![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Look, all the arguments for naming the country Burma can be trashed, but not true for the arguments naming the country Myanmar (Note that I have been following this issue for ages, and even have participated in the debate at some point prior). Myanmar is the official English name for the country. By who? Who changed the name of the country from Burma? The military junta - a junta that is recognized by not only the United Nations, but a majority of nations around the world as the legitimate government(you cannot even debate this by debating the overall number of nations in the world). In such a case where there is dispute on who is the de-jure government, overwhelming international recognition and de-facto realities on the ground should swing the argument in favor of the junta , even if the majority of the people inside the country don't recognize the government as legitimate (and this we are not sure about; the facts are disputed) because governments do not have to be democratic (or else the majority of countries throughout history have not had real governments). True, the United States and British governments call the country Burma, but officially, countries get to decide how they are called in any language and not the other way around. Case and Point: Cote D'ivoire. (Imagine being called Bob, when you want to be called Melissa - hence why laws in almost every country allow you to be able to change your official name when you become an adult. This shows ethical solidarity throughout the world on this point.).The English speaking public is significantly divided in opinion on what this country should be called, and especially in cases where popular opinion is divided, the official name should prevail.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia that is designed to be objective. Just because something is the status quo does not mean that it is proper. Status quo arguments should not be used, and should not be accepted, in a debate or as reason for a decision about what is the proper name to be used in this article. We must figure out the most objective name, the most proper name, to be used on this article through debate and analysis and choose a name based on the theoretical, logical, and physical realities, not on the status quo. This has NOT been done to satisfaction. A significant number of people believe right that the name Burma is highly inappropriate for this article and is not reflective of an objective wikipedia. I propose to put the issue to yet another vote and another round of mediation, knowing consensus is difficult to reach, but emphasizing that we must continue to try to reach a definite conclusion. JohnWycliff ( talk) 00:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Please try to avoid blatant personal attacks, and Fyunck please stop deleting everything. Some of the arguments seem legitimate. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 10:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way I do apologize for my "little buddy" following me over to this page and causing a disruption to people who have it on watch. I wish there was something I could do to stop it but I guess kids will be kids and this vindictive one will probably just keep showing up under new aliases, since this ip now appears to be blocked. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 17:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
News coverage from November 7-8
Well, everything looks the same so far. The government of this nation is still oppressive and undemocratic. Yet, world media still overwhelmingly refers to the place as Myanmar. We can see what happens as more coverage comes in, but I again find myself wondering what it would take to convince the majority of Wikipedians here that the name Myanmar is more commonly used for this place. If not news media, then what? - BaronGrackle ( talk) 13:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
People have mentioned before that the Junta changed the English name to 'Myanmar'. The Burmese Junta are not the Council of the English Language, they do not have any authority to change the name of their country in any language other than Burmese. It is up to the English Language regulatory body to do that; oh wait, we don't have one. So in lieu we have the British, American, Canadian, Australian & New Zealand governments who are the de facto Council of the English Language. Therefore, THEY cumulatively set the rules for the English language. Therefore, in the English Language, 'Burma' is the official word. There is really no discussion really, I don't see any valid reasons what so ever to change the name of this article to 'Myanmar'. ( Umbongo91 ( talk) 14:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC))
The new constitution was adopted in referendum on 10 May 2008. In this constitution new official name of country is listed: Republic of the Union of Myanmar. But the new constitution (and with it, the new flag and new name) will come into force with the first sitting of the parliament to be elected in the 7th November 2010 election. To this date old name and old flag are still official. Aotearoa ( talk) 10:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
?^^^? - I still reckon English English should prevail. Does Spanish Wikipedia have trouble with Catalan, Latin American, Canary & Standard Spanish etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
"english english"? if asian were to decide british should be referred to in their respective media and language as "red fur", would you be ok with it? i do not think the ownership of ones language entitles one to make stupid decision on what should be the name. i believe the country in question is entitled the right to determine it's own name for any particular language. else i would start refering to english people as angmo(red hair). respect the rights of other to determine their name in all language, and we will do the same, if you want to be bitchy about making the language "yours" and the rest of the world will learn to do the same... i don't see the point of a name that isn't own by the one it is referring to, do any of you think not? Akinkhoo ( talk) 17:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a renaming request on the Commons [3] to move from Myanmar to Burma, per this article here. Please contribute your thoughts. Gryffindor ( talk) 22:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Should be Myanmar. People in Myanmar, speaking English, call it Myanmar. People in its fellow ASEAN nations, speaking English (which is an official language in some ASEAN countries, eg Singapore), call it Myanmar. I suspect the comment made somewhere above, that the English-speakers of India call it Myanmar, is correct. It's not clear what reason there would be for insisting on still calling it Burma, other than as a protest against the regime - but if that reflects some kind of conception that people who live in non-democratic countries aren't allowed to select the name of their own country unless and until they achieve democracy, then it would seem pretty odd. 210.10.106.195 ( talk) 07:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Another reason to prefer 'Burma' is that everyone knows how to pronounce it. The article now gives the new name as /mjɑːnˈmɑr/ (myANN-) but CNN and Al Jazeera both say /ˈmiːənmɑr/ (MEEən-). Rothorpe ( talk) 21:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
See? Rothorpe ( talk) 16:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
How many pronunciations do you recommend including? Rothorpe ( talk) 17:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Did any country or international organization recognize the new name of Burma? USA, UK, UN, EU, etc. still use the name Union of Myanmar/Union of Burma, not new one. Aotearoa ( talk) 14:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Please feel free to add to the below list of places which have had a name change and are "recognized by Wikipedia". Please advise if there is any reason why Myanmar should be the exception.
Old name | New Name | Recognized by wikipedia |
---|---|---|
Calcutta | Kolkata | YES |
Bombay | Mumbai | YES |
South West Africa | Nambia | YES |
Rhodesia | Zimbabwe | YES |
Pietersburg | Polokwane | YES |
Burma | Myanmar | NO |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.121.20 ( talk)
The following are all at the modern name with the old name as a redirect:
Old name | New Name |
---|---|
Persia | Iran |
Siam | Thailand |
Kampuchea | Cambodia |
Ceylon | Sri Lanka |
Ivory Coast | Côte d'Ivoire |
The following have the present state at the modern name with the historic state at the old name:
Old name | New Name |
---|---|
Zaire | Democratic Republic of the Congo |
Dahomey | Benin |
Upper Volta | Burkina Faso |
Tanganyika | Tanzania |
Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
"Please advise if there is any reason why Myanmar should be the exception [to being recognized by Wikipedia]", consensus and common usage. When a state changes its name we look at reliable English language sources to decide what the name of the country should be, we do not take the dictates of the regime to decide this.
