Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Burma/Myanmar

message: Okay, here we are going to start the first step of mediation. If I understood the case correctly, it is mostly the discussion upon the name of the project. If, I am wrong then please correct me. It would be better if all of you mention your case in brief (with maximum of 120 words). Thank you,  Shyam (T/C) 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, when writing in English, I prefer to continue to use the traditional English name for the country, "Burma", until a legitimate government decides on a better name. And personally I don't consider the present government legitimate. I thought the original name of the project was well chosen to take account of different views on this issue. But Wikipedia is written collaboratively and I don't wish to impose my views on others, so I will happily accept whatever decision is reached by mediation. Andrew Dalby 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start 

message: It is not Wikipedia's place to dictate which is legitimate government or be involved in political rows that surround the country. The country name was changed according to the charter of United Nations since 18 years ago.  While I would accept the excuse of "being slow to take up" the new name in Western countries, I must point out that 18 years is a long time. Every country change their name, and every country has opposition parties and groups that are not in 100% agreement with their government.  We are not here to decide whether the current government in Myanmar is legitimate or not, it concerns very little with Wikipedia and it's project.  However, if this project is to represent the country, it should have the correct name of the country, MYANMAR - like it or not, that is the name on our passport, that is the name of the destination when you board the planes at the airports (even in US and UK).  Insisting on using the old name would be like changing WikiProject for Thailand to Wikiproject Siam.  No other WikiCountry projects have double name.  It is not necessary to have both name as it serves no purpose but add confusions to already complicated issues.  The only purpose that serve by having both name is to appease the opposition groups and their political agenda, in other word, using Wikipedia to paddle their political propaganda. Okkar 17:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from [[User:Okkar|Okkar]] 

message: :Personally, when writing in English, I prefer to continue to use the traditional English name for the country, "Burma", until a legitimate government decides on a better name. And personally I don't consider the present government legitimate. I thought the original name of the project was well chosen to take account of different views on this issue. But Wikipedia is written collaboratively and I don't wish to impose my views on others, so I will happily accept whatever decision is reached by mediation. Andrew Dalby 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from [[User:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] 

message: I created the Project intentionally with both names to give equal time to both points of view, for balance. If you see the talkpages of many of the major articles on the country, to include the main national article, there is a discussion as to what name should be used. Myanmar is favored by the current military junta; Burma is favored by the democratic government in exile. One is based on the literal transliteration of the words; the other is based on pronunciation. It's like the catholic church using Latin, but pronouncing it as though it were Italian. Even nations cannot agree as to what the name should be. The same discussion is had with Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast, where the local dictatorship favors only one way to transliterate their name. Hypothetically, should say Saudi Arabia's rulership insist on the rest of the world call their nation al-Arabiyah as-Saudiyah, I am sure there would be similar discussions. Many of the folks who edit these articles (and their views are all valuable for balance) refuse to recognize one name or the other, so that's why I intentionally chose both. I will support a name change only if Hintha and Andrew support it, as the other major positive contributors. Chris 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from [[User:Kintetsubuffalo|Kintetsubuffalo]] 

message: I would like to close the mediation. As I came to know there is no opposition in having present name of the WikiProject. If someone wants to express some oppositions, then (s)he could do it in within three days. After three days the discussion will be closed, if there would be no oppositions. I personally feel the WikiProject name should be WikiProject Burma (Myanmar) instead of WikiProject Burma/Myanmar because the present name seems to be a subproject of WikiProject Burma. You can express your views regarding this. Thank you,  Shyam (T/C) 16:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why cant the name be WikiProject Myamar (Burma)? Is there a particular reason why the current name of the country should be in bracket instead of former name? I thought we only put former names in the ()? An explanation please? Okkar 17:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason for this proposal was because of no response from the second party. Alright, I agree with Okkar as he mentioned that the country name has been changed and recognised by UN 18 years ago then the name could be Myanmar, but I would like to see some reliable sources for recognition of the name Myanmar by UN. Is it possible to provide some links? Regards,  Shyam (T/C) 18:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find a reliable publication per se, but  seems to show that Myanmar is used by the UN. But the UN is not a good barometer on familiarity in English--for example, "Timor Leste" is recognized by the UN, but "East Timor" remains the name used in the English Wikipedia article. Sometimes, it's not about political leanings, but about typical English usage. --Hintha 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Hintha-same with Cote d'Ivoire versus Ivory Coast. Outside the country, the English usage is just as common as French, and in other societies, directly translated to their language. Whatever Hintha supports, count me in. Chris 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article is redirected to Myanmar which seems to be NPOV to me because UN and most of the other nations accept this name in practice. It could not be said that Burma is english name of Myanmar so I do not think english Wikipedia has seperate name for the country. Most of the people from the country accept Myanmar and most of the contributions on the project come from the country people and people who knows about the country better, so there would not be any confusions about the country name. Even a redirect link would allow people to reach the main project which would be WikiProject Myanmar.  Shyam (T/C) 04:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that's being exclusive of those not from Myanmar. For example, you're excluding possible people well-versed in Burma studies ("Myanmar studies" is almost unheard of), who are not "from the country" per se. By excluding those who do not come "from the country", any new possible participants hoping to join the Wikiproject may be discouraged from joining. And I don't believe most of the contributions on Myanmar articles come from Burmese people--a great deal comes from anonymous edits and established users from around the world. And the project's purpose is not to be exclusive of people of non-Burmese origins, but is meant to be a global collaborative effort. This Wikiproject is an effort to include all those throughout the world (even users who are not familiar with Burmese topics, but are talented in peer review, quality assessments, and reaching out to the English Wikipedia community as a whole), including users who are not familiar with Myanmar or with the term Burma. --Hintha 04:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose these people would not be discouraged if the project name would be WikiProject Myanmar or other. If the people want to contribute to the articles and and do any assesment, then it could be done. For example, people from Burma studies must be very well aware of the country name Myanmar. So there would not be any problem having that name. Even some people who are not aware of Myanmar also could reach to the project by providing relevant redirect links. As main article is recognised with Myanmar then I do not seek any problem having same name with the project.  Shyam (T/C) 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with what Shyam said above.  What stopping us in redirecting WikiProject Burma to WikiProject Myanmar? just as we have done with the country article.  If you search for Burma, it points to Myanmar.  I think the arguement of putting users who dont know the name of the country is groundless in that sense.  Anyone who wants to contribute and do peer review should know the name of the country at least.  It's not so hard to know "Myanmar" is once known as "Burma" and I'm sure most contributor will not have a major issue with it unless they are politically motivated.  Every country changed their name, but I see no other projects insisting upon using the old name simply to attract more contribution.  The name has been changed for 18 years and it is as long as a life time of an adult. Insisting to keep using the old name of the country only give rise to confusions and added speculation towards political biasness.  All I am asking is to be consistent with naming of project according to the name of the country, just like every other country wikiproject have done.  Okkar 16:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I just want to add that if a change is to be made I would be happy to go with Okkar's suggestion of WikiProject Myanmar (Burma). This suggestion takes account of the point raised, that some English readers may not yet be familiar with the "new" official name. Quite a few other reference sources use this same method. Andrew Dalby 11:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, I suppose, we all agree with the new project name WikiProject Myanmar (Burma). Please add your views, if you all agree with the name. Regards,  Shyam (T/C) 11:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  At least this better than the current name of the project.  I would settle for this Okkar 16:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing mediation