Talk:Burma/Myanmar/Archive 4

Traffic
I don't know if such a thing is possible, but why don't we do a traffic study. We could monitor how many people search Myanmar and how many people search Burma. Soopto (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if wikipedia can do a traffic study, but google can. Google searches generally seem to have a slight but consistent bias for Myanmar. See here from google trends. -- Truthful Cynic  02:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. I will support moving it to Myanmar because of that information. Soopto (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess this page missed my watch list. Is this actually still being discussed? I would vote for leaving it at Burma. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's more in a state of stasis, until the nation shows up heavily in the news again. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Burma/Myanmar is the LOGICAL compromise!!!
According to the BBC [] the UK/US officially do not recognise the name change as they had both had a huge hissy-fit when the nasty natives dared name their own nation and through their local Battista out.

The Foreign Office themslves explains their frilly knickers-in-nots dillema as: "A statement by the Foreign Office says: "Burma's democracy movement prefers the form 'Burma' because they do not accept the legitimacy of the unelected military regime to change the official name of the country. Internationally, both names are recognised.""

According to anthropologist Gustaaf Houtman, who has written extensively about Burmese politics:

"There's a formal term which is Myanmar and the informal, everyday term which is Burma. Myanmar is the literary form, which is ceremonial and official and reeks of government. [The name change] is a form of censorship."

If Burmese people are writing for publication, they use 'Myanmar', but speaking they use 'Burma', he says.

This reflects the regime's attempt to impose the notion that literary language is master, Mr Houtman says, but there is definitely a political background to it. BBC:

The Answer: "It's known as Myanmar in many countries and at the UN But the UK doesn't recognise the legitimacy of the regime that changed the name"

Richard Coates, a linguist at the University of Western England, says adopting the traditional, formal name is an attempt by the junta to break from the colonial past.

"The UN uses Myanmar, presumably deferring to the idea that its members can call themselves what they wish. Local opposition groups do not accept that, and presumably prefer to use the 'old' colloquial name, at least until they have a government with popular legitimacy. Governments that agree with this stance still call the country Burma.

"The UN uses Myanmar, presumably deferring to the idea that its members can call themselves what they wish, provided the decision is recorded in UN proceedings. There are hosts of papers detailing such changes. I think "

Other countries to rename themselves like this include Iran (formerly Persia), Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) and Cambodia (Kampuchea).

"They've substituted a local name for an internationally acknowledged one for essentially nationalistic and historical reasons."

Myanmar belongs to the ASEAN- which all call it Myanmar, Myanmar. ASEAN and UN have far greater gravity and importance than the capricious political whims and fancies of the US or UK. EU uses Burma/Myanmar.

The hilarious hieght of common US-UK hypocrisy is they have adopete the new names for African countries but not for those that threw them out unceremonisouly.

Iran former Persia? Bangladesh? Djibouti (formerly French Somaliland) ? Indonesia formerly Dutch East Indies? (an exception to rule)? Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia)? Sahrawi formerly Moroccan Sahara Ethopia (formerly Assyria) Angola (former Portueguse West Africa) Uganda : British East Africa Kenya 	British East Africa Chad: 	French Equatorial Africa Central African Republic: French Equatorial Africa Congo: 	French Equatorial Africa Gabon 	French Equatorial Africa

I suggest it's yet another case of Colonial sour grapes and typical poor sportsmanship. Burmah Oil ring any bells anyone?

Be snesnible peope- the real reason for the political sour grapes is rousrces. The CIA world factbook lists them, whilst drooling: "petroleum, timber, tin, antimony, zinc, copper, tungsten, lead, coal, marble, limestone, precious stones, natural gas, hydropower" and notes: "strategic location near major Indian Ocean shipping lanes" Oh- and they forgot to poison all that opium they planted to fund their Vietnam war. Oopsies.

The CIA factbook also lets slip: "Pyidaungzu Myanma Naingngandaw (translated by the US Government as Union of Myanma and by the Burmese as Union of Myanmar) local short form: Myanma Naingngandaw...since 1989 the military authorities in Burma have promoted the name Myanmar as a conventional name for their state; this decision was not approved by any sitting legislature in Burma, and the US Government did not adopt the name, which is a derivative of the Burmese short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw

Conclusion: In the same way Britain is not Glorious Britannia, England not Blighty and Holand not the recessed/under land (Neder Land)land, Burmese/Myanmarese literature refers itself as Myanmar. Thus it is SELECTIVE Western rigidity that elects to opt for the COLLOQUIAL in the face of de jure precedence.

It should be relabbelled Burma/Myanmar- with the same CIA book short explanation, it is apolitical and thus both pedantic parties are placated and the world may then continue revolving.

According to human rights activist Mark Farmener, of Burma Campaign UK, says: ''..really it's not important. Who cares what people call the country? It's the human rights abuses that matter."

"There's not a really strong call from the democracy movement saying you should not call it Myanmar, they just challenge the legitimacy of the regime. "After the regime is gone, it's probable it will carry on being called Myanmar ."

Quod erat demonstrandum. Dixit? Dixi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starstylers (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Parenthesis compromise
Many disputes have been solved with parenthesis, how about "Burma (Myanmar)"?--Ipatrol (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We began to rediscuss this on one of the talk pages... here's the link. As you can read, a remaining issue of contention would be what the article calls the country throughout. In the article, no one wants to read sentences like: "Burma's/Myanmar's population has played a major role in defining its politics", or "Burma/Myanmar is governed by a strict military dictatorship." -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So we don't adopt the compromise for the title because it's unclear what to do next? Change nothing because it wouldn't fix everything? Lame. 145.116.9.68 (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they're all connected. The dispute's about what to call the country in the article; not just in the title. Myanmar-namers would want to call the country Myanmar when talking about it from the name change to present times, and use Burma before then. Burma-namers would want to use Burma throughout. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Outsider's Perspective
I only recently stumbled onto this argument, and I really had no idea over the debate over what to call this country before then. I guess this would make me an "outsider" to this argument. And one thing I've noticed thus far in these discussions is the complete and utter lack of outsider's perspective. I myself think that an article should be named for what the country's government calls itself, not what people think it should be called. So far the this argument seems to be between idealists who disapprove of the actions of the government Myanmar and realists who think that this article should represent the facts and not ideology. And from what I can see, it is these idealists who feel so strongly about this issue that are monopolizing this more than anyone else, which is the reason why the article currently exists as "Burma". Yeah there are some arguments as to why the country should be called "Burma," but those are merely loose arguments that are being used to justify the fact that the people who want this article to be called "Burma" are only doing so because they disapprove of the country changing its name to "Myanmar." So enough of the idealists, and enough of the geography-savvy realists, this argument needs more outsider perspective on the matter. Perhaps we could even get Jimbo Wales' opinion on the matter, he has been known to intervene in such arguments over articles before (e.g.: Brian Peppers), and this matter does seem significant enough to warrant his own take on the matter, I should think. –Nahald (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The link is eluding me for now, but I believe I read somewhere that Jimbo Wales does not like to give opinions on which geographic name to use (it was actually phrased as a sarcastic version of how much he enjoys making decisions like that, if anyone remembers what page I'm talking about). But welcome. One thing you might find, though, is that several of the commenters here have been from outsiders who visited the page. (I was a stranger to the topic until the page was moved to Burma.) -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As was I. I believe I visited when the disaster hit and ran into a massive struggle of naming the country. Then I read all the 100s of points of views, weeded out the bad ones and was still left with several good points on both sides of the debate before wading in myself. I'll bet that's how most people popped up around here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't an outsider to this argument be someone who is not from Burma/Myanmar, and who doesn't have any particularly strong ties to or enmity toward that country? I suspect that the large majority of commenters on this topic are outsiders. Or, "outsider" could mean an outsider to the article, i.e. not a regular editor of this article. Again, judging from the number of commenters, I would surmise that most of them are not regular editors here, at least not as far as major edits are concerned. So, I don't see how "outsider" contrasts with "idealist" in this context.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 01:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, here's a perspective from an American academic (outside of Asian studies). Ever since the country's name officially changed from Burma to Myanmar, I have heard countless native speakers of (American) English correct people who say "Burma" by telling them the name is now "Myanmar". I take it that this is the naive position to be adopted by someone not knowledgeable about or interested in regional politics. That means I also take it to be the apolitical position. One useful analogy might be the pronunciation of 'Celtic'. When I was a kid, I pronounced it with a soft 'c' (because of the Boston Celtics), until I was corrected and told to pronounce it with a hard 'c'. But I later learned that the insistence on the hard 'c' is based on some bogus insistence on mirroring ancient pronunciation, which ignores the fact that the word entered the English language through French, in virtue of which the 'c' is properly soft. So, now I pronounce 'Celtic' with a soft 'c'. But when I do so, I am taking a stand against those who insist on the alternate pronunciation, and that's my point here. Insisting on using 'Burma' rather than 'Myanmar', when you know that the country has changed its official name, seems to me to constitute taking a political stand against the current regime. That's fine, and something we could expect academics interested in the region to do, but it's not something that an Encyclopedia should do. And, as an educated American, I don't think it's reflective of apolitical usage among educated Americans to call the country 'Burma'.145.116.9.68 (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Vote?
I think we should hold a vote: Burma, Myanmar, or a dual name compromise. This discussion will go on forever unless something is established. Someone the Person (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A vote wouldn't satisfy. The idea's been brought up before; I'm not sure where, but it's either on this page or on one of the links listed at the top of Talk:Burma. The most recent move request had a "vote" that was an even tie between Burma and Myanmar. Result: no consensus, page stays at Burma. I say "vote" in quotation marks because even if Myanmar were to win a vote, the page would not be moved. Page moves need consensus, not a majority vote. Which is why the page move to Burma was done against policy. But we Myanmar-namers didn't protest through the proper channels, and now it is too late for that. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not getting anywhere near a consensus here. Someone the Person (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