Sometimes as in the case of a change such as Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, the news media and English speaking governments adopt the name quickly, but in others such as Germany (which for a time was known as East Germany and West Germany) -- a designation we still use North Korea and South Korea -- because the are the common name for all three countries. We keep very few articles under the name of the state, instead we keep them under the common name of the country in reliable English language sources.
In those cases where Myanmar in reliable English language sources is use is frequently qualified with the use of Burma to explain what it is, this is an indication that in common usage Burma is still the name most familiar to English speakers. Politically the name is still in a state of flux. See this article for example: Myanmar name change, New Zealand Herald, 3 December 2010 "The [NZ] Government is to change its position on Myanmar and return to calling it Burma. ... The Government's position allows for the use of Myanmar where the country is recognised as such, including at the United Nations." -- PBS ( talk) 11:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
If you were consequent in your policy then the title must be moved to Myanmar since Myanmar has more results in google. Otherwise, the use of the name Burma is politically motivated and wikipedia is not a political movement. -- 112.205.7.91 ( talk) 00:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned a little bit above, not much has changed in terms of media usage.
Googlenews coverage from November 7-22
And here's something new I learned. One of the groups using the name Myanmar? Amnesty International. Even as they continue to criticize the government. - BaronGrackle ( talk) 08:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
True. And I'll admit to not understanding the niceties of Google News... if you click on the old links I provided, they do have slightly lower numbers than the ones visible when I posted. And, I have no idea how the number can be higher from the day of the election two days forward, than it is from the day of the election 15 days forward. But still, Burma's about 2-3 thousand below Myanmar. If it starts showing up on an equal footing, then I'll reevaluate my position! - BaronGrackle ( talk) 08:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not about demonyms, this is about the name of the country. -- 112.205.7.91 ( talk) 07:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed this section. And I'm going to call correlation with the Netherlands/Holland and its Dutch demonym. - BaronGrackle ( talk) 15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a comment of Counselor of Yangon US Embassy,DINGER, according to wikileaks [Reference ID:09RANGOON205, Created:2009-04-02 07:07 ]- "We could consider accepting the country name "Myanmar." "Burma" is a vestige of colonial times that actually elevates the Bamar majority over other ethnic groups. Practically everyone inside uses the term Myanmar, as do all countries in Southeast Asia, though the NLD has thus far refused to bend on that topic.". NLD refused? OK. Please see how US Embassy comment NLD Old Farts here - http://open.salon.com/blog/virginia_m_moncrieff/2010/12/09/wikileaks_burmese_opposition_stifled_by_old_farts Yarzaryeni ( talk) 07:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know, "What points make to keep 'Burma'?" and "What points make not to accept 'Myanmar'?" Yarzaryeni ( talk) 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, practising what I preach I decided to make it easier to understand what has and hasn't come before, and what consensuses have been reached. So I'm indexing the full archive of this talk page sorted by topics discussed. I'm working in reverse chronological order and have finished archives 4 and 5. If anyone wants to contribute to this wiki-style before my next pop at it, go ahead - I suggest posting a note here if planning to cover any substantial ground. Bigbluefish ( talk) 00:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Topic | Commented on | Discussed | New agreement reached |
---|---|---|---|
Reasons for determining the article name | |||
| |||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
| ||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
From a critical stance: | ||
|
|||
|
|||
|
| ||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Demonyms |
|||
Articles with titles containing the name |
|||
The 2010 name change |
|||
Manner of discussion |
|||
|
| ||
|
|||
|
This article should be named Myanmar because Burma changed its name to Myanmar in 1989. The articles of countries that changed their names in the past on this website go by their current names: Iran goes by Iran, not Persia, and Thailand goes by Thailand, not Siam anymore. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Canaan, and Palestine go by separate articles from their current names and countries they were divided into. So therefore, this article should be renamed Myanmar. It should not go by its old name. It is wrong to do it.-- User:CalicoCatLover January 17, 2010 9:26 AM (PST).
You are completely right.-- Thylacinus cynocephalus ( talk) 05:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Wake up, people. The name change was more than twenty years ago. Nobody is insisting on calling modern countries Persia or Mesopotamia, so why "Burma"? Myanmar is the more generally used term in the West for this country, Wikipedia is aligning itself with a minority by persisting in its preference for the colonial name. This fact alone is proof that maintaining the article as "Burma" violates Wikipedia's own neutrality policy.
Some on this page argue that they are paralyzed from moving the article by the lack of consensus, but this is a weak excuse. Consensus on Wikipedia is frequently interpreted to mean 51% of the respected users, so it should be no insurmountable obstacle in this case. When will an administrator with a conscience take matters into his own hands on this issue?
