on the regime in Burma, and the CIA and State Department links reflect that. The U.S. government refuses to legitimize the military junta by calling Burma "Myanmar", and we should do the same. --Hemlock Martinis 04:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Why? Not only are you advocating that Wikipedia take a political stance via the naming of the article, you're advocating that we take the political stance of the United States government? -ryand 13:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
One point I'd like to make is that the analysis of Google News, or any other news survey, will be badly distorted by newspapers' utilization of the AP Stylebook. If the AP Style Guide has decided, on whatever evidence it wishes, to standardize on the name Myanmar, then virtually all newspapers in the United States will follow. This doesn't mean there is a consensus among 58,000 newspapers that Myanmar is correct; it's a consensus (or maybe just a majority vote? Who knows?) of whatever few individuals write the AP Style Guide. Tempshill 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experiance, if Myanmar is prefered by an English language publication they usually qualify the first usage of Myanmar with Burma by way of an explanation. But if an English language publication uses Burma qualification with Myanmar is less common. It seems that most publication expect their readers/listeners/viewers/ to know what Burma is, but do not expect them to know what Myanmar is. I think the article should be at Burma with a redirect from Myanmar. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If we do rename this article, should that carry over to the rest of the encyclopedia? --Hemlock Martinis 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ref U Thant - there is no mention of Myanmar in the article (as of this moment), only "Burma" - it may not be such a daunting task at all. István 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the categories aren't going to be fun. --Hemlock Martinis 21:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Take them to CFD; which has a bot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay there are several examples of other countries flying around this discussion. I don't think Germany is a valid comparison because "Germany" is what the country calls itself in English - for example the embassy in the UK will have "Germany" rather than "Deutschland" on all English language material, English language versions of international treaties will say "Federal Republic of Germany" not "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" and so forth. A more appropriate case to compare Myanmar to is Côte d'Ivoire, which is the name used by that country in all languages rather than "Ivory Coast" in English (or, say, "Elfenbeinküste" in German). The Wikipedia article is at Côte d'Ivoire - should we not follow the "official short name form" convention, rather than getting into arguments about who's media or government uses what term more often? Timrollpickering 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No, because it's not our convention. The argument at Côte d'Ivoire was that English actually uses it; by comparison, East Timor is not the official short name, but English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "Deutschland" is an apt analogue. Timrollpickering notes that Germany itself agrees that its English name is "Germany." But to make the English word for Germany dependent upon what the German government chooses as the English word for its country is strange indeed. By this argument, if the Bundestag decreed that Germany's English name was "Deutschland," the English-speaking world would have to comply. This would of course be absurd. Nevertheless, many English speakers complied when the State Law and Order Restoration Council issued an analogous decree. To let this stand would open a most dangerous precedent. We would have to call North Korea "the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea," a name that would defy NPOV. If another junta somewhere else in the world ruled that its country is now called, in English, "Blissful Abode of the Master Race," we would have to comply. The fact that "Myanmar" happens to be a neutral Burmese word in no way removes this difficulty, because the use of "Myanmar" in English remains based upon a governmental decree, and to accept the name on this basis opens this door.--LapisQuem 15:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not an appropriate analogue because Germany is not and never had pushed for such a change. If it did then the English language usage would change at the high level - for example all English language output from the country's government would use "Deutschland", the country's tourist board would market it as "Deutschland", the football team would come to be called "Deutschland" in matches and wider usage would follow on - I suspect a lot of media outlets would change their style guides in line with the country's decision. But the point is that Germany has not done this so it is not a valid comparison. Cases like Côte d'Ivoire are because there has been active decisions and demands for renaming.
