![]() | This page 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. |
I don't want to go and stir up unnecessary debate, but shouldn't the main name of the article be given to some sort of vote or discussion as to whether it's Burma and directs from Myanmar, or Myanmar and it directs from Burma? I think this ought to be informed more or less directly by the number of countries around the world which currently recognise the military junta. I'm British and we neither recognise the junta officially or refer to it as anything other than Burma officially and in the media - it's the same with most of the rest of the Commonwealth. I'm not sure about the United States, but I know officials refer to it as Burma (and it's in the CIA Factbook as Burma). I'm not sure of the most correct and hopefully democratic way to resolve this or even if I'm correct in thinking that Burma is still the most commonly and widely-used English term, but I can't help shake the feeling that "Myanmar" is simply the name promoted by a dictatorial regime and not recognised by the majority of the international community. JF Mephisto 10:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
What gives people the right to decide the name of the country. It doesn't matter if we like it or not the junta is the ruling power in Myanmar. They call it Myanmar. Just because we don't agree with the way they came to power or the way they rule doesn't mean that it should be called Burma.
I totally agree with JF MEphisto-it's not a case of "us not agreeing with the way they came to power" it's the fact that legitimatley the country is still called Burma and the majority of countries call it Burma. If i took over your hosue I don;t think you'd like me re-naming it because legitimatley I have no right to and the majority of people you know would still call it by it's original name/number. So let's base it on whether the majority of countries call it Burma or "Myanmar". UN counts for no more the the CIA World Factbook. Up the NLD. -- Declan nld 22:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Should Burma really re-direct to Myanmar? Burma was a distinct country for a long time and a lot of people went and did things in *Burma*, not *Myanmar* (e.g. the hippie trail, the British Empire etc). charlieF 10:12 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
What this discussion misses is that Myanmar has always been the name for Burma in the Burmese language. But Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopaedia and should use the English name for the country, which is Burma. We do not call Germany Deutschland or India Bharat. It is not as if the country has actually changed its name, as happened when Upper Volta became Burkina Faso, for example.
This might be a different matter if a democratically elected government asked foreign countries to use a different name. This happened when Ivory Coast asked to be called Cote d'Ivoire, a change which has been generally adopted. But the Burmese military regime has no moral right to rule at all, let alone make decisions about what the country should be called. Aung San Suu Kyi, the democratically elected leader of the country, continues to call it Burma.
"Respect for the current nation and government" does not apply in this case since the government deserves no respect and the "nation" was not consulted. Dr Adam Carr 03:23, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Just my own two pence (worth very little, since I knew nothing of the controversy in general until a couple of weeks ago), but I think it would be unnecessarily confusing to have duplicate pages where issues like this arise - Burma and Myanmar have never (as far as I understand) both existed seperately, at the same time, so the information only constitutes one topic. The argument about who has the right to change a name is a complex one, I agree, but if you agree that there is not a whole topic to be had on each, I can think of 3 options:
Personally, I'd go with number 2, with as much prominent drawing of attention to the controversy as you like, but with the information easily available under both names. - IMSoP 04:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Though most of us must agree that those who named the country Myanmar are a bunch of thugs, this gives us no right to supersede their decision because they do exercise authority over that country. Whatever is de jure is always very debateable, but whatever is de facto is easily agreed upon. Aung San Suu Kyi does not rule Burma - this gives her no right to decide on the name. The government of a country has every right to call their country whatever they want. Otherwise, Cyprus should be moved to Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus. -- Jia ng 22:04, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That's an interesting point but not necessarily true. Why is it so easily agreed upon that the name is de facto? A number of governmental bodies, news outlets, and members of the general public call the nation Burma. We can't poll the English-speaking populace of that nation to find out what they generally call themselves in English, so that's no help. What's clear is that the name was universally "Burma" in English until someone violently took control of that nation and issued a statement that it was no longer to be called "Burma." After some time, some people began referring to the nation as "Myanmar" consistent with the decree of the violent party. -- Look, if I come up to you and hold a gun to your head and say, "From now on Jiang your username is Bob," that doesn't mean it's de facto so. And other Wikipedians aren't likely to start calling you Bob. -- 70.145.102.253 07:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Burmese millitary Government is really bad and their management system is terrible. I could not understand why Government make bad things to their burmese civilian. In history, burmese people, they are very kind, loving, respect, understanding, honesty and loyalty among people. But now a days, what the government is doing, even they do not care about country education, economics, agriculture and health problems which are foundation of country stablization. And also why they can not make official election again against only one lady Dr. Aung San Su Kyi. Why they depend using weapon to win anything. Who can give me simple and open minded answer. I hope our country will not be able to be developing country in 50 years if they are still keeping their power.