How about let's stop using popularity as a guide
Namings conflict says that the official name is one of the possible solutions. This long page of discusion indicates that the most popular name is ambiguous and subjective. So what about the official name?--216.118.68.193 (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whose official name? US and UK official name is Burma so it's just as subjective. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimate government?
As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia is not a way of supporting western/American ideals, but is supposed to be an objective factbase. I therefore find it astonishing that the current government can be denounced as illegitimate. Wikipedia's job is not to promote democracy, denounce dictators or to choose a political opinion. As the military junta is the sovereign power in Burma, it is therefore the government. I don't really see how people can debate this. In regards to the naming of Burma/Myanmar for the article, I don't see why it shouldn't be changed to Myanmar. Myanmar is the legitimate name of the country for the time being, and in recognition of the popular name of Burma, a simple redirect Burma > Myanmar would make sure that the "layman" can find the correct article with their search of Burma. 130.88.186.26 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the "layman" can find the article just fine with a redirect Myanmar > Burma. Go back through all the threads and your questions will be answered. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Civilization vs. Regime
Why not include the history, civilization, and cultural information under Burma, but references to the current government under Myanmar, and have both articles? This is how China is treated, and this is essentially how Gaul (a historical term) is treated (Gaul does not redirect to France), how the Holy Roman Empire is treated (it does not redirect to Germany). The Soviet Union does not redirect to Russia; the Third Reich does not redirect to Germany; Francia does not even redirect to France. (East Francia is not even the same article as Austrasia, even though the two have been used synonymously!) There seems to be every reason to split the article in two, separating the historical from the modern government. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Your example of Soviet Union redirecting to Russia - They are different things, i.e. the territories are different. In Burma v Myanmar, it is the same territory, it's just a name change. Alex Holowczak (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC}
 * As was The Third Reich vs. Germany, Manchuria vs. Manchukuo, Democratic Kampuchea vs. Cambodia, the Confederate States of America vs. the Southern United States, etc. There is a good reason these articles are separated.  The Jade Knight (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that, not only is the USSR separate from the Russian Federation, but so is the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The Jade Knight (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Gaul was similar to France but not the same thing. Besides the Romans conquered it, incorporating it into their empire and it wasn't until the splitting of the Carolingian Empire that France(ish) came about. The Holy Roman Empire was also not the same area as Germany: it usually contained Germany during its history but also most of the time lots more too. The Soviet Union wasn't the same as Russia> Russia was one of the states that were part of the USSR, as was the Ukraine, most of the "-stan" countries e.t.c. The Third Reich was not the name of the country under the Nazis, it is more a term to describe it relative to history. Same with "Nazi Germany." It was more called the German Empire or German Reich (same thing really). Francia came after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, so not only is Francia not the same as Gaul, its not the same as the Holy Roman Empire, nor modern day France. Francia was much larger than France. There appear to be some differences between East Francia and Austrasia, but I can see your point here that they are nearly the same.


 * However, two historical entities deserve their own separate articles if they are divided in history (e.g. Gaul and France) or if they are different from each other geographically. This is not the case with Burma/Myanmar as both names before and after 1989 occupied the same space. China before the revolution Mao et al was still the same place so its need for two pages isn't due to this it's due to the fact that another page can provide more detail on a contemporary subject (and China does have a lot more history, recent or otherwise, than Burma). I think you were talking about the fact there's History of China and History of the Republic of China but notice how the former has info on the latter too. The latter is just there to go into more detail than on the first one. I don't think this would be appropriate to do with Burma/Myanmar since it doesn't have a lot of history compared to China. Deamon138 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But notice that the Kingdom of Germany is in a different article than Germany, Austrasia, and East Francia (and the Third Reich). The Khmer Rouge are in a different article than Cambodia (which is in turn separate from Democratic Kampuchea).  Manchuria and Manchukuo are in separate articles, as are the Confederate States of America and the Southern United States, the Republic of Texas and Texas, and the Kingdom of Hawaii and Hawaii.  Or notice the three articles separating Hungary, the Kingdom of Hungary, and the Hungarian Soviet Republic.  And you haven't addressed my mention of the Third Reich, which is probably the closest parallel (along with Kampuchea).  Really, there seems to be plenty of reason to split the two.  And I could probably keep adding examples to this list, it's really not that hard to find them.  The Jade Knight (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Look how many articles there are dealing with different aspects of Britain:

United_kingdom (Official government-sponsored name - equivalent of 'Union of Myanmar') Dealing mostly with politics and culture.

British_Isles Dealing with geography (NB: dealing with the present) and history.

and multiple articles dealing with the history in greater detail:

History_of_the_United_Kingdom

Roman_Britain

Medieval_Britain

Early_Modern_Britain

Kingdom_of_Great_Britain

87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The same with Ireland and Republic_of_Ireland, though they are geographically slightly different.

Most articles seem to have an accompanying 'history of... ' article, and some have a 'politics of... ', so maybe there could be 'history of Burma', 'politics of Myanmar', and the main article could be called 'Myanmar (Burma)'. 87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Constantinople


 * Yugoslavia

87.194.217.99 (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

China: There are two Chinas, one good, one bad.

Soviet Union & Russia: The Soviet Union was a combination of Russia, Ukraine, Karelia, Tuva, and several other countries, whereas Russia is just Russia.