I don't see how the continued usage of the name "Burma" be construed as anything other than a political agenda. ( Personal attack removed) 207.207.126.218 ( talk) 02:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I was very surprised to see this article at "Burma" since I have always known the country as "Myanmar". A quick google reveals that Myanmar is more widely used (Myanmar 45,900,000 results, Burma 19,300,000 on Google US; Myanmar 238,000,000, Burma 103,000,000 on Google UK) and I agree that this article should be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.185.231 ( talk) 18:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Some people in the West still feel that the name "Mayanmar" should be avoided because the country was given that name by dictators. When I travelled in South-East Asia I noticed that the country is always called "Mayanmar" in the region. Saying "Birma" (or "Burma") is like saying Rhodesia to Zimbabwe or Ceylon to Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the name "Union of Mayanmar" acknowledges that there are other people than ethnic Burmese who live in the country. Being "politically correct" in naming countries is a hopeless endeavour: for instance, "Siam" was renamed to "Thailand" in 1939 in order to support territorial claims on regions in Laos where ethnic Thai people live. Rbakels ( talk) 05:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, it's been over three years since the last move request and the mediation case over this were closed. Certainly a new dynamic has developed at Wikipedia since then, but is it time to gauge what its sentiments are over this naming dispute? Is it time for another move request? Rennell435 ( talk) 03:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The Financial Times switches its naming practices [7] 101.116.186.155 ( talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The table at the top is an incoherent mess that I couldnt make any sense of at all. I am curious as to the rationale behind this. I have a contrary opinion, but find it interesting that there is substantial resistance to it. I am not requesting a move at this time (and I doubt any time soon, I have enough arguments already to bothre with haha) Thanks. Pleast talkback me-- Metallurgist ( talk) 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia and almost everything about it. This, however, is one of the rare instances when I don't. As the section title indicates, the least bit of common sense would surely dictate that the article title be changed. But alas, policy is subjecting us to call a country by a name it stopped using four years ago. How this is even being discussed is simply mind-boggling. TonyStarks ( talk) 10:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't really understand this hangup that people have about official names. One of the (many) good things about Wikipedia is that it uses common English names as titles rather than official ones and we shouldn't go around trying to change that. Official, itself, has many meanings (depending on who is being officious!). For example, one can argue that, since it is the official position of the governments of USA, UK, and other English speaking countries that the name of that country is Burma, then the official name is Burma. That said, I do think that when two names are more or less equally common, it makes sense to go with whatever the entity chooses to call itself. If Myanmar were official and esoteric, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I agree with chipmunkdavis that, if a new move request is to be initiated, then it should start with a good summary of the statistics. Google hits are not good enough and it'll have to be backed up with newspapers (I note that the BBC has added a "also known as Myanmar" [9] on occasion and that the EU used "Myanmar/Burma" in a statement on sanctions [10]). The difficulty in moving this article is that Burma is equally recognizable and well used in English sources. The evidence has to be good. -- regentspark ( comment) 13:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The wikipedia article referred to in the surrounding controversy is not about an area defined by language, geography, geology or other 'non-political' criteria, the article is about the modern Nation-state. The Government of that nation-state uses the short form Myanmar. So, should we listen to others to define the name of nation-state? If so, should we respect such organisations as the UN, the IOC and FIFA, all of whom use Myanmar? Perhaps it is American (sorry, should that be US, or USA) and British (I am a British citizen, I strongly oppose the use of the terms "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain") governments choice to use Burma, but who are they to determine the name of another nation-state. In naming a nation-state, which nation-state has the 'right' to do so? POV conflict is crawling all over this debate, almost all the opposition to the name Myanmar explicitly state that it is for POV reasons, for political reasons, that they oppose the renaming of the article to Burma. The exception is the "traditional English" proponents. They are wrong. English is a language, it changes. English is the language of a minority of people in the world, why do their names for a thing have precedence? "This is an English wikipedia" Yes, it is written in English, that does not mean that the words that some English speakers use have total precedence over all else. An encyclopedia is about knowledge and exposing debate, not setting in stone the language-use of a few individuals at a particular point of time. Finally, from my perspective, this debate, like so many on Wikipedia, is about SYSTEMIC BIAS, the belief by a few that their perspective is the correct one no matter what, the belief that what middle-class US computer nerds believe and discuss is more important than all else (GOOGLE as an AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE for god sake, it is a commercially run search engine, with almost complete English language bias and reflective of the US dominance of internet production) Brunswicknic ( talk) 12:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
A requested move survey has been started (by Marcus Qwertyus ( talk)) at Talk:Burma, which proposes to move:
Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — P.T. Aufrette ( talk) 23:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The official name is Myanmar, and not Burma. Therefore, there is no reason why the country be referred to everywhere as Burma and not Myanmar (just because a few countries have refused to use the new name)
Let's do this quickly. It's getting ridiculous now. Myanmar is the official English Language name. Despite what other commentators have said. there was never any consensus to keep it. In fact, if you look through the archives, you'll find that most arguments were broadly in favour of changing the name. Can someone with more knowledge about wikipedia than me, make this name change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 ( talk) 05:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposing a shift of the article from Burma to Myanmar and replacing Burma by Myanmar as the actual name, wherever appropriate, and necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.96.9 ( talk) 00:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Since the government of Myanmar really made efforts to make reforms and in near future sanctions will be lifted, there is no longer any reason not to move the page to "Myanmar". 49.145.113.96 ( talk) 12:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Leave the name as it is and see how current political events pan out, many Burmese people do not accept the name Myanmar anyway because of its association with the military government. Also why change the name as the Germany page is not called Deutchsland and Burma and Myanmar is exactly the same concept ( Fdsdh1 ( talk) 00:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC))
I have initiated a move closure review for this page here: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 August 26. Please feel free to participate. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 11:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm a tad disappointed that the closing reviewer referenced "Google Insights and Books" and not the news media, but that's how it goes. At least it feels like the closer put more effort into his decision than the 2007 closer or any closer since, and that goes a long way. - BaronGrackle ( talk) 11:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
@pro Burma term faction: Just a hypothetical question: What would you do, if Aung San Suu Kyi asked the world community to adopt the name "Myanmar"? Would you still insists on the (colonialists'?) term "Burma"? Datu Dong ( talk) 13:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is the reasoning behind staying the article at Burma, and not Myanmar? In all the arguments I have seen, people go by just personal interpretations and biases to judge validity of arguments, and not actual reasons. I propose that anyone who has any reason to give regarding their choice of name in bullets, with no more than 2 lines to support every point for their argument. And facts will be a lot less biased than arguments. Should you not agree to a point in the 'unchallenged facts', please move it to the 'challenged facts', and provide your rebuttal to it.
The following are the arguments -
Unchallenged facts-
Challenged facts -
[Please add below the stances of the particular governments and news agencies; and the search results history]
Folks, I recommend that you just give up on the name change. I was a bit shocked to find Burma as the title here and asked about it. After a rather snarky response, I actually DID read the entire archive of name change requests. I do not recommend the experience. At times in the past when the title was Myanmar it was “critical” to move the page “immediately” but any time it’s Burma we are supposed to “wait and see what develops” because there is “no compelling reason to change the status quo.”
A very small but extremely committed group of editors takes umbrage at any attempt to change the name, to the point of reverting Talk Page edits that they find unsettling. The page itself is policed vigilantly to ensure the use of Burma, but that also ensures that the article is up to date and accurate in other ways. Other than the bizarre title and acrid Talk Page churn, the article’s health is excellent and the quality is very high. Anyone searching for Myanmar will get a redirect to this article and get accurate and encyclopaedic information, so other than the reader’s momentary puzzlement at the archaic name and arcane reasons for keeping it in Wikipedia, there is no real harm in appeasing the editors for whom the Imperial name has such strong, emotional importance. Further, fighting this battle over and over simply drains energy that could be focused on improving other articles.