I'm not going to revert Jiang's change because I know he will just re-revert to spite me, and he will eventually get his way, as he always does. However for the record I reiterate my basic point, which is that the name of the country in the Burmese language has always been Myanmar, and its name in English has always been Burma. What the government of Burma wants or doesn't want makes no difference to that. On Jiang's logic we should call Germany Deutschland and India Bharat. That is quite apart from the fact that accepting the whims of the Burmese regime is a calculated insult to the long-suffering people of Burma. However I know there is no point in arguing with Jiang, so I will say no more. Adam 00:05, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The UN is obliged to follow the wishes of member governments. We are not. Adam 00:54, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
By what we believe to be right. Adam 01:04, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Adam, doesn't that rather beg the question of who gets to be "we", since there doesn't seem to be complete consensus on this. Insisting on using Burma would in some ways be like calling the Republic of China Taiwan - what gives us the right to say which governments are "morally" correct? Furthermore, using an accepted standard, such as the current usage of the UN, is surely far more consistent with an aim of neutrality than trying to decide what is "right". As, incidentally, is Fuzheado's suggestion that you put energy into detailing the historical and political facts at the heart of the debate. - IMSoP 12:28, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
i have some questions related to Burma myth.
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/las_vegas/mandalayluxor.html
is this based on some Burma lore, or just some random design? if lore, who or what are they? (reference appreciated)
thanks.
Xah P0lyglut 16:38, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
SUU KYI IS THE RIGHTFUL LEADER OF BURMA-SHE CALLS IT BURMA-END OF STORY-IT SHOULD BE CALLED BURMA! If I decide to call the UK Liamland will Wikipideia redirect "UK" to "Liamland"-NO because I have no right to change the name-jsut like the regime! The US and UK governmnets refer to the country as "Burma"-by redirecting the article to "Myanmar" wikipedia are endorsing the regime! Liam
No it is endorsing the regimes right to change the name of Burma and thus their right to rule- 1990 ELECTION RESULTS-SUU KY IS THE RIGHTFUL RULER!
Official name to who? The UK? No! The US? No! THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNEMNT? NO!
This edit included a number of changes. I have reverted the addition of two instances of '(???)'. This has set me wondering about he following additions:
and
I will do some digging to verify these claims and add citations. -- Etimbo | Talk 18:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The following characters seem to be an attempt to write "Union of Myanmar" in a non-Latin alphabet. They were in the article until now but invisible because they don't quite work. I've moved them to here until they can be fixed because I think they'll confuse new editors.
Iota 03:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Go and Install Burmese or unicode fonts. Ask me if in doubt.
Even though the country is official "Myanmar", is the adjective still "Burmese"? This puzzled me the other day.
Thanks to whoever responds.-- ZayZayEM 06:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, the adjective is Myanmarese
Russavia 10 June 2005
Myanmarese has been used in English, but it doesn't really work as an adjective. One of the problems with using the term 'Myanmar' in English is that is *doesn't* yield a well-formed English adjective. (Though it does in other languages, if people want to make such adjectives: eg Hungarian 'myanmari', German 'myanmarisch', Russian 'm'ianmarskij', Japanese 'myanmaa-no' - or 'myanmaa-go' for the language, and many others, European and otherwise). As a teacher of the Burmese/Myanmar(ese) language, this is an ongoing problem for me!
hey..does anyone know what is the most appropriate way to call myanmar people? BURMESE?? MYANMESE?? so much confusion
Put it this way, if you were in the U.K. you would not call a Welshman an 'Englishman', you would either refer to him as a Welshman or as a Brit(ish). Same in Myanmar, if you call a Shan person 'Burmese', don't expect them to like it! If you call a Shan person a 'Myanmar', then you're ok. Calling a Bamar 'Burmese' is fine but you can't call everyone in Myanmar 'Burmese'. People here don't say Myanmarese or Myanmese, they simply say 'Myanmars'. Mandalay Resident 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
What is current population estimate? The article gives two numbers differing by 10 millions. I remember there was vandalism some time ago and maybe this is leftover. Could someone add link to reliable source?
The article says: 'Myanmar derives from the Burmese name Myanma naingandaw, which literally translates as "country of Myanmar".' That makes no sense a all! A word with a recursive meaning?
