![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
People's opinions are starting to flow into this article. Might be a good idea to protect this until things cool down.-- Npnunda ( talk) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that "Recent Events" were placed at the top of History. I would suggest that these be placed at the bottom of history, as the rest of the history category is given in chronological order. The cyclone is a very important event and people may look to Wikipedia for information about it, but in time it will not be a recent event, nor will it necessarily be viewed as more important to the History of Burma than the other historical events listed. 128.173.82.81 ( talk) 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I speak of Burma but when I have to criticize the word Myanmar, I never pronounce the final r in English, not any more than in car or bar. The "r" is only there to indicate to a Brit that the tone changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.142.75 ( talk) 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
>>You are missing the point.
You are so kind...
>>>English speakers have no reason to try to pronounce Myanmar or Burma or any other country name in a foreign language.
Exactly MY POINT. THE IPA values ***in the article*** do not reflect the NATURAL British/South Africa/Bostonian way of pronouncing the word : no final "R", a lengthened "A:", imitating the second tone in the original. The article confuses the example given by the BBC using in day-to-day English spelling with IPA orthographies. So the the MYAN-mar example given by the BBC is not /ˌmjɑnˈmɑr/ but /ˌmjɑnˈmɑ:/. In other words, all the sample pronunciations are American ones.
They use the English sound system, just as Burmese speaker would not try to pronounce United States or another country name according to English, French or whatever. This has nothing to do with colonialism, or politics. Wikipedia does need to decide, however, whether to base foreign translations of country names on the common accepted use among native speakers, or on the official translations provided by governments. If it the latter, then Myanmar would be OK, but then the Burmese, Chinese, Japanese and other versions need to be checked as well. For example, Burma (Myanmar) still calls itself Birmanie in French and 缅甸 in Chinese. And the U.S.A. name in Wikipedia's vietmamese version should not be "flowery flag", which is a colloqual translation, but not appropriate. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
169.252.4.21 (
talk)
01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You must be from Massachusetts. The "r" in car and bar are usually pronounced. - Laikalynx ( talk) 06:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This story is especially entertaining, since apparently the "r" was added to this English-translation because Myanmar's government felt the name would be mispronounced if they just used "Myanma". Fun stuff, dialects. - BaronGrackle ( talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Laikalynx: Actually, final "r" in standard English in the situations in question is silent. You can look it up. I taught English diction at the graduate level for 4 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.214.89 ( talk) 06:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
So your graduates drive a Ka and drink at a bah? They're not silent. Zelphi ( talk) 12:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't you mean caw and baa? Anyway, they are silent...under some accents. 199.172.206.97 ( talk) 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
When speakers pronounce /r/ only if it is followed by a vowel sound (see " linking R"), it's called a non-rhotic accent, and there is a lengthy wikipedia article on it Rhotic and non-rhotic accents. From personal experience, living on the outskirts of Boston, I'd note that the vowel is drawn out to compensate. Car becomes kaah, and not kă. Unlike English, Burmese is a tonal language and the non-rhotic English 'ar' may be the closest equivalent. Cuvtixo ( talk) 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks, the article gives the IPA for common mispronunciations of the word 'Myanmar', but not for the correct one. Would it be too much to ask for someone to put, at the beginning of the article, the IPA for the correct pronunciation?
I've noticed that news dispatches pronounce it in various, probably wrong ways, but I do not know how it should be pronounced.
Thank you. Bill Jefferys ( talk) 23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I suspect part of the problem is that there is no correct way to pronounce Myanmar. The name is new, so there's no traditional pronunciation in English. Your only options are to try to pronounce it the way the Burmese do (which will be an approximation at best), or to invent a pronunciation based on its spelling (which will be nothing like the way the Burmese say it, because the name is a transliteration, not a transcription). Scientivore ( talk) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Has reached no concensus. Therefore there is no point in having an ugly macro marring the page asking for *more* discussion about whether to call Burma Burma or Myanmar. My own view would be to describe the state as Myanmar and the nation as Burma and divide discussion appropriately, but as Burma is the current default both on Wiki and in the English language and there is *extensive* discussion of the naming dispute *within* the page, this macro serves no purpose and has been removed. - jowfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.37.112.44 ( talk) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear contributers,
It seems that well, you cannot avoid politics when it comes to any topic on Myanmar - I find that there is extreme politicization of any article which contains either Myanmar/Burma, in the name. In one article, I found that the related material was only one line long, while "extra" material, i.e., political related, was two paragraphs long. I am not against the writing of truthful information, but, there is a place for everything, and a format, instead of propping up posters of your opinion everywhere. These things, instead of helping the common wikipedia user on Myanmar/Burma, has, on the contrary, made the whole issue worse, and nobody ends up knowing anything definite about the country.
The main thing at hand is that, we need to make the main article (Myanmar or Burma, call it what ever you want, but as a native of that land, I prefer Myanmar) more professional and presentable. When you try the edit button, you'll see that its nearly 120kb long - one cannot get a quick info guide about the place - you are getting a whole crash course on the whole country on this page alone.
So, might I suggest that we just write some brief paragraphs, and divert about half the existing text to new articles? I dare not do it, since half the users will start jumping on me for doing it. User:Uthantofburma —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree. This thing is a book! 74.182.101.168 ( talk) 03:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I Thought that Rangoon was the capital of Myanmar! Oh well,did they change it? Fila934 ( talk) 07:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the junta moved away from Yangonas it has been the center of many protests since colonial times. Rds865 ( talk) 18:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Extracted from the "Religion" section:
"Myanmar enjoys religious tolerance and since the ancient times, there has been full freedom of worship for followers of different religions. So different religions can be practiced in Myanmar. The religious edifices and religious orders have been in existence and religious festivals can be held on a grand scale."
See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90131.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.173.189 ( talk) 23:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by pro-Burmese propaganda? The stupid government's accused of every bloody thing - yes, it commits horrific acts of brutality - but as a native, I do not find religious persecution in both the towns and in the villages. It might exist in the border areas, but the average Burmese is extremely tolerant of difference in religion. From my experience, they're way better than many Americans when it comes to religious tolerance. Do you believe 100% of what the state department says? I have only one line: where are the WMDs which were supposed to have been documented??? Where where where???
Wikipedia has somehow become a tool of advocacy by many parties - and in Myanmar's hyperactive rumour mill, many facts get tangled. And nobody seems to be talking about the Christian missions' attempts to win converts by opening Christians-only free clinics in rural Karen state. Freedom of religion is the freedom of practice one's religion - not to evangelize - and because evangelists are complaining about the place, religion's nolonger free?
Its way more better for religion than many countries I have been to - it's the truth, and if you don't like it, then, too bad. You care to complain about this single line - when the whole article's already made a good job of the people? You see the white spot on the black board.
But well, I guess wikipedia's okay to remove things which you don't like, and try to justify it with the world's most professional liars department. —Preceding unsigned 18:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Opening a Christian only clinic is not a good method of winning converts. the Karen people were looked down upon before they were Christians. Also, I believe there is a saying "to be Burmese is to be Buddhist." Surely no one denies the crack down on monks, so perhaps one could argue that the government persecutes everyone. Rds865 ( talk) 19:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
While it did not quite rise to the level of propaganda, this could be easily rewritten to be more neutral. For example "Myanmar enjoys has religious tolerance and since the ancient times, there has been full freedom of worship..." This gets across exactly the same information without instigating those who might disagree.