I drop by whenever Myanmar is back in the news cycle (right now, the US President is preparing to visit). I find it sad the number of editors who waste time trying to correct this name when they could be working to enhance Wikipedia. My advice is to move on. Last1in ( talk) 13:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikitravel uses Myanmar:<Myanmar [11], or Burma, officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar is a country in Southeast Asia. It lies on the Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea coast with Bangladesh and India to the west, China to the north, and Laos and Thailand to the east.> Rwood128 ( talk) 20:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:commonname, Myanmar should definitely be the title. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I support renaming. There is no dispute on the name of Ho Chi Minh City, although many Vietnamese call it Saigon, and Yangon isn't titled Rangoon... By this analogy, and for other reasons, I support moving Burma to Myanmar. Jackstormson ( talk) 01:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
This page should really be titled "Myanmar" and a Burma page should redirect here, not vice-versa. No matter what our thoughts on the politics, the reality is the country's official name is Myanmar and not Burma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.229.130 ( talk) 20:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC) *note - moved from Talk:Burma to keep things in a similar place
Even though the country is officially known by a few countries, such as the United States as Burma, the government still recognizes itself as the Union of Myanmar. I contend that this is valid rationale for changing the page name to Myanmar. Opinions? Regards, smileguy91 talk 21:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
This is exactly why colleges and Universities don't consider Wikipedia a credible source. After reading over the debate, I still don't understand what the debate is. There have been many name changes over the history of mankind. Borders have shifted. Even whole countries dividing, needing to be named. The facts are so simple yet people want to express so much opinion, that it does nothing but lower the credibility of the article, the site, and blind people into thinking facts can be debated.
Fact. The country officially changed it's name in 1989. The reasons shouldn't concern anybody when it comes to fact. Any concerns merely come from traditional fallacies and opinions. And opinions are exactly what this site should avoid. This is meant to be a site of facts. Simply put, those who still say Burma are incorrect; albeit socially acceptable, it's still wrong.
For those concerned with "doubling up information", more facts. Myanmar now redirects to Burma. Burma has a very short page, that doesn't even include information about the name change. Names of Burma is an article that explains the name change and why. I understand it's a long article in itself, but seeing as Burma's article only holds 4 paragraphs, with 1 paragraph being 2 sentences, it might give more credibility to actually have some girth to the official Burma article and combine those two. There are also at least 2 of these talk pages where it's debated/discussed. That's 5 pages of Myanmar. Is all of this really needed? The current setup only portraits ignorance and lack of knowledge within current affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinivec ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Would it not be possible to include both names with one within brackets - such as Burmar (Myanmar)? I admit I have not read any of the arguments on either side, although from this page alone I can see there are many arguments. However, I was led to this page because I volunteer for a Health NGO that works in Myanmar (that is the name this particular organization uses for the country and the associated projects). While I started by wanting to read more about the country this NGO works in, when I came across the Wikipedia article I was initially confused, believing I had reached the wrong page. So my suggestion is borne out of wanting to make things clearer for the reader who isn't familiar with the Burma vs. Myanmar debate. — Jclu: talk- contribs 16:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
If it was Burma (Myanmar), that would be ok, although the Myanmar but would be unecesary, it is like renaming the Germany page Deutschland or the Italy page, Italia. It doesn't really make sense to change the name as other articles on countries retain their english names. Citing a previous article on the name change Saigon-> Ho Chi Min City, well Ho Chi Min City is in English, Ho Chi Min is a person, and he has a city named after him, it is a completely different kettle of fish, anyway Ho Chi Minh City is "Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh" in Vietnamese (although that is not the name of the article), so basically the change to Myanmar is unnecessary and would only cause confusion. The official language of Burma is known in english as Burmese, and the predominant ethnic group is Bamar, which sounds awfully like Burma anyway. Burma calls itself the Republic of Myanmar, yet we call it Burma, North Korea calls itslef the DPROC yet we still call it North Korea, to this extent Burma should remain as Burma to remain in line with other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.69.4 ( talk) 07:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
On the English Language Wikipedia, shouldn't we use the English name with which Burma (or any country, i.e. Germany) represents itself, in English, to the rest of the world, i.e at the United Nations?
Wouldn't that make the UN's "Member States of the United Nations" our general reference? Other issues to be addressed in the article, & w/redirects?
That would make Burma's article title "Myanmar"... Grye ( talk) 02:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
What is the standard we use on the English Wikipedia for determining the article title of countries? The US & UK examples are truncated versions of the full names, while Burma/Myanmar are 'alternate' names. Also, sure, make the US & UK articles the full name w/redirects from United States/etc. Absolutely --now that you mention it... Grye ( talk) 07:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
we need to find a solution to the Burma vs Myanmar debate! (although as the article is in British english, it should be Burma, and we don't call Germany, Deutschland, so why call Burma, myanmar) ( 213.167.69.4 ( talk) 08:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC))
"That country" has been mentioned quite a lot in the British news (historically one of the most prolific contemporary English-language users of the name "Burma") quite a bit recently, mainly because of two Burmese men who are accused of murdering a British couple who were murdered in Thailand. It caught my attention that the BBC, frequently cited in old discussions as evidence of the common usage of "Burma", has at some point recently switched to using "Myanmar". I was interested if this is part of a larger trend in English-language publications so did a review of the most recent list of sources that use "Burma" that I found, compiled by User:Fyunck(click) in the most recent Requested Move:
Of the publications listed above, the following appear now to be using "Myanmar": Time magazine, Radio Australia, The Telegraph, The BBC, The Washington Post, Mizzima news, Arab English Times and News International. Additionally, the Huffington Post seem to be using both.