I didn't notice that before. I tried to fix it, though I don't speak Burmese, so please look it over. El_C 12:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Craziness, but anyone know more about the internet control of Myanmar, I did a quick search and came up with...
"Computers, Internet, and E-mail: The military government carefully controls and monitors all Internet use in Burma. The government has made available a censored version of the Internet and has allowed several cyber cafes to open. However, access to the Internet is very expensive, and the government prohibits access to most “free” international e-mail services. It is illegal to own an unregistered modem in Burma. Tourists may bring in one laptop computer per person and must declare it upon arrival. Limited e-mail service is available at some large hotels. All e-mails are read by military intelligence. It is very expensive to send photographs via e-mail. One foreign visitor was presented a bill for 2,000.00 U.S. dollars after transmitting one photograph via a major hotel's e-mail system." Source:USgov travel site
I think it deserves mention, anyone have any arguments or more information about it? I wonder if they get wikipedia?
-- Capi crimm 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
You can get internet access through MPT (Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications) or through Bagan Cybertech (Privately owned but linked with the Government). The internet is heavily censored. Yes you can access Wikipedia pages on Myanmar, the fact that I am writing this is testament to that! Recently Bagan Cybertech have stopped new subscribers as the service is dire to say the least (I'm referring to performance i.e. speed), if you visit www.bagan.net.mm you will note that links for new subscribers have been replaced with text. It is not possible to access online email, i.e. Yahoo mail, Hotmail etc as they can't be censored, as with other similar websites they are blocked. It is not possible to use Skype either or Google Talk, whether or not this is a result of them being blocked or because the service is so slow is unknown. Bagan Cybertech currently charges US$60 as an annual fee and US$35 per month for 400mb download limit, each Mb over that is charged at US$0.20/Mb. Prices do vary depending on what package you have, some pay US$720 as an 'one off' installation fee for ADSL (14.4 modem like performance!) and an additional US$65 per month, again with a 400Mb download limit. Mandalay Resident 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This article appears to have no mention of the religions of Myanmar - let alone what sort of relations there are between the political sphere and the religious sphere. Does Myanmar have a secular (albeit military) state? What sort of religious education is there? Is this because no-one knows?
Any Burmese speakers or Burmese language experts out there? I've just listed the Burmese name for tofu as "pebya," but I'm not sure if this is the right romanization. Please check the tofu article and see if it's correct. Thanks! Badagnani 22:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Myanmar word for tofu is "Pebya". Actually this is a two word name in Myanmar language. The first part of the compound word "Pe" means bean, in a generic holistic way covering the whole genus called beans.The second part of the word "bya" means something flat, i.e., a flat cake. So "Pebya" is a "flat bean cake", flat not as paper thin but can be thick but not any other shape. The Myanmar language being monosyllabic,contains many words that are compounded to form a single one from two or multiple words having their own meanings. You may notice I used the word "Myanmar" instead of Burmese as this word has the proper sound and meaning in the native language which is pronounced "Myanmar Sar", "Sar" stands for language in the vernacular. Thane, 21:30, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Checking up the article on tofu as requested, I found the second word for "tofu" mentioned also as "tofu" in Myanmar. It is true in the sense that this other word is used for several other kinds of bean curd made from different varieties of bean other than soy. There are many varieties of bean curd that are eaten by Myanmar people and they can be made from many varieties of bean. Thane, 21:43, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
There is a Shan dish named "tokehu." Tokehu is made out of bean also and the word was derived from tofu. Jojo, Jan 27, 2006
I have read in several places that the Metric system is not officially used in Myanmar, but have never been able to discover the details. Is there a local system of measurement that is used? Have there been attempts at metrication? Seabhcán 11:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I've could've sworn there was some student lead armed resistence against the government in the aftermath of Aung San Suu Kyi's arrest. In fact, I still hear some reports now and then of Mon rebels attacking government troops from time to time. Why is there no mention of this? Typos 02:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone provide authoritative information on Burma's civilian losses in WW2 1941-45?-- Berndd11222 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I've just returned from Burma - Rangoon, Mandalay and Pagan - and was able to access the WWW - at least the sites I wanted to, such as bbc.co.uk, without any problem, in hotels and internet cafes. Access to Hotmail and Yahoo webmail services are blocked (to force locals to use the government service, I believe), but I was able to access my own independently hosted webmail service with no problems. So I think the comment about internet access in this article isn't quite on the nail.