Cuvtixo (
talk)
14:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no interwiki link to the Flag of Myanmar and the Coat of arms of Burma in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfQ ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I know this is quite old and outdated at this point, but I apologize anyway for an older edit from the improper unrecognized name Burma to the proper recognized Myanmar as the poster who scolded me was correct as I now see/notice that it was a copy and not a move. That "copy" page was supposed to be a /sandbox page, not a real page. Again I apologize.... Lostinlodos ( talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I forced the Burmese characters in this article to display correctly in every browser, not just Firefox, with the new {{ lang-my-Mymr}} I created. Enjoy! ☺ Taric25 ( talk) 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The section is more about opiate trade, and not about the alleged involvement in Burma by the US and needs some fixing. Rds865 ( talk) 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition, the referenced to Bo Gritz's allegations (which are not substantiated) that US government officials are involved in opium trafficking in Burma/Myanmar is not serious enough or relevant enough to be on the main page. Perhaps a separate page called "Theories of United States Involvement in Burmese/Myanmaran Drug Trade," but not in the main article. In addition, Bo Gritz is not a reliable source. His own Wikipedia entry pretty much describes him as a fringe conspiracy theorist who is preparing a paramilitary organization to deal with the Second Coming. Anybody can make allegations about US officials' involvement in the drug trade, but that doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the main article about this country. I will make this change if I hear no objections soon. J P M7791 ( talk) 18:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
there is a little information about that time, and what there is, is confusing. It says that the American-Kachin Rangers fought for the occupiers? Certainly at this time Japan had occupied Burma? There is no mention of the Burma road. There is no mention of the Japanese occupation, and the formation of the Anti-Fascist Organization. Also the BIA was replaced with the BDA, and then the BNA and when it joined the Allies it was the PBF. Rds865 ( talk) 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire ( Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes significative parts of Burma. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre ( talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ square=tradingpost ( Red4tribe ( talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html
(credible source)
(
Red4tribe (
talk)
16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Evidence has been gathered suggesting that the Burmese regime has marked certain ethnic minorities such as the Karen for extermination or 'Burmisation'.[110] This has received little attention from the international community, however, since it has been more subtle and indirect than the mass killings in places like Rwanda.[111]
I would like to suggest you somehow mention that this has recently recieved some media attention as it is the backdrop to the new rocky movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.169.163 ( talk) 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | Please remember to keep all discussion of naming conventions at Talk:Burma/Myanmar . |
I think we should name this conuntry Myanmar. The military regime has renamed Burma into Myanmar. So we should follow the new name on Wikipedia, weather other governments are accepting this new name or not. -- Shorty23sin ( talk) 03:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Politics aside, the official and most used name is Myanmar. 91.152.193.7 ( talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The name used to be Burma, now it is Myanmar, so the page should be called Myanmar. Everyone recognizes this country as Myanmar, its as simple as that. To politicize it and call it Burma has no place here.-- Urbanz ( talk) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that redirects are cheap, so it doesn't really matter until there is consensus for the article to be moved. I also agree with the above user; it should be consistently named within the article, unless a quote or source directly refers to it as the opposing name. -- Izno ( talk) 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the U.S. Government refers to the country as "Burma." In a note in the CIA World Factbook, they state "since 1989 the military authorities in Burma have promoted the name Myanmar as a conventional name for their state; this decision was not approved by any sitting legislature in Burma, and the US Government did not adopt the name, which is a derivative of the Burmese short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw." link. — Sam 11:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.121.46 ( talk)
Please don't use this page to discuss this issue. It has a long talk page to which you can argue your points. -- Coffeegirlyme ( talk) 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If these little Asiatic pseudo-Chinamen want to be called Myanmar instead of Burma we should respect their wishes and call them Myanmar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.192.210 ( talk) 03:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
A fact, such as the name of a country, is never subject to opinion. Anyone who says it should be "Burma" or "Myanmar" based on their feelings is not contributing to an encyclopedic article. There is a name for this country, and it is not easily expressed in English, since it is in Burmese and uses a non-arabic script. This name has been translated into English, into what we call a "conventional name", which "Burma" has been since the very beginning. I don't care how it is translated, but to suggest that these same words are now translated into something else seems silly. I am bothered that this Wiki article says the official name is Myanmar and quotes the BBC as proof, but the BBC does not state Myanmar is the official name; instead, suggests Myanmar is only an alternative. Read the BBC article and you will see. I am removing the word "official" from the Wiki article. Also, this Wiki article links to the CIA Factbook, but fails to mention the U.S. position as stated there, which is that no official legislative body has changed the name from Burma to Myanmar. Instead, the Myanmar name change seems to be a public relations campaign which the U.S. has not recognized as official. I say we stay with "Burma" until "Burma" changes their name officially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.135.99 ( talk) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Germans call their country "Deutschland", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Germany".
Albanians call their country "Shqipëria", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Albania".
Greeks call their country "Elláda" ou "Ellás", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Greece".
Armenians call their country "Hayastan", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Armenia".
Georgians call their country "Sakartvelo", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Georgia (country)".
Hungarians call their country "Magyarország", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Hungary".
(Just to name a few...)
Why should Burma (locally, Myanmar) be any different? The Military Junta may rule the country as they please, but they don't rule the English language.
Gazilion (
talk)
16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No legislator has changed the name. Therefore, Burma would appear to be the correct name until it is officially done. Travis T. Cleveland ( talk) 06:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The official English name of Burma is now Myanmar; the name change was recognized by the UN (which, as far as countries are concerned, is a bit more authoritative than the BBC). Accordingly, most place names have changed, including Rangoon (now known as Yangon). Like it or not, I believe Wikipedia should switch to the new name. And, as far as names sometimes being colonialism, they obviously are. Fred 79.1.108.206 ( talk) 09:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's news to you: only countries which have English as a de jure or de facto official language have a say in what an official English name of anything is. As to the UN, the UN 'recognises' nothing, it uses whatever each member country gives it, and as such saying that a name is 'recognised' bu the UN simply means that the UN was handed out that name - the UN does no appreciation, neutral or otherwise, to invoke it is an empty argument. And last but not least, the prevalent idea that 'Burma' is a 'colonial' name is quite disingenious - 'Burma' and 'Myanmar' are the exact same word, only the former is a traditional English spelling that reflects as best it can the pronunciation at the time of the burmese language it was taken from, whereas the latter is a spelling travesty. Any comparison to the Zimbabwe / Rhodesia is self-defeating anyway - no country today calls Zimbabwe Rhodesia out of dislike for the regime, so it may indicate that refusal to accept the ragdoll 'Myanmar' isn't based on politics. 85.241.116.29 ( talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in this case Burma simply equals Burma. Sure, I agree that when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe it was certainly legitimate. But Burma was basically taken by the dictators by force, and given a new name by them simply to proclaim the "change" they had brought. When a country is forced to accept a new leader and names, government, etc., it should still remain as it was before the takeover! And though Wikipedia is generally third party, I just think we'd be making a good statement by refusing to call it what it's military leaders call it. Jetblue1717 ( talk) 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
the following, and some of the text around it, under United Nations section, reads like an opinionated magazine column.
"While there will always be competing strategic interests by the various players, it would be a mistake for some-the United States, UK, China, Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia-to hijack the process from the UN. Gambari, a Nigerian, is a seasoned negotiator with a track record to match the Myanmar military's 40-year reign, and he remains the best hope to break the political deadlock that has spanned two decades."
also, several protests are written about in detail twice in the article.
in the introductory section, the date of british rule is mentioned twice also.
