Talk:Myanmar/Archive 3

message: What's the deal with the capital?  Editors keep switching it back and forth from Yangon to Naypyidaw.  The only source I've seen other than Wikipedia that claims a change of capital is this Chinese "People's Daily".  Does anyone have a cite for this from a more reliable source? L0b0t 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian provides an article () as does BBC News (). There are many other articles if you search "Pyinmana", "Naypyidaw" or "Nay Pyi Taw". I believe anonymous editors keep on reverting the capital back to Yangon because of a bias (favouring the stances of western countries, and the exiled government) because they believe the current government is illegitimate, although it has jurisdiction within the country. --Hintha 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think this is a bias attitude to take. It isn't some fringe US-imperialist stance to say that Aung San Suu Kyi is the properly elected and rightful leader of the Burmese people. This happens to be the stance of the vast majority of countries whose readers use the English wikipedia, not to mention the UN. Therefore, I see no reason why any creedence whatsoever should be given to any decision made by the illegal government. If the Chinese and Japanese apologists want to propagate the revisionism by the illegal government on their language wikipedia, fine, but not on the English wikipedia. This is just one of those cases where there is no ambiguity at all over who is right and who is wrong. So continue to expect prompt removal of the illegal government's revisionist propaganda. --130.127.121.188 16:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Aung San Suu Kyi was not elected (she was General Secretary of her party)--National League for Democracy parliament members were elected to office. Provide me with a reference that states that Aung San Suu Kyi would have assumed the office of Prime Minister in the 1990 election. --Hintha 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope-- the NLD is the ruling party.  In the 1990 election, even if those statistics are right (where did you get them? I've always seen that the NLD got 60% of the popular vote), it's irrelevant, because it's not how the system works.  The NLD won 392 seats in the parliament out of an available 485 seats-- 80.82% of the parliament seats.  That's a clear majority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.230.130 (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How do we proceed to name this area of land/'territory' if we take the stand that all governments are illegitimate or rather not being biased towards the legitimacy of governments? It is not a matter of one (the junta or the popularly elected NLD) being legitimate or even the defacto rulers of a land/'territory' being able to have their say on what the land/'territory' is called. Doing so gives legitimacy to governments, and thus a bias existent in wikipedia. To further attempt to reach the unreachable point of unbiased, we can say the powerful of the land, in this case being those with guns, call the territory Myanmar. Other centers of power call the territory Burma. Also, most of the people living there as well. We should not fail to note how these centers of power are centers of power. That is, how they got to be this way. In the case of the junta, by guns and by the power centers of other lands allowing it to be named as such. So, yes, other power centers, each individual person, bodies attempting to lay and legitimize the basis of conduct outside ones land/'territory' such as the UN, as well as the power center that is wikipedia. In at least not naming both as the name of the entry Myanmar/Burma or Burma/Myanmar, whichever, and instead choosing Myanmar alone, wikipedia is endorsing the name and the regime's rule. Wikipedia IS being biased, taking a POV.  