Holy Roman Empire: The Holy Roman Empire is not Germany, the Germans called themselves Holy Romans, but they are actually Germans.--4.245.76.125 (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"China: There are two Chinas, one good, one bad." - So much for the neutrality of Wikipedia. These judgements do not belong on a neutral site. People need to take the blinkers off and look at things subjectively. Myanmar is the officially recognised name by the government of the country and the United Nations. Burma is an historical title and should be treated as such. There is nothing wrong with having an article with Burma as the title when it refers to the country before 1989, but the country at present is Myanmar and to call it something else is motivated purely by political and emotional concerns, neither of which have a place here. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.117.232 (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The name is Myanmar
For those who live in a very stable country like the UK it might be very difficult to understand a rapid swift change in a country name. However we should take a look WHY this particular country wore called Burma and WHY they changed to Myanmar. If the dictators rules Myanmar who rules Burma? So Burma is and invisible state? If you ask for a visa to go to this country, maybe to help then in this tragic situation, who are you going to ask for, to Burma or to Myanmar? You got my answer.
 * LOL. If you get in and manage to give some aid/food to the locals and the gov't grabs you and tortures you and shoots you, what country name will your family use when they talk about your death? 72.134.41.242 (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So if Obama turned crazy and started oppressing the US citzens we could change the USA title to the British Colonies of North America? It does not matter what you or I think of the government in Myanmar, they changed the name of the country and the UN recognised that name change. It is officially called Myanmar and Wikipedia should reflect that. Talk about the ethics of the regime in the Myanmar government section by all means, but there is at present no country called Burma. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.117.232 (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What do mean "if?" :-) Anyway get yourself a wiki name by signing up instead of just hitting and running. Then maybe people will have an intelligent conversation with you on the subject. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean exactly what my comment says but just to enlighten you further what I'm saying is that if another country has questionable government\leadership does that mean we can refer to it by a previous name? I argue not, as subjective opinion has no bearing on the official name of a country as recognised by the government of the country and the UN.  Comprende?  BTW I don't need a screen name to hide behind.  If you need me to have a screen name in order to have intelligent conversation, it calls into question your ability to have such a conversation.87.194.117.232 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Same old argument if you look through the archives and there are plenty of counters on the obverse. It's been done to death. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Burma (Myanmar)
No move Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, there are published sources that use the name "Myanmar" so simply avoiding the name is simple idiocy, anyway, I prefer a neutral name so the "Burma (Myanmar)" should be used due to its flexibility ("Burma" should of course be first due to the alphabet and the length of time it was used). This isn't the first time this naming convention is used for example: Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Drops of Jupiter (Tell Me), (Love Is Like A) Heatwave, Ain't Goin' Down ('Til the Sun Comes Up), etc.--23prootie (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Like it or not this was already ruled on by cabal and multitudes of other votes. Burma (Myanmar) will not work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * also one person does not a page movement make, please discuss things first. If you took the time to look over ALL the arguments we had before the wiki mediator-cabal made it's decision you would have seen that we already discussed splitting the name. It creates confusion because the rest of the article would be Burma throughout, not the split name. Wiki authorities have made a ruling to keep this article at Burma and we don't need another discussion/vote/consensus/cabal/mediation... it's been done to death and just takes up more time and space for nothing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE-The placement of this page at "Burma" was discussed at length all last year until formal mediation was required. It was decided that a cabal of mediators would listen to all points of view and make a decision, which they did. That formal cabal put the page at "Burma" and I see no reason to go through it again. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * COUNTERNOTE-It was decided last year that a cabal of mediators would listen to all points of view and then make a decision that did not rely on the status quo. They did not accomplish this, and the page was kept at Burma based on lack of consensus. Attempts were made to reach a definitive decision via Arbitration, but those efforts were blocked by handful who felt the page was fine at Burma. Just pointing out. :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My viewing was that the cabal of mediators did accomplish their objective... they listened to all points of view and rendered a decision. That in itself was very very helpful to this article. However it wasn't a unanimous decision so there are still questions. I will say this, as 23prootie has told me it would be good to have consistency throughout all wikipedia. If a consensus could be found so that throughout all of wiki the term Burma(Myanmar) would be used when writing about this country I think that would be a good thing. However if that consensus is reached there would be a tedious task of converting all "general" references of Burma's and Myanmar's within wiki to Burma(Myanmar) and it would need to be very selective because while once or twice in an article seeing Burma(Myanmar) is fine and dandy, continual usage of parentheses throughout the article would not be. Too cumbersome imho. But if that could work out I would be onboard to change this article title in the same manner. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Consistency throughout Wikipedia on such points is largely useless, and largely unattainable while we remain the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with you about the cumbersomeness of constantly saying Burma (Myanmar); I think most people feel the same when they think about it. As far as the cabal went, we didn't need a unanimous decision to be satisfied. A 2-1 decision would have been fine. The cabal's problem was that it as a 1-1-1 decision, referring to the status quo, while the point of the cabal was to resolve the problem without referring to the status quo. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose a move. It's either Burma or Myanmar but not both.  Cocos (Keeling) Islands is at that name because that's what they call themselves. —   AjaxSmack   01:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This reminds me of the godawful Bolzano discussion which descended to the point of two separate proposals to move Bolzano/Bozen to Bozen/Bolzano. I do not want to see a Myanmar (Burma) move discusion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cumbersome and unnecessary. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The paint is still wet from the last mediated naming argument and I don't think anyone wants to go through it yet again (self-included). Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose to "Burma (Myanmar)", it is, according to the article itself, officially the Union of Myanmar, so the article should be at Myanmar. Who are we to decide about a state's self-denomination, with international use and recognition? Also, when in doubt, I say following UN's naming is better than following US' (or any particular nation) naming. - Nabla (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is pretty clear it should be Myanmar alone, by every Wikipolicy around. There is no need to appease both sides by using parentheses, dashes, slashes or whatever. We should finally make the move decision and respect the UN, the country itself and the millions of speakers around the world who refer to it as Myanmar.--Avg (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how this became a yeah or nay section for some reason (and it looks like Burma may be much preferred over Burma(Myanmar)). It's also funny how some have opinionated not just on Burma vs Burma(Myanmar) but they've also interjected their narrowness of mind and fiction on old worn out debate topics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not just about this page.
Really, the debate shouldn't be what the name of just this page should be. It should be about whether all the names that were changed should be given as new or old names. Right now, in pretty much every other place on Wikipedia, new names are made more prominent. Inline templates linking country articles lists the country as Myanmar, and then says "Also consider BIR -- Burma." Yangon -- new name. Pyay -- new name. If we are going to be consistent then either this page should be moved to Myanmar, or the other pages should be moved to their former names. Someone the Person (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Depending on your source Burma is not a former name, it is the name today. That's the problem here... Both are current names. One used by a corrupt military junta who is in control of the land, and one used by "many" of the indigenous people and the gov't in exile. One accepted by the UN and one accepted by US/UK/AUS. So Burma, Myanmar, Burma(Myanmar), etc... all have valid naming points. A cabal of wiki mediators decided to keep it at Burma. There is no consensus either way so Burma it is. Other wiki places that use a Myanmar code are simply using a code based on the UN designation for convenience. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And what about Yangon, Pyay, etc.? Someone the Person (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What about them? I can't be the wiki police and work on every article. In Tennis articles I correct certain main pages to make sure they have the proper sources, conform to verifiable facts and wiki protocol. I know that hundreds of other tennis articles do not use proper sourcing or have different numbers than the ones I tend to work on. I can't worry about all those incorrect tennis pages, I don't have the time. I worry about the ones I do work on and a small sphere of articles around it. For the last year that's been getting the Burma page moves stopped and agreeing on some kind of consensus, regardless of how shaky, so the article could prosper. It's been a breeze lately and people have added new items as they come along without big threats of retaliation. I still think the article is too long but there are others much better than I at condensing so I stand back and let them tweak. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While there are many policy reasons why Yangon is ok but Myanmar is not, inconsistency is not necessarily a bad thing. It reflects the existence of debate on the subject. Wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative? --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 08:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
If there are no objections, I would request that this subpage be archived into more manageable sections, of approximately 120k each. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To people who are new to this discussion, please READ THE ARCHIVES before posting any comments. The point you want to make has probably been made before. There has already been an intensive discussion on this issue and there was no consensus to change. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Still Burma
I see this page is still titled as the former country that is no longer in existence. Is this ever going to be fixed or is the western imperial mindset so invasively and ignorantly on display here going to always ignore reality? Lostinlodos (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonderfully constructive post. I'm sure we will ignore you and your reality. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The ruling/governing body of the country has named the country Union of Myanmar. The United Nations currently uses that name for the region of land that the Union of Myanmar comprises. No other name other than the Official name holds any meaning. Burma WAS, Myanmar IS. It doesn't matter if YOU (a Wikipedia user) recognize the official name. The only two opinions that matter is that of the land's governing body and that of the United Nations. Both are in agreement as to the name. And as long as this page continues to use a confusing and factually inaccurate title, despite the admission that the title is factually inaccurate in the first paragraph of the introduction, doesn't change the fact that the title points to, and the article makes current reference, to a historical country no longer in existence, as if it still were. Lostinlodos (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An old argument that has been countered numerous times over the last couple years. When talking of Burma there are so many things that need to be taken into consideration other than the UN or a military junta. That is why votes, mediation and cabals have it sitting where it is. It's not perfect but it has worked for awhile now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "It has worked for awhile now"? The page is move-protected, so the title stays stable. I'm not sure there is a possible scenario that would qualify as "not working". :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that only a tiny minority collection of countries still use the old name of Burma incorrectly in the present tense. The international community has accepted the name Myanmar, because that is the name given to the land by the current controlling government; and the one listed and accepted by the highest level of international politics and relations, the United Nations. I'm not asking, demanding, requesting the title be changed. I'm stating that the section about the current country of Myanmar needs to be given its own page. The page about Burma should end with the end of that country and have a link the new page for the new country. Korea is a prime example of how the old vs new issue works. Lostinlodos (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Burma is not an incorrect term and many would argue that it is Myanmar that is incorrect and being forced upon us by hoodlums. The split article was also discussed and if I recall was shot down quickly. And like it or not this is the English speaking wiki so things are going to have an English flavor. I'm sure the Tibet issue looks different to China than it does to the UK but the slant will be to the UK side of things in this wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If the function of the naming is to use terms familiar to English speakers for this English version of Wikipedia, Burma is at least as legitimate as Myanmar.  English news sources may split (as opposed to universally using Myanmar, I might add), but the average English speaker will certainly be more familiar with Burma.  In any event, the governing body and the UN are most certainly not the only two sources that matter in determining what the term will be in English; I rather suspect that usage in English-speaking countries will decide what works in their language rather than the UN or a rogue junta in a far-off land.  Nor do names need to match across languages, outside of forums like the UN where all countries interact and where one name is a matter of convenience; the logical extension of the "standardization" line of thought would be to start calling Japan "Nihon" and China "Zhongguo" in every language because those are the "real" names in the original language.  I am also a bit puzzled to hear such statist views on the governing body holding the right to rename a country from Lostinlodos given the user's identification as a supporter of civil liberties. 24.239.189.111 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the case in the United States. The federal government might say "Burma", but we have "Myanmar" coming at us in every direction from the Associated Press to Rand McNally. That means the majority of our news and the majority of our maps refer to Myanmar. It has an effect on our perceptions. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, though the Washington Post uses exclusively Burma, the LA Times uses a confusing mix, Reuters scrupulously adds "formerly Burma" to each article on Myanmar, and the AP adds "also known as Burma" to many of its articles. I wouldn't call it a majority in the media, but it's definitely a source of confusion, as people here well know---all the more interesting since the average citizen is still much more likely to know Burma than new-fangled Myanmar, whatever their take on the politics of language; foreign-mandated name changes don't always take hold to the same extent they did with the "Democratic Republic" of Congo, though that's perhaps a function of news frequency and the extent of international exchanges, as well. 24.239.189.111 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rand McNally foldout maps use both names on their cover but I see your point. Just because it is incorrect if enough sources use Myanmar to inundate the public soon that will be all the public knows. But remember that Rand McNally has a map of China AND a map of Tibet so what they choose is based on their own criteria. There are also plenty of sources that use improper English such that would make a teacher cringe but again if that's what the public sees soon that's all they use... even if on a test they would fail. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait... are we talking about what is "correct", or what is "common"? :-) Give the "average person" a list of nations: Burma, Malaya, Zaire, Yugoslavia, Siam, Czechoslovakia, Holland. He'll surely recognize all of them before their alternatives. Now, tell him that one of these choices is the official name of a nation that still exists in modern day (assuming you believe Burma is), and see if he/she chooses your answer correctly. That doesn't mean we're going to go change the article titles of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Serbia, Malaysia, and so on.
