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

Ok, hello everyone, I am Atyndall and am currently mediating the Burma/Myanmar case. I have decided, after reviewing this case that a compromise cannot be met (as there are only two options, not a middle ground) and that concensus must be found out and acted upon. So basically here we are, at a subpage of the burma mediation and we will try and determine the consensus on the issue. I request both groups to list their arguements in the corresponding sections, as explained below and please remember to be civil. After a period of 14 days I will gather several experienced users to evaluate the consensus then we will act on this issue. Atyndall93 | talk 07:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed moving of the article Burma to Myanmar and vice-verse. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.


 * The result of the discussion is: Keep at Burma


 * : Myanmar, per Names of Burma, many reliable sources, the Google test, and the "official" name. I don't find the "status quo" argument, nor arguments that deal with the history of the article itself rather than the history of the country, persuasive. Sources generally seem to support Myanmar being more common internationally, and Wikipedia should not have systemic bias for U.S. and U.K. Maintain a redirect. Continue to use Burmese as the adjective where necessary. Some level of "split" for historical pages should be maintained (History of Burma, perhaps -- I found the "history" argument persuasive for historical pages, but no so much for the main page itself.) (Note: I am neutral on the issue itself, but this is my reading of the argument on this page. ) 02:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * : Burma Although Myanmar is the official name, I think from the discussion below that Burma is the more common name. Maintain redirects (obviously), but I don't think a Gdansk-style split is a good idea. 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * : No consensus, so keep at Burma This discussion has not come to a consensus, but there does appear to be a broad consensus on a few issues: the country's de facto government has officially named the country "[Union of] Myanmar", and this term is now in widespread use.  "Burma" is also in widespread use, is favoured by the opposition, which won the last (annulled) democratic elections, and is common in historic references.  Finally, that Wikipedia needs to take into account common usage and self-identification in choosing titles for articles, and that article titles should not be based on moral concerns. 20:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Burma is the more commonly used name. The US gov't does not recognize Myanmar and uses Burma officially. It is the name most recognized by the English speaking world especially to an older generation who might only view wiki occasionally and who are not savvy enough to voice their opinion on this page. If they pick up an ecyclopedia at home surely they would check the B's before they check the M's and entities such as Time Magazine and the "Human Rights Watch" use Burma exclusively. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Burma. Status quo.  Besides my reasons given at the RFC, the only clear consensus to move the article was in the original request to move it to Burma in October of 2007.  Since then the closing admin's actions have been called into question, a requested move less than 24 hours later occurred (result=speedy closed), another one a month later was attempted (result=speedy closed), and a month-and-half after that, another request did take place (result=no move), a separate talk page was created just to argue over the name because it was taking away from the article's regular take page, and a request for comment which resulted in a no consensus and hence this mediation.  Besides the many reasons why we at wikipedia should have the article named Burma and not Myanmar, from what I've seen, the original move was the only one that had any consensus and since then there has been nothing but quasi-lawyering and in-fighting to try to overrule the consensus of that move. I hope that the judgment will be the final judgment without any type of appeals from either side.  &mdash;  MJC detroit  (yak) 17:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Burma captures the name of the country throughout its history. The Myanmar name is restricted to recent events.  If the page is only about recent history, then Myanmar would be better, but it is about the whole country, including its long history and culture, so Burma is better.  The top of the page tells all readers that the official name is The Union of Myanmar, so I don't see what is wrong with the page -- about the country's geography, history, demographics &c. -- being called Burma.  Mjb1981 (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "The top of the page tells all readers that the official name is The Union of Myanmar, so I don't see what is wrong with the page -- about the country's geography, history, demographics &c. -- being called Burma." <<<<<< WOW BEST CONTRADICTION EVER!! If the top of the page says it is called "the Union of Myanmar", then how in any way can it make sense that nothing is wrong with the page being titled Burma? Notice how they are two completely different words. It would be fair enough if Burma was in more common usage, but it's not. Therefore, the official name should be used which as you've pointed out is "the Union of Myanmar", or in short, "Myanmar". I am also in favour of a seperate Burma article: see below in the appropriate section for that view. Deamon138 (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you get off saying that Burma is not more common usage? That's nutty. I'm sure if you ask everyone on the planet if they've heard of Burma or Myanmar the Burma people would bury Myanmar. Burma is far more common. The USA and UK call it officially the Union of Burma. It's only up there on wiki for compromise. This is an English leaning wikipedia so extra weight must be given to Western Culture if close decisions are to be made. The people arguing here today are only a minuscule part of those who will eventually read this article. Heck I've got grandparents who read wiki and don't know that anyone can edit it... they take it for granted that the articles are correct. I'll bet most of the people who edit these articles are under 30, and maybe under 20... Gees our latest red block on the page top was put there by Andre (wiki mediator and wiki bureaucrat) who I'm sure is as smart as they come... but he's only 18. Someone 18 wasn't even born in 1989 when SLORC and some dictatorial warlords said out with Burma, in with Myanmar. There are good points on both sides of this issue no matter what anyone on an opposing side says. I feel the name Burma is a stronger candidate for everyone who will read this in the English speaking world but I already mentioned a compromise so I won't go into that again. That section in wiki on common usage and official names is quite vague and also deals with when there is NO common usage, not duel common usage. And the official name where? In the US or UK? In Chad? on the Space Station? This is not black and white. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your convincing argument about the commonness of Burma, "that's nutty; I'm sure".
 * Thank you for adding sarcasm.


 * It's not nutty to say Burma and Myanmarare in equal usage. If you look across all the information given in these discussions, you will see this. I personally believed that Burma was in more common usage, before I came across these discussions. It's nutty to disagree. Clearly either you haven't looked hard enough, or you are choosing to ignore the bountiful collection of sources for Myanmar.
 * The statement referred to was Burma is not more common... there is no proof of that. You must be choosing to ignore the bountiful collections on Burma.


 * There is plenty of "proof" that Burma isn't more common. Look for instance at Rundquist's post in the Myanmar section, my post mentioning google books further down in this section and all over these discussions at Talk:Burma, Talk:Burma/Myanmar and god knows where else, there's so much stuff everywhere! Well since the "Myanmar-namers" have provided our sources in suport of our belief that Burma and Myanmar are equally common, surely you should be providing sources for your belief that Burma is more common. I'm ready when you are. Besides, I am not "ignoring the bountiful collections on Burma." I ACKNOWLEDGE the existence of lots of sources using Burma, but I also acknowledge all the other sources that use Myanmar. Hence the reason why I think its 50-50 usage. You are the one that is ignoring bountiful collections of evidence, and more specifically, towards Myanmar.


 * You say, "I'm sure if you ask everyone on the planet if they've heard of Burma or Myanmar the Burma people would bury Myanmar. Burma is far more common." Well, while you go and ask eveyone on the planet whether they use Burma or Myanmar, the rest of us will discuss the issue on Wikipedia. Don't be suprised if when you come back that it has moved to Myanmar! Also don't be suprised, that if you try and tell us that your research proves that Burma has more usage, to be accused of promoting your own research, another no-no. Still, you could always just nt do any research, and just sit there and say that you are just sure that you are right and just sure I'm wrong.
 * Sarcasm and Ad Hominem statements do no become you. Try harder.


 * Okay, firstly, that is the second anti-sarcasm remark you've made. What pray tell is so wrong with sarcasm? And don't give me any of that "lowest form of wit" crap, remember that is a POV (i.e. you assert that sarcasm is a bad thing). Only someone who might be inherently humourless could find sarcasm a negative concept. Besides, if you actually read the above paragraph you were responding to, you will see that I never used sarcasm there (I may have done elsewhere but not there). I was actually being serious: you can't assert that if everyone on the planet was asked that "Burma would bury Myanmar" without some kind of source or citation. Since you haven't provided one, I encourage you, go off and travel the world and ask everyone and see what the results are. If the results of that then said Burma, your beliefs might be a little, say believable. You also accuse me of an ad hominem. I have scoured that paragraph for ages looking for one, and the best I can come up with is that you think me saying, "Still, you could always just nt do any research, and just sit there and say that you are just sure that you are right and just sure I'm wrong" is one. Well it isn't. Pointing out a logical fallacy of someone in a debate is not an attack against their character which an ad hominem would entail. And that was what I was doing: pointing out your own logical fallacy. You made a claim based on your own experience that you're, "sure if you ask everyone on the planet if they've heard of Burma or Myanmar the Burma people would bury Myanmar," when you can't possibly have enough experience to say that you know what everyone on the planet favours. Sure, you can get a good feel for it using research, sources and citations showing how the stats on Myanmar and Burma hold up, which is what everyone else has done, or you could just claim to be right. Hence logical fallacy on your part. Hence my critique of that fallacy before. Hence no ad hominem made by me in that paragraph. I guess it's also doubly ironic then that you brought my attention to ad hominems, else I never would have spotted yours: namely your critique on mine (and a preceding poster's) use of sarcasm as if that somehow reflects on whether are arguments are right or not. Note, it does not, and it is an attack on character, the very definition of an ad hominem.