Whichever, it does not matter. Choose Myanmar/Burma if you wish. Just be slightly less biased. And yes, unbiased really is a myth. The seat of power from which the rulers operate should be noted, but the name of the entry should be corrected. It might also be noted what other power centers across the land do or do not recognize the change. Saying simply: the capital has moved, is a defacto endorsement of the regime. VeriGGlater 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as an aside, the notion of legitimacy or illegitimacy of a government is entirely subjective. Many individuals in post-World War I Germany thought the declaration of a republic, without the consent of Emperor Wilhelm II, was illegitimate, and that the true government was Imperial, i.e. non-democratic. The Taiwanese Nationalist Chinese government considers the Communist government of the mainland illegitimate, and vice versa. The only objectively correct statement on one government or another is whether it is, de facto, in control of public affairs. --Chr.K. 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The German comparison raises an interesting point - democracy isn't the issue, it's legitimacy (or at least acceptance). -Riedquat 23:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "That may play in the sticks, but this is Capital City" 

message: Could someone please change the pronunciation guide to IPA, or else add a link to whatever system is used currently?  As it is, the pronunciation key doesn't help.--345Kai 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pronounced "Mee-an-mar" (got it from Seinfeld) but I'll go check. └Jared┘┌talk┐  23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's pronounced in 2 syllables, "meean - ma" (rough transliteration), and not in 3 (e.g. "me-an-mar").--Hintha 04:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, several different English pronunciations are possible and used and recorded in dictionaries. And Merriam-Webster’s was obviously quoted incorrectly; US pronunciation does not drop r at the end of syllables, and modern British pronunciation guides also usually include it and add that it is not pronounced in some kinds of English. --Espoo 08:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: I believe SimonBillenness seems to be misrepresenting "Fighting Peacock" as NLD "emblem".  "Peacock" represent our country's flag before we were colonised by the British, hence why ABSU flag included a peacock emblem to represent our nation's struggle to gain independance from the British.  Fighting Peacock on the other hand is the emblem of the "Student Front" (Kyaungthar Tat Oo) of ABSU.  "Student Front" represent a wing within ABSU that includes a group of students, who sworn to sacrifice their lives for the greater cause in the name of their country.  They are always at the forefront of ABSU and student lead demonstrations and they are the ones who always take the first strike from batons and galloping horses during the colonial era. It is a fact that many students have died under the flag of "Fighting Peacock" througout the history of our country.  Although, "Student Front" was officially disbanded and banned along with ABSU during BSPP era, the stories of "Student Front" with their dedication, sacrifice, courage and honour has masmerized and captivated every generation of young students. 
At the beginning of 1988 uprising, it was the students from High Schools, came out carrying "Fighting Peacock" flags along with their school banners when they marched through the streets of our cities.  The 88 generation high school students immidiately assume the position of "Student Front" during the 1988 uprising and it was them who paid the highest price.  NLD, as political party adopted the symbol of "Fighting Peacock" into their party flag after the uprising in order to honour the students of Myanmar, who were always at the forefront of the struggle for their country and those who lay down their lives in the name of "democracy" and "freedom".  Fighting Peack is not just a mere representation of courage or freedom, nor is it a mere logo on the flag of a political party, it is much more than that.  It a symbol that represents courage, honour and sacrifice of the "students" of Myanmar, it represent the history of our country's struggle from both foreign invasions and tyranny, it represent our forefathers and it represent the fighting spirit of the "students" of Myanmar.  NLD and ASSK would not be where they are today, if it wasnt for those students waving "Fighting Peacock" flags in 1988.  If you said you are for freedom and democracy, then honour those students who brought about the change, honour those students who gave up their lives so that NLD can sit and complain about how they have won 1990 election and still not in the office.  