 * Re: Rand McNally--Burma is placed in smaller letters on the cover of that Rand McNally book. But zoom into one of those world maps. It'll say Myanmar, without the Burma qualifier. That means we Americans see Myanmar on our globes, in our atlases, and on our bouncy-ball toys and pencil sharpeners in the shape of the world. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This debate is ludicrous. The country is called Myanmar, not Burma. Why are we living in the past on Wikipedia? Somebody change it or give me a legitimate reason why it should be Burma. (This rubbish about Burma being recognised by more people is unacceptable. Most people recognise the Republic of Ireland as simply Ireland and yet, the former remains the name of the article.) Bonzostar (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, if it is true that Burma is much more recognizable than Myanmar in the English language, then there's good reason (i.e. Wikipedia policy) to have that as the article's title. Many of us just believe that the two are equally recognizable, so we feel the official name should take precedence. There's a LOT of back-and-forth in the archives and other pages that are linked from the template on Talk:Burma. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus all he needs to do is go back through the archives to see reasons why it is Burma. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't only the British still call Myanmar Burma? And besides all of the Indian cities which have changed their names recently (such as Bombay/Mumbai) have had their articles named by their new names. Eraserhead1 (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Youtube Recognition Test
Yes, I know Youtube isn't a reliable source. But a handful here are still thoroughly convinced that there are more people in the world who will recognize Burma as a country than Myanmar, despite the fact that most media and encyclopedic resources use the latter name. Well, I challenge you to do a quick youtube search for terms like "countries" or "flags of the world", and see what you get. Here are two videos of parents teaching their children to identify countries. Because their maps and charts say Myanmar, they teach their children Myanmar: 1(at 2:09), 2(at 0:45). Here are videos that label world flags. The video creators label the nation as Myanmar, probably because the resources they consulted labeled the nation as Myanmar: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. In all the videos I found, only one said "Burma (Myanmar)" instead of just "Myanmar": 1. Search for yourself and see if you get different results. Is it a real factor in Wikipedia policy? No. But, the maps, atlases, and encyclopedias that teach them this information ARE. Last time media and resources were brought up, several people here maintained their gut feeling that the Myanmar-naming sources had no real effect on which name was most recognizable. Well, those small children in the first two videos were able to show us Myanmar's location or its flag. Chances are, they have no idea what Burma even is. And, if their parents did, they clearly didn't think the name was current enough to pass on. Thanks for bearing with me. -BaronGrackle (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, youtube is way up there in the official dept. Not that it matters... once these kids reach high school only 40% of them will be able to identify the pacific ocean on a map.;-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Really interesting thoughts, Baron, on the politics of maps and teaching...all the more so since schoolchildren learning geography are of course unlikely to learn in-depth history of the area and thus would be used to Myanmar. Mapmakers have quite a role to play, it seems.  Then again, one wonders if the impact there would outweigh the stories of the history of Burma (with reference to your notes on Czechoslovakia, etc.), especially since the current events in "Myanmar" are rather unlikely to intrude into many foreigners' consciousness.  The underlying question that still gets me more than what "most people recognize" is the modern phenomenon of countries asserting what their country shall be called in other languages (necessary largely for the UN and other international meetings).  I can see how the renaming of countries where geography is altered (Czechoslovakia) would have an impact on what foreigners called the land, but I have a harder time seeing how in non-UN-style situations one country's desire for its "official name" should be followed in another's country or language, even outside of cases like Burma where the name change is politically charged.  I reckon that I'll continue to call Spain "Spain" in English, however incorrect it may be based on the assumption that the original language name of a country is the "correct" one...and that itself is a major assumption.  Hmmm. 24.239.189.111 (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename the Page to Myanmar
The country is called Myanmar, NOT Burma. Using the name Burma on this page is like using American Colonies for the US or Gaul for France, it just doesn't make sense. The UN calls the country Myanmar, why doesn't Wikipedia?--Duffy2032 (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your analogies are a bit wanting. Burma is a common name in English for the country. To the best of my knowledge, Gaul is not a common English name for France and American Colonies is definitely not a common English name for the United States. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, it's more like using America for the United States. America is a common name for the United States, but that doesn't mean it gets to be the title of the article. Someone the Person (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the analogy is still wanting. America needs disambiguation, Burma doesn't. (See WP:NCDAB)--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What this is really like is calling "Israel" "Palestine", since that's what the British Empire called it. While we're at it, lets change "Vietnam" to "French Indochina", "Cambodia" to "Kampuchea", and "Istanbul" to "Constantinople" or even "Byzantium" because they used to be called that before various political changes occurred. While I understand that the naming policy relies upon common usage, the accuracy (under Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia) and Neutral POV pillars trump naming policy, and "Burma" definitely violates NPOV (and I would argue accuracy), considering that the current government and the UN both use Myanmar. Whether one thinks the government is legitimate is irrelevant, since Myanmar is the self-designation of the nation-state. Burma may be a valid name for the REGION, but not the STATE. Fyunck(click) said above "Depending on your source Burma is not a former name, it is the name today. That's the problem here... Both are current names. One used by a corrupt military junta who is in control of the land, and one used by 'many' of the indigenous people and the gov't in exile." Sure, and I might still call people with dark skin "niggers", and they may even call themselves "niggers", but that doesn't mean it's appropriate or even acceptable for me to do so in today's society. If I say "Zaire" people know what I'm talking about, but that doesn't make it a proper, current name for the country because the people running it, whether I agree or disagree with how they're running it or how they came to power, want to be known as something else (Dem. Rep. of the Congo). We HAVE to go with what a nation-state wants its English name to be if that's to what we're referring. Even though there are drawbacks, it's a practicable way we can achieve consistency and avoid bias. If a state never expresses a preference about what it's called in English, go for common usage. But when a preference is expressed, particularly when it's a politically-charged naming issue, we MUST use the self-determined nomenclature to maintain a neutral POV. -JohannVII (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cambodia to the old name of Kampuchea! You must be really young - or very very old :-) I don't mean to be rude but it is an odd argument to say that when a naming issue is politically charged then the 'official name', presumably decided by one of the entities at these political poles, helps maintain a neutral POV! Be that as it may - if you feel that the common name policy needs to be changed to an official name one, you should take this to the talk page of Naming conventions. To quote from policy: New editors often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, this name is ipso facto the correct name for the article, and that if the article is under another name then it should be moved. In nearly all cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well-put. More importantly, the English language's dedication to adapting its usage based on what outside countries would like to referred to in English, a language not their own, is inconsistent at best, and that may be fine. 71.51.11.120 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I saw a globe BOOKEND set in a store just last week. And, as inconsistent as our English language might be, I knew exactly what the bookends would call the country before I even looked at them. They didn't say Burma. I doubt they ever do, here in the U.S. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I also went to the bookstore (US) and happened to wander by the Atlas section. They had 4 different versions: 2 used Myanmar (Burma) and 2 used Burma (Myanmar). Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Touché. Too bad all four of them "cheated" with the parentheses. :-) But more seriously, anyone who looked at any of the four books you mentioned would be able to identify either Burma or Myanmar as the country's common name--not just Myanmar, but not just Burma either. -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which showcases some of the reasons there are many arguments here. The books know both names are used depending whom is reading it or where they are located. It does give some ammunition to those wanting to add Myanmar in parentheses to the article title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Myanmar
All politics aside, for sovereign nations en.Wikipedia should be using the English language name each official government uses for itself. That keeps POV out of it. We are not here to take sides. The article should be named Myanmar until a future government changes it. Kingturtle (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While there is no denying the existence of a political dimension, framing this as purely political is incorrect. There is a strong case that Burma is the common English name for the country because that is the name used in historical texts and in most academic departments in the English speaking world from where, except during news events, the majority of our queries are likely to come. While the relative commonness of Burma or Myanmar is debatable there is also the complex issue of 'Burmese' both when used as a noun as well as when used as an adjective. Burma is the root form of Burmese and in both cases the official injunction is to use 'Myanmar' but there is no question that the common English word is 'Burmese' (as in Burmese people rather than Myanmar people). If we went with what is official, we would be doing our readers a disservice. Perhaps that is why there is no wikipedia policy reason for your opinion above. (There are other political issues that I won't go into, but the main bone of contention is often who defines a government as official. Many English speaking countries officially recognize Burma and the legitimacy of the current Burmese government, even amongst its people, is open to question). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Having Burma redirect to Myanmar would not be doing readers a disservice. Quite contrarily, it would educate readers and give them a broader understanding of the world around them. This brings to mind the following example - that even though most English speakers do not know that Saigon is officially called Ho Chi Minh City, en.wikipedia still redirects Saigon to the official city name. Kingturtle (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me. What I meant was that renaming Burmese people to Myanmar (or Burmese language to Myanmar) would be doing our readers a disservice. All of these are the official English names of the entities. I was trying to point out - admittedly in a convoluted way :-) - that there is no policy regarding official names but there is one regarding common names and perhaps there is a good reason for that! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The country's official name is "Myanmar," and so the article name should be edited accordingly. The country might commonly be called "Burma" by English speakers, but its name is no longer "Burma." Josh (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Italy to be called "Italia" in English from now on? Why would Burmese speakers get to determine the new construction in English?  Unless Americans plan to lobby the Chinese government to adopt a Chinese pronounciation for the United States  of America that sounds more like "America" than "Meiguo" currently does, I'm not sure why English speakers should care about name consistency across languages...except in a forum like the UN where a common operating language granted countries the ability to create "official" English names for themselves for expediency's sake.  The English language sphere, however, is not the UN. 71.51.11.120 (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I am in India and the textbooks and other books (in English) here have described the country as Myanmar ever since the name change. -- ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Kingturtle, but that argument simply has no basis in practice or policy. We use the name most likely to be recognized by English speakers - like, for example, Japan instead of Nippon-koku. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 18:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nathan, I chose my words carefully: For sovereign nations en.Wikipedia should be using the English language name each official government uses for itself. When using the English language the Japanese government does not call itself Nippon-koku. The government bodies, for example, call themselves The National Diet of Japan and The Prime Minister of Japan. As much as the U.S. government and Americans continue to call the city Saigon, the city's official name is Ho Chi Minh City - and en.wikipedia rightly redirects Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City. Kingturtle (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, personally I almost never hear Saigon used as a current reference - like Mumbai and Yangon and many other cities, they are generally noted by their current name with a "FYI" reference as in "Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay..." In any case, it seems like we still often use the common English name instead of the official "English name" (cf North Korea) and that is what policy suggests is the correct approach. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 19:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the same argument *for* using Myanmar. It is just that the name change has been much more recent that Mumbai's. I never hear any reputable modern media outlet refer to "Burma" anymore - I hear "Myanmar, formerly known as Burma". Official English names of countries should be followed. The country is not currently Burma. Wikipedia should be aiming to educate not reinforce misconceptions. --ZayZayEM (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Just because you don't hear things means nothing. The UK and US gov'ts use Burma and I read and listen to media that uses Burma. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This debate is one of the most prominent examples (if not the prominent) of the systemic issues with English Wikipedia. Ok let's find the common name. Where? Who is the intended audience of the English Wikipedia? Is it the English speaking people in countries of the Anglosaxon world or is it all the English speaking people of the whole world? If it is the latter, then obviously Myanmar is by far the name of the article. If it is the former, then there might be a case for Burma (although not certain). --Avg (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't just a problem with wikipedia, it's a problem with all encyclopedia and atlases. It's a tough call on country/city names when some governments recognize the change and others do not, some English speakers use one common name and other English speakers use another, when the people in their own country use their own slang common names that are different than all of the above. These are tough calls and it's no wonder it often falls into chaos. But the power of the printed word eventually becomes all powerful, whether it's right or wrong. What is absolutely taboo in written English today, by constant incorrect usage becomes standard English tomorrow. So unless the "gov't in exile" comes back or the people stand up and kick out the military juntas, Burma being correct or not won't matter; over the years the name will dissolve into obscurity. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is no doubt entirely true. And for the moment, the name is pretty interchangeable for lots of people; but as we've seen, news and government sources continue to use Burma as the primary reference. Ultimately if the political situation in Myanmar (which is how I generally refer to it, not that this is relevant) maintains stable control the use of Burma will drop out. Sometime along the tipping point, I expect us to change the article name... but we haven't reached that point yet, and with the edit and move wars of recent times still in fresh memory we should probably wait to seriously address it again until the "facts on the ground" have changed in some significant way. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should repeat my comment then, which news and government sources continue to use Burma as the primary reference? Certainly not the news and government sources of the majority of the world, but some (not all) governments and news sources of the Anglosaxon countries, especially the UK. Is that enough for a global encyclopaedia? Is this encyclopaedia biased towards a UK or US perspective of the world?--Avg (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer is to a degree, yes. There are 50+ versions of wiki for countries whose first language isn't English. English punctuation and spelling is different in every country yet this English wiki has chosen US English for those items. You don't think the Chinese version of things will be way different than the Japanese version? The Indian version of history is surely most different than the British version. While this is a global Wikipedia things here in the English version are going to have a decidedly Canadian, US, Australian and UK flavor to them when it comes to history and politics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Common name is the guideline that starts this discussion, but Naming conflict is the one that points it to Myanmar. I'll repeat that annoying list we've seen repeatedly. Again and again, when we look at the test for which name is common, we find Using these guidelines, Burma is not more of a common name than Myanmar. That's when the official or self-identifying name kicks in. A different discussion. -BaronGrackle (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Google test. Myanmar finds 53,500,000 while Burma finds 27,300,000.
 * International organisations. U.N. and IMF use Myanmar, NATO uses Burma, OSCE uses both.
 * Major English-language media outlets. Google News prefers Myanmar (10,324) over Burma (7,738). BBC and the Guardian use Burma while CNN uses Myanmar. The guideline page doesn't list other examples, but the scales would skyrocket to Myanmar if more U.S. examples were listed. Yes; you read my metaphor correctly.
 * Reference works. EVERY OTHER major online encyclopedia uses Myanmar. Including Britannica. If someone is going to look up this country in an online encyclopedia, that person will find Burma only if he/she comes to Wikipedia.
 * Geographic name servers. NGA uses Burma. (It's also a U.S. government site.)
 * Scientific nomenclature. Burma: IUPAP - Both: CIPM, NIST (more Myanmar matches) - Neither: IUPAC, NPL