 * Extra weight must never be given to Western Culture, this is an English language encyclopaedia so extra weight must be given to English Language speakers. As far as I'm aware, the US and England are not the only English speakers out there: just look at this for the hard cold truth, namely that "There are some who claim that non-native speakers now outnumber native speakers by a ratio of 3 to 1." So only 25% of Englis speakers come from "the West." Very interesting.
 * You also say, "Gees our latest red block on the page top was put there by Andre (wiki mediator and wiki bureaucrat) who I'm sure is as smart as they come... but he's only 18. Someone 18 wasn't even born in 1989 when SLORC and some dictatorial warlords said out with Burma, in with Myanmar." Well firstly, there are still five days to go before an 18 year old can't have been born when the name change occurred. Also, I am myself am 18. What exactly do you have against younger people editing Wikipedia. Your comments here stink of ageism I'm afraid. Eighteen year olds have as much knowledge as anyone else. In fact, older people like your grandparents (and mine!) are less capable at using the internet, so a younger person will be better adept at finding and qualifying information on the internet. Besides, why does someone have to live through a time, to know about that time? Surely that would defeat the whole purpose we have here: to make an awesome encyclopaedia, so people can LEARN what they don't know about. I never lived through WW2, but i know that was a pretty hellish time. God all these historians must be wasting their time learning about the past since they never lived in it.
 * You gotta be kidding me? 18 year olds have as much knowledge as ANYONE else? That is blatantly false. Some 18 years olds have more knowledge than some 80 year olds, that I will grant. Few if any 18 year olds have the wisdom accumulated by an 80 year old. I specifically said an 18 year old mediator could be smart as a whip. I said nothing derogatory about 18 year olds, however two 18 year olds would have a hard time having their argument settled by a 9 year old. They wouldn't feel she has the wisdom/experience to judge their issues. Whoever finally mediates this problem (or panel of mediators),I'm sure will be fair to all generations of people reading this article.


 * Well yes 18 year olds can have as much knowledge as anyone else. In fact 18 year olds get higher IQs than older people as IQ decreases with age once adulthood is reached. I do not mean that EVERY 18 year old (perhaps I should've phrased that slightly clearer) is as smart as their elders, only that every 18 year old has a probability (when chosen at random and when nothing is known about each selection's ability beforehand) to be smarter than an older person. In fact, because of how normal distributions work, the very fact that the average IQ is 100 means that (even if we dumb down all ages so that IQ and age has no correlation) if we select a random person and compared their IQ to the IQ of a random 18 year old, then there is a 50% chance that the 18 year old has a higher IQ. Sure there are problems with IQ tests, most notably the fact it doesn't take creativity into account, but most people will argue that creativity diminishes with age anyway. You say that few if any 18 year olds have the wisdom of an 80 year old. Well firstly, a lot of people go through life and don't learn a single darn thing that could be called wisdom. Secondly, a lot of elderly people go by the notion that the modern era is worse than the golden age (usually cited to be the 1950s in the UK), when really there never was a golden age, as most historians will testify. Rather, there has been an increase in information (think what tool you are using to view this message etc) and hence people are more aware of the goings on in the world than ever before, and even the private lives of people: crimes such as paedophilia and domestic abuse weren't less frequent in the 50s, just kept hush-hush behind closed doors. Finally, older people tend to become set in their ways (old dog new tricks, leopard spots etc) whereas younger people are more open to new ideas, and can see all sides of the argument. Some might not have even made up their mind on an issue, whereas an older person usually has. I have nothing against older people, I am just making the point that they are no more wise then younger people that's all, but it works both ways: younger people are no more wise than older people too.
 * You also said, "I specifically said an 18 year old mediator could be smart as a whip" yet if we look back on what you said, it was this, "Andre (wiki mediator and wiki bureaucrat) who I'm sure is as smart as they come... but he's only 18." Now I'm going to have to assume you don't know the proper function of the word "but". It implies an opposing statement is coming up to what was just said, so while yes you did (paraphrasing) say we can be as smart as a whip, you also claimed that the fact that Andre is 18 is a negative thing. Which as I said, is ageist. Also, you stereotype both 18 year olds and 9 year olds when you say, "two 18 year olds would have a hard time having their argument settled by a 9 year old. They wouldn't feel she has the wisdom/experience to judge their issues." It depends on the two 18 year olds, the nine year old, and the issue at hand. Heck, younger siblings have been known to help their elder sibling fix problems sometimes. I as an 18 year old, wouldn't suddenly assume that a 9 year old can't handle any problem I might have, becuase I am not ageist. From wikipedia's ageism article, "The term has also been used to describe discrimination against teens and children, by ignoring their ideas because they're young or by assuming that they should behave a certain way because of their age." Which is exactly what you have done there. Note, do not even try and claim that I am using an ad hominem against you by calling you an ageist, I find your comments almost upsetting, so I am not concerned about the relevance your character (on the issue of ageism) has to the Burma/Myanmar discussion. But anyway, you made it a negative for Andre to be 18 and deliver any "judgements" on this article, so I have also been refuting that. Do you really think that he would have got this far on wikipedia if his age was having a detrimental effect on his ability to mediate? I don't.


 * " "There are good points on both sides of this issue no matter what anyone on an opposing side says." No there are NO good points to name the article Burma. Only bad ones.
 * There you go again, that's being nutty.


 * "There you go again, that's being nutty." Offer some sources/citations etc for your claim that my claim there was wrong, and them maybe you can call me nutty and not look like it yourself.


 * "That section in wiki on common usage and official names is quite vague and also deals with when there is NO common usage, not duel common usage. And the official name where? In the US or UK? In Chad? on the Space Station? This is not black and white." Sorry what's the difference between no common usage and duel common usage. Oh that's right, they can be the same thing! Common usage means the majority of people use it.
 * No it does not. "Most common" means the majority of people use it. Common mean simply common.


 * "Common mean simply common." Great I'm glad that's cleared up.You had all the linguists and mathematicians worried for a sec then. But they're okay now that they no that "X = simply X." Brilliant.