i'm not a member who edits on wikipedia, but looked at this article for info about myanmar after the cyclone hit. i think these changes, and perhaps a little more cleaning up, would help out everyone looking for info about this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.11.2 ( talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Both CNN and BBC report death toll to be at "more than 22,000"; where is source for the figure currently cited in article? Suggest it be changed to figure supported by credible sources. 81.132.41.159 ( talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how a recent natural disaster warrants a section on the page of a country. HanBoN ( talk) 03:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the re-write (not by me I should add) justifies its inclusion - it is a significant event in the country's history, regardless of how recent it is. 81.132.41.159 ( talk) 18:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably not in its own section, though, as Indonesia doesn't have a whole section about the 2004 tsunami. Just a suggestion. HanBoN ( talk) 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I know there are a number of problems and a number of hands stirring the pot here (and I am not going to add mine in addition), but there are two separate sections on the 2007 monk protests and also for the recent cyclone. Combining those will help with your article length. PerlKnitter ( talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that too. With the article being the size that it is, it is harder to grasp what is already there I suppose. But seriously! the Cyclone has two sections which pretty much say the same thing. Someone wanna use the delete button? --
Coffeegirlyme (
talk)
19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'm the first person to notice but it isn't uncommon that people take the name of this article as justification to reword other articles or move them. Is it worth adding something to the header about this, something like, "Although this article uses the name Burma, other articles may refer to the country as Burma or Myanmar and this should not be changed without consensus. Remember that we don't require consistency across wikipedia and considerations like WP:ENGVAR may come into play"? Given the lack of consensus for even this article, of particular concern of mine is when people make changes which don't make any sense e.g. changing Myanmar to Burma in United Nations member states or South East Asian Games (I don't know if it's actually been attempting in these pages but I'm pretty sure I've read about it before in some other cases and I wanted clear cut examples) Nil Einne ( talk) 18:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have an article on Tay Za? Under some other spelling perhaps? PiCo ( talk) 08:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the Government of this country was recently changed from a Military Dictatorship to Military Government. Upon clicking the link to Military Government, the article told me that it has two forms: Military occupation or Military dictatorship. Now it's clear to me that Burma/Myanmar is not a military occupation therefore its type of Military Government is a Military dictatorship so the previous version was correct. The reason it was changed was apparently "rm inflammatory POV" yet this isn't a POV. Besides, there are legitimate cases of dictatorships and military ones too that are such not through someone's interpretation of the government but the fact that the military has sole authoritative power. This is true of Burma/Myanmar. Surely we must change this back? Deamon138 ( talk) 22:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I'll make the change now.
Beam
00:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, it has it as "Military Junta", which I linked to the article on Junta, which will suffice. Beam 00:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
These numbers don't add up. I know they're from different years.
According to the List of countries by GDP (nominal), the GDP was 13.7b in 2007, and according to the the List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures article their military expenditure was 3.9m (no year given). The CIA factbook map shows it in the 1% range which seems unlikely for a military dictatorship. On the other hand, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0607-03.htm gives an estimate in the "top 15" in expenditures. #15 on the list by military spending in the wikipedia article, Spain, spent 12.3b in 2006, so if Burmyanmar spent that much it would be 90% of their GDP, a number that is simply ridiculous.
http://yearbook2005.sipri.org/ch8/app8A is the actual report by the Swedes cited in the commondreams article, which has a lot of raw data to sift through, but the 2002 (last year of data) budget for military was 16.4b in converted dollars (compare China, 30.7b and US 364.8b for same year), which is greater than the nominal income of the country? See page 14-15 of the pdf in the appendix.
http://first.sipri.org/non_first/milex.php is the 2007 data from the Swedes, and they've ceased to bother to convert from Kyat because of the flaky exchange rate.
In short, the 3.9m figure is ridiculous, the 16.4b figure is impossible, and the "Top 15 spenders" allegation cannot be confirmed and should be removed. The CIA factbook page for Burma claims a realistic exchange rate of 1k kyat/$, which makes the SIPRI number $73.1m, but that ignores 5 years of inflation in a country known for inflation. The official (i.e. completely fabricated) exchange rate in 2003 was ~6 kyat/$ which is probably why the GDP numbers and expenditure numbers are so meaningless. Somedumbyankee ( talk) 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It should be done immediately. This is an English Wiki, and following that fact we should call the country what the English speaking world calls it. Which, in this case, is Burma. Australia, Canada, the UK, and the United States all call it Burma. We should also qualify it, as we sort of do as being called Myanmar since 1989 by the Military Junta.
It really isn't that hard! Anyway, I support the immediate removal of the Disputed Title tag. It's a blemish on this article. As long as the first sentence qualifies the name as being Myanmar according to the Junta Dictators than the article is both accurate and correct according to Wiki Policy.
As a secondary concern I do not think it should say "Officially Myanmar", something like "named Myanmar by the Military Junta in 1989" is much more accurate. Beam 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the whole dispute isn't going to be solved here. You guys are proving my case. With that being a fact, why dirty the article with that tag? As of right now it's called Burma, it's that simple. Until there is a different solution and as long as we qualify it in the first sentence there is no need for the tag. I agree with the fact that it won't be solved here, and because of that we should remove the tag. Beam 02:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't tag articles for disputed titles simply because move proposals were unsuccessful but the "losing" side decides to make their point highly visible. That's just petty disruption, because if there was no consensus to move this back to Myanmar, then there was consensus to keep Burma and therefore the tag is supported by a minority that is acting against consensus. Thus, it should be removed at once. Hús ö nd 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly Husond. I say we remove it. The minority that is upset over consensus should not be allowed to hinder this article. What do you say, Husond? Beam 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Beam, your initial premise seems incorrect. The "English speaking world" does not refer to the country exclusively as "Burma." In most recent news coverage here in the U.S., Myanmar has, for good or ill, been used almost exclusively (see CNN [2], AP [3], Yahoo News [4] and even NPR [5]). Abroad, the BBC seems split in their own reports, sometimes referring to Burma and sometimes to Myanmar. There seems little of the concensus you suggest exists...the tag seems to appropriately reflect that difficulty. 71.9.8.150 ( talk) 01:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
CNN always qualifies the name with the fact that it's also called Burma. As I explain above it is commonly called Burma. The article is called Burma. The dispute over the name should not affect the article. If there ever is a consensus to change it, than we'll change it. Until the the Dispute Tag represents a dispute with no foreseeable solution. With that being a fact, why have the tag? We qualify the name in the first sentence. It's almost stupid to have the tag. Beam 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I am getting the sense that a good portion of this discussion is not about the removal of the dispute tag, but in fact about the dispute itself. If the naming issue has been resolved, it is my opinion that the article should be updated to provide consistent references (e.g. referring to the correct country name where it is appropriate), and the tag removed. If not, I would recommend leaving the tag in place. In terms of this discussion, I would recommend that any comments regarding the actual naming dispute be posted to the Talk:Burma/Myanmar page, to help build an accurate consensus on the issue. X-Kal ( talk) 05:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason that I put back the dispute tag was because, simply, there is a dispute. The tag is simply there to show that as of now there is no consensus what the article should be named. I do not believe that we should remove the tag until that the naming dispute is resolved on the Burma/Myanmar talk page. MethMan47 ( talk) 21:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
X-Kal, I said and say again that it isn't about the name itself. Methman, the naming dispute has a dedicated plus for its resolution. As of now the article is called Burma. In the first sentence we explain that it's also called Myanmar. This is done just like CNN or modern day medias say it. In fact, I don't care if the article is called Myanmar and Burma is in the first sentence. The point is that the dispute does not need to be tagged in the main article. It doesn't help the dispute and it hurts the article. The reader knows the dispute by reading the first sentence. If they wish to contribute they come here to the talk page, where the dispute tag should go. This is also the reasoning of my good friend Husond, who has also posted in this section.
