Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08 Burma

Request details
The article currently held by a move block at Burma has been moved back and forth from Myanmar many times. Involved parties have conducted a request for comment that has not resulted in any consensus.

Who are the involved parties?
Too many to list, there are comments by something like twenty different editors on the RfC.

What's going on?
The involved editors cannot come to a consensus about common usage. Myanmar is more common in the press, but there is a notable outlier (the BBC) that explains that they use Burma because they believe it is more commonly recognized. Usage appears to be very split, and the next criterion in WP:NCGN is the locally used name. An elected but never empowered government prefers Burma, the military junta that is very much in power officially renamed the country Myanmar. The renaming isn't recognized by some notable groups, such as the US government.

What would you like to change about that?
The ideal would be a name that would stick and not be turned into a tennis ball every time the country comes up in the news. I've proposed a Gdansk-style naming convention, and a split article has been proposed (the article is over 100k anyway) with one piece "Burma" and one piece "Myanmar". I don't have a particularly strong opinion, but would like to see a resolution.

Mediator notes

 * Moving discussion to /Consensus. Atyndall93 | talk 07:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Posted messages to all relevant pages. Atyndall93 | talk 11:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Waiting until the 24th of June for closure. Atyndall93 | talk 03:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Waiting for crat's final decisions. Atyndall93 | talk 03:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Closed case; consensus showed that article should be kept at Burma. Atyndall93 | talk 10:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes

 * Discussion took place at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08 Burma/Consensus.

Discussion
See Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma and Talk:Burma/Myanmar. Just as a heads up, both contain a fair amount of WP:SOUP. Be aware that Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-02/In_the_news (Seattle P-I's blog) has happened.


 * I don't know if I'm allowed to post here not knowing how this process works, but I'm sure I'll be deleted from here if not. Anyway, one point that I'd like to get across to you "Mediation Cabally people" is that if Wikipedia is about WP:NPOV, then your decision should follow that and not advocate democracy by settling on Burma. If you decide on Burma in the end for a better reason then I'd be more than happy with that decision, though there doesn't seem to be one so I advocate Myanmar or a two page split. Deamon138 (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Deamon138, the mediation cabal doesn't make decisions about content, our role is merely to assist the parties in finding a workable compromise. Of course, in naming disputes things are slightly more tricky, because there isn't usually much scope for a compromise. PhilKnight (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For "decisions", substitute for a better fitting word of your choosing. However, the point I was making didn't seem to be made in the original entry by Somedumbyankee, hence my reason for posting it, and I hope it's taken into consideration in your mediation, thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems that complicates this case further is the outcome of an RM back in October (at the time the country was in the news due to the monks' protests). Many commenting suggested it should be "Burma" for political reasons and the closing admin interpreted the result as Move to Burma and included in the closing comments:


 * I suppose that there's an emotional level of revolt towards the junta involved, and that "Myanmar" would likely be accepted per similar precedents if there's a democratic government.