 * If there is no majority, then it doesn't matter how large the usages of it are, there is simply NO COMMON USAGE. We're discussing usage between two names, but what if there were a hundred equally common names for something? There would be i guess "cent common usage" by your reckoning, but a name with only 1% equal usage suggests no common usage? And how big does that percentage have to get before there it becomes duel or whatever? 10%? 30%? 50% like now? No, there is no cutoff point. Common usage is common usage. And we use the official name from the country (as BaronGrackle has pointed out), which just so happens to be MYANMAR!
 * Boy you do like sarcasm and now you are using the old Slippery Slope argument. I'm am thankful that you are not moderating this discussion as I have seen nothing constructive from you. I have said I am lean towards Burma but I have also added to compromise solutions. You seem to simply add to the sarcasm. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well firstly, I think what you really mean to accuse me of is the continuum fallacy. And even then you accuse me incorrectly. It's only a fallacy if it doesn't make sense to use it in a situation, but for this situation it illustrates my purpose clearly.
 * Now this may get mathematical so bear with me on this. If there's a debate between n number of choices for common usage, then give each choice the letter A, B, C...etc to the nth choice. Now let us suppose that no matter the argument, choices always have equal common usage. Since total usage must be 100%, then the usage of an individual choice must be 100/n%. Now let n=2 like we have in our debate. Therefore, both are equally common, and have usage of 50% each. Hence, duel common usage. Now let us instead make n=20. Then the usage of an individual choice becomes 5%. But all twenty choices have usages of 5%. Now to any reasonable person, 5% for a choice examined on it's own without regards to the others, wouldn't indicate common usage, it would indicate an uncommon usage. But taken as a whole, with twenty lots of 5%, there is equal common usage, and therefore "20" common usage if you will. But if for n=20, how can it be both no common usage and 20 common usage, when n=2 only has duel common usage and not the former. That's because it actually does. Duel common usage and no common usage are the same thing. So why isn't that a fallacy like the continuum fallacy. Well, the numerically (i.e. going from 5% to 50%) what I've said resembles the addition of the grains given in the wikipedia article on that fallacy. However, where they differ is in semantics. In the continuum fallacy, such a fallacy is shown to be one by supposing there are two stages (e.g. heap and not a heap) and then degrees of change in between. However, my example has no heap. It has no "not heap." It can only ever be degrees of change all the way. They are just percentages, not grains or whatever, therefore the fallacy does not apply here.
 * "I'm am thankful that you are not moderating this discussion as I have seen nothing constructive from you. I have said I am lean towards Burma but I have also added to compromise solutions." Well, constructiveness is in your opinion, however you claim to have added to compromise solutions when in actual fact aside from this section, you have added only one comment to any other section (splitting). I meanwhile have added comments to ALL the sections and have probably posted most or near to most of anyone here. Sure it's quality not quantity that matters, but it was you that was arguing that you posting more in another section was automatically a good thing not me: your fallacy since you like them so much.
 * And finally I have to ask you once more, what's so wrong with sarcasm? You seem to have some sort of complex with people using it, even though there was no sarcasm once more in the preceding paragraph, only maths and logic really. I'm am thankful that you are not moderating this discussion as you seem simply to add to the ad hominems and ageism and the forcing people to go off on absurd tangents just to refute you. Deamon138 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere, I agree with what BaronGrackle has put here refuting what you said. Deamon138 (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First, the US and UK governments use Burma for politically charged reasons.
 * yet the junta who have tried to change the name to myanmar are doing it for political reasons. 76.95.68.114 (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Second, Wikipedia should not have a Western bias. That is ingrained in the ethos of the project. Third, it has been shown and shown and shown again that Myanmar is just as common in modern Western literature as Burma; as explained by MethMan47, it's pretty irrelevant what you in your town think may be the most familiar to people if all those people have to read about "Myanmar" just as much as "Burma" in publications other than Wikipedia. The Wikipedia policy for choosing naming conventions is to go with the self-identified official name. The military dictatorship in Burma is the ruling power in that country, and their choice of Myanmar is as official as it gets. BigBlueFish (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "And the official name where? In the US or UK? In Chad? on the Space Station?" Good question! The official name line comes from: "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name."
 * Burma is widely accepted in English so no need to go further, but I see your interpretation mistake. This item was written as a guide in case there is a place name that has no common English equivalent. If some native village calls itself brublmspha and there is no English version of the name then brublmspha it will be. Notice this is in the use English section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The emphasis is mine. In cases of naming conflict:
 * "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:
 * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
 * Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
 * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"
 * Myanmar succeeds in all three of these; Burma only succeeds in the first. Another real indication of "official" or "self-identifying" comes from some of the Burma-namers themselves, actually, in relation to the United Nations. Many have claimed that the United Nations' recognition of "Myanmar" is not valid because the U.N. uses whatever name is given to them by that country. Well, there you have it: self-identification. The article is about the Union of Myanmar, not the Burmese people who oppose the name change. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by "self-identification." Please read my comment below about "men with guns." 80% of the Burmese population voted for The National League for Democracy in the 1990 elections, and they insist on using the name Burma. I would argue that that was more convincing evidence of "self-identification." - Angstriddenyouth (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. So we have common English usage: Burma, Official name: Union of Burma (though I think simply Burma is fine), The population (those people without guns): Burma. Now, depending on your views you could replace Burma with Myanmar but to make it sound like Myanmar holds all the cards in this argument is wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In 1990 there were democratic elections held in Burma. The National League for Democracy won by over 80% of the vote. Following the victory of the NLD, and the failure of the army to honour the election results, the United Nations passed a resolution that the results of the election must be honoured and that the NLD and their leader Aung San Suu Kyi should be instated as the leaders of a democratic Burma. This did not happen, and the United Nations did not enforce its resolution. Before the election the unelected military junta, who had been oppressing the Burmese people for many years, passed a law stating that the name of the country, in the English language, should be changed from the popular name of "Burma" to the more formal and ceremonial name of "Myanmar." This change was strongly opposed by the NLD, and was not recognised by many governments throughout the world, who questioned the legitamacy of the Military Junta, who had been responsible for shocking human rights abuses, to change the name of the country without popular support. Despite this, the Junta's name change was ratified by the United Nations. Until June 1989 the country had always been known as "Burma." All cultural references in English, from George Orwell to Transformers to Monty Python to Rambo to Harry Potter, refer to it as such, and the name Burma is still the most recognised name for the country throughout the world. Despite this, many major news organisations, such as CNN and AP, have begun to use the name "Myanmar." The name change has not been recognised by most Western Governments, however. The United Kingdom, The United States, Australia, France, Italy etc.. continue to use, officially, the name Burma, or the equivalent. It has been stated that use of the name "Myanmar" suggests "softness" on the regime. The name Burma is today, the most recognised name for the country, the historical name of the country, the name of the country in both historical and cultural references, and, furthermore, it represents a beacon of hope for the the Burmese people who want to end the "Myanfacation" of their country. - Angstriddenyouth (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you vote for a party, it doesn't mean you support ALL its policies. People voting for the National League for Democracy might support all its policies bar its policy on calling the country Burma. Surely it would be original research to suggest that all 80% of them support that policy. I mean, in Britain at least, when a policy is discussed in parliament, you always get so-called "rebel MPs" that vote against the party leader on a certain policy, so why should the National League for Democracy be any different? Deamon138 (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be true that just because you vote for a party does not mean you support all its policies. However, I believe it is fair to say that the 80% of the Burmese population who voted for the NLD (and were threatened with torture for doing so) did not support the Military Junta or its decision to rename their country. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the nth time, keep at Burma, as most common name for this country used by English speakers. In fact, after so many years of Union of Myanmar, we still use "Burmese" as adjective/demonym, and the name of the language is also still "Burmese". Hús  ö  nd  16:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Burma There are several reasons for this. The common name of the country in English is Burma, historically as well as in current parlance, the academic literature uses Burma almost exclusively, most books published in the English language (either recently or historically) use Burma, and the common name used by historians is Burma. Can't comment about other languages.
 * 1) Common name It is hard to show which name is more commonly used when referring to the country by doing a google search. However, when referring to the entity that comprises what is today Burma/Myanmar, Burma is a clear winner. The Burma Road, the various Burmese wars, the use of the word 'Burmese' to describe the people, etc. etc. It would be unnecessarily confusing to use Myanmar just because that is official name of the country when the historical entity is best described as Burma.


 * It is not hard to show via a google search to determine common usage. Note how its been shown time and again that there is equal common usage. This has even been shown on this very page: have a look at Rundquist's extensive and impressive post below in the Myanmar section. Burma, unfortunately, is not a clear winner. As much as I would love to shove that in the military juntas's faces, it just isn't true. Now on to your examples given. As far as I'm aware, the Burma Road was never renamed. But the country was you see. Don't ask me why, it just seems to be the case that one occurrence of colonialism was got rid of, but they left another in tact. Besides, on Britannica, it says, "Burma Road, highway linking Lashio, in eastern Myanmar (Burma)." Clearly, Britannica decided to change their use of the country to Myanmar, while keeping the name Burma Road. The only rational explanation for that is that Burma Road never changed it's name. Secondly, you mention the Burmese wars. According to Wikipedia, these happened in 1823 to 1826 , 1852/53 , and 1885 to 1887 . Also, the name change that we are debating happened in 1989 I am led to believe, which is a long time after the Burmese wars. No-one here is in anyway suggesting we should change all instances of Burma before the name change to Myanmar, only those after the name change. It is was a nice straw-man you attempted though. In fact I back the split article further down most, but that's besides the point. I mean Gaul and modern day France are almost the same entity, and yet the Romans fought the Gallic Wars with the Gauls, and not the French war with the French. Why shouldn't the same principle apply here? Also you mention the use of the word "Burmese" to describe the people (and I assume you'd include language too). Well the names of those are under debate too. The language can be Burmese, but it also can be called Myanmar with the name change (I've also heard the term "Myanmarese" bandied about a little, but I don't think that's a real word). With the name of the people, Wikipedia has this to say, "The Bamar are frequently called simply Burmese, but this term is ambiguous as it can also refer to a citizen of Burma who belongs to a different ethnic group (Karen, Shan, Kachin, Mon, etc.). In general, the people of Burma use "Myanmar" to describe persons of all ethnic backgrounds in Burma." So from what I gather from that, the word Myanmar is a bit like British and the word Burmese is a bit like English in some sense.


 * 1) Academic literature A search of clio, the Columbia University catalog, reveals 298 entries with the keyword Myanmar but 3010 entries with the keyword Burma. JSTOR shows a similar bias in the social science literature. Most students or researchers who comes to wikipedia to research or to add information to the encyclopedia will expect to see the article at Burma rather than Myanmar.