Thanks to a mixure of political correctness and pure ignorant, we all have forgotten the fallen heroes and the spirit of "Fighting Peacock". Instead of honouring them for their sacrifices, we sat by sideline and watch people like SimonBillenness exploiting "fighting peacock" to promote NLD and NCGUB.  Is this the way their death should be honoured?  They didnt die for NLD, they died for our country and now we are repaying their deaths by letting political parties exploit the "Fighting Peacock" symbol.  It is an insult to suggest that "Fighting Peacock" represent NLD as NLD has done nothing to earn the honour and respect that goes with the symbol of "Fighting Peacock".  It belongs to the students of Myanmar. It should be clarify in the description of NLD flag, otherwise, we are effectively rewriting the history of "Fighting Peacock" and dishonouring those students who gave up their lives during the struggle. Okkar 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This misses the fact that the NLD flag includes the "fighting peacock."  Mentioning the peacock in the description of the flag is simply stating a demonstrated fact. I'd suggest keeping the flag where it is but including the history of the symbol in another article. SimonBillenness 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you read properly you will see that NLD exploited the "fighting peacock" emblem in their flag.  You mentioned in the description of the flag as though NLD's own fighting peacock, which constitute misrepresentation and disrespectful. I suggest you clarify the description accordingly or remove the flag all together.  I'd rather remove the flag.  Okkar 09:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I refer you to my previous comment and the one before, the flag should be removed since it is misrepresenting and misleading. Okkar 17:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Like i said before, you need to edit the flag description first else it would get removed as it is misleading.  Okkar 09:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  If you dont remove the claims, i will remove the flag alltogether. Okkar 10:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Fighting Peacock does not represent "Freedom", it represent courage, honour and sacrifice of burmese students, it is the emblem of "Student Front" of ABSU.  Your description is not only inaccurate, but also misleading, misrepresenting and above all disrespectful.  It appears that you are just using the word "Fighting Peacock" in order to promote NLD, instead of actually understanding the full meaning of it.  If you dont know the meaning of it, you shouldnt include it.  For someone of your standing, i.e. being Director of US Campaign for Burma and Amnesty International, it goes without saying that you should be well verse in this kind of information, after all you have been representing and campaigning for democracy in burma, right? (according to your organisation's namesake).  How can you lobby for democracy in Burma and understand the struggle of our people, if you dont even know the meaning of "Fighting Peacock"? Perhaps you should change the name of your organisation to "US Campaign for NLD" instead? seeing as you clearly have not a lot of knowledge on the burmese democracy struggle, the role of students and the meaning of "Fighting Peacock".  It seems you lobbyists have no idea about anything else if it doesnt involved NLD or DASSK.   Okkar 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Dont get all cheesy on me Simon, just becase we collaborated on this, that dont mean we gonna be having cold shower together on hot summer days! :-) Okkar 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighting Peacock 

message: We are we insisting on recognizing militia rule in Burma, by havng soley Myanmar as the name? --Hayden5650 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. The so called "government" is little more than a bunch of bullies who are defying the will of the people through overwhelming arms and the support of its neighbours. 204.52.215.13 07:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are we insisting on Recognizing Militia Rule?

message: According to the etymology section, the written/formal form of the country's name has always been, and still is, transliterated as "Myanma". Yet, the government requests that the country's name in English be called "Myanmar". Is this correct? The native language calls it "Myanma", but the native government specifically requests that English add an "r" at the end? In my little mind, that would be like Côte d'Ivoire asking other countries to call it "Côte d'Ivoira", or some such. Is there something more to this? -BaronGrackle 12:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe someone who speaks Burmese would better be able to help you here, but my understanding is that with Burmese being so different to English, you can't just transliterate each letter of Burmese into a letter of English. So maybe the 'a' sounding vowel at the end of Myanma is often pronounced with a slight 'r' sound too. Just speculation though. --Nathan (Talk) 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't speak Burmese but I do know the Burmese alphabet from being able to read and speak languages that use similar alphabets. From this I can tell you that the scholarly transcription of Myanmar would look something like "mran'mā", pronounced myanmah [mjənmɑː]. The last "a" is broad, as in most English dialects' pronunciation of "father". I suspect that the regime intends the terminal "r" to indicate this, based on (irony alert) colonial-era British English usage. One sees similar usages in Thailand (e.g., "far" for [fɑː]). Mrrhum 15:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section 