This is also the reasoning of the people who agreed to remove the tag here. They, as I, say they aren't commenting on the correctness of Burma, but commenting on the removal of the tag. I feel that people want the tag there for the wrong reason X-Kal. That they want it to push their POV. The tag isn't needed because we immediately provide the two POVs of the "dispute." It's the first thing in the article. It's not as if we don't mention Myanmar in the article, it's the first sentence. The dispute tag should be removed immediately. Beam 00:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Beamathan came to my talkpage declaring that "concensus" has been reached to remove the dispute tag. I read this entire section and I see absolutely no sign of such a concensus ever concluding. As long as the disputes at Talk:Burma/Myanmar remain unresolved, the tag shall stay.-- Huaiwei ( talk) 01:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. Consensus has been reached by myself, Husond, 71.9.8.150, X-Kal, Meth, Baron, and Regents. Cease adding the tag. Thank you. Beam 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Oh, and if you read this section than you'd understand that BECAUSE of the disputes at Talk:Burma/Myanmar that the tag here isn't needed. Husond has taken the further step of putting the tag in the edit page of the article, and the tag is here on the talk page. Really, it's the right thing to remove the tag, and it has consensus. Thanks for understanding. Beam 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? I'm going to AGF and just take your comment as a lapse in intelligence. Beam 23:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
My understanding has been that until concensus in an editorial dispute is reached, the disputed material remains as it was prior to the opening of discussion. The tag was present at the opening of this discussion (thus the discussion arose) and no concensus has been reached as of yet...however, some editors have decided to remove the tag anyway. Is my understanding of the procedure faulty, or are some people simply trying to achieve their aim by fiat? 71.9.8.150 ( talk) 04:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Nichalp has decided the name is Myanmar. He did a straw poll at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. Now, you may not agree with the new name (I don't) but it is what it is. Just because you dispute it doesn't mean it's "disputed" as far as Wikipedia goes. Do not add the "Name Dispute" tag back. Please. Thanks! Beam 11:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The name of this article has been changed, without consultation, from "Burma" to "Myanmar" by a user named "Nichalp" on the basis of a straw poll, which currently stands at 17 votes for "Myanmar" and 16 votes for "Burma."[ [7]] Up until yesterday there were more votes for "Burma." If you believe in Democracy please sign this straw poll in favour of "Burma," so we can change the name back. Decisions of this kind should not be taken by one person. Angstriddenyouth ( talk) 17:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
WHY THE HELL HAS THIS PAGE BEEN MOVED TO MYANMAR?? THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS FOR THIS MOVE!! -- Prince Paul of Yugoslavia ( talk) 07:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well if, and I stress only if, this were to go to Rfa the original move would have to be part of what was being analysed. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the name should be changed back to Burma because it is the most commonly used name in English speaking countries.
Deutschland also reroutes directly to
Germany although German people would never call their country "Germany". So what's the point about Myanmar?
Ericbodden (
talk)
23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The main problem I see with this is the economic reductionism and the unproblematized view of 'development.' Development has been done in many countries on this globe in a way that subjugates them to economic bondage. More money flows out of developing countries that flows in from the West - a net drain on the 'global south.' The hegemonic discourse of development is a deeply trouble on, based in Western economic thinking and ignoring economic behaviours that for the basis of local economies in Burma and elsewhere. People may not have much 'income' but if they have access to land and can feed their families from it, imposing the development model on them when it has failed in so many instances is unconscionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.220.179 ( talk) 05:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Myanmar article itself. This article has been moved multiple times recently and the name is the subject of a current dispute. Please place discussions on the name of the article on the name dispute page or the request for comment page. |
Any objections? That discussion is unlikely to die soon, so probably best to keep it together with its full history. Somedumbyankee ( talk) 21:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I have taken part of this post and this post from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nichalp's move of Burma to Myanmar to explain the context of this debate for those who are not familiar with the mind numbing details:
On May 12, Nichalp launched a straw poll on the issue of whether the article Burma should be moved to Myanmar (despite the fact that numerous previous straw polls and discussions within the past year had shown the community to be evenly divided on the issue). At the conclusion of the straw poll, it was evident that opinion was still evenly divided. The numerical result of the poll was 16 opposed, 17 in favor. More importantly, both sides were still strongly entrenched in their positions and both sides presented numerous opinions and facts in support of their side and how it related to Wikipedia policies. ... . Kaldari ( talk) 16:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
...
Yes, you recall "one or two" because the first was squashed as a speedy close—it was proposed on the belief that the October move had been done without consensus; unfortunately, the Myanmar-namers went about the process the wrong way, and now many editors falsely perceive "Burma" as some sort of long-established status quo on Wikipedia. The second attempt you recall was allowed to exist because time had passed since October. The "Burma" majority (majority, not consensus) that had previously been galvanized by the atrocities against the monks had by this point completely vaporized. A moderator closed the poll at "no consensus" when Burma was ahead by one vote, after which it was revealed that one of the votes had been a typo meant for Myanmar; so there was an exact tie, with more votes trying to come in after the close. .... - BaronGrackle ( talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 06:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The consensus on AN/I was that the action was inappropriate and what is needed is for an uninvolved administrator to revert the move of Burma to Myanmar. Therefore, I am requesting an uninvolved administrator revert to status quo pending further dispute resolution, as is customary per policy. While there is a dispute about title, this action is not controversial. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:Editprotected usually shouldn't be used to invite wheel warring... --- RockMFR 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I supported "Burma" in the straw poll, but have only made one other comment overall in the newest round of debate. Am I sufficiently uninvolved to move it back to Burma? -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think some people are over reacting. And, per usual, it's very sad to see Administrators abuse their powers. Usually it's a direct against an editor action, but to see moves and reversions of that move done by admins who are supposedly responsible, well that's just sad.
Two wrongs don't make a right people. Let it be. Instead of wasting your energy on the name of the article, maybe that energy will be better spent on improving the content of said article. Especially considering that the admins have created the mess. Beam 03:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I was in favour to of the move to Burma and I am going to revert the move. I have given my reasons for this decision at ANI: Nichalp's move of Burma to Myanmar: Solutions?
- At the very least the poll ought to have been on the talk page of the article not on some other page, It is a long standing custom that changes to the page are discussed on the articles talk page not on some other page.
- It is also customary that if a move is made with WP:RM that a move back must be made with a WP:RM request. Therefore I am going to move the page back and if you wish to move it again then please put in a WP:RM request. As WP:RM says "If there is a clear consensus after [5 days], the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus"."
I will also add that one of the reasons for the development of WP:RM was to stop wheel wars. So before anyone moves the page back to Myanmar from Burma they should use the designated move procedure and go through WP:RM. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 12:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I am glad that finally even Nichalp agrees that this should go back to Burma at once. I am rather disturbed that some of the Myanmar-supporters will not put their title preference aside for the sake of restoration of a process that was in strict compliance with Wikipedia's policies and standard procedures. Trust in process will return after this article is moved back to Burma and new proposals may be then discussed harmoniously and constructively. Hús ö nd 16:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The trust in admins has already been diminished by this action. My personal trust in the admin system is already destroyed, but this action can't help the trust others had in this system. Also, after reviewing the prior move from Myanmar to Burma, that was one ugly situation. It actually had less logic than Nichalp's move. At least Nichalp had a well thought out reason. Beam 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The "status quo" was Myanmar for several years until October's move, which was based on a very questionable declaration of consensus. If there was such a thing as WP:Move review, I am certain that it would have been overturned, as "no consensus" implies no change. The right way forward from the resultant mess we have now is not only to undo the most recent action, but start with a fresh discussion based on the original status quo. That is what Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma is intended to do, is it not? — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Given
this edit and
this edit by
user:Nichalp in the section
Response from Nichalp of
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
I see no procedural implement to moving it back. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The page needs to be at Myanmar. I wish somebody had notified all those who voted in the earlier polls about the latest one, because I have a strong opinion about this and didn't get a chance to register my viewpoint this time. In any case, process was never followed in the initial move to Burma, so restoring the name to Myanmar was automatically valid. Everyking ( talk) 05:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This has been a tough time for all of us and I figure it is a good time to step back and see what we have before we can figure out where to go. First, what do we have:
-- Regents Park ( Chase my ducks) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.231.35 ( talk) 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Might we want either a temporary hatnote or a "see also" for the present humanitarian crisis? I came here expecting to find a link to that article, wherever it may be, and couldn't find any. - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
in the article, some parts say Burma, and some say Myanmar.
I think we should calll it Myanmar, since it may not be recognized by many countries, but that is the official (inter)national name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbomcchoi ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There isn't really a need for the tag to be on the article itself. As was successfully argued regarding the "dispute tag" previously, the tag itself doesn't help the article, and it being on the talk page achieves the same end. Beam 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You're not making a lot of sense. The first sentence of the article notes the naming of the country. I believe you were involved with the discussion regarding the "Dispute" tag, and it came to the point where the only sensible solution was to have it on the talk page. The same applies with this tag. It has nothing to do with honesty and I'd be insulted if I didn't assume good faith. Please reconsider your reversion, the last thing I want is an edit war of any sort. Beam 16:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Because disputes regarding page moves aren't what the user should be reading. Beam 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
People's opinions are starting to flow into this article. Might be a good idea to protect this until things cool down.-- Npnunda ( talk) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that "Recent Events" were placed at the top of History. I would suggest that these be placed at the bottom of history, as the rest of the history category is given in chronological order. The cyclone is a very important event and people may look to Wikipedia for information about it, but in time it will not be a recent event, nor will it necessarily be viewed as more important to the History of Burma than the other historical events listed. 128.173.82.81 ( talk) 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I speak of Burma but when I have to criticize the word Myanmar, I never pronounce the final r in English, not any more than in car or bar. The "r" is only there to indicate to a Brit that the tone changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.142.75 ( talk) 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
>>You are missing the point.