I'm no longer active here so am not proposing any course of action, but those who are may wish to review any decisions that were based on the usage of those publications. I couldn't find an official comment on the change at the BBC, but this blog post makes the uncited claim that the decision is based on the rationale that "Myanmar is now becoming recognisable and familiar to BBC audiences". In particular this may be of interest to User:BritishWatcher based on their comment here. Bigbluefish ( talk) 12:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Admins,
I would like to suggest that the admins change the page name from 'Burma' to 'Myanmar'. Increasingly, news media and international world is using the term 'Myanmar' ,especially in formal occasion. United Nation, IMF, World Bank and all the other international organizations are now using the name 'Myanmar'. Moreover, all the other Myanmar related topics for example, uses the term currently using instead of colonial names: for example, Yangon instead of Rangoon, Bago instead of Pegu and Rakhine instead of Araken and this article should not be left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thettin684 ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 January 2014 (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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Look, all the arguments for naming the country Burma can be trashed, but not true for the arguments naming the country Myanmar (Note that I have been following this issue for ages, and even have participated in the debate at some point prior). Myanmar is the official English name for the country. By who? Who changed the name of the country from Burma? The military junta - a junta that is recognized by not only the United Nations, but a majority of nations around the world as the legitimate government(you cannot even debate this by debating the overall number of nations in the world). In such a case where there is dispute on who is the de-jure government, overwhelming international recognition and de-facto realities on the ground should swing the argument in favor of the junta , even if the majority of the people inside the country don't recognize the government as legitimate (and this we are not sure about; the facts are disputed) because governments do not have to be democratic (or else the majority of countries throughout history have not had real governments). True, the United States and British governments call the country Burma, but officially, countries get to decide how they are called in any language and not the other way around. Case and Point: Cote D'ivoire. (Imagine being called Bob, when you want to be called Melissa - hence why laws in almost every country allow you to be able to change your official name when you become an adult. This shows ethical solidarity throughout the world on this point.).The English speaking public is significantly divided in opinion on what this country should be called, and especially in cases where popular opinion is divided, the official name should prevail.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia that is designed to be objective. Just because something is the status quo does not mean that it is proper. Status quo arguments should not be used, and should not be accepted, in a debate or as reason for a decision about what is the proper name to be used in this article. We must figure out the most objective name, the most proper name, to be used on this article through debate and analysis and choose a name based on the theoretical, logical, and physical realities, not on the status quo. This has NOT been done to satisfaction. A significant number of people believe right that the name Burma is highly inappropriate for this article and is not reflective of an objective wikipedia. I propose to put the issue to yet another vote and another round of mediation, knowing consensus is difficult to reach, but emphasizing that we must continue to try to reach a definite conclusion. JohnWycliff ( talk) 00:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Please try to avoid blatant personal attacks, and Fyunck please stop deleting everything. Some of the arguments seem legitimate. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 10:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way I do apologize for my "little buddy" following me over to this page and causing a disruption to people who have it on watch. I wish there was something I could do to stop it but I guess kids will be kids and this vindictive one will probably just keep showing up under new aliases, since this ip now appears to be blocked. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 17:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
News coverage from November 7-8
Well, everything looks the same so far. The government of this nation is still oppressive and undemocratic. Yet, world media still overwhelmingly refers to the place as Myanmar. We can see what happens as more coverage comes in, but I again find myself wondering what it would take to convince the majority of Wikipedians here that the name Myanmar is more commonly used for this place. If not news media, then what? - BaronGrackle ( talk) 13:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
People have mentioned before that the Junta changed the English name to 'Myanmar'. The Burmese Junta are not the Council of the English Language, they do not have any authority to change the name of their country in any language other than Burmese. It is up to the English Language regulatory body to do that; oh wait, we don't have one. So in lieu we have the British, American, Canadian, Australian & New Zealand governments who are the de facto Council of the English Language. Therefore, THEY cumulatively set the rules for the English language. Therefore, in the English Language, 'Burma' is the official word. There is really no discussion really, I don't see any valid reasons what so ever to change the name of this article to 'Myanmar'. ( Umbongo91 ( talk) 14:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC))
The new constitution was adopted in referendum on 10 May 2008. In this constitution new official name of country is listed: Republic of the Union of Myanmar. But the new constitution (and with it, the new flag and new name) will come into force with the first sitting of the parliament to be elected in the 7th November 2010 election. To this date old name and old flag are still official. Aotearoa ( talk) 10:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
?^^^? - I still reckon English English should prevail. Does Spanish Wikipedia have trouble with Catalan, Latin American, Canary & Standard Spanish etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
"english english"? if asian were to decide british should be referred to in their respective media and language as "red fur", would you be ok with it? i do not think the ownership of ones language entitles one to make stupid decision on what should be the name. i believe the country in question is entitled the right to determine it's own name for any particular language. else i would start refering to english people as angmo(red hair). respect the rights of other to determine their name in all language, and we will do the same, if you want to be bitchy about making the language "yours" and the rest of the world will learn to do the same... i don't see the point of a name that isn't own by the one it is referring to, do any of you think not? Akinkhoo ( talk) 17:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a renaming request on the Commons [3] to move from Myanmar to Burma, per this article here. Please contribute your thoughts. Gryffindor ( talk) 22:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Should be Myanmar. People in Myanmar, speaking English, call it Myanmar. People in its fellow ASEAN nations, speaking English (which is an official language in some ASEAN countries, eg Singapore), call it Myanmar. I suspect the comment made somewhere above, that the English-speakers of India call it Myanmar, is correct. It's not clear what reason there would be for insisting on still calling it Burma, other than as a protest against the regime - but if that reflects some kind of conception that people who live in non-democratic countries aren't allowed to select the name of their own country unless and until they achieve democracy, then it would seem pretty odd. 210.10.106.195 ( talk) 07:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Another reason to prefer 'Burma' is that everyone knows how to pronounce it. The article now gives the new name as /mjɑːnˈmɑr/ (myANN-) but CNN and Al Jazeera both say /ˈmiːənmɑr/ (MEEən-). Rothorpe ( talk) 21:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
See? Rothorpe ( talk) 16:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
How many pronunciations do you recommend including? Rothorpe ( talk) 17:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Did any country or international organization recognize the new name of Burma? USA, UK, UN, EU, etc. still use the name Union of Myanmar/Union of Burma, not new one. Aotearoa ( talk) 14:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Please feel free to add to the below list of places which have had a name change and are "recognized by Wikipedia". Please advise if there is any reason why Myanmar should be the exception.
Old name | New Name | Recognized by wikipedia |
---|---|---|
Calcutta | Kolkata | YES |
Bombay | Mumbai | YES |
South West Africa | Nambia | YES |
Rhodesia | Zimbabwe | YES |
Pietersburg | Polokwane | YES |
Burma | Myanmar | NO |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.121.20 ( talk)
The following are all at the modern name with the old name as a redirect:
Old name | New Name |
---|---|
Persia | Iran |
Siam | Thailand |
Kampuchea | Cambodia |
Ceylon | Sri Lanka |
Ivory Coast | Côte d'Ivoire |
The following have the present state at the modern name with the historic state at the old name:
Old name | New Name |
---|---|
Zaire | Democratic Republic of the Congo |
Dahomey | Benin |
Upper Volta | Burkina Faso |
Tanganyika | Tanzania |
Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
"Please advise if there is any reason why Myanmar should be the exception [to being recognized by Wikipedia]", consensus and common usage. When a state changes its name we look at reliable English language sources to decide what the name of the country should be, we do not take the dictates of the regime to decide this.