message: Would you mind declearing your political stance or stance on Burma/Myanmar? I have just gone through a lot of your edits and you refuse the agree with the stance of several democratic nations and refugees, inclding the exiled politicians, on about every count. You contantly accuse others for being a spokeperson for NCGUB and revert their edits. You have several warnings for your misuse of reverts on your user talk page. Claiming that you are neutral is a joke. Zarkow 125.24.209.24 10:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  okkar 

message: Shouldn't this article be at the title that reflects common usage in English?  In most news articles to this day, Burma is the term used (recent example).  The article can of course also reference the name used by the military government. Icsunonove 02:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article gives me the impression that the UN calls the country Myanmar when refering to it in English. Since the English world is somewhat divided on the issue, we should go with what the UN says. Or we could apply our own naming conventions for the British/American difference. While this isn't the exact same issue, it is in principle. And while those conventions say to go with what the first major editor used, in principle they really just want you to leave things alone and not engage in any controversial movement. Though many English sources use Myanmar and many citizens of Myanmar use Burma, either of the most unbiased methods (in my opinion) support using Myanmar. Atropos 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your point about the UN is wrong; the UN doesn't "say" anything.  They simply list what member countries ask them to list.  I'm not sure what you are talking about with the major editor and the bit about "they really just want you".  If most English sources use Myanmar, then that is correct usage.  It is like Constantinople; Istanbul was not used in English until the 19th or 20th century. Icsunonove 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Note some people have argued the most common usage by English speakers in Myanmar/Burma is Burma but there has been no evidence for this. We know that the most vocal supporters of the democracy movement retain the name Burma and we also know that the majority of the population appears to support the democracy movement. However this doesn't prove that the majority of the population retain the name Burma. The reality is we don't know precisely because the military doesn't allow these sort of things to be known. Also, whether or not the government is legitimate is kind of irrelevant IMHO. The fact of the matter, is illegitimate or not, they are the current government. If and when a more democract government takes over and if they decide to readopt the name Burma then we can change the name. Finally I disagree with the view that only native speaker of English matter. What the country is called by non-native speakers of English is just as important. E.g. India, ASEAN etc Nil Einne 06:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I don't know where the last comment came from.  Soap boxing? :-)  So should non-native speakers of Chinese go change some Chinese dictionaries? hah. We are simply supposed to use what is common usage in English.  If it is Myanmar, or Burma, whatever.  It seems that by just looking at BBC articles, they use Burma, and my own opinion is that Burma is the more well-known term in English to describe this area.  We'd have to figure out how to prove either one, I guess. Icsunonove 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last comment came in response to the numerous comments I've read in this thread an above seemingly claiming that only native speakers matter and that we're somehow legitimising the government by recognising that they've changed the name which a number of people have adopted. It was also a response to the unproven claim that Burma is preferred in Myanmar/Burma. The fact is, non native speaker have just as much right to influence a language as native speakers. If a Malaysian or a Singaporean or an Indian speaking English calls the country Myanmar then you have to consider their usage just as much as you consider an American or a Australia. Also, BBC is not the authority on naming countries Nil Einne 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: How does one measure common usage in English? Is there any evidence at all that Burma is predominant over Myanmar in the language? If one term is the dominant usage (by an overwhelming amount), then there is no question about what to use. If both terms have similar usage, meaning the dominant usage is unclear, then we should fall back to the one that the country calls itself. --Polaron | Talk 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can start off by reading Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names).  Some recommended methods are looking at what is used in major news sources (BBC, etc.), referring to encyclopedias, atlases, and also doing Google searches (for example, Google Scholar).  Also, a bit of common sense?  