      • Most extraordinary. The analogue, incidentally, was not what Germany is called in English, but what it would be called if the Bundestag decreed that its English name is "Deutschland." It had not occurred to me that there would be English speakers who imagined that such a decree would have any force. Why it should have any force is very, very hard to imagine. Of course, no one expects Germany to issue such a decree, because the German government respects each country's right to use a word in its own language for Germany, and would not have the effrontery to try. The State Law and Order Restoration Council did not hold this respect. Apparently, however, we must comply anyway. "Yes, sir, Senior General Than Shwe"--LapisQuem 16:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I find it surprising that anyone would doubt that the German government would follow the Bundestag's lead in such a situation when it came to what is used by the tourist board, visa forms, press releases, English language texts of treaties and so forth. Or that some media organisations would amend their style guide to use "Deutschland" instead of "Germany", in the same way that style guides changed from "Rhodesia" to "Zimbabwe-Rhodesia" to "Zimbabwe", or "Ivory Coast" to "Cote d'Ivoire". And this is frankly a straw man as "Myanmar" is a word used in English to describe the country. Timrollpickering 20:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The names used in the English language for most countries are ultimately what the country has decided on with the rest of the world following its lead. A few years ago the country called "Zaire" changed its name to "Democratic Republic of Congo" and the world followed suit. "Persia" was renamed "Iran" in the 1930s and the latter name is now the most commonly used for that country (although some London restaurants serving its cuisine still use "Persian"). Opinions on the current regime in Myanmar/Burma are POV and we should not let soapboxing on it determine the name of the article. Timrollpickering 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The current regime in "Myanmar/Burma" decreed the English name change, and not the Burmese people. Abiding by its decree is a recognition of the legitimacy of this regime, and thus POV. Neutral POV would be to desist from name changes barring extraordinary reasons, and a decree from SLORC's generals is no such reason. Morevoer the issue is not what the Burmese people wish to call themselves, or what the Burmese regime wishes to call the nation it rules, but rather what English speakers shall call the country. The answer should come from the practice of English speakers themselves, with the self confidence to use their own words until they have compelling reasons of their own to change them.--LapisQuem 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The problem is that both words are used in English for this country - it's not a case that chosing one over the other is "taking sides", but unfortunately too many people advocating using "Burma" seem to be doing so on the basis of a POV about the country's current regime. The names for countries do change quite a bit - why don't we use "Bohemia" for the Czech Republic? It's not because of technical quibbles about whether "Bohemia" covers all of it... Timrollpickering 20:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Was the government of Zaire legitimate when the name change occurred? I suspect neither of us knows without going and looking it up. I'm not a fan of the Myanmar change, but I don't like the idea of Wikipedia editors judging the legitimacy (according to what standard?) of a country's government in deciding whether to abide by name changes. Is the People's Republic of China legitimate by your standards? Should we listen to anything they say? Tempshill 21:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • An alternative is to use Myanmar/Burma as the page heading. However, in general, staking a position between two opposing sides pleases nobody and just gets you shot at from both directions. Tim Vickers 23:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To anyone who is interested, I have also requested a vote to change Yangon to Rangoon. Reginmund 03:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
That article is entirely original research though. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No; it is (partly) unsourced, which is not the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I mentioned this before the move discussion. I'm including it here in case it's lost. Al Jazeera uses Myanmar, as does Xiahua, The Star Malaysia, at least 3 Indian papers I found [7] [8] [9], Channel News Asia, 2 South African sources use Myanmar [10] [11] one uses Burma [12] (of the 3 I found). Even the New Zealand Herald often uses Myanmar; Spiegel [13] [14] & DW-World sometimes do as well seemingly (I noticed Burma was used as well sometimes by both German sources.
  • Some may accuse me of cherry picking sources but here's what I'll say (believe me or not is up to you). I chose Al Jazeera as one of the most well known international English source from outside the English world. I chose Xiahua as the best source I knew from China. I chose The Star as one of the Malaysia sources I know but I'm extremely confident all Malaysian sources use Myanmar predominantly. I chose Channel News Asia since I recognised it, it's a somewhat Pan-Asian source although it's really Singaporean. I searched for Indian papers and found 3. I search for South African sources and found 3. I searched for German sources and found 2 (Spiegel was the key one since I recognised it).