Sometimes as in the case of a change such as Rhodesia to Zimbabwe, the news media and English speaking governments adopt the name quickly, but in others such as Germany (which for a time was known as East Germany and West Germany) -- a designation we still use North Korea and South Korea -- because the are the common name for all three countries. We keep very few articles under the name of the state, instead we keep them under the common name of the country in reliable English language sources.
In those cases where Myanmar in reliable English language sources is use is frequently qualified with the use of Burma to explain what it is, this is an indication that in common usage Burma is still the name most familiar to English speakers. Politically the name is still in a state of flux. See this article for example: Myanmar name change, New Zealand Herald, 3 December 2010 "The [NZ] Government is to change its position on Myanmar and return to calling it Burma. ... The Government's position allows for the use of Myanmar where the country is recognised as such, including at the United Nations." -- PBS ( talk) 11:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
If you were consequent in your policy then the title must be moved to Myanmar since Myanmar has more results in google. Otherwise, the use of the name Burma is politically motivated and wikipedia is not a political movement. -- 112.205.7.91 ( talk) 00:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned a little bit above, not much has changed in terms of media usage.
Googlenews coverage from November 7-22
And here's something new I learned. One of the groups using the name Myanmar? Amnesty International. Even as they continue to criticize the government. - BaronGrackle ( talk) 08:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
True. And I'll admit to not understanding the niceties of Google News... if you click on the old links I provided, they do have slightly lower numbers than the ones visible when I posted. And, I have no idea how the number can be higher from the day of the election two days forward, than it is from the day of the election 15 days forward. But still, Burma's about 2-3 thousand below Myanmar. If it starts showing up on an equal footing, then I'll reevaluate my position! - BaronGrackle ( talk) 08:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not about demonyms, this is about the name of the country. -- 112.205.7.91 ( talk) 07:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed this section. And I'm going to call correlation with the Netherlands/Holland and its Dutch demonym. - BaronGrackle ( talk) 15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a comment of Counselor of Yangon US Embassy,DINGER, according to wikileaks [Reference ID:09RANGOON205, Created:2009-04-02 07:07 ]- "We could consider accepting the country name "Myanmar." "Burma" is a vestige of colonial times that actually elevates the Bamar majority over other ethnic groups. Practically everyone inside uses the term Myanmar, as do all countries in Southeast Asia, though the NLD has thus far refused to bend on that topic.". NLD refused? OK. Please see how US Embassy comment NLD Old Farts here - http://open.salon.com/blog/virginia_m_moncrieff/2010/12/09/wikileaks_burmese_opposition_stifled_by_old_farts Yarzaryeni ( talk) 07:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know, "What points make to keep 'Burma'?" and "What points make not to accept 'Myanmar'?" Yarzaryeni ( talk) 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, practising what I preach I decided to make it easier to understand what has and hasn't come before, and what consensuses have been reached. So I'm indexing the full archive of this talk page sorted by topics discussed. I'm working in reverse chronological order and have finished archives 4 and 5. If anyone wants to contribute to this wiki-style before my next pop at it, go ahead - I suggest posting a note here if planning to cover any substantial ground. Bigbluefish ( talk) 00:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Topic | Commented on | Discussed | New agreement reached |
---|---|---|---|
Reasons for determining the article name | |||
| |||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
| ||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
From a critical stance: | ||
|
|||
|
|||
|
| ||
|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Demonyms |
|||
Articles with titles containing the name |
|||
The 2010 name change |
|||
Manner of discussion |
|||
|
| ||
|
|||
|
This article should be named Myanmar because Burma changed its name to Myanmar in 1989. The articles of countries that changed their names in the past on this website go by their current names: Iran goes by Iran, not Persia, and Thailand goes by Thailand, not Siam anymore. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Canaan, and Palestine go by separate articles from their current names and countries they were divided into. So therefore, this article should be renamed Myanmar. It should not go by its old name. It is wrong to do it.-- User:CalicoCatLover January 17, 2010 9:26 AM (PST).
You are completely right.-- Thylacinus cynocephalus ( talk) 05:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Wake up, people. The name change was more than twenty years ago. Nobody is insisting on calling modern countries Persia or Mesopotamia, so why "Burma"? Myanmar is the more generally used term in the West for this country, Wikipedia is aligning itself with a minority by persisting in its preference for the colonial name. This fact alone is proof that maintaining the article as "Burma" violates Wikipedia's own neutrality policy.
Some on this page argue that they are paralyzed from moving the article by the lack of consensus, but this is a weak excuse. Consensus on Wikipedia is frequently interpreted to mean 51% of the respected users, so it should be no insurmountable obstacle in this case. When will an administrator with a conscience take matters into his own hands on this issue?