In this day and age, if you ask some of your friends if they've heard about Burma versus Myanmar, which one do you think will honestly be more well known? Icsunonove 00:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Al Jazeera uses Myanmar, as does Xiahua, The Star Malaysia, at least 3 Indian papers I found   , Channel News Asia, 2 South African sources use Myanmar   one uses Burma  (of the 3 I found). Even the New Zealand Herald often uses Myanmar; Spiegel   & DW-World sometimes do as well seemingly (I noticed Burma was used as well sometimes by both German sources. Fact is you're not going to get anywhere with these who uses what arguments since all it reveals is what we already know. American, Canadian, British, Australian and New Zealand sources often use Burma but some use Myanmar. Some are also inconsistent or don't appear to have a clear editorial policy and the usage various (presumuably based on who wrote the story or where they sourced it from). Most Asian countries use Myanmar. Nil Einne 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats, you just made their argument.  English language sources most often use Burma.  The argument is that since this is an English encyclopedia, we should use the common English name.  You just provided the proof that the common English name is Burma.  What non-English countries call Burma is irrelevant. Alyeska 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I didn't. These sources ARE English sources. And if another country calls Myanmar/Burma, Myanmar in English then that is relevant. English native countries don't get exclusively rights on the English language as hard as that may be for you to accept Nil Einne 15:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Speak for yourself. I'm well aware of Mumbai, Kolkata & Chennai and they would probably be the names I would use in normal usage and I've never been to India nor am I Indian. I've never heard of Varanasi but then again I've never heard of Benares either so... Just because you're incapable of learning new words doesn't mean the rest of use are. Nil Einne 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to wax nasty.  I am well aware of all the "new" names for Indian cities, including Varanasi/Benares.  You don't make yourself appear intelligent by proclaiming your extensive knowledge in one area and then proclaiming your ignorance in the same area...and attempting to imply that other people are stupid doesn't help your case.  See vainglory.  71.87.23.22 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You specifically said you consider the new names unrecognisable typos, I was commenting on that... Also you seemed to be completely missing my point. The whole point of what I was saying was that I'm not familiar with India. I freely admit I know very little about India. Despite that, I'm able to learn that names can change and when they do, I'm able to learn the new names. According to you, most people including you can't. But I don't see any evidence this is true. If you did have to know everything about India to learn the new names then you might have a point. But you don't and by your own admission I'm proof of that... Nil Einne 15:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the Article 

message: I made a change about the infiltration of protestors. I don't know how to add a link to the page, but the info came from here: http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/pm/weblog.php?id=P278  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.85 (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infiltration of Protestors 

message: Burma, unofficially the Union of Myanmar..
Officially I think it's Union of Myanmar, but many like to call it Burma (even officials).
84.202.208.245 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official name 

message: I was referred to this Myanmar / Burma naming debate, and I read all the comments carefully and with great interest.  I ended up, as it seems most of us are, with a slight preference in one direction, but without an overwhelming feeling one way or the other.
So I can add nothing substantial or useful to the debate, except for this: I find this discussion to be delightful, rational, kind, thoughtful, and respectful.  And I want to thank everyone involved for handling the issue with sensitivity and thoughtfulness.  It is a "borderline case" in the true sense of that word: there are good arguments for both sides, and it all seems somewhat balanced.  Sometimes debates like this go downhill into flames, and this one has not.  Everyone involved should feel proud about that.--Jimbo Wales 05:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: "President Thabo Mbeki called respect for peaceful protests versus junta ruling Myanmar. Buddhist monks were at a riot police road block, as Myanmar crackdown drew outrage, protests and demonstrations worldwide against Myanmar violence. George Bush demanded an end to Myanmar violence, as 9 dissidents were killed." I propose to change this to "President Thabo Mbeki called for respect for peaceful protests versus the junta ruling Myanmar. Buddhist monks were at a riot police road block, as the Myanmar crackdown drew outrage, protests and demonstrations worldwide against Myanmar violence. George Bush demanded an end to Myanmar violence, as 9 dissidents were killed." I am not sure whether this is what the original writer intended in the sentence about Mbeki. Is Mbeki supposed to be calling for the protestors to respect the juntaor for the junta to respect the protestors? Edison 13:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Garbled English

message: As far as I am aware referring to 'Myanmar' as 'Burma' is pretty much the same as people referring to Great Britain as 'England'.  The name also pre-dates this Junta and is a term which is inclusive of all the ethnicities and not just the Burmese.
If the governemnt of the day in Myanmar (whether democratic or not) wishes the country to be called and be known as 'Myanmar' then so be it, 'Myanmar' it is.