I´m removing your section here: Testing
Burma is among the very worst enemies of Internet freedom and in many ways its policies are worse than China’s. The price of computers and a home Internet connection is prohibitive so Internet cafés are the target of the military regime’s scrutiny. As in neighbouring Vietnam and China, access to opposition sites is systematically blocked, in this case with technology supplied by the US firm Fortinet. Web-based e-mail, such as Yahoo! or Hotmail, cannot be used and all Internet café computers record every five minutes the screen being consulted, to spy on what customers are doing.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that while the enforcement of Internet restrictions is unyielding in Yangon, the smaller Internet cafes of Myanmar's other cities occasionally advertise their ability to hack through government firewalls.
Before any of this can be put back in, the text must be refined, neutralized, and properly merged. -- Lotsofissues 20:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I wrote the second paragraph, and that was my experience. In Mandalay and Bagan I saw Internet cafes that had painted the Yahoo and Hotmail logos onto their storefronts; each had their own way of getting around the restrictions, using computer programs that must have been illegal. These places were mostly catering to travelers. Agreed that the first paragraph needs cleaning. -- anon
I've removed the reference to wikipedia from the demographics section. I've also noticed that this article claims that there has been no census in 70 years and the "demographics of Myanmar" article says that the last census was in 1983: can someone who knows the correct date please correct? Tellkel 13:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just tagged the article Mandalay Palace for copyediting, but I think it needs someone familiar either with the subject or the native language of the person who wrote it...perhaps someone here could help out...it's just a few sentences, but I couldn't make sense of them. NickelShoe 01:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Accroding to this newsitem [3] and this other link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/25/MNGMDGD9OP1.DTL&feed=rss.news. This is really happening. So at what I am going to do is edit the information to recognize that the capital of Burma is moving.
Shouldn't the fact that Rice added this to the 'outposts of tyranny' list be included here? Evilbu 11:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
True, but there is a difference between siding with one party and mentionning poor relations.
I'm pretty sure that the coat of arms of Myanmar is not coloured in blue, pink, and orange. I've only seen it completely in gold. Hintha 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia lists Myanmar's motto as: «Le bonheur se trouve dans une vie harmonieusement disciplinée». 69.234.149.76 05:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't even know whether or not that was a question, but if you seek translation : "One finds happiness in a harmonious and disciplined life". Or do you know that yourself and do you propose a correction?
Evilbu 20:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I deeply regret the new title, but the same person who changed our last title without consulting this talk page has also made it imposible to change back without help from an admin, which I have requested. Remeber those words of Shaker wisdom "turning, turning, we come out right." Again, I apologize the awkwardness, Saalam Pelegius 19:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, I cannot stress enough the importance of using this talk page to explain your actions, as you failed to do in January. Please remeber that Wikipedia is a democracy and if only two users agree on something, they are in the right until at least two users disagree with them, which must be expressed here on the talk page.
Pelegius 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was don't move. — Nightst a llion (?) 13:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Pelegius has posted the following proposed move to the Requested moves page:
Myanmar to Myanmar (Burma) N.B. the title was changed and obstructed without consulting talk page.
The figures cited in the section Education seem to contradict with the statement that "Myanmar's (has a) relatively high literacy rate, which stands at 89.7%" that is in the section on culture.
Perhaps we can check the veracity of the doubts raised in the Education section or water down what is being said in the section on Culture?
Can you please try to include more about the ethnic guerillas in Burma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.16.225.80 ( talk • contribs) .
We need to discuss the situation with the new capital to establish consensus and prevent this back-and-forth, slow-motion edit war from continuing. This is how I view the situation. A "capital" is the location of the seat of government. The current government, regardless of how we view its legitimacy, has moved the seat of government to Naypyidaw. Therefore, Naypyidaw is now the capital. Likewise, Yangon is no longer the seat of government; therefore Yangon is no longer the capital. If there's a flaw in that logic, somebody please point it out.-- WilliamThweatt 14:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you pronounced Myanmar? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.138.186 ( talk • contribs) .
Wikified as part of the wikification drive. KarenAnn 19:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that I may ask this question in this page about image. Is changing the siza of image allowed in article? Because I want little bit bigger, but not too much. *~Daniel~* 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
this is not even an issue. burma was named by the british during their rule. now we call our real one. what seems to be the trip? UK and US are such jackass... This is our right. Stop calling my country burma. in my country, we think USA stand for United States Of Asshole...