 * ''' NGA uses "Burma" as can be seen from this extract -

Name (Gazetteer Order):	 Burma, Union of (BGN Conventional) Name (Reading Order):	 Union of Burma Short Name:	 Burma Feature Designation:	 NULL DMS Lat:	 22° 00' 00" N DMS Long:	 098° 00' 00" E Country Name (Code):	 Burma (BM) ADM1 Name (Code):	 Burma (general) (00) Generic:	 NULL Language Name (Code):	 English (eng) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.217.123 (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well put. I admit I am new to this but here are my two cents. It seems clear that the name Myanmar should be the name of the article with Burma redirecting to it. In terms of fulfilling the objective criteria, as listed on the Naming conflict page, Myanmar is: (a) the more commonly used term; (b) the official current name of the subject (as headlined in the constitution, although with the admittedly confusing subtitle which uses 'Union of Burma' as well); (c) a self-identifying term. Furthermore, any argument against the use of Myanmar along moral grounds (e.g. it is not a democracy, the military junta there commits human rights abuses, etc) falls under subjective criteria which, according to the guidelines, should not be used to resolve a naming conflict. -Sixtybolts (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that BaronGrackle is wrong (I wouldn't dare!) but the google test is a tad flawed for two reasons: first, the government of that country uses Myanmar (obviously) so all .mm sites use Myanmar as do other government sponsored English language sites (such as the New Light of Myanmar - a common source for news for Burma watchers). Second, since the UN and other international organizations use Myanmar (because the government has asked them to, not because it is the common English name), the results of a google search will automatically be skewed toward Myanmar even though more people from English speaking countries recognize Burma. It is the common name test that is at issue, nothing political about this. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The point, however, is that neither name is overwhelmingly more common over the other. In that case, we need secondary criteria for determining which one to use since we can't use "most common name". --Polaron | Talk 16:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that there is considerable disagreement over your first statement. I, for example, believe that if you take sources such as JSTOR, the name that the academic community uses, add in historical sources (which are an important focus of study), or just use the common sense derivation from Burmese, Burma is overwhelmingly the common English name for that country. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is of the same order of magnitude is what I meant that neither is overwhelmingly more common. Do you really think that tkane over all sources, Burma is more than 10 times more common than Myanmar? --Polaron | Talk 16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is, the government of Myanmar asking that the country be called as such fulfills one of the criteria for resolving a Wikipedia naming dispute, which is the issue here. Ditto with the results of the Google test. (Just for the heck of it, I did a Google search for all sites ending with .mm and only came up with 58,300, which leaves a 26,000,000+ shortfall in the difference.) I agree that this alone does not automatically make it the common name in English but I reckon it is a fairly accurate indicator of how widespread the usage of Myanmar is among English speakers (RegentsPark's opinion, notwithstanding), as there is no other way to determine which one is more accepted short of a planet-wide survey. Also, as a side note, I think it is important to note that much of the resistance towards the name change from Burma to Myanmar was and is organised along political lines, or is at least a residual effect thereof. One wonders why there was no such resistance to the the change in name from, say, Bombay to Mumbai, despite the fact that Bombay has existed for longer in the English language than Burma. As for the same order of magnitude issue, Myanmar may not be 10 times more common than Burma but I think a two-to-one ratio in favour of the former, in conjunction with the other criteria listed, points towards naming the article Myanmar, with Burma as a redirect.--Sixtybolts (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well whatever your belief on "common," there is a huge difference with Bombay. The major English speaking nations recognize the Indian government where they do not recognize the military junta in Burma as anything other than thugs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been said in the archives, but the distinction about Indian cities were that (1) English is an official language of India, and (2) When the Indian English speakers are factored in, Mumbai soars in recognizability. I still don't buy that, but Burmyanmar is a different animal regardless. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Mumbai name change was not entirely analogous to Burmyanmar (nice portmanteau) but the factors you mentioned themselves present inconsistencies. English may be the subsidiary official language of India but if statistics are to be believed there are only 90 million English speakers in India, including persons for whom it is a second and third language, which would have hardly made a dent in the global recognition of the name Bombay by English speakers at the time, and yet there was not much resistance to the change. Over time, Mumbai has come to be recognised as the English common name for the city, which is not the case for some of the other renamed Indian cities like Kolkata and Puducherry, and yet all three are listed according to their official, self-determined names on Wikipedia. This makes it appear to me that the main (though not the sole) reason Burma remains unchanged is due to subjective opinions on the political system of the country. (Plus, if we are include second and third language speakers in determining how common Burma is versus Myanmar, then the tally would even out against the 'major English-speaking countries' with the inclusion of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ghana, the Philippines, Malaysia and so forth.)--Sixtybolts (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One comment on the use of Google or JSTOR searches: giving preference to academic and historical articles is invariably going to be skewed toward the use of "Burma", because many of these were written before the name change (or at least when the name "Myanmar" was relatively uncommon in English). The issue at hand is which name is currently more prevalent, and a broader search will have a better sample of recent web pages than a search by discipline.  Although in my opinion, web searches are only useful when one name is vastly more common than the other anyway, because otherwise too many confounding factors get in the way, as can be seen in this debate.  Personally, I am in the camp that says both names are comparable in usage, and that Wikipedia should therefore default to the official name, in this case "Myanmar".Rundquist (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (yes out of sync - @RegentsPark) Saying that we shouldn't use Myanmar because the current government of the country uses Myanmar for it's internet domain is also an argument for using Myanmar, not one against it. You cannot call that a "flaw" in the google test. It is why the name should have remained Myanmar, it is the current term.--ZayZayEM (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a person from Myanmar, I only accept the name Myanmar. Whenever I found the name "Burma" in wikipedia, I feel like someone is swelling us and treating us lack of any respect. Wikipedia is still keeping really damn bad idea. Please change to Myanmar. Burma come from "Bamar", one of 135 national races of Myanmar, and the land was historically called "Myanmar". Why do people think that military junta ever do bad thing? You know everywhere, everything have good and bad, advantages and disadvantages. I hate military junta but they right in this case to change the country's name to Myanmar. And don't think political opposition people ever do good things. Military junta are bad and also most of political oppositions are also bad. You guy don't need to follow their saying to keep the name "Burmese". For example, Daw Aung San Su Kyi, the good political one has never told to keep the country's name Burma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YzYn (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible U.S. government change in policy?
Senator Jim Webb, considered one of Obama's closest allies in the Senate, secured the release of American John Yettaw after meeting with the Burmese government. After the meeting, Webb specifically thanked the government of Myanmar. His quote: "I am grateful to the Myanmar government for honoring these requests. It is my hope that we can take advantage of these gestures as a way to begin laying the foundations of good will and confidence building in the future." 