You are so kind...
>>>English speakers have no reason to try to pronounce Myanmar or Burma or any other country name in a foreign language.
Exactly MY POINT. THE IPA values ***in the article*** do not reflect the NATURAL British/South Africa/Bostonian way of pronouncing the word : no final "R", a lengthened "A:", imitating the second tone in the original. The article confuses the example given by the BBC using in day-to-day English spelling with IPA orthographies. So the the MYAN-mar example given by the BBC is not /ˌmjɑnˈmɑr/ but /ˌmjɑnˈmɑ:/. In other words, all the sample pronunciations are American ones.
They use the English sound system, just as Burmese speaker would not try to pronounce United States or another country name according to English, French or whatever. This has nothing to do with colonialism, or politics. Wikipedia does need to decide, however, whether to base foreign translations of country names on the common accepted use among native speakers, or on the official translations provided by governments. If it the latter, then Myanmar would be OK, but then the Burmese, Chinese, Japanese and other versions need to be checked as well. For example, Burma (Myanmar) still calls itself Birmanie in French and 缅甸 in Chinese. And the U.S.A. name in Wikipedia's vietmamese version should not be "flowery flag", which is a colloqual translation, but not appropriate. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
169.252.4.21 (
talk)
01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You must be from Massachusetts. The "r" in car and bar are usually pronounced. - Laikalynx ( talk) 06:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This story is especially entertaining, since apparently the "r" was added to this English-translation because Myanmar's government felt the name would be mispronounced if they just used "Myanma". Fun stuff, dialects. - BaronGrackle ( talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Laikalynx: Actually, final "r" in standard English in the situations in question is silent. You can look it up. I taught English diction at the graduate level for 4 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.214.89 ( talk) 06:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
So your graduates drive a Ka and drink at a bah? They're not silent. Zelphi ( talk) 12:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't you mean caw and baa? Anyway, they are silent...under some accents. 199.172.206.97 ( talk) 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
When speakers pronounce /r/ only if it is followed by a vowel sound (see " linking R"), it's called a non-rhotic accent, and there is a lengthy wikipedia article on it Rhotic and non-rhotic accents. From personal experience, living on the outskirts of Boston, I'd note that the vowel is drawn out to compensate. Car becomes kaah, and not kă. Unlike English, Burmese is a tonal language and the non-rhotic English 'ar' may be the closest equivalent. Cuvtixo ( talk) 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks, the article gives the IPA for common mispronunciations of the word 'Myanmar', but not for the correct one. Would it be too much to ask for someone to put, at the beginning of the article, the IPA for the correct pronunciation?
I've noticed that news dispatches pronounce it in various, probably wrong ways, but I do not know how it should be pronounced.
Thank you. Bill Jefferys ( talk) 23:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I suspect part of the problem is that there is no correct way to pronounce Myanmar. The name is new, so there's no traditional pronunciation in English. Your only options are to try to pronounce it the way the Burmese do (which will be an approximation at best), or to invent a pronunciation based on its spelling (which will be nothing like the way the Burmese say it, because the name is a transliteration, not a transcription). Scientivore ( talk) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Has reached no concensus. Therefore there is no point in having an ugly macro marring the page asking for *more* discussion about whether to call Burma Burma or Myanmar. My own view would be to describe the state as Myanmar and the nation as Burma and divide discussion appropriately, but as Burma is the current default both on Wiki and in the English language and there is *extensive* discussion of the naming dispute *within* the page, this macro serves no purpose and has been removed. - jowfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.37.112.44 ( talk) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear contributers,
It seems that well, you cannot avoid politics when it comes to any topic on Myanmar - I find that there is extreme politicization of any article which contains either Myanmar/Burma, in the name. In one article, I found that the related material was only one line long, while "extra" material, i.e., political related, was two paragraphs long. I am not against the writing of truthful information, but, there is a place for everything, and a format, instead of propping up posters of your opinion everywhere. These things, instead of helping the common wikipedia user on Myanmar/Burma, has, on the contrary, made the whole issue worse, and nobody ends up knowing anything definite about the country.
The main thing at hand is that, we need to make the main article (Myanmar or Burma, call it what ever you want, but as a native of that land, I prefer Myanmar) more professional and presentable. When you try the edit button, you'll see that its nearly 120kb long - one cannot get a quick info guide about the place - you are getting a whole crash course on the whole country on this page alone.
So, might I suggest that we just write some brief paragraphs, and divert about half the existing text to new articles? I dare not do it, since half the users will start jumping on me for doing it. User:Uthantofburma —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree. This thing is a book! 74.182.101.168 ( talk) 03:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I Thought that Rangoon was the capital of Myanmar! Oh well,did they change it? Fila934 ( talk) 07:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the junta moved away from Yangonas it has been the center of many protests since colonial times. Rds865 ( talk) 18:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Extracted from the "Religion" section:
"Myanmar enjoys religious tolerance and since the ancient times, there has been full freedom of worship for followers of different religions. So different religions can be practiced in Myanmar. The religious edifices and religious orders have been in existence and religious festivals can be held on a grand scale."
See http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90131.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.173.189 ( talk) 23:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by pro-Burmese propaganda? The stupid government's accused of every bloody thing - yes, it commits horrific acts of brutality - but as a native, I do not find religious persecution in both the towns and in the villages. It might exist in the border areas, but the average Burmese is extremely tolerant of difference in religion. From my experience, they're way better than many Americans when it comes to religious tolerance. Do you believe 100% of what the state department says? I have only one line: where are the WMDs which were supposed to have been documented??? Where where where???
Wikipedia has somehow become a tool of advocacy by many parties - and in Myanmar's hyperactive rumour mill, many facts get tangled. And nobody seems to be talking about the Christian missions' attempts to win converts by opening Christians-only free clinics in rural Karen state. Freedom of religion is the freedom of practice one's religion - not to evangelize - and because evangelists are complaining about the place, religion's nolonger free?
Its way more better for religion than many countries I have been to - it's the truth, and if you don't like it, then, too bad. You care to complain about this single line - when the whole article's already made a good job of the people? You see the white spot on the black board.
But well, I guess wikipedia's okay to remove things which you don't like, and try to justify it with the world's most professional liars department. —Preceding unsigned 18:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Opening a Christian only clinic is not a good method of winning converts. the Karen people were looked down upon before they were Christians. Also, I believe there is a saying "to be Burmese is to be Buddhist." Surely no one denies the crack down on monks, so perhaps one could argue that the government persecutes everyone. Rds865 ( talk) 19:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
While it did not quite rise to the level of propaganda, this could be easily rewritten to be more neutral. For example "Myanmar enjoys has religious tolerance and since the ancient times, there has been full freedom of worship..." This gets across exactly the same information without instigating those who might disagree.