I don't see how the continued usage of the name "Burma" be construed as anything other than a political agenda. ( Personal attack removed) 207.207.126.218 ( talk) 02:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I was very surprised to see this article at "Burma" since I have always known the country as "Myanmar". A quick google reveals that Myanmar is more widely used (Myanmar 45,900,000 results, Burma 19,300,000 on Google US; Myanmar 238,000,000, Burma 103,000,000 on Google UK) and I agree that this article should be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.185.231 ( talk) 18:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Some people in the West still feel that the name "Mayanmar" should be avoided because the country was given that name by dictators. When I travelled in South-East Asia I noticed that the country is always called "Mayanmar" in the region. Saying "Birma" (or "Burma") is like saying Rhodesia to Zimbabwe or Ceylon to Sri Lanka. Furthermore, the name "Union of Mayanmar" acknowledges that there are other people than ethnic Burmese who live in the country. Being "politically correct" in naming countries is a hopeless endeavour: for instance, "Siam" was renamed to "Thailand" in 1939 in order to support territorial claims on regions in Laos where ethnic Thai people live. Rbakels ( talk) 05:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, it's been over three years since the last move request and the mediation case over this were closed. Certainly a new dynamic has developed at Wikipedia since then, but is it time to gauge what its sentiments are over this naming dispute? Is it time for another move request? Rennell435 ( talk) 03:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The Financial Times switches its naming practices [7] 101.116.186.155 ( talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The table at the top is an incoherent mess that I couldnt make any sense of at all. I am curious as to the rationale behind this. I have a contrary opinion, but find it interesting that there is substantial resistance to it. I am not requesting a move at this time (and I doubt any time soon, I have enough arguments already to bothre with haha) Thanks. Pleast talkback me-- Metallurgist ( talk) 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I love Wikipedia and almost everything about it. This, however, is one of the rare instances when I don't. As the section title indicates, the least bit of common sense would surely dictate that the article title be changed. But alas, policy is subjecting us to call a country by a name it stopped using four years ago. How this is even being discussed is simply mind-boggling. TonyStarks ( talk) 10:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't really understand this hangup that people have about official names. One of the (many) good things about Wikipedia is that it uses common English names as titles rather than official ones and we shouldn't go around trying to change that. Official, itself, has many meanings (depending on who is being officious!). For example, one can argue that, since it is the official position of the governments of USA, UK, and other English speaking countries that the name of that country is Burma, then the official name is Burma. That said, I do think that when two names are more or less equally common, it makes sense to go with whatever the entity chooses to call itself. If Myanmar were official and esoteric, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I agree with chipmunkdavis that, if a new move request is to be initiated, then it should start with a good summary of the statistics. Google hits are not good enough and it'll have to be backed up with newspapers (I note that the BBC has added a "also known as Myanmar" [9] on occasion and that the EU used "Myanmar/Burma" in a statement on sanctions [10]). The difficulty in moving this article is that Burma is equally recognizable and well used in English sources. The evidence has to be good. -- regentspark ( comment) 13:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The wikipedia article referred to in the surrounding controversy is not about an area defined by language, geography, geology or other 'non-political' criteria, the article is about the modern Nation-state. The Government of that nation-state uses the short form Myanmar. So, should we listen to others to define the name of nation-state? If so, should we respect such organisations as the UN, the IOC and FIFA, all of whom use Myanmar? Perhaps it is American (sorry, should that be US, or USA) and British (I am a British citizen, I strongly oppose the use of the terms "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain") governments choice to use Burma, but who are they to determine the name of another nation-state. In naming a nation-state, which nation-state has the 'right' to do so? POV conflict is crawling all over this debate, almost all the opposition to the name Myanmar explicitly state that it is for POV reasons, for political reasons, that they oppose the renaming of the article to Burma. The exception is the "traditional English" proponents. They are wrong. English is a language, it changes. English is the language of a minority of people in the world, why do their names for a thing have precedence? "This is an English wikipedia" Yes, it is written in English, that does not mean that the words that some English speakers use have total precedence over all else. An encyclopedia is about knowledge and exposing debate, not setting in stone the language-use of a few individuals at a particular point of time. Finally, from my perspective, this debate, like so many on Wikipedia, is about SYSTEMIC BIAS, the belief by a few that their perspective is the correct one no matter what, the belief that what middle-class US computer nerds believe and discuss is more important than all else (GOOGLE as an AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE for god sake, it is a commercially run search engine, with almost complete English language bias and reflective of the US dominance of internet production) Brunswicknic ( talk) 12:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
A requested move survey has been started (by Marcus Qwertyus ( talk)) at Talk:Burma, which proposes to move:
Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — P.T. Aufrette ( talk) 23:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The official name is Myanmar, and not Burma. Therefore, there is no reason why the country be referred to everywhere as Burma and not Myanmar (just because a few countries have refused to use the new name)
Let's do this quickly. It's getting ridiculous now. Myanmar is the official English Language name. Despite what other commentators have said. there was never any consensus to keep it. In fact, if you look through the archives, you'll find that most arguments were broadly in favour of changing the name. Can someone with more knowledge about wikipedia than me, make this name change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 ( talk) 05:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposing a shift of the article from Burma to Myanmar and replacing Burma by Myanmar as the actual name, wherever appropriate, and necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.96.9 ( talk) 00:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Since the government of Myanmar really made efforts to make reforms and in near future sanctions will be lifted, there is no longer any reason not to move the page to "Myanmar". 49.145.113.96 ( talk) 12:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Leave the name as it is and see how current political events pan out, many Burmese people do not accept the name Myanmar anyway because of its association with the military government. Also why change the name as the Germany page is not called Deutchsland and Burma and Myanmar is exactly the same concept ( Fdsdh1 ( talk) 00:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC))
I have initiated a move closure review for this page here: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 August 26. Please feel free to participate. — Nearly Headless Nick { c} 11:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm a tad disappointed that the closing reviewer referenced "Google Insights and Books" and not the news media, but that's how it goes. At least it feels like the closer put more effort into his decision than the 2007 closer or any closer since, and that goes a long way. - BaronGrackle ( talk) 11:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
@pro Burma term faction: Just a hypothetical question: What would you do, if Aung San Suu Kyi asked the world community to adopt the name "Myanmar"? Would you still insists on the (colonialists'?) term "Burma"? Datu Dong ( talk) 13:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is the reasoning behind staying the article at Burma, and not Myanmar? In all the arguments I have seen, people go by just personal interpretations and biases to judge validity of arguments, and not actual reasons. I propose that anyone who has any reason to give regarding their choice of name in bullets, with no more than 2 lines to support every point for their argument. And facts will be a lot less biased than arguments. Should you not agree to a point in the 'unchallenged facts', please move it to the 'challenged facts', and provide your rebuttal to it.
The following are the arguments -
Unchallenged facts-
Challenged facts -
[Please add below the stances of the particular governments and news agencies; and the search results history]
Folks, I recommend that you just give up on the name change. I was a bit shocked to find Burma as the title here and asked about it. After a rather snarky response, I actually DID read the entire archive of name change requests. I do not recommend the experience. At times in the past when the title was Myanmar it was “critical” to move the page “immediately” but any time it’s Burma we are supposed to “wait and see what develops” because there is “no compelling reason to change the status quo.”
A very small but extremely committed group of editors takes umbrage at any attempt to change the name, to the point of reverting Talk Page edits that they find unsettling. The page itself is policed vigilantly to ensure the use of Burma, but that also ensures that the article is up to date and accurate in other ways. Other than the bizarre title and acrid Talk Page churn, the article’s health is excellent and the quality is very high. Anyone searching for Myanmar will get a redirect to this article and get accurate and encyclopaedic information, so other than the reader’s momentary puzzlement at the archaic name and arcane reasons for keeping it in Wikipedia, there is no real harm in appeasing the editors for whom the Imperial name has such strong, emotional importance. Further, fighting this battle over and over simply drains energy that could be focused on improving other articles.