This combined with the Hillary Clinton's statement that the U.S. government is "reviewing" its policy towards Myanmar and that the Obama administration prefers engaging in what it calls "vigorous diplomacy" leads me to believe that the U.S. government will change course and join the majority of American news media and American schoolbooks and maps in calling Myanmar by its official name. They would do this in exhange for something presumably, or maybe just to do it in order to get in line with the international community. --Tocino 23:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is interesting, and one to watch, although it should be noted that the office of Jim Webb is noticeably divided on usage. It seems to me like the name "Myanmar" is reserved for more rebellious statements in the voice of Webb's personal views (as demonstrated in his op-ed in the NYT) while "Burma" is used when following federal guidelines. Clinton, meanwhile, has used "Burma" as recently as this week, and the State Department and CIA Factbook maintain the old line. Could be a while yet. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Myanmar
Discussion moved from talk page main --89.243.41.164 (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do people keep calling Myanmar 'Burma' - it's not called Burma any more - it's Myanmar, and people aren't going to start calling it by its proper name if major reference points such as Wikipedia still wallow in old-fashioned names, and don't accept that it is not called Burma. If the page name is not changed, I will change it continually until you accept that calling it 'Burma' is simply incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDBalgores (talk • contribs) 09:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Threat of change probably isn't a good idea around wiki. If you read all the discussions on the talk pages you will be enlightened as to why the article is named Burma, and is "protected" as such. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A few years back there was a wave of "de-colonizing names"; stopping using the colonial names for several cities and countries, i.e. "Bombay" is actually "Mumbai". And this is well and good.  The problem was that "Myanmar" is actually a name imposed on "Burma" by the military junta that seized power there after World War II.  For some years, many people assumed that the shift to "Myanmar" was another anti-colonial name; it isn't.  It's like calling Poland "Greater Germany", or like George Orwell's 1984, calling Britain "Oceania".  Gradually more people started to realize this. (Live for nothing or die for something). --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Or called Upper Volta "Burkina Faso", a name imposed by the forces who seized power there. That one doesn't get disputed much. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * JDBalgores; you are completely and undeniably 100% correct. People at Wikipeda (and the west in general) like to impose their point of view on articles no matter what rules are in place to oppose such POV. Burma is POV, in that it is NOT THE OFFICIAL NAME, and any claim otherwise is down right fraud. I learned long ago to just ignore such flagrant POV as lemmings can not be turned away from the cliff of ignorance. Lostinlodos (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What balderdash. You need to go back and read the long and drawn out discussions on the subject before making such statements. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While you verify those long drawn out discussions, please note that I was involved in them, at the time in a more civil manner. I gave up long ago, As I've said before, Official isn't always fair, but fairness is relative, relativity is POV, and POV is not allowed. Myanmar is official, Burma no longer exists. Those are the facts, without any other POV attached. I'll bow out again with that....Lostinlodos (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your handle sounded familiar but as you said, at the time you expressed your views in a more civil manner. POV is relative as many regard your facts as POV also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to drive in is that the name is POV, no matter which way you chose to go for the article. Burma is the jump-on-the-Western-Bandwagon name, Myanmar the name chosen by the Controlling government, Union Of Myanmar the name accepted and registered with the United Nations. All three work; and all three are point of view. I still believe the disputed tag regarding the name should ALSO be a mandatory part of the opening of the article, but I got shot down on that as well. Lostinlodos (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well officially Japan is Nippon-koku but you don't see a lot of that pronunciation. But hey I suggested Burma(Myanmar) but that didn't fly well so we moved on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Japan's official English name is Japan, and Myanmar's official English name is Myanmar. Try beating this statement of fact. I completely concur with Lostinlodos. After taking almost a year's break from this site, this same problem continues to crop up...as I expected. I declared this before and I declare it again: as long as this article continues to be called "Burma" in Wikipedia, Wikipedia as a website has failed in all its intent to be a neutral source of information.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm already in the process of changing the Canada article to British North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.48.152 (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not calling Zimbabwe as Rhodesia anymore. *shrugs* I guess it's still less ridiculous than Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.188.10 (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I just recently found this article title and I am baffled as to how anyone would keep the name Burma. It is the common name (if we use google hits - 44,900,000 to 4,440,000 - Myanmar gets 10 times as many hits), it is the preferred name of the country, and it is the official name. The reality is that the name is Myanmar and has been for over 20 years. More importantly, it is POV to keep it Burma. I wonder if we should call the United States, British Colonies still. Does this military junta have some particularly bad government that makes us not want to recognize a name that has been used for more than a generation? Do we refuse to acknowledge the government of all countries taken by force? Naming policy, all of it, directs that the name be Myanmar. It is strange how these little pockets of stupidity continue to putz along on Wikipedia. Under what circumstances will we finally acknowledge the current name is Myanmar? Do they have to be in power for 50 years? How about 100 years? What is the criteria that the preferred name and the common name of this country be acknowledged?-- Storm  Rider  23:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I guess you haven't read all the arguments on both sides of the issue on all the discussion pages, archives, etc. There you will find all you need to understand the situation. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, did that first. There are no viable arguments to have an article named Burma instead of Myanmar. To use Burma is blatantly POV and is ignorant of this country's history.
 * Just because a group of editors get together and say "this is the way it should be" does not make it correct or proper. It means that a group of editors chose a specific name for an article at a point in time. One of the great weaknesses of Wikipedia is the fact that anyone can vote, which includes the ignorant of history, those devoid of an understanding of Wikipedia policy, and those with an axe to grind. Most importantly, ignorance does not breed knowledgeable decisions.
 * It is true that Wikipedia is attempting to raise the bar on some editing, but that does not mean it will ever get to the point where these short episodes of poor decision making are rightly and properly prevented.
 * This name will exist until a more knowledgeable group of editors comes along and is able to either instruct the ignorant or overwhelm them in sheer numbers. Although the last would be nice, it is seldom the case. I am not saying we don't have exceptionally bright editors, I am saying that we cannot control those who are devoid of expertise from voting. Given that they vote we will continue to have these types of silly decisions. -- Storm  Rider  02:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read all the backlog of arguments and still don't understand the controversy then there's not much I can say that will help. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Though one can read the arguments of those who support Burma, one can still understand that there is no legitimate argument to use the name. It comes down to the logic used to support Burma; in my opinion, it is full of holes. I also realize that at the moment my opinion or anyone else's that understands the importance of using the current name of Myanmar is not worth a plug nickel. This is just a weakness of Wikipedia where stupidity rules the day. The title will change back to the original title and it will change for the right reasons, but it will take time. In the meantime, we are forced to deal with it. -- Storm  Rider  05:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's terms like "stupidity" that never further an argument, hurt wikipedia and shows disrespect to people who have differing opinions and have worked hard on an article. In time it may change to Myanmar, or in time a legitimate gov't could take hold and make it something else that Wikipedai can haggle over. We have but to wait and see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, now we arrive at the crux of the matter. We do not, and never should, place Wikipedia in the position of determining a "legitimate" government. If it has existed over 20 years then it is stable and it is the de facto government. It is error to think we are capable of saying what is and what is not legitimate. In fact, that is the content of the article; it has nothing to do with the reality of the name of the country. More importantly, it is overwhelmingly POV to enter into the debate. Wikipedia does not make judgments. We report facts and the evidence from reliable sources is overwhelmingly clear that the name of this country is Myanmar. There is no moral torch to carry; that is the stuff of personal blogs.
 * The reason I use such strong language is because this is so obvious it boggles the mind. There is not legitimate argument. There is moral superiority, there is "I just don't like it", there is ignorance, and there is just plain stupidity, but there is no legitimate argument for this article to be named anything but Myanmar.
 * Disrespect is not a given; it is earned and it is assuredly lost when the actions of editors is so blatantly wrong. This is just a sad display of bone-headed decision making. It is not unusual; we all do it at some point, but to not admit it; that is when it moves into the realm of true stupidity. Cheers and may we both never repeat this caliber of decision-making on any other article. -- Storm  Rider  06:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious is in the eye of the beholder. But heck you say "Cheers" and I think we'd probably find a way to be on opposite ends of the Kristie Alley or Shelley Long debate too. And don't get me started on Bond :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Storm, as long as we're all discussing "real" names, may I throw in that on MANY and the MAJORITY of documents submitted internationally (eg to the UN, World Cort, Tribunals of WWI and WWII, ...), the US is actually The Democratic Republic Of The United States of America?!? We don't see that one much outside of reading poorly scanned PDFs of official documents, do we? Any name of ANY country is POV. I stand firm that the UN name (Myanmar) is the one that should be used for an article here, but I've been overruled. The thing with POV is that majority rules. We're never going to get past that. Lostinlodos (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Storm Rider, I'm going to be a broken record here again and point out that the page is not held here by a majority of editors. The most recent discussion (January 2008) ended with a dead equal number of editors on both sides. But, the page was already stuck here from the October 2007 move request (a response to the atrocities against Burmese monks at the time), which brought the page from Myanmar to Burma by an inflated majority vote. The mediation Cabal failed by giving us no answer and keeping it at the status quo. The attempt at structured mediation was shot down by a handful of editors. This page has ALWAYS had disagreement on what the nation should be called, but it escalated after the move to Burma. Look at this page's archives. #3 is the October 2007 move. After that, five archive pages were dominated by the argument until it was spat to the Talk:Burma/Myanmar subpage, which has four archives of its own. The naming issue has resolved like a knee gash, healed with a rock still inside it. :) -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) Lost, I appreciate your comments, but they do not apply to this situation. It is overwhelming that this nation is known first and foremost as Myanmar. The only reason to call it Burma is based on a POV, a POV that is outside of the purview of Wikipedia. We must hold the strictest standard of neutrality and unfortunately, in this instance some editors have allowed their heart, their sense of morality, whatever you want to call it, from just acknowledging reality...the nation is Myanmar.

Baron, it is very unfortunate that we are in the present situation. But, Wikipedia seems to always come to its senses and allow proper decisions to be made. I think the current situation exists because the very nature of Wikipedia allows all to participate. Votes take place with no control of who is voting and a determination of their grasp of policies, history, etc. In those grand old words (cleaned up for public consumption) crap happens. Also and maybe more importantly, our naming policy is so loose that this type of thing takes place. Self-identified names should and must take precedence so that personal opinion and emotion are strongly limited if not eliminated from the process.