 * Okay, you cited the University of Columbia and JSTOR, which I just looked up, and it turns out it's a US entity, just like that uni. Now excuse me for being pedantic, but I'm pretty sure that those two entities don't even make up a good enough sample for the United States, let alone the whole of the English Speaking World. I can accept that Burma is probably the most common term in the US, just like it is over here in the UK. However, what about the rest of the English Speaking World? The Commonwealth? Russia? China? India? Africa? Everywhere else? That's billions of potential advocates or dis-advocates you have neglected. You have to remember that (according to Wikipedia), "English today is probably the third largest language by number of native speakers, after Mandarin Chinese and Spanish. However, when combining native and non-native speakers it is probably the most commonly spoken language in the world, though possibly second to a combination of the Chinese languages, depending on whether or not distinctions in the latter are classified as "languages" or "dialects." Estimates that include second language speakers vary greatly from 470 million to over a billion depending on how literacy or mastery is defined. There are some who claim that non-native speakers now outnumber native speakers by a ratio of 3 to 1." Using just the University of Columbia and JSTOR inherently biases your sample: it is not a fair reflection of the population, if you like. Besides, the US Government rejects the name change for political reasons, so it makes sense that other US institutions would be inclined to follow suit. As for your suggestion that, "Most students or researchers who comes to wikipedia to research or to add information to the encyclopedia will expect to see the article at Burma rather than Myanmar," I say: Which students/researchers? What nationality are they? If you just meant in the US, then I have just shown that to be unhelpful. However, if you meant the students and researches of the English speaking world, then fine, cite your sources, offer your proofs, and then we'll believe you.


 * 1) Recent books Most recent books continue to refer to the country as Burma. Amy Tan's "Saving Fish From Drowning" (2005) calls the country Burma. Emma Larkin's "Finding George Orwell in Burma" calls the country Burma. Amitav Ghosh's "Glass Palace" refers to the book as Burma (though, in this case, the book is set during the pre-independence period), Andrew Marshall's "The Trouser People" calls it Burma. Books by Christina Fink, Martin Smith, etc. all call the country Burma. One could say that the latter two have a human rights pov but the reality is that there is precious little on the Myanmar side. The only thing I could find was "Myanmar Maneuver" a self-published book. I don't think I need to add that the 'must-read' English language books on the country (George Orwell's Burmese Days, James George Scott's The Burman, Paul Theroux's The Great Railway Bazaar, The Lacquer Lady, Mi Mi Khaing's many books on Burmese life, John Masters The Road Past Mandalay, the various books on the war including the classic by William Slim - Defeat into Victory) all refer to the entity as Burma. Many of these books are studied by students of literature, history, warcraft, and south-east asia.


 * Here you quote a number of novels. Firstly, the book "Finding George Orwell in Burma" is yes about the country, but (and I could be wrong here) from what I have looked up just now, it is looking at the country from the historical perspective that Orwell went there, and how today there reflects on the past with Orwell or something to that effect. It is therefore likely to name it Burma regardless of common usage, because of the Orwellian historical view of the book. The book, "Glass Palace" is also a history book: it will use Burma, because for most of its history it was Burma, i.e. the pre-independence period. As for, "here is precious little on the Myanmar side," try having a look at these searches done using Google Books: and . There seems about 2000 books using Myanmar which is a lot more than 1! And these books are all recent, which is the period under question: note that while Burma gets about 8000 hits, most of these are pre-name change. Compare the above googles with the following which shows that usage in recent literature is split 50-50 when taking into account date of publishing:, , , and . Usage in recent literature is therefore split. The rest of the books you quote are a joke and are useless for what we are trying to get consensus over here. They were all written YEARS BEFORE THE NAME CHANGE WHEN THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO CALL THE COUNTRY MYANMAR! Let's see: Burmese days 1934, The Burman 1882, The Great Railway Bazaar 1975, The Lacquer Lady 1930, Mi Mi Khaing's work on Burma 1962, 1978 and 1984 (not to mention that she died in 1990 only a year after the name change), The Road Past Mandalay 1961, and Defeat into Victory also 1961. I can't imagine the thought processes that claiming sources between 24 and 126 years ago would have nay bearing on a debate which has only existed for 19 years! Remember, no-one is suggesting we change all instances of Burma pre-1989 to Myanmar, only those ones after 1989.  That's not forgetting the fact that you've quoted let's say 30 at most sources there, but in the list of books on google, there are 2000ish relevant books to both sides. Quoting individuals will get you nowhere, UNLESS those individuals have something to say on what they believe is common usage.

From a purely encyclopedic sense, Burma makes more sense than Myanmar. More readers are likely to come to this page via Burma than via Myanmar under normal circumstances (through academics, through histories, or through popular literature). --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 18:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Histories Thant Myint U, in his two histories of Burma - The Making of Modern Burma (2001) and The River of Lost Footsteps (2006) pays little attention to the name Myanmar except to mention that it is a loaded term used in a divisive way and to point out that the idea that Myanmar was the pre-colonial name for the country is not correct. Note that Thant Myint-U has called for collaboration and cooperation with the junta in the second book as a way to pull Burma/Myanmar out of its current morass and can hardly be clubbed with the 'anti-junta at all costs' group.