![]() | This page 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. |
I don't want to go and stir up unnecessary debate, but shouldn't the main name of the article be given to some sort of vote or discussion as to whether it's Burma and directs from Myanmar, or Myanmar and it directs from Burma? I think this ought to be informed more or less directly by the number of countries around the world which currently recognise the military junta. I'm British and we neither recognise the junta officially or refer to it as anything other than Burma officially and in the media - it's the same with most of the rest of the Commonwealth. I'm not sure about the United States, but I know officials refer to it as Burma (and it's in the CIA Factbook as Burma). I'm not sure of the most correct and hopefully democratic way to resolve this or even if I'm correct in thinking that Burma is still the most commonly and widely-used English term, but I can't help shake the feeling that "Myanmar" is simply the name promoted by a dictatorial regime and not recognised by the majority of the international community. JF Mephisto 10:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
What gives people the right to decide the name of the country. It doesn't matter if we like it or not the junta is the ruling power in Myanmar. They call it Myanmar. Just because we don't agree with the way they came to power or the way they rule doesn't mean that it should be called Burma.
I totally agree with JF MEphisto-it's not a case of "us not agreeing with the way they came to power" it's the fact that legitimatley the country is still called Burma and the majority of countries call it Burma. If i took over your hosue I don;t think you'd like me re-naming it because legitimatley I have no right to and the majority of people you know would still call it by it's original name/number. So let's base it on whether the majority of countries call it Burma or "Myanmar". UN counts for no more the the CIA World Factbook. Up the NLD. -- Declan nld 22:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Should Burma really re-direct to Myanmar? Burma was a distinct country for a long time and a lot of people went and did things in *Burma*, not *Myanmar* (e.g. the hippie trail, the British Empire etc). charlieF 10:12 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
What this discussion misses is that Myanmar has always been the name for Burma in the Burmese language. But Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopaedia and should use the English name for the country, which is Burma. We do not call Germany Deutschland or India Bharat. It is not as if the country has actually changed its name, as happened when Upper Volta became Burkina Faso, for example.
This might be a different matter if a democratically elected government asked foreign countries to use a different name. This happened when Ivory Coast asked to be called Cote d'Ivoire, a change which has been generally adopted. But the Burmese military regime has no moral right to rule at all, let alone make decisions about what the country should be called. Aung San Suu Kyi, the democratically elected leader of the country, continues to call it Burma.
"Respect for the current nation and government" does not apply in this case since the government deserves no respect and the "nation" was not consulted. Dr Adam Carr 03:23, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Just my own two pence (worth very little, since I knew nothing of the controversy in general until a couple of weeks ago), but I think it would be unnecessarily confusing to have duplicate pages where issues like this arise - Burma and Myanmar have never (as far as I understand) both existed seperately, at the same time, so the information only constitutes one topic. The argument about who has the right to change a name is a complex one, I agree, but if you agree that there is not a whole topic to be had on each, I can think of 3 options:
Personally, I'd go with number 2, with as much prominent drawing of attention to the controversy as you like, but with the information easily available under both names. - IMSoP 04:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Though most of us must agree that those who named the country Myanmar are a bunch of thugs, this gives us no right to supersede their decision because they do exercise authority over that country. Whatever is de jure is always very debateable, but whatever is de facto is easily agreed upon. Aung San Suu Kyi does not rule Burma - this gives her no right to decide on the name. The government of a country has every right to call their country whatever they want. Otherwise, Cyprus should be moved to Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus. -- Jia ng 22:04, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That's an interesting point but not necessarily true. Why is it so easily agreed upon that the name is de facto? A number of governmental bodies, news outlets, and members of the general public call the nation Burma. We can't poll the English-speaking populace of that nation to find out what they generally call themselves in English, so that's no help. What's clear is that the name was universally "Burma" in English until someone violently took control of that nation and issued a statement that it was no longer to be called "Burma." After some time, some people began referring to the nation as "Myanmar" consistent with the decree of the violent party. -- Look, if I come up to you and hold a gun to your head and say, "From now on Jiang your username is Bob," that doesn't mean it's de facto so. And other Wikipedians aren't likely to start calling you Bob. -- 70.145.102.253 07:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Burmese millitary Government is really bad and their management system is terrible. I could not understand why Government make bad things to their burmese civilian. In history, burmese people, they are very kind, loving, respect, understanding, honesty and loyalty among people. But now a days, what the government is doing, even they do not care about country education, economics, agriculture and health problems which are foundation of country stablization. And also why they can not make official election again against only one lady Dr. Aung San Su Kyi. Why they depend using weapon to win anything. Who can give me simple and open minded answer. I hope our country will not be able to be developing country in 50 years if they are still keeping their power.