  • I'm also including a Singaporean source [15] & the other 2 Malaysian ones [16] [17] [18] (I'm not sure why there are 2 different pages for The Sun, I don't read it so I simply included both. The second one seems to be the 'right' one) & also [19] which is an internet only news source for Malaysia (and which is therefore able to operate more independently) although they concentrate on Malaysia internally predominantly. Nil Einne 17:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nil Einne 17:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Further to the above (again I searched for stuff like Indonesia news etc. No Myanmar or Burma in my searches. I did not cherry pick results but chose whatever I found that I thought was useful or I recognised from previous reading it unrelated to Myanmar/Burma. If you don't want to believe me, that's up to you); Indonesia [20] (first Google result and also the one I recognise, they also claim to be Indonesia's leading English daily), [21] might be useful for finding more sources; Thailand [22] (I recognise this, didn't look for more); Philippines [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]; I admit I didn't look at any of these extensively but from what I did see Myanmar is predominant. I could search more but I can't be bothered because I tire of this argument and I have yet to see any evidence of that Myanmar is not predominant by far in SEA. And it really doesn't surprise me. From my experience most SEA governments and sources use official names. (And yes this includes Timor Leste now, not East Timor). Their people adapt. The politics of the naming is usually ignored. Yes there are cases like Taiwan which get complicated but other then that... This will be my last post on this matter I stand by my claims. Nil Einne 17:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Let's not count media from countries where English is a second language please. AFAIK the only South-East Asian states where English has some sort of official recognition and significant numbers of speakers of English as a first (or joint first) language are Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines. --Folantin 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Well yes I wasn't particularly interested in Indonesia myself. I only included it because someone above mentioned an Indonesia source uses Burma and I wanted to confirm or deny it. I did include Thailand on purpose because although their English usage is fairly small, they are fairly large and also share a border with Thailand and probably have more a indepth relationship with Myanmar/Burma then much of the rest of the SEA (who are also fairly close) and so I suspect the vast majority of English speaking Thais will probably be aware of and discuss Myanmar on occasion (even before the recent events). Of primary interest IMHO are the 3 you listed, Thailand, India (and to some extent China but because of their limited English usage perhaps not so much although given their population they can't be ignored).
      • Anyway I only came back since I wanted to clarify that I'm not convinced common usage is Burma. But I also believe that common usage has limited appliciability when it comes to country names in particular since ultimately (and I largely agree with SqueekBox et al) baring cases with political ramifications such as this, people adapt to and start using the official names. This makes it difficult or impossible to determine what is common usage amongst other things and also leads to strong systemic bias issues. You're welcome to disagree with me, I only say this to put all my cards on the table before I leave lest people accuse me of using the common usage concerns to try an get my way because of my view on official names.
      • Nil Einne 18:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
        • The only other country you mention I'd include is India because "English has some sort of official recognition and significant numbers of speakers of English as a first (or joint first) language". Not the case for Thailand or China (barring Hong Kong maybe). I'm certainly not convinced that "Myanmar" is generally used in English without having to be explained with reference to Burma. This might become true at some future point, but it's not the case now. Plus, nobody seems to know what the standard pronunciation of "Myanmar" is in English, suggesting it doesn't exactly spring to the tongue in everyday conversation, whereas this doesn't happen with Burma. --Folantin 18:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay yes I know I have the very bad habit of not leaving when I say I would, I was just talking to someone and finally thought of a way to explain something which had been bugging me. Some people have suggested that because most people would recognise Burma but some wouldn't recognise Myanmar then we should stick with Burma. I strongly disagree. Some people argue Calcutta etc should be the names for the Indian places. By the earlier simplistic logic, it should be since most people will recognise Calcutta (and yes I know some people support this view). If you agree that it should be Kolkata then hopefully you agree it isn't just what most people recognise that matters. Other factors needs to be considered. As an editor arguing for the move put it, what is preferred matters. What is preferred here is obviously very controversial and uncertain. For example, in SEA and probably India I concede Burma is likely to be recognised. However I strongly suspect it's usually seen as archaic (you learn about Burma in history and Myanmar in geography). I don't see why you can ignore this viewpoint any more then you ignore that some people have heard of Burma but not Myanmar. Official names, as I mentioned above, matter to them. If Myanmar changes back to Burma then yes they'll also go back. Nil Einne 18:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree that it should be Kolkata quite yet since it hasn't filtered into common use in sizeable sections of the English-speaking world. On the other hand, English is one of the official languages of India (plus it is a democracy) so I don't really mind if Wikipedia reflects that. But governments (especially foreign ones) shouldn't dictate English usage. After all, our article on Bangkok is not under its official Thai name of Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Yuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit (or even, to be serious, just Krung Thep). --Folantin 19:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Compromises

How about moving the article to something along the lines of:

  • Myanmar/Burma
  • Myanmar (Burma)
  • Burma (Myanmar)
  • Burma/Myanmar

I know this may have already been discussed but please post your opinions here.

Randomfrenchie 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Burma (Myanmar) order makes sense (shows a preference for "Burma" while acknowledging the widespread use of "Myanmar") and I feel like the parenthetical usage is more visually appealing and more commonly used on Wikipedia (I'm sure there are a few article names with a "/" in the middle, but I can't think of any.) — DIEGO talk 04:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather have it as just Myanmar or just Burma. Or we could split it into two articles. --Hemlock Martinis 05:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myanmar/Archive_4&oldid=1142772077"