 * Okay here you quote another author with two books using Myanmar, but again I say, what about the fact that there are 2000 such books on both sides? You have ignored all the historians that use Myanmar. Besides, the argument that, "Myanmar was the pre-colonial name for the country is not correct" has nothing to do with what we are discussing. The motives of the military government in renaming the country is irrelevant. Burma does not make more sense than Myanmar. Show me that more people are familiar with Burma than Myanmar and will come here looking for Burma. You can't because time and time again common usage has been shown to be split. And I further contend that most people will not come here through academics, histories, or popular literature, I think that the majority of Wikipedia users are actually laymen. As I have repeatedly stated, Myanmar and Burma are evenly balanced in usage, and therefore we go on the official local name which is Myanmar. Deamon138 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep it at Burma, it is what I and everyone I know, knows it as. All news organisation to whom I listen use Burma, the Burmese people use Burma, and an illegal government cannot change the name of a country. --The High Commander (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What you (and everyone you know) know it as is irrelevant. Wikipedia says to use the most common English Language Name, and I assume you and your friends don't constitute even a majority of the worldwide speakers of English. It is the same with me. The majority of people I know (I'm from the UK) know it as Burma, but my survey would be biased as I only know people from the UK. I guess it would be similar with you too, wherever you're from. While all the news organizations you listen to use Burma, there are just as many that use Myanmar. Also, not all people in Burma/Myanmar are actually Burmese. See Barma, where it says, "The Bamar are frequently called simply Burmese, but this term is ambiguous as it can also refer to a citizen of Burma who belongs to a different ethnic group (Karen, Shan, Kachin, Mon, etc.). In general, the people of Burma use "Myanmar" to describe persons of all ethnic backgrounds in Burma." Finally, the government are illegal by who's definition? Yours? Mine? Yes, everyone here if made King for the Day would find what they did illegal, however, the UN doesn't. And plenty of other governments do too. When that's the case, we use the official LOCAL name which is Myanmar. It is not up to us as editers to decide whether it was right to name the country, only that it happened, and since there is also no common name as has been shown repeatedly across the page (Rundquist, BigBlue Fish and myself at a glance and other on other pages), then we use that official local name, Myanmar. Deamon138 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The UN is not an authority. Personally I'd like to see the dissolution of the United Nations, they are unnceccessary. The fact is the military junta ruling Burma can not tell us what to call Burma. --The High Commander (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Wikipedia sees the UN as a very good source of authority. The fact that you personally dislike the UN is both irrelevant and pretty silly (it was set up to encourage diplomacy due to World War 2). I myself think it should be allowed to have a stronger hand in international relations. Nevertheless, my opinion and your opinion are both POVs, and since Wikipedia has nothing against the UN, we can use it as a source. And why exactly can't the military government tell us what to call the country anyway? Is it because you don't like the junta? Deamon138 (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty new to this process, but there seems to be alot of pro-Myanmar junta sympathisers posting in here. Should they not keep to the pro myanmar section? I thought this was a place to say what we thought without getting into arguments. Basically what I'm trying to say is if you support Myanmar then fuck off out of the Burma supporters section. --The High Commander (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help matters to accuse people who favour having the article at Myanmar as being "pro-Myanmar junta sympathisers". Nearly everyone who favours it does so either because they read the evidence as pointing to Myanmar as the more common current name and/or because they feel the existing Wikipedia policies on name disputes push towards Myanmar. It's certainly not out of POV reasons about the nature of the regime. As for commenting in here, you'll note people of all sides discussing the points made. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Myanmar seems to be the more common name used in English across the world, whatever one may wish for otherwise. All the political arguments should be irrelevant. Equally it should be acknowledged that there are some regional variations on this - most notably use in the UK, a country that has a long history with Myanmar, tends to still be "Burma" for a combination of historic and political reasons. (The BBC citation for "common usage" is based on UK usage only as that is the BBC editorial can take into account.) The article should be at Myanmar because of usage but if dominant usage is impossible to determine the Wikipedia naming conventions point to the official name as the solution to such a problem. The article was at Myanmar for a long time until it was moved to "Burma" as a knee jerk reaction to protests last October in a very controversial RM where clear consensus was not determined and many editors openly stated that their desire for Burma was based on political reasons. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I added the in-text citation above in response to a previous editor's "citation needed" comment. The applicable naming conventions clearly state "The best method of establishing that a name is widely accepted, or is the name most often used or understood by English speakers, is a statement to that effect by a neutral and reliable source", and the Reuters post I referenced makes a specific comment that they "switched to Myanmar when the term became widely used... Myanmar was becoming common usage (There is absolutely no evidence presented to support this statement. It is purely subjective opinion.)"  I have been unable to find an equivalent comment by another reliable source stating that Burma is more common worldwide; instead, publications that insist on using Burma tend to explain that it is because the opposition and/or the U.S. government never accepted the change, thus indicating (to me at least) that their usage is for political reasons rather than reflecting common usage.  On the whole, though, I am most won over by the argument that since the commonly used term is in doubt, we should use the local official name Myanmar, as Timrollpickering (with support from the Wikipedia naming conventions) has pointed out. --Rundquist (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Timrollpickering summarized the basis of the Myanmar argument nicely. I’d like to answer some frequent objections:
 * Members of the older generations would have to avoid nearly any media source around them in order to avoid contact with the name "Myanmar". Newspapers and other media favor Myanmar by a slight majority, and even those that use Burma will address the alternative of Myanmar 1 (The opposite is equally true.)2.
 * Members of younger generations who see "Myanmar" in their headlines would have no more reason to recognize Burma than older generations would have to recognize Myanmar. (Subjective. A decision should not be made on what "younger generations" are used to seeing.)
 * If an older generationer were to look up "Burma" in an encyclopedia, he or she would be referred to the Myanmar article. (Most Encylopedia are books. And the vast majority refer to "Burma.") This is because every single major online encyclopedia, including Britannica, uses "Myanmar". I cannot speak for elsewhere, but in the United States many written encyclopedias, atlases, and textbooks overwhelmingly use Myanmar for the modern nation. (Reference?)
 * "Overwhelmingly" is indeed a powerful word I wouldn't want to throw around carelessly. In any case, textbooks from Holt and Glencoe McGraw-Hill, and atlases from Rand McNally and Merriam Webster, use "Myanmar" to refer to the modern nation. The U.S. state of Georgia requires students to locate "Myanmar" on a map. You are correct that this is not enough evidence to say "overwhelming", but I definitely consider it enough to prove that Myanmar is commonly used, if not the only name commonly used. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While it is true that "Burmese" is still overwhelmingly the adjective used for this country, this is irrelevant to which country name is commonly used. Similar examples are the Dutch people(?), Peking duck, and the Persian language.
 * "Burma (Myanmar)" appears as frequently as "Myanmar (Burma)", so the former cannot be understood as merely a clarification for English-speakers. Compare the country on Google maps and Yahoo maps for an illustration.
 * As has been said above, Wikipedia conventions claim that the official name should be used if no common name is determined. Myanmar is both commonly used in the English language and the country’s official name. (Evidence?)
 * The official name is Myanmar, as that is the name selected by the nation’s ruling government. There is no organized, democratic government in exile to contradict this. The only opposition government is currently located in Maryland and has no direct influence on the country it claims to lead. Our current Wikipedia country box describes the junta's government instead of that of the NCGUB, and there is no serious consideration to change this; this is because Wikipedians generally agree that the junta controls the country. Official self-identification is therefore their official self-identification. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Yes there is.
 * From what I have seen from the news, books, and other media, Myanmar is the most common name. (Evidence?)The use of Burma is reactionary and it is usually used as a political statement (i.e. The junta is an illegal government). Wikipedia is not a place to make political statements, it is an encyclopedia. MethMan47 (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the above two arguments very clear and convincing, whereas the only comment in favour of Burma right now is based on a claim (that Burma is more common) that is consistently based on personal impression rather than fact. A simple test shows that at best, Burma is close in popularity to Myanmar. Then there are the several noteworthy sources (all cited at Names of Burma, by the way) which discuss the dilemma between names and come out with no conclusion as to which is more common. Nobody has produced any source to the contrary. I think this is a convincing enough demonstration that the usage in English is divided, and the above posts make several excellent cases for using Myanmar in this event. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I seems to be a detailed generic reply. The first three points you could insert Burma instead of Myanmar and they would be the same, so those points are useless. Point 4 on "Burmese" I agree is irrelevant. Point 5 really says nothing. Point 6 is interesting because that is not what wikipedia says and is a point of contention because some factions in Burma don't recognize the name Myanmar nor does the US or UK governments. Don't even get me started on the UN. The people in the country use both Burma and Myanmar depending on who you talk to so that point is drubbed also. Then there is the general "news, books and other media." Wow-wee, and you find that to be clear and convincing? I don't. I can find just as many "news, books and other media" in the opposing camp. What gets put into an encyclopedia is ALWAYS political up to a point and this article is no different because it's human nature. Can you imagine democrats and republicans trying to write each other's platforms and do it without being political? Politics will creep in here and both sides of this issue have legitimate claims. Without splitting hairs, the world is pretty close down the center of this issue. I do believe that there are more people on this globe that know of Burma rather than Myanmar, heck before the disaster there I'll bet many had never heard of Myanmar. They are probably looking it up and going "Oh, it's Burma." 66.81.202.218 (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The bullets you comment on are refutations of previous arguments in favour of Burma. You are simply agreeing with the list of what are not good reasons to choose the name. The result of this and all the things you say in your post is that the official name should be used. Oh, and your last point about recognition is answered by the first two bullet points which you dismissed. Recognition is literally irrelevant; we go with the world's published media. BigBlueFish (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a Gdanskesque (not a word) split on the RfC and dedicated talk pages. It puts the main article at Myanmar, but refers to the country as Burma for the majority of its history.  By my reading of WP:NCGN, if common usage is clearly divided, we go with official name for the title of the article (the government is broadly recognized, even by countries that dispute the name change).  Most of the primary sources on the country's history that were written in English were during the British period and will use Burma, so the history should be consistent with those sources.  The British period and two of the post-Empire governments also used Burma (or Union of Burma) and there was no dispute what the country was called at that time.  Myanmar Road would be silly.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I regretfully disagree with this idea until the name Burma becomes known as a name which describes the pre-junta history of Myanmar. We aren't here to make up meanings for terms, and if somebody looks up Burma, they are still likely to be looking for Myanmar. BigBlueFish (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We should be consistent with relevant sources, that's all. Articles about World War II in Asia that talk about Myanmar will contradict their sources.  Neither Burma nor Myanmar is "correct", it's just what the country was called at the time.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about the title at which the article should reside and the wording of non-time-critical and post-1989 historical references to the country. There is no question that whatever the outcome, the name Burma should still be used for when the country was still called Burma. BigBlueFish (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to make sure that the historical references are clearly delineated so that every Burma reference isn't changed to Myanmar based on the current name. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * agree: It helps eliminate the systematic bias of wiki just a little more. Hooper (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(the [Reuteurs] link does not show this, it merely states Reuters reasons for using the name) - Unknown


 * "The BBC citation for "common usage" is based on UK usage only as that is the BBC editorial can take into account." This is incorrect. BBC World, which broadcasts in more than 200 countries and territories across the globe uses "Burma."
 * But the BBC World Service is a British organisation and was created to cater to British expats.


 * Again, incorrect. BBC World, and The BBC World Service (radio), broadcast in many different languages to hundreds of millions of people every week. The BBC is has developed a reputation, over many years, for the impartiality and objectivity of its journalism. It is commonly recognised as the most trustworthy broadcaster in the world.
 * Whilst the BBC does broadcast beyond the UK, it is primarily a UK organisation and in particular uses British English. Indeed its non-UK services and decisions often attract strong criticism. Its citation of "Burma" as the more common name is an editorial decision of the sort that is based on the UK audience first and foremost. As has been noted this is an issue where usage does vary across countries. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept your point that the BBC is based in the UK, and that it uses British English, as opposed to American, English. However, the BBC World Service was established (by the British Government) to present impartial, honest news to countries, such as Burma, where the state news was little more than propaganda. I stand by my statement that it is most trustworthy major broadcaster in the world. I am a British Citizen, but right now, I am working abroad and the only English news channel I have access to is CNN International. Believe me, I have never appreciated the quality of BBC journalism so much.  Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right that the BBC uses Burma. The reason given though is here where it says, "It's general practice at the BBC to refer to the country as Burma, and the BBC News website says this is because most of its audience is familiar with that name rather than Myanmar." I agree that the BBC is mostly impartial and that (being from the UK myself) most people in England know Burma but less know Myanmar. However, if the BBC are applying this to their BBC World service then they've got it wrong: Burma isn't more familiar around the world as a whole. It has been established in many places in these discussions, that usage of Burma and Myanmar are split 50-50. Whatever reason the BBC has chosen to use Burma for its BBC World service, it is incorrect for Wikipedia's sakes. Besides, the BBC is just one media company- there are loads more on both sides, so arguing over one company makes barely any difference. Deamon138 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Burma isn't more familiar around the world as a whole. It has been established in many places in these discussions, that usage of Burma and Myanmar are split 50-50." Where? Where? and, again, Where? I have not seen one single piece of convincing evidence that the name "Myanmar" is the most familiar name (ie. the name used and recognised by most people around the world.) What are people making this declaration based on? The amount of hits on Google? If that's what we're judging things on then we should use the name "Rangoon" too (by far the most prevelant name on the internet.) Angstriddenyouth (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion keeps coming back to the question of which name is common usage. I think the most logical way to settle this question is to just step through all of the suggestions in the Wikipedia naming conventions for determining the widely accepted name.  The following is a (rather long) direct quote, with my responses given in bullet points beneath each section, in italics for clarity.