I'm not going to revert Jiang's change because I know he will just re-revert to spite me, and he will eventually get his way, as he always does. However for the record I reiterate my basic point, which is that the name of the country in the Burmese language has always been Myanmar, and its name in English has always been Burma. What the government of Burma wants or doesn't want makes no difference to that. On Jiang's logic we should call Germany Deutschland and India Bharat. That is quite apart from the fact that accepting the whims of the Burmese regime is a calculated insult to the long-suffering people of Burma. However I know there is no point in arguing with Jiang, so I will say no more. Adam 00:05, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The UN is obliged to follow the wishes of member governments. We are not. Adam 00:54, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
By what we believe to be right. Adam 01:04, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Adam, doesn't that rather beg the question of who gets to be "we", since there doesn't seem to be complete consensus on this. Insisting on using Burma would in some ways be like calling the Republic of China Taiwan - what gives us the right to say which governments are "morally" correct? Furthermore, using an accepted standard, such as the current usage of the UN, is surely far more consistent with an aim of neutrality than trying to decide what is "right". As, incidentally, is Fuzheado's suggestion that you put energy into detailing the historical and political facts at the heart of the debate. - IMSoP 12:28, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
i have some questions related to Burma myth.
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/las_vegas/mandalayluxor.html
is this based on some Burma lore, or just some random design? if lore, who or what are they? (reference appreciated)
thanks.
Xah P0lyglut 16:38, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
SUU KYI IS THE RIGHTFUL LEADER OF BURMA-SHE CALLS IT BURMA-END OF STORY-IT SHOULD BE CALLED BURMA! If I decide to call the UK Liamland will Wikipideia redirect "UK" to "Liamland"-NO because I have no right to change the name-jsut like the regime! The US and UK governmnets refer to the country as "Burma"-by redirecting the article to "Myanmar" wikipedia are endorsing the regime! Liam
No it is endorsing the regimes right to change the name of Burma and thus their right to rule- 1990 ELECTION RESULTS-SUU KY IS THE RIGHTFUL RULER!
Official name to who? The UK? No! The US? No! THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNEMNT? NO!
This edit included a number of changes. I have reverted the addition of two instances of '(???)'. This has set me wondering about he following additions:
and
I will do some digging to verify these claims and add citations. -- Etimbo | Talk 18:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The following characters seem to be an attempt to write "Union of Myanmar" in a non-Latin alphabet. They were in the article until now but invisible because they don't quite work. I've moved them to here until they can be fixed because I think they'll confuse new editors.
Iota 03:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Go and Install Burmese or unicode fonts. Ask me if in doubt.
Even though the country is official "Myanmar", is the adjective still "Burmese"? This puzzled me the other day.
Thanks to whoever responds.-- ZayZayEM 06:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, the adjective is Myanmarese
Russavia 10 June 2005
Myanmarese has been used in English, but it doesn't really work as an adjective. One of the problems with using the term 'Myanmar' in English is that is *doesn't* yield a well-formed English adjective. (Though it does in other languages, if people want to make such adjectives: eg Hungarian 'myanmari', German 'myanmarisch', Russian 'm'ianmarskij', Japanese 'myanmaa-no' - or 'myanmaa-go' for the language, and many others, European and otherwise). As a teacher of the Burmese/Myanmar(ese) language, this is an ongoing problem for me!
hey..does anyone know what is the most appropriate way to call myanmar people? BURMESE?? MYANMESE?? so much confusion
Put it this way, if you were in the U.K. you would not call a Welshman an 'Englishman', you would either refer to him as a Welshman or as a Brit(ish). Same in Myanmar, if you call a Shan person 'Burmese', don't expect them to like it! If you call a Shan person a 'Myanmar', then you're ok. Calling a Bamar 'Burmese' is fine but you can't call everyone in Myanmar 'Burmese'. People here don't say Myanmarese or Myanmese, they simply say 'Myanmars'. Mandalay Resident 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
What is current population estimate? The article gives two numbers differing by 10 millions. I remember there was vandalism some time ago and maybe this is leftover. Could someone add link to reliable source?
The article says: 'Myanmar derives from the Burmese name Myanma naingandaw, which literally translates as "country of Myanmar".' That makes no sense a all! A word with a recursive meaning?