This reminds me of a well written comment on the Cote d'Ivoire discussion page, where there is a similiar argument that Cote d'Ivoire is French for Ivory Coast and because this is English Wiki then Ivory Coast should be used even though the government of the Cote d'Ivoire wishes that this be the official name (in all languages).  The comment made was along the lines of the following.  Burkino Faso (formerly known as Upper Volta in the English language) is a native African name which means "Land of Upright People", now does this mean we should ignore the name Burkino Faso and start referring to the country as "Land of Upright People" ?!  It seems that just because a country may have a name in another major international language that we think its fit to use an anglicised version, whereas we don't mind indigenous language names. Whether or not a place name has an alternative English name or not is irrelevant.  True, people will still call 'Myanmar' Burma in 50yrs time, names and habits do stick.  However it does not change the fact that the official name of Myanmar (at the moment, pending regime change) is 'Myanmar'. 
There has also been reference to the BBC calling 'Myanmar' Burma, So what?  Since when was the BBC the authority on place names or even pronunciation?  Christ, a lot of the time they are hard pushed to get a geographic location in the United Kingdom right, never mind half way around the world!  I believe the BBC's official policy of naming convention (or it used to be) was that it referred to places etc as they are commonly called or known as, which as we all know does not necessarily mean it is correct (e.g referring to 'Netherlands' as 'Holland').  Another example I could use is the present state of Zimbabwe, should we disregard this 'African-ised term' (its not English word is it) and instead use Rhodesia, should we also do the same for Harare and revert to its original name Salisbury?
One could go on and on, fact is place names change and evolve, just as countries are born and then disappear, just look what happened to Poland once upon a time!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.97.173 (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, Burma and Myanmar are the same word.  Second, governments cannot dictate what proper English usage is any more than you can dictate that "ain't" isn't a word, and splitting infinitives is improper.  People call it Burma; therefore, it is Burma, regardless of what the Burmese junta prescribes.  Most people call Zimbabwe "Zimbabwe," and most people call Burma "Burma."  dcandeto 15:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, one gets the impression from Google that most people call it Myanmar... -GTBacchus(talk) 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Google hits indicate how many websites, not how many people use an expression. 2) Most people writing in the Internet about current events use the same expressions as or directly copy news sources. 3) As explained in the discussion above, most news sources follow some style guide, so the number of news sources using M instead of or before mentioning B does not indicate the same number of independent decisions for M. They're simply following, for example, the AP style guide. 4) Even those that use M first almost always explain that this means B because 5) Most English speakers except in some Asian countries have no idea where or what M is, but most know that B is a country and have a vague idea of in what part of the world it's located. 6) Based on 4 and 5, it's obvious that most people outside of Asia never use M, and the extreme confusion about how to pronounce M proves it is not at all widely used. --Espoo 21:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) I'm pretty much aware of that, but I don't mean to use ghit counts as anything other than a rough guide. 2) and 3) I don't see why it matters whether we're counting "independent decisions".  Is most English usage determined by independent decisions, or don't most of us rather repeat words and phrases we've heard others use?  Nowhere in WP:COMMONNAME does it say we need to consider why a name is common. 4) When I search Google news for "Myanmar -Burma" and "Burma -Myanmar", I see twice as many hits for the former, which seems to belie your claim that M is almost always explained as meaning B.  5) and 6) I see that you're asserting what "most English speakers" know about, but I don't see any evidence for these claims.  I've never been to Asia, and I think I've seen more usage of Myanmar than of Burma.  Am I to believe that my experience is so remarkable and unique?  Do you know "most people outside of Asia" better than I do? -GTBacchus(talk) 07:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GTBacchus, I would say that your experience isn't necessarily "remarkable" or "unique", but I would say you are more travelled than the majority of Anglophones, and, as a teacher, hopefully have read more than the "average" intelligent but not-so-widely-travelled or so-up-to-date-on-international-naming-intrigue, Anglophone.  I perceive in your above statement that you are trying to portray yourself as an "average" Anglophone, and I rather doubt that that portrayal is even remotely accurate.  A cursory review of my contributions in related discussions will reveal that I am a stickler for distinguishing between :simple: as an online encyclopedia for "dumb Anglophones", and :en: for the literate.  This is not, however, in my view, a distinction between "dumb" and "literate" Anglophones, this argument is over a distinction between "literate" Anglophones, and a minority of Anglophones (overrepresented among Wikipedians) who consider themselves, pompously in some cases, I daresay, "literati".  (And no, I'm not accusing you...) Tomertalk 08:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  You and Espoo talked me into it.  I think Burma really is more common, and should be used per the principle of least astonishment.  Well argued.  (Oh, and I've been called worse than 'literati', and thrown out of much nicer bars than this one! ;) ).  I suspect I'm too involved to close the move request, though. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming controversy - something to consider 

message: Sorry for repeating myself but I'll do so because I see a lot of citing of magazines' and newspapers' usage that isn't relevant.