The best method of establishing that a name is widely accepted, or is the name most often used or understood by English speakers, is a statement to that effect by a neutral and reliable source. "Reuters has no political agenda and seeks to use language that is neutral and accurate. We switched to Myanmar when the term became widely used, almost a decade after the military rulers made the change. They did so, they said, to distance themselves from the colonial-era term Burma and to bring the English-language name of the country closer to how it sounds in the Burmese language.  Reuters has no view on the merits of that argument. When we changed we noted that the United Nations had switched to Myanmar, as had the Association of SouthEast Asian Nations, and that Myanmar was becoming common usage."
 * As I've mentioned earlier, the only source I could find which makes such a statement is Reuters :

Without such an assertion, the following methods may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names):
 * Since I've only found one such assertion, I'm willing to give the term "Burma" the benefit of the doubt and move on to the other arguments.
 * 1) Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name.   One reason for 1993 is to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected; other (especially later) limiting dates may be appropriate in some parts of the world.
 * 2) *As has been mentioned before, all of the major online encyclopedias prefer "Myanmar". For instance, all three encyclopedias specifically referenced in the guideline use "Myanmar":   .
 * 3) Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned  in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted. Always look at search results, don't just count them. For more, see the section on false positives below.
 * 4) *Some of the problems with using Google Scholar and Google Books include the fact that they don't always reflect current, changing usage very well, and "Burma" is actually a common surname as well. I have tried to eliminate some of these problems by only searching in the last 5 years (since 2003), and by excluding the current search term from the authors list.  Here are the results:
 * 5) **Google Scholar, Burma results: 19,400
 * 6) **Google Scholar, Myanmar results: 18,800
 * 7) **Google Books (English only), Burma results: 1,706
 * 8) **Google Books (English only), Myanmar results: 1,132
 * 9) *These results do favor the term "Burma", but are also fairly close. Certainly, neither is "three times" more common than the other, as the criterion suggests.  I think, given the inherent inaccuracy of trying to use online search engines to determine common usage, that this more than anything confirms that both are common terms, and that usage is split.
 * 10) Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for.
 * 11) *Cambridge Histories uses Burma, The Library of Congress does not have a country study for this country , and dictionaries are harder to pin down because they don't usually have entries for country names. Overall, though, histories are more likely to use the official terminology of the country they are published in, which for the UK and the US probably means "Burma", although I'd welcome more references if other editors are able to find them.
 * 12) Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted.
 * 13) *Much has been written about this, and it seems pretty obvious that the media usage is split. We could sit around listing news sources back and forth all day, so I'll just list the two most prominent for each usage: the BBC uses Burma, while the Associated Press uses Myanmar .
 * 14) Enter the proposed move at WP:RM. If it is the consensus that a given name is the English name, then it is presumably widely accepted.
 * 15) *We're working on this one. However, I think it's obvious from just looking around that there is no immediately clear consensus either way on this page right now, which again indicates that usage is split.
 * 16) If a name is used in translating or explaining the official name, especially in texts addressed to an English-speaking audience, it is probably widely accepted.
 * 17) *In my experience, both names have been used to explain the other; for example, it is quite common to see both "Myanmar (formerly known as Burma)" as well as "Burma (sometimes called Myanmar)" in news reports. Note, however, that as a rough estimate, a simple Google search (restricted to English pages, of course) returns the following contrasting results:
 * 18) **Total page count for Burma: 2,670,000
 * 19) **Total page count for Burma -Myanmar: 1,350,000
 * 20) **Total page count for Myanmar: 9,150,000
 * 21) **Total page count for Myanmar -Burma: 6,930,000
 * 22) *Now I know that simple Google searches have a lot of problems when trying to determine common usage, but I am only using these numbers to try to get a sense for how often the one name is referred to without the other. These results seem to indicate that rougly 50% of the "Burma" English pages never mention Myanmar, but about 75% of the "Myanmar" English pages never mention Burma.  Thus, it seems to be more common to see the name "Myanmar" by itself than it is to see the name "Burma" by itself.


 * Thanks for sticking with me through such a long discussion. As you can see, some of the points above favor Myanmar, while others favor Burma.  In my opinion, this shows pretty clearly that both Myanmar and Burma are widely accepted terms, and that common usage is split.  It is also true that both of these terms are used by natives to describe their country (see Names of Burma for more detail).  In light of these stalemates, the naming conflict guideline on proper nouns poses one more question: "Is it the official current name of the subject?", and also states that the questions "Does the subject have a legal/moral right to use the name?" and "Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?" should not be used.  Since the official current name in English is Myanmar, that is what the article should be called. --Rundquist (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank you for taking the time to leave such a detailed comment. This is an important issue, and I appreciate the time that you, and others, have taken to contribute to the debate. However, it seems a bit futile, because all you have done is list sources on the internet (which was not so big in 1989) and you have done absolutely nothing to show common usage, that is the name that real people actually use. People in Burma do not have free access to the internet. Not even the Nobel Peace Prize winning president elect of the country, Aung San Suu Kyi, (who is under house arrest) has access to the internet. Your final argument hinges around the fact that "Myanmar" is the official name of the country. Again, evidence? Are you going by the UN or the Military Junta? If you go by the Burmese people, Amnesty International, The United States Government, The United Kingdom Government etc..  etc..the recognised official name is "Burma." Angstriddenyouth (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I agree that the internet is an imperfect reflection of common usage, but I respectfully disagree that it does "absolutely nothing to show common usage."  The internet is simply the most easily accessible source for reference material; if you disagree with any of the points listed above, please cite whatever sources you can find (internet or otherwise) to support that view.  And as far as the Burmese not having access to the internet, I'm not sure how relevant that point is.  After all, we are attempting to determine common English usage, not common Burmese usage.  Also, allow me to clarify my purpose here: for the most part, I was simply trying to establish the reasoning by which many of the editors have arrived at the conclusion that English usage is split between the two terms.  In other words, I was trying to supply a response to your earlier question "It has been established in many places in these discussions, that usage of Burma and Myanmar are split 50-50." Where?" by going through the Wikipedia guideline step-by-step.  My final paragraph was ancillary to this main point; I merely intended to state my agreement with the reasoning of earlier editors that since neither term is clearly more common than the other in English, other factors must now be considered.  There are two sources for what do to in this case in the Wikipedia naming conventions: here: "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name", and here: "Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)...Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)".  The "local official name" (or in other words, the self-identifying term of the local government) is pretty clearly Myanmar, as this is the term that the current governing entity uses to refer to the country.  I say the "current governing entity," because the junta is internationally recognized as the current government, even by the United States (i.e., the U.S. conducts diplomatic relations with that government).  It may not be a legitimate government, but it is still the current government. --Rundquist (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the name be Myanmar since that is the official name and the UN recognises the name as such. Although parts of the US and some other western countries might call it Burma, it hasn't been called that by most of the rest of the world since then. Seeing as Wikipedia is supposed to be a world wide encyclopedia and not an American/Australian one, Myanmar should be used. Also, I disagree that "most English speaking people" call it Myanmar. You might have perhaps 450 million English speakers (i.e. US, UK, Canada, Australia) who may or may not call it Burma, but the rest of the World's English speakers would call it Myanmar (all of Africa and nearly everyone in Asia who speaks English, which combined is more than the Western English speakers). Moreover, US and Australian officials and NGOs also call it Myanmar when talking at the UN or giving press conferences asking to provide aid to cyclone victims (e.g. "We hope the Myanmarese government will agree to let us in..." etc.).