I didn't notice that before. I tried to fix it, though I don't speak Burmese, so please look it over. El_C 12:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Craziness, but anyone know more about the internet control of Myanmar, I did a quick search and came up with...
"Computers, Internet, and E-mail: The military government carefully controls and monitors all Internet use in Burma. The government has made available a censored version of the Internet and has allowed several cyber cafes to open. However, access to the Internet is very expensive, and the government prohibits access to most “free” international e-mail services. It is illegal to own an unregistered modem in Burma. Tourists may bring in one laptop computer per person and must declare it upon arrival. Limited e-mail service is available at some large hotels. All e-mails are read by military intelligence. It is very expensive to send photographs via e-mail. One foreign visitor was presented a bill for 2,000.00 U.S. dollars after transmitting one photograph via a major hotel's e-mail system." Source:USgov travel site
I think it deserves mention, anyone have any arguments or more information about it? I wonder if they get wikipedia?
-- Capi crimm 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
You can get internet access through MPT (Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications) or through Bagan Cybertech (Privately owned but linked with the Government). The internet is heavily censored. Yes you can access Wikipedia pages on Myanmar, the fact that I am writing this is testament to that! Recently Bagan Cybertech have stopped new subscribers as the service is dire to say the least (I'm referring to performance i.e. speed), if you visit www.bagan.net.mm you will note that links for new subscribers have been replaced with text. It is not possible to access online email, i.e. Yahoo mail, Hotmail etc as they can't be censored, as with other similar websites they are blocked. It is not possible to use Skype either or Google Talk, whether or not this is a result of them being blocked or because the service is so slow is unknown. Bagan Cybertech currently charges US$60 as an annual fee and US$35 per month for 400mb download limit, each Mb over that is charged at US$0.20/Mb. Prices do vary depending on what package you have, some pay US$720 as an 'one off' installation fee for ADSL (14.4 modem like performance!) and an additional US$65 per month, again with a 400Mb download limit. Mandalay Resident 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This article appears to have no mention of the religions of Myanmar - let alone what sort of relations there are between the political sphere and the religious sphere. Does Myanmar have a secular (albeit military) state? What sort of religious education is there? Is this because no-one knows?
Any Burmese speakers or Burmese language experts out there? I've just listed the Burmese name for tofu as "pebya," but I'm not sure if this is the right romanization. Please check the tofu article and see if it's correct. Thanks! Badagnani 22:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Myanmar word for tofu is "Pebya". Actually this is a two word name in Myanmar language. The first part of the compound word "Pe" means bean, in a generic holistic way covering the whole genus called beans.The second part of the word "bya" means something flat, i.e., a flat cake. So "Pebya" is a "flat bean cake", flat not as paper thin but can be thick but not any other shape. The Myanmar language being monosyllabic,contains many words that are compounded to form a single one from two or multiple words having their own meanings. You may notice I used the word "Myanmar" instead of Burmese as this word has the proper sound and meaning in the native language which is pronounced "Myanmar Sar", "Sar" stands for language in the vernacular. Thane, 21:30, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Checking up the article on tofu as requested, I found the second word for "tofu" mentioned also as "tofu" in Myanmar. It is true in the sense that this other word is used for several other kinds of bean curd made from different varieties of bean other than soy. There are many varieties of bean curd that are eaten by Myanmar people and they can be made from many varieties of bean. Thane, 21:43, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
There is a Shan dish named "tokehu." Tokehu is made out of bean also and the word was derived from tofu. Jojo, Jan 27, 2006
I have read in several places that the Metric system is not officially used in Myanmar, but have never been able to discover the details. Is there a local system of measurement that is used? Have there been attempts at metrication? Seabhcán 11:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I've could've sworn there was some student lead armed resistence against the government in the aftermath of Aung San Suu Kyi's arrest. In fact, I still hear some reports now and then of Mon rebels attacking government troops from time to time. Why is there no mention of this? Typos 02:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone provide authoritative information on Burma's civilian losses in WW2 1941-45?-- Berndd11222 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I've just returned from Burma - Rangoon, Mandalay and Pagan - and was able to access the WWW - at least the sites I wanted to, such as bbc.co.uk, without any problem, in hotels and internet cafes. Access to Hotmail and Yahoo webmail services are blocked (to force locals to use the government service, I believe), but I was able to access my own independently hosted webmail service with no problems. So I think the comment about internet access in this article isn't quite on the nail.