I have added this page to my watch list and will look forward to the next vote. We can only do what we can do and ignore the rest. -- Storm  Rider  19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * While I feel averse to the tedium that is trying to review this naming decision, it strikes me that none of the above defence of "Burma" relates to the notion that it is the more widespread in the English language, as did the overwhelming majority of its defenders in the last big debate. Instead it comes down to a defence of the status quo. Does this perhaps reflect a change in this attitude. It seems reasonable to anticipate that politically motivated nomenclature can only sustain itself in popular vernacular for so long.
 * Another way to look at it: which title for the article would attract the most criticism? Can we expect the same kind of perennial protests of "the junta isn't legitimate" as "the name isn't official"? I think the former is far easier to deflect on the grounds of POV. The decision, first and foremost, that we are currently with does not hold either of these arguments in its fundamental reasoning. If these are the arguments that come up most in the talk pages, maybe it is short-sighted not to go with the one most compatible with Wikipedia policy. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah the naming continues to be funky with this country. I mean as it stands now this is an English wiki and US and UK policy is the country is named Burma; I forget Canada and Australia's policy. The illegitimate gov't says the name is Myanmar and many (if not most) english news agencies have picked up on that... trying to be the shiniest penny with that info I guess. The gov't in exile calls itself Burma. Of course Japan calls itself Nippon but no one else does. The people of the country in question don't call it Myanmar unless they trade with foreigners and need to have a point a reference. Otherwise its Bama for the populous. It's a bit of a stew for sure. It's like using improper English... pretty soon everyone but textbooks use that improper English. Then newsprint picks of the bad grammar etc... and finally it becomes proper English even in textbooks. The same type of thing is happening with this issue as we write. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we scotch the myth that "Japan calls itself Nippon"? That may be true in Japanese, but when using English Japan calls itself "Japan" - see for instance the website of the country's embassy to the UK or in Canada or in Australia or in New Zealand or in Ireland or in India. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many reasons why this article should be named Myanmar and not Burma, the most obvious one being that the United Nations call it Myanmar. Wikipedia should not be a place for politics, and naming this article Burma clearly shows a non neutral point of view Wims (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Others see it quite differently as the reams of archived arguments have shown, if you would have taken the time to read them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * From reading many of the reams of archives arguments, I get the sense that most, if not all, the people arguing for Burma are biased against the current government of the nation, and it appears that this bias is dictating their arguments, not logic. Personally, I prefer Burma, but I have to admit the other side has a much more convincing argument, especially when it comes to established English news sources.  Very few outside the UK seem to still use Burma.


 * (1) The United Nations is not a naming body. See "United Nations and Geographical Names". --Bejnar (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (2) See "An Introduction to the Toponymy of Burma (October 2007)" where The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use lays out its reasoning for the continued use of "Burma". On that basis, I don't see how Storm Rider can say there is no legitimate argument to use the name.   --Bejnar (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (3) With regard to neutrality, there is no neutral name for the country. All of the names come with baggage. --Bejnar (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the topic is moot at present. The title of this article, Burma, reflects a name for a country that does not exist. The PCGN has no authority to direct the usage of language for the world. When I read their reasoning for recognizing the "official" name of Union of Myanmar all I got was an expression of elitist colonialism. More importantly, the common language of England has nothing to do with the common language of the English speaking world at large. Though not absolutely reliable, but still enlightening, just google the two names and Myanmar clearly is used far more often in the world. I reject any name for a country that does not exist; to me it is an open and closed conversation. Any decision to choose retain Burma has more to do with politics than reality.
 * At what point do we actually recognize reality and call it Myanmar? Does the government have to exist for 50 years? 200 years? Or do we just choose to not recognize the names of countries that we don't like? Eventually the name will change, but until then Wikipedia will wear the taint of a stupid decision of the majority that voted. It is embarrassing, but there are much worse things in the world to actually worry about. -- Storm  Rider  01:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use has no authority period (albeit maybe the UK and its protectorates), whereas the UN has authority in almost every nation (see article 25 of the United Nations Charter for an example: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.") so this is irrelevant. Int21h (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be changed to Myanmar: The United Nations is about as final and NPOV as its going to get. Dislike it all you want, but thats the official and common name (search for "Myanmar" and then "Burma"; Myanmar gets more hits from more people and organizations worldwide.) Int21h (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but we are a minority. It is one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia; the tyranny of the majority. Occasionally, Wikipedia gets things wrongs and I think eventually it corrects itself. I firmly think that the decision to change the name to Burma from Myanmar was based more on an emotional response than anything else. The military coup is rejected by many, but it is absolute insanity to continue to maintain that Burma is a country...and yet, it is the name of the article. Burma is not the common name, it is not the official name, but it is a name of the past. Just hold tight and when enough editors wake up the title will revert to the proper name of the country. However, today the majority has spoken. I don't think we are ready for another vote yet. - Storm  Rider  05:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Storm, those who share your view are actually not the minority. The split appears almost clean down the centre in past debates, although I have always believed that there are actually more pro-Myanmar folks, because supporters for a NPOV stance tend to be more passive and less inclined to participate or sustain this long drawn out debate, compared to those energised by strong POVs to effect a change, especially after that infamous incident in 2007. So to me, it is not exactly an issue of the tyranny of the majority. This article suffered because during that critical 2007 situation, a large enough group was emotionally charged enough to push for a move faster than the majority could react. So the (silent) majority will just have to wait patiently by until apathy sets in amongst the pro-Burma bunch and a new vote gets conducted.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Numerical search results do not solve an argument. They are indicative of nothing.  To even mention it as support for your cause just contributes to the failure of your argument.  And your argument, and others, about the UN fails to meet the standard when you consider Taiwan/Chinese Taipei/ROC, which is not recognized by the UN yet is typically considered a sovereign country by many countries and international organizations, such as the IOC. Bhcompy (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your dismissal counts for nothing too, because if you may take time to at least read Wikipedia policies and guidelines, naming disputes do consider search counts as one of the factors to determine popular use. Next, you appear handicapped in your knowledge about the Taiwan issue. Any organisation under the UN umbrella, and the IOC and its affiliates, do not recognise the government of the ROC, nor consider the ROC or Taiwan as a sovereign country. At last count, the ROC/Taiwan as a sovereign country is recognised by 23 countries, and this has no effect on how the UN itself chooses to deal with the Taiwan question. Please pick a better example to illustrate your point.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Huaiwei, you wrote more properly than I did; I agree completely with your comments. - Storm  Rider  16:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Japanese and let me point out that the word "Japan" is what my government officially use as the designated English name in all international organisation. Using Burma is a deliberate political statement to side with National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma. I should also point out that only 67% people in Myanmar belong to Burmese ethnic group. Vapour (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I live in Myanmar, and EVERYBODY calls it Myanmar. Someone here searching for Myanmar on Wikipedia would be offended to be redirected to Burma, especially as it connotes ethnic superiority in a country with about 300 distinct groups. For me this argument is over. Let's change the page name and lock it to prevent vandalism. All in favour? 212.116.220.152 (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're in Riyadh for a holiday then? ... You don't live in Myanmar. You can't gain access to Wikipedia in Myanmar. And just to give you a bit of information on "your" country's history, Myanma is the classical term for the Bamar, and many minorities view it as even more disrespectful than "Burma". Both names have their controversies. Regardless of that, this is the English version of Wikipedia, and in English, "Burma" is the most common name used in current media. The governments of Britain, Australia, Canada, and the U.S. use "Burma". So no, I'm not in favour. Night w (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Myanmar/Burma or Burma/Myaymar
This is getting ridiculous. Why don't we just phrase it as "Myanmar/Burma" or "Burma/Mynmar"? Really, why not? The UN recognizes Myanmar but the US, Canada and UK (the predominant English speaking governments - hence the "en.wiki" argument) still calls it Burma. Just compromise and throw in a "slash". Jeez... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.48.152 (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * wouldst that this was the only problem. You'd have Burma/Myanmar as a title and then we'd be left with all the times Burma is mentioned in the article. Those 100s of times would be unwieldy as Burma/Myanmar. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * notso~ae/be--i&#39;v&#91;&#91;RSI&#93;&#93;&gt;typin=v.v.hard4me!!&gt;contactme thruMSNpl&#91;sven70=alias (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is contradictory sometimes...
I realise the name issue has been argued over, at length, many times before, so I'm not going to start another move request here. But I just find it amusing that our article on the city formerly known as Rangoon is at Yangon, while this article is at Burma rather than Myanmar. Can anyone give a convincing reason for using the old name for the country, but the new name for the city? Surely we should try to have some kind of consistency on these issues? Robofish (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All I can say is wikipedia is far from consistent on a plethora of articles. I work on tennis articles that total up slam wins for people and when you go to those peoples individual articles the slam totals are completely different, and yet anchored in concrete. Should it be that way...probably not. Will it change anytime soon...probably not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling Myanmar as Burma is a political statement in rejection of the current military government. It appear that some want to make that statement in wikipedia. This kind of non neural editing will not last long even in wikipedia. Every other encycropedia and international organisation use the word, Myanmar. It appear that no one can be bothered with the trouble of taking this issue to the arbitration process. Vapour (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It would appear you are are the one who couldn't be bothered to check the wiki history. It has already gone to mediation and cabal. It is Burma in many books and is also Burma by the authority of the US gov't, the UK, etc. I'm not saying there aren't converse facts also, but to insinuate it is cut and dry and that mediation hasn't been involved is to be ignorant of the situation here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mediation by its own admission has not been able to resolve this; don't be disingenuous. Likewise, the political entities you name admit that they do so out of a non-neutral stance. The only thread by which the current title hangs is how much such statements of political indignation have affected the common usage in the English language. Both names are widespread in this context, so I don't blame Vapour for referring back to semantics and international convention. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The British Gov says it used Burma in support of the democratic movement. Presumably they will (re)name it Burma when they get in power. So Myanmar is just a temporary name. "BURMA OR MYANMAR Britain's policy is to refer to Burma rather than 'Myanmar'. The current regime changed the name to Myanmar in 1989. Burma's democracy movement prefers the form ‘Burma’ because they do not accept the legitimacy of the unelected military regime and thus their right to change the official name of the country. Internationally, both names are recognised." Kwenchin (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please name me an example of another sovereign nation where the de facto government declares an official English name and it is not used as the article title? Anyone? All POV judgments aside, the government is the government, and they decide what the country is called. Honestly, if there is a coup in Tanzania tomorrow and the new leaders rename it Pepsi Presents New Zanzibar, that should be the article's title. Why all this nonsense? 209.196.230.72 (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, the Hellenic Republic. The rest of your post suggests that your objections are a policy matter, that you haven't read any of the discussion which precedes your contribution, or both. Bigbluefish (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a "long" official name. The "short" name used by that country's government is "Greece" - see for instance the name used by the London embassy website. Similarly you'll find the likes of "Germany", "Spain" and so forth use those shortened names in official English output. That is a very different case from this country where "Myanmar" is the short name used. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; however my understanding of WP:NCGN is that English language usage takes precedence over official status, so lack of such a precedent isn't relevant. The basis of the current argument for keeping at "Burma" is that it is equally widespread in the English language as "Myanmar". I disagree that the usage of "Burma" is extensive enough to reach that conclusion, but if you intend to reanimate this discussion it would be helpful to be clear about on what basis you are doing so. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it's a combination of "equally widespread usage" and "self-identified name", with the "self" referring to the government that we agree is running the country. The most legitimate contention for Burma (in my opinion) is that the "self" in "self-identified" refers to the "people" as opposed to the "government". But even if you believe that, I think it goes back to the "equally widespread" part. Timrollpickering has cited some very convincing arguments along these lines from the Wikipedia guidelines... somewhere in all the talk pages. And I've repasted some of them at least once... probably months afterward... also somewhere in all the talk pages. -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