I think the whole regime is a bunch of loonies and would love to see them over thrown, but currently the geopolitical reality is that it is Myanmar. 117.102.130.146 (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not "support" the splitting of the page but if it must occur it should be done at the 1989 time line. Really there could simply be two articles, one Myanmar and one Burma. All other pages on wiki should link to a third page titled Myanmar/Burma which has simply two links... Myanmar and Burma, which go to their respective pages. Over time one page will show itself to be the more used and we can reexamine the issue. Right now it's pretty evenly divided with likely vandalism if one side wins over the other. Even if one locks the ability to move the page people will be changing the words around the first chance they get. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I too believe that this solution could be a possible compromise that might stem future conflict. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe in using the name Burma and will give a full explanation of my reasons above (when I have the time!), however, I would accept a splitting of the article into two parts, with the split date at 1989, when the unelected Military Junta made the proclamation that the country would now, in English, be known officially as "Myanmar", though this change was not recognised by the Governments of many countries throughout the world, or by the democratically elected leaders of Burma. (And, yes, there are democratically elected leaders of Burma. They are not the ones changing the name of the country, though, they are the ones under house arrest.) I have mentioned this previously in support of the name Burma and it has been dismissed, by some editors, as being to do with politics (which has no place in Wikipedia), but my point was about whether the name was "official" or not. Many people have cited the fact that the UN recognises the name "Myanmar", but that holds no water because the UN, whose main policy in these matters seems to be not offending anyone, (look at their policies on Rwanda or Darfur or Zimbabwe) would rubber stamp anything put in front of them by any tin pot dictator or banana republic. I can guarantee you that we have spent more time discussing the implications of the name change than the UN ever did. If a group of armed thugs took over your house, and held your family hostage, would you use the original name of your family home, or what the thugs wanted to call it? The UN would use the name used by the men with the guns. Similarly CNN and AP. But not (bless 'em) the US Government, the UK Government, The BBC, Fox News, USA Today, The Washington post etc.. etc.. The one thing we can all agree on though, was that until 1989, the country was, both officially, and in common usage, called Burma.  Having been following the changes on this article for a while I've noticed a tendency among some editors who support the name "Myanmar" to revise the whole article, so that the name "Myanmar" appears throughout eg. "Myanmar was part of the British Empire.." This is just wrong. "Myanmar" was never part of the British Empire. Burma was. Nobody claimed "Myanmar" as an official English name of the country until 1989. To revise the whole article, à la Winston Smith in The Ministry of Truth, and pretend that the country has always been called "Myanmar" is totally wrong, misleading and untruthful. Whether you accept the name change or not, the fact is, until 1989 the country was officially called Burma. Any final naming decision must, at least, recognise this.  Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "If a group of armed thugs took over your house, and held your family hostage, would you use the original name of your family home, or what the thugs wanted to call it?" I personally would probably use the name the thugs wanted to call it (while trying to work out how to escape) because MY FAMILY ARE BEING HELD HOSTAGE AND ARE IN DANGER! Still, both ways (the one you suggested and the one I just suggested), for answering what should be done in that analogy, are irrelevant. Either (like me) you would follow your emotional attachment to your family and give in, which is still POV to be the reason to do so, or you reject their new name in a critique of the thugs, which is also POV. Either way, you analogy stinks because in that situation, you would have media crews outside reporting on the events in your home, and each would still call your house by its original name, and yet in the real life example we are discussing, half the world's media (and other organizations) are (OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL) going along with the new name. That's why its a bad analogy. Deamon138 (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