Surveying news organizations for their usages of "Burma" or "Myanmar" is strongly suspect because most newspapers and news magazines in the US refer to the AP Stylebook for all such decisions.  If the AP Stylebook says it's Myanmar, then nearly all newspapers in the US will use Myanmar.  Evidence that 58,000 newspapers and news magazines use the term "Myanmar" doesn't mean that 58,000 newspapers have judged the situation and made a careful decision; it just means that a few people at the Associated Press have made a decision, and 58,000 newspapers and news magazines subsequently slaved themselves to that decision.  Tempshill 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The regime changed the name but they are unelected and they rule by force. The protesters I see on the news both Burmese in their own country and the ones in exile, carry banners clearly with the name "Burma" on it. I lived next door in Thailand for 3 years and met many Burmese born people and Karens too. They refer to "Burma" as their homeland and where there from. They pronounce "Myanmar" with a scowl, which directly relates to military government.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.64.201 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It makes no difference to us whether a government is elected or not, we are an encyclopedia not a political activism organisation. We should use the common English term for what the country (ie its government) calls itself, and that is Myanmar. Were there more sources in English for Burma doesn't affect that at all, or if more people use the word Burma doesn't affect it either, the latter especially not as we are here to educate the ignorant, SqueakBox 23:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google is one form of evidence, beyond the anecdotal, for what the common English term is; others can be found at WP:NCGN; the same page has several cautions about Googling, and advises against trusting raw www.google.com searches. I am convinced that Myanmar is not (yet, if ever) the common English term; and we are not here to ladle information down our readers' throats, but to communicate with them.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We are not here to pander to people's ignorance but to inform people so if do not realise Burma is now called Myanmar we are here to teach them, SqueakBox 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, none of us is here from the pro-ladling contingent, right?  So, if we're all agreed that we'd like to use the most commonly recognized term, perhaps we can agree that it's not entirely clear which name is more commonly recognized.  I see anecdotal evidence for both sides... Google-based evidence for both sides, and... um... I can't tell.  Maybe "Burma" is still more common.  Maybe "Myanmar" has supplanted it, in the English of most speakers worldwide.  I don't think we've been presented with the right information to say for sure, nor do we know whether such information exists.  How can we tell which is more commonly recognized? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NCGN has six suggested methods, one being the  usage of Google Scholar and Google Books. It does not mention, and should, an assertion by a neutral and reliable source; but then that doesn't happen that often. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News organizations' usage doesn't count. 

message: Unfortunately the article can't be changed by anonymous or new members. So I have to ask if the phrase explaining that the first railroads were built in the 1800s means that we have to rewrite the history of that technology? Between 1800 and 1810 there didn't exist so many railroads and until now I hadn´t heard anything about important Burmese contributions (or a simultaneous discovery). Someone should write "19th century" or preferably give a better number. 84.178.118.252 08:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1800's is more naturally the century than the decade; but this fix seems harmless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railroad history