+zair>drc[siam4tailnd?butsi--i&#39;v&#91;&#91;RSI&#93;&#93;&gt;typin=v.v.hard4me!!&gt;contactme thruMSNpl&#91;sven70=alias (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for the Election
Huaiwei how long before a new vote can take place? I live in Thailand and here everyone refers to the country as Myanmar, speaking in Thai, Burmese, Shan, Karen, Hmong, Wa, English, whatever. The only people who still use Burma are recently arrived American and some European travelers who don't know any better. Google trends shows clearly that "Myanmar" use in Google search is dominant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmcneill (talk • contribs)
 * An election is due this year, and I would suggest that this is likely to come with a renewed interest in this issue. To try any revival of the naming debate before then is likely to be unsuccessful and immediately challenged when more eyes arrive at the scene. Your Google test is far from conclusive: it does not discriminate between languages and is hugely dominated by traffic from Myanmar itself. Select any English-speaking country and in fact Burma comes out on top. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Myanmar election will do nothing to rename the country back to Burma. I don't see the relevance of such an election to the naming in Wikipedia. The Google test is conclusive as the English language queries are 2:1 in favor of Myanmar. Any English-speaking country is more likely to use Myanmar as it is to use Burma. The fact that searches within the country are overwhelmingly in favor of Myanmar should be a point in favor of using the official name, and not against! Why would the revival of the naming debate be immediately challenged? It is clear that the naming debate is still quite active. The point I am trying to make and the question I am asking is when can another VOTE be made which would correct the current misnaming of a country. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It could as ousted leaders or those in exile still call it Burma. People in Burma still call it Burma depending on where one lives. And you are wrong on English-speaking countries such as the UK and US. Plus this is an English wikipedia version and the US and UK governments say it is Burma. If a news program writes a report on Myanmar what do you think the public is going to google??? Burma? no they're going to google Myanmar. If the upcoming election is considered legit by the English speaking world (not looking good right now) and their respective English speaking governments ok the naming change from Burma to Myanmar then you have something, even if the people living in Burma still call themselves Burma. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * People in and from the Union of Myanmar overwhelmingly call the country Myanmar and not Burma. Where do you get your evidence? I live in Thailand and talk to Myanmar people every day, and very rarely do they say "Burma". Google Trends shows the same evidence, both for inside-Myanmar use of terms as well as the 2:1 use of Myanmar over Burma in English-language search. The recognition of legitimate governments by other governments should not have an Orwellian effect on proper use of names. If you have evidence to the contrary then present it, otherwise your claims are baseless. When can we vote again to change the name to the proper one, Myanmar and not Burma? --Jeffmcneill (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You've been around on Wikipedia long enough that you should know that
 * we don't vote
 * you can try to gather consensus on this issue at any time.
 * I'll gladly restate my view on the situation, and so, I presume, will most of the people who have been watching this talk page the last 18 months. But that's missing a large body of people who, before that, were opposed to a rename and have since disappeared because they are satisfied with the outcome (though it was not arrived at by achievement of a clear consensus). If for any reason it can appear that a new consensus has been contrived by a lack of participants, it will be thrown out and we will have made no progress. It's my continued suggestion that the forthcoming election is an ideal and imminent opportunity for a discussion to have sufficient participation (in fact probably much more than sufficient) to be credible.
 * This is Wikipedia and I don't write the rules, but I do think I'm talking sense. It's up to you what you want to do. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The outcome of the election is almost immaterial to its importance to the naming debate. The overseas coverage of it, and either its democratic breakthroughs or its continued dictatorial rule is likely to produce more English-language coverage than there's been in total since the last major debate on this issue. If the English usage has swung in favour of Myanmar, then one or more news agencies currently using "Burma" may elect to switch to "Myanmar", thus consolidating the name. There will be at least one more "Burma vs Myanmar" story in the press to source more reliably from; and crucially, there will be far more eyes here on Wikipedia, so any decision can be respected more highly as an act of consensus. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I do not call the shots, but Bigbluefish is right that time will be on "Myanmar"'s side, and any attempts to insist on upholding an antiquated name will be futile in the long run. Anyhow, I cannot resist responding to some comments made by Fyunck: "Plus this is an English wikipedia version and the US and UK governments say it is Burma." This line of argument has been repeated countless times, and refuted countless times, but may I just repeat it again: The English-language wikipedia defines common usage as per how all users of the language use it. There is no such thing as giving greater weightage to someone who speaks it as a native language versus someone using it as a second language etc. So this attempt to accord greater weightage to "English speaking countries" is equally flawed and not tenable.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While I tend to think you're right about the outcome of the inevitable debate later this year, I don't at all want to be seen to be prejudicing it. I find it far more untenable that the naming of an article has stabilised purely on the basis of lack of motivation to find a consensus rather than on the achievement of one, than I do the fact that in my view the current name isn't the most suitable one.
 * The refutation of the authority of US and UK governments in our naming policy goes beyond the existence of English-speakers outside those countries. Even within the US and UK usage, in the linguistic sense of the word, is very much divided, with the most influential contributors to this probably being news giants Reuters and the AP who use "Myanmar". But yes, you can't really look to the UK and US governments without also looking to the Indian government (second largest English-speaking population) who use "Myanmar". Bigbluefish (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

View of an outsider
I have never taken part in this debate, nor have I ever seen this discussion page until tonight, nor am I in any way emotionally attached to this issue. My interest was aroused when reading a template at the bottom of an article, giving an asterisk around "Burma" and saying that it's officially called "Myanmar". Why don't we just name it Myanmar? Since that's the dominant usage around the world and the official usage?

Then I come to this page, and I read the discussion. Layers and layers of archived discussion and sadly, the best argument against Myanmar and for Burma happened to be the imposition of US and UK ("Western") moral orthodoxy. This is a sad joke and an embarrassment to the Wiki process of consensus. There are no good arguments for "Burma" - they are all politically charged and "holier-than-thou" arguments - and by the time we get to this last archive, I only see one single user (Fyunck) vehemently defending "Burma", telling any new outsiders to read into the archives of the page to search for the past arguments as though that single-handedly destroys all reason within their protestations, while he fails to produce any substantive reason for this page to be at Burma.

To me the situation is quite simple. "Burma" is a name that is not in line with numerous Wikipedia policies; it represents a strict POV, and it is most certainly not the common name. Whatever moral indignation you may harbour about the governing regime is absolutely irrelevant. If anyone has the time, take it to the proper wiki-channels of dispute resolution, and get an arbitation ruling on it.

For those interested, I was involved in another lengthy, seemingly unsolvable name debate at Talk:Yue Chinese, which has been going on for about as long as this one. Some outside views would be nice there too. Colipon+ (Talk) 03:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * When someone brings up a point that has been gone over dozens and dozens of times you bet I direct them to past dialogs. It's not worth my time to answer what has already been bantered about for so long and in such length. It's easy to come in here blind as an "outsider" and claim your own holier than thou observation while bringing my name up. Yeah that's the easy part. But when you read the past arguments there are good points on both sides and why compromise suggestions like Burma/Myanmar or Burma(Myanmar) were also debated. Right now it's simply sitting at where the mediated cabal put it... at Burma because of a no decision. The nations that "officially" use Burma are the same, the people living in Burma are still divided in loyalty and in the name they use (which is pretty much neither Burma nor Myanmar), and news sources are still in the same boat. I too have heard more mentioning of Myanmar on tv than in the past and I duly note it since nothing is static on wikipedia. I'll tell you this... the people who have taken part in this debate for a long time have been much more civil than in articles like Global Warming or some of the tennis articles I frquent. Points of view differ to be sure, but I have respect to those editors here that I disagree with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As you've looked through the archives, you should see that Fyunck is far from the only one who feels the way that he does. He's just one of the few who still comments on the discussion pages; many of them don't bother to argue a discussion they feel has already been settled. He's also one of the few who actually contributes to the article's subject material, a feat I cannot claim myself. As far as the naming itself goes, don't worry; that discussion never really dies. :) -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Been reading most of this depate and I just have to ask that will en.wiki still call Myanmar as Burma if US doesn't acknowledge the new name? It's starting to look that we ain't getting any solution to this for a long time, because new election laws introduced by Myanmar/Burma’s dictatorship have made NLD a banned organisation meaning no elections. >> US or British won't most likely do anything about the name so it will stay like this.
 * Oh, and one more thing. I was reading this and some other blogs about this and was wondering what's NDF's standpoint? Same intrest as NLD? --Nrautava (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll say this. If either the US or UK officially change to Myanmar, even if the Burmese Gov't in exile or the people living there still call it Burma/Bama, I would reevaluate my own stance here on this English Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)