I drop by whenever Myanmar is back in the news cycle (right now, the US President is preparing to visit). I find it sad the number of editors who waste time trying to correct this name when they could be working to enhance Wikipedia. My advice is to move on. Last1in ( talk) 13:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikitravel uses Myanmar:<Myanmar [11], or Burma, officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar is a country in Southeast Asia. It lies on the Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea coast with Bangladesh and India to the west, China to the north, and Laos and Thailand to the east.> Rwood128 ( talk) 20:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:commonname, Myanmar should definitely be the title. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I support renaming. There is no dispute on the name of Ho Chi Minh City, although many Vietnamese call it Saigon, and Yangon isn't titled Rangoon... By this analogy, and for other reasons, I support moving Burma to Myanmar. Jackstormson ( talk) 01:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
This page should really be titled "Myanmar" and a Burma page should redirect here, not vice-versa. No matter what our thoughts on the politics, the reality is the country's official name is Myanmar and not Burma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.229.130 ( talk) 20:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC) *note - moved from Talk:Burma to keep things in a similar place
Even though the country is officially known by a few countries, such as the United States as Burma, the government still recognizes itself as the Union of Myanmar. I contend that this is valid rationale for changing the page name to Myanmar. Opinions? Regards, smileguy91 talk 21:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
This is exactly why colleges and Universities don't consider Wikipedia a credible source. After reading over the debate, I still don't understand what the debate is. There have been many name changes over the history of mankind. Borders have shifted. Even whole countries dividing, needing to be named. The facts are so simple yet people want to express so much opinion, that it does nothing but lower the credibility of the article, the site, and blind people into thinking facts can be debated.
Fact. The country officially changed it's name in 1989. The reasons shouldn't concern anybody when it comes to fact. Any concerns merely come from traditional fallacies and opinions. And opinions are exactly what this site should avoid. This is meant to be a site of facts. Simply put, those who still say Burma are incorrect; albeit socially acceptable, it's still wrong.
For those concerned with "doubling up information", more facts. Myanmar now redirects to Burma. Burma has a very short page, that doesn't even include information about the name change. Names of Burma is an article that explains the name change and why. I understand it's a long article in itself, but seeing as Burma's article only holds 4 paragraphs, with 1 paragraph being 2 sentences, it might give more credibility to actually have some girth to the official Burma article and combine those two. There are also at least 2 of these talk pages where it's debated/discussed. That's 5 pages of Myanmar. Is all of this really needed? The current setup only portraits ignorance and lack of knowledge within current affairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinivec ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Would it not be possible to include both names with one within brackets - such as Burmar (Myanmar)? I admit I have not read any of the arguments on either side, although from this page alone I can see there are many arguments. However, I was led to this page because I volunteer for a Health NGO that works in Myanmar (that is the name this particular organization uses for the country and the associated projects). While I started by wanting to read more about the country this NGO works in, when I came across the Wikipedia article I was initially confused, believing I had reached the wrong page. So my suggestion is borne out of wanting to make things clearer for the reader who isn't familiar with the Burma vs. Myanmar debate. — Jclu: talk- contribs 16:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
If it was Burma (Myanmar), that would be ok, although the Myanmar but would be unecesary, it is like renaming the Germany page Deutschland or the Italy page, Italia. It doesn't really make sense to change the name as other articles on countries retain their english names. Citing a previous article on the name change Saigon-> Ho Chi Min City, well Ho Chi Min City is in English, Ho Chi Min is a person, and he has a city named after him, it is a completely different kettle of fish, anyway Ho Chi Minh City is "Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh" in Vietnamese (although that is not the name of the article), so basically the change to Myanmar is unnecessary and would only cause confusion. The official language of Burma is known in english as Burmese, and the predominant ethnic group is Bamar, which sounds awfully like Burma anyway. Burma calls itself the Republic of Myanmar, yet we call it Burma, North Korea calls itslef the DPROC yet we still call it North Korea, to this extent Burma should remain as Burma to remain in line with other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.69.4 ( talk) 07:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
On the English Language Wikipedia, shouldn't we use the English name with which Burma (or any country, i.e. Germany) represents itself, in English, to the rest of the world, i.e at the United Nations?
Wouldn't that make the UN's "Member States of the United Nations" our general reference? Other issues to be addressed in the article, & w/redirects?
That would make Burma's article title "Myanmar"... Grye ( talk) 02:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
What is the standard we use on the English Wikipedia for determining the article title of countries? The US & UK examples are truncated versions of the full names, while Burma/Myanmar are 'alternate' names. Also, sure, make the US & UK articles the full name w/redirects from United States/etc. Absolutely --now that you mention it... Grye ( talk) 07:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
we need to find a solution to the Burma vs Myanmar debate! (although as the article is in British english, it should be Burma, and we don't call Germany, Deutschland, so why call Burma, myanmar) ( 213.167.69.4 ( talk) 08:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC))
"That country" has been mentioned quite a lot in the British news (historically one of the most prolific contemporary English-language users of the name "Burma") quite a bit recently, mainly because of two Burmese men who are accused of murdering a British couple who were murdered in Thailand. It caught my attention that the BBC, frequently cited in old discussions as evidence of the common usage of "Burma", has at some point recently switched to using "Myanmar". I was interested if this is part of a larger trend in English-language publications so did a review of the most recent list of sources that use "Burma" that I found, compiled by User:Fyunck(click) in the most recent Requested Move:
Of the publications listed above, the following appear now to be using "Myanmar": Time magazine, Radio Australia, The Telegraph, The BBC, The Washington Post, Mizzima news, Arab English Times and News International. Additionally, the Huffington Post seem to be using both.
I'm no longer active here so am not proposing any course of action, but those who are may wish to review any decisions that were based on the usage of those publications. I couldn't find an official comment on the change at the BBC, but this blog post makes the uncited claim that the decision is based on the rationale that "Myanmar is now becoming recognisable and familiar to BBC audiences". In particular this may be of interest to User:BritishWatcher based on their comment here. Bigbluefish ( talk) 12:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Admins,
I would like to suggest that the admins change the page name from 'Burma' to 'Myanmar'. Increasingly, news media and international world is using the term 'Myanmar' ,especially in formal occasion. United Nation, IMF, World Bank and all the other international organizations are now using the name 'Myanmar'. Moreover, all the other Myanmar related topics for example, uses the term currently using instead of colonial names: for example, Yangon instead of Rangoon, Bago instead of Pegu and Rakhine instead of Araken and this article should not be left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thettin684 ( talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)