Cuvtixo (
talk)
14:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no interwiki link to the Flag of Myanmar and the Coat of arms of Burma in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfQ ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I know this is quite old and outdated at this point, but I apologize anyway for an older edit from the improper unrecognized name Burma to the proper recognized Myanmar as the poster who scolded me was correct as I now see/notice that it was a copy and not a move. That "copy" page was supposed to be a /sandbox page, not a real page. Again I apologize.... Lostinlodos ( talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I forced the Burmese characters in this article to display correctly in every browser, not just Firefox, with the new {{ lang-my-Mymr}} I created. Enjoy! ☺ Taric25 ( talk) 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The section is more about opiate trade, and not about the alleged involvement in Burma by the US and needs some fixing. Rds865 ( talk) 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition, the referenced to Bo Gritz's allegations (which are not substantiated) that US government officials are involved in opium trafficking in Burma/Myanmar is not serious enough or relevant enough to be on the main page. Perhaps a separate page called "Theories of United States Involvement in Burmese/Myanmaran Drug Trade," but not in the main article. In addition, Bo Gritz is not a reliable source. His own Wikipedia entry pretty much describes him as a fringe conspiracy theorist who is preparing a paramilitary organization to deal with the Second Coming. Anybody can make allegations about US officials' involvement in the drug trade, but that doesn't mean it should be mentioned in the main article about this country. I will make this change if I hear no objections soon. J P M7791 ( talk) 18:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
there is a little information about that time, and what there is, is confusing. It says that the American-Kachin Rangers fought for the occupiers? Certainly at this time Japan had occupied Burma? There is no mention of the Burma road. There is no mention of the Japanese occupation, and the formation of the Anti-Fascist Organization. Also the BIA was replaced with the BDA, and then the BNA and when it joined the Allies it was the PBF. Rds865 ( talk) 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire ( Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes significative parts of Burma. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre ( talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ square=tradingpost ( Red4tribe ( talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/
http://www.colonialvoyage.com/biblioDAfrica.html
(credible source)
(
Red4tribe (
talk)
16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC))
Evidence has been gathered suggesting that the Burmese regime has marked certain ethnic minorities such as the Karen for extermination or 'Burmisation'.[110] This has received little attention from the international community, however, since it has been more subtle and indirect than the mass killings in places like Rwanda.[111]
I would like to suggest you somehow mention that this has recently recieved some media attention as it is the backdrop to the new rocky movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.169.163 ( talk) 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | Please remember to keep all discussion of naming conventions at Talk:Burma/Myanmar . |
I think we should name this conuntry Myanmar. The military regime has renamed Burma into Myanmar. So we should follow the new name on Wikipedia, weather other governments are accepting this new name or not. -- Shorty23sin ( talk) 03:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Politics aside, the official and most used name is Myanmar. 91.152.193.7 ( talk) 07:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The name used to be Burma, now it is Myanmar, so the page should be called Myanmar. Everyone recognizes this country as Myanmar, its as simple as that. To politicize it and call it Burma has no place here.-- Urbanz ( talk) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that redirects are cheap, so it doesn't really matter until there is consensus for the article to be moved. I also agree with the above user; it should be consistently named within the article, unless a quote or source directly refers to it as the opposing name. -- Izno ( talk) 04:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the U.S. Government refers to the country as "Burma." In a note in the CIA World Factbook, they state "since 1989 the military authorities in Burma have promoted the name Myanmar as a conventional name for their state; this decision was not approved by any sitting legislature in Burma, and the US Government did not adopt the name, which is a derivative of the Burmese short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw." link. — Sam 11:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.121.46 ( talk)
Please don't use this page to discuss this issue. It has a long talk page to which you can argue your points. -- Coffeegirlyme ( talk) 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If these little Asiatic pseudo-Chinamen want to be called Myanmar instead of Burma we should respect their wishes and call them Myanmar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.192.210 ( talk) 03:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
A fact, such as the name of a country, is never subject to opinion. Anyone who says it should be "Burma" or "Myanmar" based on their feelings is not contributing to an encyclopedic article. There is a name for this country, and it is not easily expressed in English, since it is in Burmese and uses a non-arabic script. This name has been translated into English, into what we call a "conventional name", which "Burma" has been since the very beginning. I don't care how it is translated, but to suggest that these same words are now translated into something else seems silly. I am bothered that this Wiki article says the official name is Myanmar and quotes the BBC as proof, but the BBC does not state Myanmar is the official name; instead, suggests Myanmar is only an alternative. Read the BBC article and you will see. I am removing the word "official" from the Wiki article. Also, this Wiki article links to the CIA Factbook, but fails to mention the U.S. position as stated there, which is that no official legislative body has changed the name from Burma to Myanmar. Instead, the Myanmar name change seems to be a public relations campaign which the U.S. has not recognized as official. I say we stay with "Burma" until "Burma" changes their name officially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.135.99 ( talk) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Germans call their country "Deutschland", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Germany".
Albanians call their country "Shqipëria", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Albania".
Greeks call their country "Elláda" ou "Ellás", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Greece".
Armenians call their country "Hayastan", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Armenia".
Georgians call their country "Sakartvelo", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Georgia (country)".
Hungarians call their country "Magyarország", but the corresponding article in English Wikipedia is under "Hungary".
(Just to name a few...)
Why should Burma (locally, Myanmar) be any different? The Military Junta may rule the country as they please, but they don't rule the English language.
Gazilion (
talk)
16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
No legislator has changed the name. Therefore, Burma would appear to be the correct name until it is officially done. Travis T. Cleveland ( talk) 06:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The official English name of Burma is now Myanmar; the name change was recognized by the UN (which, as far as countries are concerned, is a bit more authoritative than the BBC). Accordingly, most place names have changed, including Rangoon (now known as Yangon). Like it or not, I believe Wikipedia should switch to the new name. And, as far as names sometimes being colonialism, they obviously are. Fred 79.1.108.206 ( talk) 09:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's news to you: only countries which have English as a de jure or de facto official language have a say in what an official English name of anything is. As to the UN, the UN 'recognises' nothing, it uses whatever each member country gives it, and as such saying that a name is 'recognised' bu the UN simply means that the UN was handed out that name - the UN does no appreciation, neutral or otherwise, to invoke it is an empty argument. And last but not least, the prevalent idea that 'Burma' is a 'colonial' name is quite disingenious - 'Burma' and 'Myanmar' are the exact same word, only the former is a traditional English spelling that reflects as best it can the pronunciation at the time of the burmese language it was taken from, whereas the latter is a spelling travesty. Any comparison to the Zimbabwe / Rhodesia is self-defeating anyway - no country today calls Zimbabwe Rhodesia out of dislike for the regime, so it may indicate that refusal to accept the ragdoll 'Myanmar' isn't based on politics. 85.241.116.29 ( talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in this case Burma simply equals Burma. Sure, I agree that when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe it was certainly legitimate. But Burma was basically taken by the dictators by force, and given a new name by them simply to proclaim the "change" they had brought. When a country is forced to accept a new leader and names, government, etc., it should still remain as it was before the takeover! And though Wikipedia is generally third party, I just think we'd be making a good statement by refusing to call it what it's military leaders call it. Jetblue1717 ( talk) 01:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
the following, and some of the text around it, under United Nations section, reads like an opinionated magazine column.
"While there will always be competing strategic interests by the various players, it would be a mistake for some-the United States, UK, China, Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia-to hijack the process from the UN. Gambari, a Nigerian, is a seasoned negotiator with a track record to match the Myanmar military's 40-year reign, and he remains the best hope to break the political deadlock that has spanned two decades."
also, several protests are written about in detail twice in the article.
in the introductory section, the date of british rule is mentioned twice also.