The result is that many feel the October RM was tainted and should not be the default determinant of the location of the article in the absence of consensus. But there is no mechanism to review the outcome of RMs and attempts to formally discuss things again were repeatedly speedy closed citing it. This I feel has complicated matters no end. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I personally did not know about that RM, however the reason given for the move is precisely what I want avoided this time as I said above. This is an encyclopaedia not an "emotionopaedia". We do what is correct, not what is "right". See and . Deamon138 (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of splitting the article in half, as Burma & Myanmar. But then, a dispute would develop over Burma being described in the past tense & Myanmar in present tense. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also like the split idea. As for the dispute that you mentioned, no matter what decision is made, there are goin g to be a lot people unhappy. Deamon138 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus that's established will hopefully cover what to use at each period in history as well. A split isn't a bad idea, all names aside, the main article is getting to the point where it should be cut down a bit anyway.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-Cabal Discussion
Delete this unashamedly if it doesn't belong here... but what happens now? As a Myanmar-namer, I think it would be simpler to accept a Burma-title if 2/3 bureaucrats had determined that Wikipedia policy favored Burma, but we have another "No consensus, so keep at Burma" result. Is there a way to remedy this that does not involve Burma winning by virtue of no consensus? One of the key issues of contention was whether there was consensus to move the article TO Burma last October in the first place, and I think many of us were hoping to avoid the question altogether by establishing or asserting a consensus based on its own merits. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This may stick for a while, but I doubt it'll provide the lasting solution I was hoping for. "No consensus" isn't really a decision, so it's basically a 1-1 tie with 1 person abstaining.  I doubt that anything but a unanimous decision would have put this to rest, though.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with you. Surely determining "no consensus" means that there is no consensus for Myanmar OR Burma? If so, it makes more sense for that decision to have been (never mind other arguments about whether consensus did in fact not exist etc) "No consensus, recommend official mediation" or some such higher state of discussion. Deamon138 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's make it clear that this mediation process has not determined a consensus but a lack thereof. The right thing to do is still to protect at "Burma", but still under the caveat of protection policy that it "does not advocate the current revision".
 * My view here is that the comments made by crats have been influenced by the notion that "Burma" really is more common than "Myanmar" in English media and literature. This is a reasonable judgement of consensus insofar as lots and lots of people said things along the lines of "Burma is more common" without any reflection on verifiability, but an unreasonable judgement given that every attempt at an empirical study of the usage has shown that the difference in popularity of the two names is too small to distinguish.
 * If people are dissatisfied with accepting Burma on the terms of no consensus then it makes sense to escalate this to the Mediation Committee; however I see time being spent far better on other things&mdash;such, for example, as improving Names of Burma, which in spite of the wealth of opinion and information volunteered about the subject has had no other contributions but my own since this mediation case began&mdash;considering that this is just a question of naming conventions. On the whole, the Burma article already does a good job of describing the status of its name, and it should be remembered that its title there makes no more statement about which name is "right" than the sidewalk article does. BigBlueFish (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think any basis of current location with no consensus will really work when the article location is not where it was for the longest period of its history and currently determined by a much disputed RM. Most of us been hoping to find or have imposed some consensus one way or the other as "where it currently is" gets into how it got there and there isn't a "status quo anti-bellum" to default to when the very first edit to the article and the very first comment on the talk page were both about the name.


 * As for the article on the name, I think a lot of people of wary of delving into it because look how contentious basic statements about the widespreadness of use have proved in the epic talkpage discussions. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then I hope I've shown that the problem is utterly trivial if you stick to reliable sources which comment on the choices made between the names rather than synthesising conclusions based on personally constructed lists of usage. It is true that contentious statements have no place in articles, while in talk pages if you get enough people to yell them often enough then they suddenly carry some weight.
 * Anyhow, if you think the current approach is unacceptable (I think I agree with you), you can either find something on the project which is simply easier to bring from unacceptable to acceptable or I suggest a Medcom case. Whoever it is, a barnstar is in order for whoever initiates whatever mediation finally brings this debate to a definitive conclusion. I just hope that it doesn't come before the day that the junta decides that Burma was a better name after all! BigBlueFish (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that editing Names of Burma is pointless because we don't have a consensus on the current name yet. And I think enough people are dissatisfied with this and want to go to the next stage. Deamon138 (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion solely concerns a choice of naming convention, which doesn't preclude the aggregation of objective information about the history of the country's name. Doing so is probably also a helpful exercise into establishing what the facts are. The choice of naming convention is going to contradict the convention used by a large delegation of people either way, and what matters more is that once the reader is aware of the country that the name refers to, the historical description of that country is comprehensive, neutral and accurate. BigBlueFish (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that your sentiment is desirable, but I don't see how an objective article on Names of Burma can be completed at the moment, when half the people in these discussions here haven't been objective. I mean it's called "Names of Burma" but if we were being objective, then it would be "Names of Myanmar", with only articles about the country's history using Burma. Deamon138 (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So the only difference is the word that is used outside of quotes in the article. This can be switched with a quick find-and-replace. Trust me, the title is the easy bit of the development in that article! BigBlueFish (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have created Requests_for_mediation/Burma. I have added 19 users (including myself) to the list of involved parties. The ones I have listed are ones who have commented recently, or who commented on the Mediation Cabal case (except if they solely made a neutral comment). If you disagree with me listing you there, remove yourself from it if you wish. If you feel someone else should be involved, add/ask them. I hope those I have added are alright though. I also hope this step is what finally ends this dispute! Sorry if I've messed up while doing this, one thing I will say in my defence is that the instructions were only half finished! Deamon138 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)