From all the evidence I've seen, references to Burma and Myanmar (in the media or otherwise) seem fairly equal. Therefore there is no common name. If this is the case, DAS RULES state we use the official name. The official name according to this country (and moreover to the UN) is Myanmar. This means that there should be an article on Myanmar at least. Any argument against using Myanmar will most likely be based on an opposition to the military government and hence a support democracy. Note though, that Wikipedia does not advocate democracy or any principle, and while it is fine for us Wikipedians to do so, a reader should be given a balanced NPOV. This would mean that instead of Wikipedia saying, "democracy is good," it should say, "here is why people think democracy is good, and here is why democracy is bad" and infer that the reader should make up there own mind as to whether it is good or bad. If we are good enough editers, they should read it and come round to the view that democracy is good (since we are all convinced it is good). This illustrates a point (see and ) I've made before on these Myanmar/Burma discussions: that right and correct are not the same thing. While we believe that democracy is right, it is not up to us to say it is correct. Hence, Burma is the right name (or at least any alternative not favoured by the military government is the right name), but Myanmar is the correct name. Now of course, the name was changed by the military government in a certain year, and the present military government came to power in a certain year as well. This means that there should be a Burma article too: for the historical country. This has been done before, with say China I believe, and the present article is already pretty hefty as it is. I don't particularly care what date you use to split it, so long as there is a good reason, and I at least see a Myanmar article, and a split at the very least. I also don't like the idea above of having two articles with the same content that someone suggested above. We shouldn't duplicate the content, and seeing which page is used most frequently could be open to abuse: someone could run a bot to just sit there all day opening the one page. Besides, a page entitled "Myanmar/Burma" would actually be called just Burma, though it would be a subpage of Myanmar as far as I know. And vandalism if someone wins? So? We shouldn't be frightened into providing misinformation. Deamon138 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You make many fair points, Deamon138, I agree with you, there should be a page on "Myanmar" and the first line should state that this was the name an unelected Military Junta, who are not recognised by the international community, decided should be the official name of Burma. And if people wanted to read about the country of Burma, they could follow the link. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the first line, and I personally would phrase it a bit more carefully than you've put it, but yes fair enough. Deamon138 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would phrase it more carefully too, but as a general point the country was officially known as Burma until 1989. After that it's debatable. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to register my concern that the proposed process here, aside from repeating what has now been done multiple times, does not seem to take into account the very likely possibility that there is no consensus to be found. What does the mediator intend to do if there is no consensus to be found? Moreover, the previous path of the dispute suggests not that the two parties need to be brought together to common ground (as would lend itself to mediation) but that there is no common ground and that any binding resolution will have to be outside of the consensus model - so I do not believe that mediation as such is likely to be effective. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If we fail to reach consensus by discussion, the next dispute resolution channel is the mediation committee. I strongly suspect that if this does happen to be the case, it is because of some participants' refusal to accept that their reasoning isn't consistent with the editorial guidelines for Wikipedia. Neither the facts nor the Wikipedia policies here are ambiguous. I think Medcom can pass arbitration on the discussion so would be able to dismiss certain arguments and make it clearer what the informed consensus is. I really hope this is not necessary though. Let's stay on topic rather than branch into asides, and it might be clearer than it seems which name we should go with. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "it might be clearer than it seems which name we should go with." You mean, you support the name "Myanmar"? Very NPOV. But I suppose you were only obeying orders. 81.208.106.64 (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am planning to bring in some crats (if I can find any willing to volunteer) as it is their job to work out consensus once this discussion concludes. If they can't find concensus then I think formal mediation is required. Atyndall93 | talk 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have responded on User talk:Atyndall. Andre (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The record of bureaucrats "working out" consensus on this issue is poor. While the policy is fairly unambiguous on the issue, it is difficult to decide anything based on that policy without accepting as fact one or another of the disputed statements on which, in past discussions, there has not been consensus. Since bureaucrats have little better ability than anyone else to accept or reject these disputed premises, which are in large part subjective anyway, it is difficult to see why their view would be particularly respected. However, it may be that someone who has had less involvement in previous similar disputes can provide a more acceptable conclusion for both sides of the argument. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's dispense of this attitude that consensus is a state that currently exists and doesn't change. The whole point of this discussion is to build a consensus. The trouble with the previous discussions has been that discussion has been poorly organised, allowing anyone to pile on and make a noise without any real scrutiny. It may still be in early stages but the discussion here appears much more constructive, with successive posts being progressively more affirmative of each other. I view with strong suspicion any post which does nothing but criticise the efforts made by others to reach agreement while offering no alternative themselves. It embodies either somebody who likes to complain, or an attempt to undermine progress and strengthen the status quo. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Building Consensus. As somebody who has been strongly in favour of continuing to use the name Burma I would like to agree that building consensus can only be a good thing. I am happy to support any solution which recognises all the issues involved. I would not support, however, any random bureaucrat who comes along and says "Right! I've decided it's called "Myanmar!"" and promptly starts finding and replacing all references to Burma, as happened before. Burma was the official name of the country until 1989. Many people believe it still is, including the party which won the last elections there. Many major News Organisations, Governments and NGOs use the name Burma. The name Burma is predominant in cultural references etc. etc. You cannot just ignore that based on one editor's subjective decision. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a neutral comment? Deamon138(talk) 21:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A qualified neutral comment, yes. We should try to build consensus instead of the "I'm right, you're wrong" kind of comments we've had a lot of. - Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A phrase like, "Many people believe it still is, including the party which won the last elections there. Many major News Organisations, Governments and NGOs use the name Burma. The name Burma is predominant in cultural references etc. etc," isn't exactly neutral to be fair. Surely half of your comment would have been better above in the Burma section? Deamon138 (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One of a crats main jobs is determining consensus and weighing up opinions in RfAs so I presumed that a crat would be the best kind of user to determine consensus in this decision. I am sure that after so much experience in working out consensus they would have learned to be impartial, so I don't think people have to worry about that. Atyndall93 | talk 02:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is precisely the same format as the discussion we just had. Presumably if that discussion was poorly organized this one is likely to be equally problematic. I have already offered an alternative elsewhere: if the consensus model isn't able to find a resolution to the issue within a reasonable time a straight vote is probably the best option. However I strongly oppose any closure that cloaks a non-consensus outcome in the mantle of consensus. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm the only one here who shudders at the thought of hinging this on a straight vote. It would be 50/50 whether Myanmar or Burma is ahead at the time the vote happens to end. That is, if it isn't a straight tie (like the January attempt to undo the October move). Also, to be honest about my motives, many of us who feel that policy favors our arguments worry that many voters will openly vote contrary to what policy suggests (as many did in the original October move). If this is not a valid worry or complaint, then there's not much we can do, though. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I shall here attempt to clear up some common fallacies on the idea of consensus (these are all quotes from WP:CON):
 * "Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on." This means that if an opinion can be seen to not be neutral by Wikipedia standards, then we should reject that opinion from a formulation of consensus.
 * "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable." This means that even if consensus in the past said Burma (though I highly doubt that there was any consensus at the time) then this consensus can change to Myanmar, or even stay at Burma. What matters is not what has been said before, but what is being said NOW. If you want to bring past arguments used in any past consensus then that is fair enough, just don't say I support Burma for (e.g.) reason 1, 2 and reason 3, where reason 3 is "there was consensus in the past." You see, if there was consensus in the past, then surely reason 1 and 2 would've been used to get that, so to use reason 3 now, is to use reason 1 and 2 twice, which of course is like voting twice in an election. The same of course goes to Myanmar if there has been any consensus for that in the past.
 * "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons." In other words, there might be 20 people each with their own different reason for supporting Burma, and 20 more for Myanmar, so it might seem like it is absolutely split down the middle and there is no consensus. However, according to the quote, if (say) ten of the reasons on one side are actually crap reasons, then there would actually be a 20 to 10 split, which is a lot closer to a consensus. Deamon138 (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some bad arguments for Myanmar as well (rejecting colonialism, etc...). Just for the record, I'm voting against voting.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't addressing fallacious arguments for Burma, any mention of Burma above is just an example. My argument was about showing how some people's beliefs on consensuses (or should that be consensi lol?) are wrong. I showed that for reasons to be taken into account, they need to be good, neutral reasons, i.e. i was inferring they should be free from any bias (political or otherwise), so that means this principle can be applied to both Burma and Myanmar arguments (so don't reject the military government for your opinion, and don't reject colonialism for your opinion for example). The paragraph above was not a message to "Burma-namers" or whatever, it was a general, neutral message to everyone to basically say, "just remember exactly what a consensus entails" and don't get all pissy if a decision is made (either way) and you believe there was no consensus. Deamon138 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I wasn't advocating voting either. I used numbers above because it is easier to illustrate my point about a consensus. The actual determination of a consensus will be a lot more complicated for 20 versus 10 say, but its easier to talk about it in numerical terms (even if technically the numbers don't exist). Is it just me or did that make absolutely no sense whatsoever?! Deamon138 (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes sense, it was just one argument has been a well ground axe for a while and I wanted to point out that said axe cuts both ways. Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the name of the main article for a second, is it fair to say that consensus exists that any pre-independence (1948) reference should remain Burma, or is that still a point in question? Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it should be a point in question. If the name was changed in 1989, then surely that's when any name change should be reflected from in articles. Of course, someone might argue for a split at 1948 instead of 1989. I wouldn't be adverse to a split at the earlier date, but one at 1989 seems more logical to me. If a split happens I am sure (and will aim to guarantee) that any historical references to the name Burma aren't altered . Deamon138 (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that such consensus does exist. It'd just be too rough to link all the Burma-type histories of the past, such as World War II and the Burma Road. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08 Burma now redirect to here? There is information about what this discussion entails on that page, why redirect? Deamon138 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You must be thinking of Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08 Burma not its corresponding talk page, that page didn't exist until a redirect was created (see it's history. Atyndall93 | talk 00:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * AH yes! Whoops, sorry for the misunderstanding. Deamon138 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The arguments here are needless. States and even regions have changed their names throughout human history, and will likely continue to do so in future. Need I point to the most obvious, the United States and the Soviet Union, which precipitated the larges number of name changes on their creation, and in the later case, with its dissolution. The state of Burma also changed, and that occurred due to the change of its super-state entity, the British Empire, that changed the name itself. Quite simply the solution is to recognise this, and have two articles, one for Burma (1886-1948), ( The "Adaptation of Expressions Law" was introduced in 1989 Angstriddenyouth (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)) and the other for the Union of Myanmar which in any case was a change from the previously official Union of Burma as it says in the article, and not simply Burma. Wikipedia is after all a reference work and does not make political statements about actions of governments, elected or otherwise, but simply reflects the policy of that government for reference by users--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One question about this proposal: Where do the Lower Burma and Upper Burma, Early history of Burma, etc... articles end up? I don't see a reason to move them, personally, but I think a full Gdansk-split type decision (names by time period) is appropriate.  Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The are integrated as sibling-articles into the main articles as appropriate. Quite simply the current entity is Union of Myanmar. This is what is used on the news and in the printed media. This is what current Wikipedia users know. If that changes in future, Wikipedia will reflect it as intended, but that change will become a part of the documenting of the History of the region by Wikipedia that goes back to before the name Burma even existed. Editors need to endure continuity through the category subject area and not focus on single words--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember that this is about the title of an article, nothing to do with how we present the politics or nomenclature of the country. It is a naming convention, a choice to allow prose to flow and a choice between two names both of which would be familiar to large numbers of people. The question is: which one is more familiar, and if neither, which is more official? BigBlueFish (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no. People are often wrong about what things are called all the time. Wikipedia is a reference works, so supposed to be up on changes, so someone can say, hey, I read in Wikipedia that...
 * That is what separates good reference work from a great one, being up to date, and the primary strength of Wikipedia because we can update all the time like no other reference work.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 11:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah; that just means we need to be suitably discriminate when judging sources on which to base our decision. The press are also meant to be up on changes, for example, yet almost 50% of the press still refers to Burma.Thus we should be up to date regarding the official name, the deciding factor. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue is that any organisation, including a government (regardless of its legality in power) has a name it uses within the systems it operates in, in this case the international systems. For example in the hurricane the NGOs and other states have to deal with the government of the Union of Myanmar regardless of the liking for the military junta that it is, and calling them Burma would not help things much. Applications to the World Court against human rights abuses by the same government cannot be made against the Union of Burma because the World Court only recognises the state by the name it calls itself just like any civil or commercial court would only deal with a company by the name it is given within its constitution as a corporation, so its the McDonald’s Corporation, and not Maca's :)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 21:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. Many Governments and NGOs have dealings with the Burmese Government using the name "Burma." If you were aware of UN policy you would realise that the UN can recognise more than one name for a country. This is the case with Burma where some countries chose to use the name Burma, and others use the name "Myanmar." In either case it is clear which country they are talking about. Angstriddenyouth (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely though it might not be correct to say it is "clear" what they are talking about. Sure it's clear for us, but seeing as this is an encyclopaedia, people come here to learn, and there are bound to be people who don't know what Myanmar is or what Burma is, or maybe even both! Sure unlikely, but we have to assume so. Deamon138 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that two primary tasks of a reference work are to be consistent, and not to confuse its users. The article on UN membership in Wikipedia lists Myanmar because on the official UN site the name used is Myanmar.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just have the title say Myanmar (Burma). The official country name is Myanmar, but others recognize it as Burma. Iner22 (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I used to have a friend in school named Bobby who after school suddenly became Bob. I recently met up with him, and was surprised that he is now Robert. Should I keep calling him Bobby for old memory's sake?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends how childish you're feeling lol! Deamon138 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You could name the article "Myanmar (Burma)"; however, here are some other ideas:
 * Use local names, transliterated/translated according to the CIA World Factbook:
 * Pyidaungzu Myanma Naingngandaw,
 * Union of Myanma or
 * Myanma Naingngandaw.
 * Another possibility: name the article in the local language, and redirect Burma and Myanmar to the local name.
 * Still another possibility is this: how about conducting a vote on the Burmese-language Wikipedia's village pump and abide by the results?  Do we have any 'crats or admins who are proficient in the language and are able to translate?  69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.