i'm not a member who edits on wikipedia, but looked at this article for info about myanmar after the cyclone hit. i think these changes, and perhaps a little more cleaning up, would help out everyone looking for info about this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.11.2 ( talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Both CNN and BBC report death toll to be at "more than 22,000"; where is source for the figure currently cited in article? Suggest it be changed to figure supported by credible sources. 81.132.41.159 ( talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see how a recent natural disaster warrants a section on the page of a country. HanBoN ( talk) 03:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the re-write (not by me I should add) justifies its inclusion - it is a significant event in the country's history, regardless of how recent it is. 81.132.41.159 ( talk) 18:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Probably not in its own section, though, as Indonesia doesn't have a whole section about the 2004 tsunami. Just a suggestion. HanBoN ( talk) 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I know there are a number of problems and a number of hands stirring the pot here (and I am not going to add mine in addition), but there are two separate sections on the 2007 monk protests and also for the recent cyclone. Combining those will help with your article length. PerlKnitter ( talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that too. With the article being the size that it is, it is harder to grasp what is already there I suppose. But seriously! the Cyclone has two sections which pretty much say the same thing. Someone wanna use the delete button? --
Coffeegirlyme (
talk)
19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'm the first person to notice but it isn't uncommon that people take the name of this article as justification to reword other articles or move them. Is it worth adding something to the header about this, something like, "Although this article uses the name Burma, other articles may refer to the country as Burma or Myanmar and this should not be changed without consensus. Remember that we don't require consistency across wikipedia and considerations like WP:ENGVAR may come into play"? Given the lack of consensus for even this article, of particular concern of mine is when people make changes which don't make any sense e.g. changing Myanmar to Burma in United Nations member states or South East Asian Games (I don't know if it's actually been attempting in these pages but I'm pretty sure I've read about it before in some other cases and I wanted clear cut examples) Nil Einne ( talk) 18:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have an article on Tay Za? Under some other spelling perhaps? PiCo ( talk) 08:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the Government of this country was recently changed from a Military Dictatorship to Military Government. Upon clicking the link to Military Government, the article told me that it has two forms: Military occupation or Military dictatorship. Now it's clear to me that Burma/Myanmar is not a military occupation therefore its type of Military Government is a Military dictatorship so the previous version was correct. The reason it was changed was apparently "rm inflammatory POV" yet this isn't a POV. Besides, there are legitimate cases of dictatorships and military ones too that are such not through someone's interpretation of the government but the fact that the military has sole authoritative power. This is true of Burma/Myanmar. Surely we must change this back? Deamon138 ( talk) 22:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I'll make the change now.
Beam
00:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, it has it as "Military Junta", which I linked to the article on Junta, which will suffice. Beam 00:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
These numbers don't add up. I know they're from different years.
According to the List of countries by GDP (nominal), the GDP was 13.7b in 2007, and according to the the List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures article their military expenditure was 3.9m (no year given). The CIA factbook map shows it in the 1% range which seems unlikely for a military dictatorship. On the other hand, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0607-03.htm gives an estimate in the "top 15" in expenditures. #15 on the list by military spending in the wikipedia article, Spain, spent 12.3b in 2006, so if Burmyanmar spent that much it would be 90% of their GDP, a number that is simply ridiculous.
http://yearbook2005.sipri.org/ch8/app8A is the actual report by the Swedes cited in the commondreams article, which has a lot of raw data to sift through, but the 2002 (last year of data) budget for military was 16.4b in converted dollars (compare China, 30.7b and US 364.8b for same year), which is greater than the nominal income of the country? See page 14-15 of the pdf in the appendix.
http://first.sipri.org/non_first/milex.php is the 2007 data from the Swedes, and they've ceased to bother to convert from Kyat because of the flaky exchange rate.
In short, the 3.9m figure is ridiculous, the 16.4b figure is impossible, and the "Top 15 spenders" allegation cannot be confirmed and should be removed. The CIA factbook page for Burma claims a realistic exchange rate of 1k kyat/$, which makes the SIPRI number $73.1m, but that ignores 5 years of inflation in a country known for inflation. The official (i.e. completely fabricated) exchange rate in 2003 was ~6 kyat/$ which is probably why the GDP numbers and expenditure numbers are so meaningless. Somedumbyankee ( talk) 23:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It should be done immediately. This is an English Wiki, and following that fact we should call the country what the English speaking world calls it. Which, in this case, is Burma. Australia, Canada, the UK, and the United States all call it Burma. We should also qualify it, as we sort of do as being called Myanmar since 1989 by the Military Junta.
It really isn't that hard! Anyway, I support the immediate removal of the Disputed Title tag. It's a blemish on this article. As long as the first sentence qualifies the name as being Myanmar according to the Junta Dictators than the article is both accurate and correct according to Wiki Policy.
As a secondary concern I do not think it should say "Officially Myanmar", something like "named Myanmar by the Military Junta in 1989" is much more accurate. Beam 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the whole dispute isn't going to be solved here. You guys are proving my case. With that being a fact, why dirty the article with that tag? As of right now it's called Burma, it's that simple. Until there is a different solution and as long as we qualify it in the first sentence there is no need for the tag. I agree with the fact that it won't be solved here, and because of that we should remove the tag. Beam 02:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't tag articles for disputed titles simply because move proposals were unsuccessful but the "losing" side decides to make their point highly visible. That's just petty disruption, because if there was no consensus to move this back to Myanmar, then there was consensus to keep Burma and therefore the tag is supported by a minority that is acting against consensus. Thus, it should be removed at once. Hús ö nd 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly Husond. I say we remove it. The minority that is upset over consensus should not be allowed to hinder this article. What do you say, Husond? Beam 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Beam, your initial premise seems incorrect. The "English speaking world" does not refer to the country exclusively as "Burma." In most recent news coverage here in the U.S., Myanmar has, for good or ill, been used almost exclusively (see CNN [2], AP [3], Yahoo News [4] and even NPR [5]). Abroad, the BBC seems split in their own reports, sometimes referring to Burma and sometimes to Myanmar. There seems little of the concensus you suggest exists...the tag seems to appropriately reflect that difficulty. 71.9.8.150 ( talk) 01:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
CNN always qualifies the name with the fact that it's also called Burma. As I explain above it is commonly called Burma. The article is called Burma. The dispute over the name should not affect the article. If there ever is a consensus to change it, than we'll change it. Until the the Dispute Tag represents a dispute with no foreseeable solution. With that being a fact, why have the tag? We qualify the name in the first sentence. It's almost stupid to have the tag. Beam 01:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I am getting the sense that a good portion of this discussion is not about the removal of the dispute tag, but in fact about the dispute itself. If the naming issue has been resolved, it is my opinion that the article should be updated to provide consistent references (e.g. referring to the correct country name where it is appropriate), and the tag removed. If not, I would recommend leaving the tag in place. In terms of this discussion, I would recommend that any comments regarding the actual naming dispute be posted to the Talk:Burma/Myanmar page, to help build an accurate consensus on the issue. X-Kal ( talk) 05:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason that I put back the dispute tag was because, simply, there is a dispute. The tag is simply there to show that as of now there is no consensus what the article should be named. I do not believe that we should remove the tag until that the naming dispute is resolved on the Burma/Myanmar talk page. MethMan47 ( talk) 21:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
X-Kal, I said and say again that it isn't about the name itself. Methman, the naming dispute has a dedicated plus for its resolution. As of now the article is called Burma. In the first sentence we explain that it's also called Myanmar. This is done just like CNN or modern day medias say it. In fact, I don't care if the article is called Myanmar and Burma is in the first sentence. The point is that the dispute does not need to be tagged in the main article. It doesn't help the dispute and it hurts the article. The reader knows the dispute by reading the first sentence. If they wish to contribute they come here to the talk page, where the dispute tag should go. This is also the reasoning of my good friend Husond, who has also posted in this section.