I´m removing your section here: Testing
Burma is among the very worst enemies of Internet freedom and in many ways its policies are worse than China’s. The price of computers and a home Internet connection is prohibitive so Internet cafés are the target of the military regime’s scrutiny. As in neighbouring Vietnam and China, access to opposition sites is systematically blocked, in this case with technology supplied by the US firm Fortinet. Web-based e-mail, such as Yahoo! or Hotmail, cannot be used and all Internet café computers record every five minutes the screen being consulted, to spy on what customers are doing.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that while the enforcement of Internet restrictions is unyielding in Yangon, the smaller Internet cafes of Myanmar's other cities occasionally advertise their ability to hack through government firewalls.
Before any of this can be put back in, the text must be refined, neutralized, and properly merged. -- Lotsofissues 20:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I wrote the second paragraph, and that was my experience. In Mandalay and Bagan I saw Internet cafes that had painted the Yahoo and Hotmail logos onto their storefronts; each had their own way of getting around the restrictions, using computer programs that must have been illegal. These places were mostly catering to travelers. Agreed that the first paragraph needs cleaning. -- anon
I've removed the reference to wikipedia from the demographics section. I've also noticed that this article claims that there has been no census in 70 years and the "demographics of Myanmar" article says that the last census was in 1983: can someone who knows the correct date please correct? Tellkel 13:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just tagged the article Mandalay Palace for copyediting, but I think it needs someone familiar either with the subject or the native language of the person who wrote it...perhaps someone here could help out...it's just a few sentences, but I couldn't make sense of them. NickelShoe 01:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Accroding to this newsitem [3] and this other link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/25/MNGMDGD9OP1.DTL&feed=rss.news. This is really happening. So at what I am going to do is edit the information to recognize that the capital of Burma is moving.
Shouldn't the fact that Rice added this to the 'outposts of tyranny' list be included here? Evilbu 11:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
True, but there is a difference between siding with one party and mentionning poor relations.
I'm pretty sure that the coat of arms of Myanmar is not coloured in blue, pink, and orange. I've only seen it completely in gold. Hintha 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia lists Myanmar's motto as: «Le bonheur se trouve dans une vie harmonieusement disciplinée». 69.234.149.76 05:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't even know whether or not that was a question, but if you seek translation : "One finds happiness in a harmonious and disciplined life". Or do you know that yourself and do you propose a correction?
Evilbu 20:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I deeply regret the new title, but the same person who changed our last title without consulting this talk page has also made it imposible to change back without help from an admin, which I have requested. Remeber those words of Shaker wisdom "turning, turning, we come out right." Again, I apologize the awkwardness, Saalam Pelegius 19:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, I cannot stress enough the importance of using this talk page to explain your actions, as you failed to do in January. Please remeber that Wikipedia is a democracy and if only two users agree on something, they are in the right until at least two users disagree with them, which must be expressed here on the talk page.
Pelegius 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was don't move. — Nightst a llion (?) 13:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Pelegius has posted the following proposed move to the Requested moves page:
Myanmar to Myanmar (Burma) N.B. the title was changed and obstructed without consulting talk page.
The figures cited in the section Education seem to contradict with the statement that "Myanmar's (has a) relatively high literacy rate, which stands at 89.7%" that is in the section on culture.
Perhaps we can check the veracity of the doubts raised in the Education section or water down what is being said in the section on Culture?
Can you please try to include more about the ethnic guerillas in Burma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.16.225.80 ( talk • contribs) .
We need to discuss the situation with the new capital to establish consensus and prevent this back-and-forth, slow-motion edit war from continuing. This is how I view the situation. A "capital" is the location of the seat of government. The current government, regardless of how we view its legitimacy, has moved the seat of government to Naypyidaw. Therefore, Naypyidaw is now the capital. Likewise, Yangon is no longer the seat of government; therefore Yangon is no longer the capital. If there's a flaw in that logic, somebody please point it out.-- WilliamThweatt 14:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you pronounced Myanmar? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.138.186 ( talk • contribs) .
Wikified as part of the wikification drive. KarenAnn 19:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that I may ask this question in this page about image. Is changing the siza of image allowed in article? Because I want little bit bigger, but not too much. *~Daniel~* 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
this is not even an issue. burma was named by the british during their rule. now we call our real one. what seems to be the trip? UK and US are such jackass... This is our right. Stop calling my country burma. in my country, we think USA stand for United States Of Asshole...