This is also the reasoning of the people who agreed to remove the tag here. They, as I, say they aren't commenting on the correctness of Burma, but commenting on the removal of the tag. I feel that people want the tag there for the wrong reason X-Kal. That they want it to push their POV. The tag isn't needed because we immediately provide the two POVs of the "dispute." It's the first thing in the article. It's not as if we don't mention Myanmar in the article, it's the first sentence. The dispute tag should be removed immediately. Beam 00:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Beamathan came to my talkpage declaring that "concensus" has been reached to remove the dispute tag. I read this entire section and I see absolutely no sign of such a concensus ever concluding. As long as the disputes at Talk:Burma/Myanmar remain unresolved, the tag shall stay.-- Huaiwei ( talk) 01:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. Consensus has been reached by myself, Husond, 71.9.8.150, X-Kal, Meth, Baron, and Regents. Cease adding the tag. Thank you. Beam 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Oh, and if you read this section than you'd understand that BECAUSE of the disputes at Talk:Burma/Myanmar that the tag here isn't needed. Husond has taken the further step of putting the tag in the edit page of the article, and the tag is here on the talk page. Really, it's the right thing to remove the tag, and it has consensus. Thanks for understanding. Beam 02:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? I'm going to AGF and just take your comment as a lapse in intelligence. Beam 23:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
My understanding has been that until concensus in an editorial dispute is reached, the disputed material remains as it was prior to the opening of discussion. The tag was present at the opening of this discussion (thus the discussion arose) and no concensus has been reached as of yet...however, some editors have decided to remove the tag anyway. Is my understanding of the procedure faulty, or are some people simply trying to achieve their aim by fiat? 71.9.8.150 ( talk) 04:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Nichalp has decided the name is Myanmar. He did a straw poll at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. Now, you may not agree with the new name (I don't) but it is what it is. Just because you dispute it doesn't mean it's "disputed" as far as Wikipedia goes. Do not add the "Name Dispute" tag back. Please. Thanks! Beam 11:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The name of this article has been changed, without consultation, from "Burma" to "Myanmar" by a user named "Nichalp" on the basis of a straw poll, which currently stands at 17 votes for "Myanmar" and 16 votes for "Burma."[ [7]] Up until yesterday there were more votes for "Burma." If you believe in Democracy please sign this straw poll in favour of "Burma," so we can change the name back. Decisions of this kind should not be taken by one person. Angstriddenyouth ( talk) 17:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
WHY THE HELL HAS THIS PAGE BEEN MOVED TO MYANMAR?? THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS FOR THIS MOVE!! -- Prince Paul of Yugoslavia ( talk) 07:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well if, and I stress only if, this were to go to Rfa the original move would have to be part of what was being analysed. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the name should be changed back to Burma because it is the most commonly used name in English speaking countries.
Deutschland also reroutes directly to
Germany although German people would never call their country "Germany". So what's the point about Myanmar?
Ericbodden (
talk)
23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The main problem I see with this is the economic reductionism and the unproblematized view of 'development.' Development has been done in many countries on this globe in a way that subjugates them to economic bondage. More money flows out of developing countries that flows in from the West - a net drain on the 'global south.' The hegemonic discourse of development is a deeply trouble on, based in Western economic thinking and ignoring economic behaviours that for the basis of local economies in Burma and elsewhere. People may not have much 'income' but if they have access to land and can feed their families from it, imposing the development model on them when it has failed in so many instances is unconscionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.220.179 ( talk) 05:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Myanmar article itself. This article has been moved multiple times recently and the name is the subject of a current dispute. Please place discussions on the name of the article on the name dispute page or the request for comment page. |
Any objections? That discussion is unlikely to die soon, so probably best to keep it together with its full history. Somedumbyankee ( talk) 21:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I have taken part of this post and this post from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nichalp's move of Burma to Myanmar to explain the context of this debate for those who are not familiar with the mind numbing details:
On May 12, Nichalp launched a straw poll on the issue of whether the article Burma should be moved to Myanmar (despite the fact that numerous previous straw polls and discussions within the past year had shown the community to be evenly divided on the issue). At the conclusion of the straw poll, it was evident that opinion was still evenly divided. The numerical result of the poll was 16 opposed, 17 in favor. More importantly, both sides were still strongly entrenched in their positions and both sides presented numerous opinions and facts in support of their side and how it related to Wikipedia policies. ... . Kaldari ( talk) 16:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
...
Yes, you recall "one or two" because the first was squashed as a speedy close—it was proposed on the belief that the October move had been done without consensus; unfortunately, the Myanmar-namers went about the process the wrong way, and now many editors falsely perceive "Burma" as some sort of long-established status quo on Wikipedia. The second attempt you recall was allowed to exist because time had passed since October. The "Burma" majority (majority, not consensus) that had previously been galvanized by the atrocities against the monks had by this point completely vaporized. A moderator closed the poll at "no consensus" when Burma was ahead by one vote, after which it was revealed that one of the votes had been a typo meant for Myanmar; so there was an exact tie, with more votes trying to come in after the close. .... - BaronGrackle ( talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 06:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The consensus on AN/I was that the action was inappropriate and what is needed is for an uninvolved administrator to revert the move of Burma to Myanmar. Therefore, I am requesting an uninvolved administrator revert to status quo pending further dispute resolution, as is customary per policy. While there is a dispute about title, this action is not controversial. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:Editprotected usually shouldn't be used to invite wheel warring... --- RockMFR 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I supported "Burma" in the straw poll, but have only made one other comment overall in the newest round of debate. Am I sufficiently uninvolved to move it back to Burma? -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think some people are over reacting. And, per usual, it's very sad to see Administrators abuse their powers. Usually it's a direct against an editor action, but to see moves and reversions of that move done by admins who are supposedly responsible, well that's just sad.
Two wrongs don't make a right people. Let it be. Instead of wasting your energy on the name of the article, maybe that energy will be better spent on improving the content of said article. Especially considering that the admins have created the mess. Beam 03:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I was in favour to of the move to Burma and I am going to revert the move. I have given my reasons for this decision at ANI: Nichalp's move of Burma to Myanmar: Solutions?
- At the very least the poll ought to have been on the talk page of the article not on some other page, It is a long standing custom that changes to the page are discussed on the articles talk page not on some other page.
- It is also customary that if a move is made with WP:RM that a move back must be made with a WP:RM request. Therefore I am going to move the page back and if you wish to move it again then please put in a WP:RM request. As WP:RM says "If there is a clear consensus after [5 days], the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus"."
I will also add that one of the reasons for the development of WP:RM was to stop wheel wars. So before anyone moves the page back to Myanmar from Burma they should use the designated move procedure and go through WP:RM. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 12:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I am glad that finally even Nichalp agrees that this should go back to Burma at once. I am rather disturbed that some of the Myanmar-supporters will not put their title preference aside for the sake of restoration of a process that was in strict compliance with Wikipedia's policies and standard procedures. Trust in process will return after this article is moved back to Burma and new proposals may be then discussed harmoniously and constructively. Hús ö nd 16:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The trust in admins has already been diminished by this action. My personal trust in the admin system is already destroyed, but this action can't help the trust others had in this system. Also, after reviewing the prior move from Myanmar to Burma, that was one ugly situation. It actually had less logic than Nichalp's move. At least Nichalp had a well thought out reason. Beam 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The "status quo" was Myanmar for several years until October's move, which was based on a very questionable declaration of consensus. If there was such a thing as WP:Move review, I am certain that it would have been overturned, as "no consensus" implies no change. The right way forward from the resultant mess we have now is not only to undo the most recent action, but start with a fresh discussion based on the original status quo. That is what Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma is intended to do, is it not? — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Given
this edit and
this edit by
user:Nichalp in the section
Response from Nichalp of
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
I see no procedural implement to moving it back. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The page needs to be at Myanmar. I wish somebody had notified all those who voted in the earlier polls about the latest one, because I have a strong opinion about this and didn't get a chance to register my viewpoint this time. In any case, process was never followed in the initial move to Burma, so restoring the name to Myanmar was automatically valid. Everyking ( talk) 05:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
This has been a tough time for all of us and I figure it is a good time to step back and see what we have before we can figure out where to go. First, what do we have:
-- Regents Park ( Chase my ducks) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.231.35 ( talk) 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Might we want either a temporary hatnote or a "see also" for the present humanitarian crisis? I came here expecting to find a link to that article, wherever it may be, and couldn't find any. - Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
in the article, some parts say Burma, and some say Myanmar.
I think we should calll it Myanmar, since it may not be recognized by many countries, but that is the official (inter)national name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbomcchoi ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There isn't really a need for the tag to be on the article itself. As was successfully argued regarding the "dispute tag" previously, the tag itself doesn't help the article, and it being on the talk page achieves the same end. Beam 14:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You're not making a lot of sense. The first sentence of the article notes the naming of the country. I believe you were involved with the discussion regarding the "Dispute" tag, and it came to the point where the only sensible solution was to have it on the talk page. The same applies with this tag. It has nothing to do with honesty and I'd be insulted if I didn't assume good faith. Please reconsider your reversion, the last thing I want is an edit war of any sort. Beam 16:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Because disputes regarding page moves aren't what the user should be reading. Beam 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |