Talk:Myanmar

Infobox header

this is ridiculous. The term "Union of Burma" was created and used only by the same government who then decided it should be called "Myanmar". Nobody but nobody refers to the "Union of Burma" except in an historical sense, because regardless of your political agenda, perception of trends in the English language or views on geography versus politics, it's a descriptor of a particular political entity that no longer exists under that name. The edit summary given is like saying "Hawaii still exists. The infobox should read Republic of Hawaii.". The space in this infobox is for the full, official name, regardless of vernacular usage, and should read "Union of Myanmar". At a worst case solution, simply "Burma" is an alternative. Oh, and by the way the current Burmese script immediately below in the infobox reads "Myanmar". Hope that makes things clearer. Bigbluefish (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was under the impression that the actual name was Union of Burma before the juntanization. You seem pretty confident in the fact that it was simply Burma and nothing else (i.e. official letterheads), and on a quick check through the internet I didn't see anything to the contrary, so we'll go with the US/UK official name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, guys. I don't know what the country's official long name was before the junta, but no one currently says the long name is just Burma. The government controlling the nation says it is currently "Union of Myanmar". The government in Rockville, Maryland says it is currently "Union of Burma" (so does the CIA World Factbook, right before it tells us that the capital is still at Rangoon). I'd rather have the long name as "Union of Burma" than just "Burma", since the latter isn't a long name at all. Of course, I think it's silly to let Maryland tell us the name of a Southeast Asian nation... -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have the cia book at my disposal nor did I know the exiled gov'ts full title. I assumed it was Union of Burma but I knew it was not Union of Myanmar. Sorry I caved so quickly I just assumed a compromise of "Burma" was better than me continuing to revert it back. So to be consistent with this article should it be "National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma" or (what is probably better) the slightly shortened version we had before, "Union of Burma?" I'll put it back to what it was but if more people want the longer title so be it.Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, if we change the infobox to something like the "National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma", then we should change the rest of the information to describe the democratic Burmese government of Maryland. For which we already have an article. Which is why my first sentence should be understood as sarcastic. :-) But more seriously, why can we not use the official name that the ruling government gives itself? -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the junta govt is not recognized by the US/UK... Union of Myanmar is not official. However as with the opening line of "officially the Union of Myanmar" being wrong and out of place with this article, this infobox item "Union of Myanmar" is a small potato thing. I will say here that it makes the article un-uniform, and is not the official name. I think it adds confusion to a pretty good wiki entry that people have worked hard on. That said, if you'd rather the infobox long name change to Union of Myanmar I won't change it back. I will set it to say both Union of Myanmar and Union of Burma as it's infobox long name as a compromise but I'll leave it to others to decide if that works for consistency. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it intellectually dishonest that you try to imply:

1. that before the "edit warring" the infobox read "Union of Burma" when in fact it has been "Union of Myanmar" until 3 weeks ago when an anon tried changing it to "Burma" and you prompty "fixed" it
2. that the consensus is that "Burma" is an official name, when it is not

Yes it is an official English name. The consensus is split.

1. that the usage of "Burma" in this article is based on formality, when it is not

Did you forget that people can still read the Mediation Cabal discussion that the current naming convention bases itself on? Back then you seemed perfectly happy to base a defence of "Burma" solely on common English usage, when the overwhelming consensus that this is the only acceptable rationale in favour of that name was still apparent. If I have got you wrong, then I apologise. But the fact that you really ought to remember that the above arguments have already been rejected makes it appear like you said whatever you had to at the time in order to push a moral-political agenda, and that discredits what else you have to say.

There were many reasons given by many people at the time. I was one of many. I always let it be known that I was in the Burma camp but I also took a middle ground. I mentioned split articles and Burma/Myanmar and they were shot down. Did you offer any middle ground back then or did you just attack as you are doing now? Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The modern usage of "Union of Burma" is by and large a politically charged invention. It's hard work trying to find serious uses of the term in Google searches, where most are historical accounts or talking about the exile government. Compare with "Union of Myanmar" which plenty of those who use "Burma" like the BBC declare to be the official name and there's no contest.

I think the above is sound enough reasoning that the infobox should be put back how it was, and unless BaronGrackle has changed his mind, I'm not alone; but I'm not going to add to the pile of edits without knowing that it's going to be accepted, so please somebody else weigh in. Bigbluefish (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In my opinion, Union of Myanmar is the better entry for the 'conventional long name' parameter of the infobox. Though 'Union of Burma' is also acceptable, putting both names is not a good idea. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Because? Goodness it goes by both, this is an encyclopedia, can't we show both? Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We can. But it is unnecessarily confusing to use both names. (Plus, the parameter is expressed in the singular form.) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that someone could be bewildered by seeing two formal names in the infobox, and the parameter is not visible to the casual viewer so they don't look at it as singular. It seemed a fair compromise to show both but I realize that compromise hasn't exactly been the rule of thumb around here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The Union of Burma is just as much a current regime as the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma, the Republic of Hawaii, the Third Reich and so on. Most if not all of the sources I've seen using "Union of Burma" in reference to the current nation are doing so as an implication that the junta is not the current government of that country. That is not something this article tries to pretend and if that's what you're proposing then do make that clear. You might get more "compromise" if you left the agenda over legitimacy at the door, since contrary to your continued insistence, not one participant brought up the political position of Western nations as an argument in favour of the name "Burma" in the MEDCAB case and was taken into account. To keep pushing that point that long ago lost consensus makes it difficult to find merit in the rest of the argument.

You would also do well to take a less belligerent approach to a content discussion. "Compromise" is not about two "camps" digging their heels in and settling with some middle ground between them. If one aspect of the article doesn't contain "both names" it does not mean that democracy has won or lost, and no moral wrongs have been committed. A Wikipedia compromise requires people to understand and accept the position of others, play devil's advocate with one's own position, and not just push harder in the scrum. Bigbluefish (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Belligerent? I plop in something that was middle ground and you attack me? You pick on and apologize to me in the same sentence and then lecture on high about My approach? Wow lol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask for a response that differentiates between content and user conduct? A content decision isn't immune from criticism just because it's "middle ground". I'm at a loss what else to say if you have no challenge to the fact that neither "Burma" nor "Union of Burma" are "official" names and nor has the consensus when this was a high-traffic topic ever held it to be. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isn't immune from criticism. I guess a lot depends on what one means by "official." The hoodlums in control of Burma now are nothing "official" by a lot of people's standards, and if they are not then what was the official name of the country before they grabbed power? I said back when that I wasn't sure of that "official" name except it wasn't Union of Myanmar. I was told the gov't that some recognize use Union of Burma and their website confirmed it. The CIA source only has Burma and does not go into detail on what is it's official name. So I've seen Union of Burma, Burma and also Union of Myanmar. It seemed fair to me to have it Union of Myanmar/Union of Burma to satisfy the politics involved. I'm going to assume that we come at this thing from a different perspective....I don't call the country Burma because that name is popular, I call it Burma because from my standpoint that is the legitimate name today. I know that Myanmar is used by a lot of people so that name should be there also (heck I even put it first), but I don't recognize it as legal. Neither do three acquaintances of mine who are recently removed from the country. They used Burma (actually it sounds more like B'uma) but said they did use Myanma (sounds more like M'unma) when they were close by anyone official looking, for their own safety. I'm only writing this so you see my point of view. As I alread said, I'm not going to change it back so we really needn't argue the point anymore but I'm guessing that's why we don't see eye to eye on this issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Because the junta govt is not recognized by the US/UK... Union of Myanmar is not official." The the various international groups that govern over international law and handle international issues, including treaties, pacts, and agreements, as well as SOVEREIGNTY issues can just be ignored? The US/UK rule the world and everyone else doesn't matter? As an american, I am appalled that such ignorance is rampant. The UNITED NATIONS and the current government call it Union Of Myanmar. That makes it official. If I invaded the UK or Hawaii or any other named country above, took control, and renamed it Land Of Wankers, and the UN accepted that name in official documentation, then that's the new name. No amount of crying or chest thumping, or biteless barking, or any other such nonsense conducted by said non-related governments will change the fact that they have no control over another country's choice of name. One's government, {or even one's self} can delude themselves all they want, ignoring reality, revising history; but over in the real world, the name has been changed by the ruling power, and accepted as the official body of international law, The International Court of Justice, and the international body of political governing, The United Nations. It's official. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Heck, This is an English wiki and you can put all the faith you want into the UN. I have little. And that's the difference... if some nuts took over Your country and named it wankers it wouldn't surprise me that the UN would verify it. It does make me sad that you would cower and readily accept it though. To each his own I guess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinions like this have no place in Wikipedia editorial decision-making. I've lost all faith that you're seeking to write this article under any guise of objectivity. Long may you understand that something can be official and yet unjust. Bigbluefish (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My choice to go along or become a rebel and fight back isn't the issue. What is "official" is. This being an English Language Wikipedia doesn't make any difference at all; English is the second most spoken language in the world, and one of three international languages of business. This site has visitors from all over the globe, many, if not most, of whom DO accept the UN's decisions. The UN's choice to recognize the current government has nothing to do with being fair. LIFE is not fair. In the end, no one disagrees that there is a new government in power, that that government chose Myanmar as the name, and that that government is conducting international relations. And since that controlling government is THE controlling government, that's who is currently official; like them or not.

My personal feeling have nothing to do with it (I didn't like the last government and I don't like the new one), as an editor on an Encyclopaedia, my DUTY to the commons is to point out the facts, free from opinion, personal belief, and bias. Lostinlodos (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did the Coat of Arms of Burma go?

Why was this deleted. Coat of arms of countries are public domain anyway. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually in looking up the legalities a case can be made that they are not public domain. I didn't remove it but I see the warning was up for quite awhile that it needed an official source, so I guess the bot finally swept the image into the trash. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just use the Russian or Chinese wikipedia's version of the coat of arms? Azalea pomp (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure those are just as iffy in the legal dept but I have no problem with trying it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Usage across Wikipedia

Just wondering, is there any prescription about the usage of the name Burma and/or Myanmar throughout the project? Can editors freely choose between the two in other articles? --Avg (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. In the tennis articles (100's of them) there is no consistency with items that many dispute, but I have no idea what the actual protocol is. With tennis, people don't have time to make (rewrite/argue) 100s of corrections so each entry just sort of stands on it's own merit and with Burma/Myanmar I guess I just assumed it was the same way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that there is a lack of consensus on what to name the article for Burma/Myanmar which does not mean that there is some sort of official wikipedia decision on the name of the country. My interpretation of this is that it is up to individual editors to choose (and defend) whatever name they consider more appropriate in other parts of the project. In a sense, wikipedia reflects the ambiguity that exists on the name of that country and that's a good thing. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both for your answers, do you think we could try to formalise this and mention somewhere (perhaps at the top of this article?) that irrespective of the country article title, Burma and Myanmar can be used interchangeably throughout Wikipedia?--Avg (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean at the top of the talk page? I think it would simply open up a can of worms at each burma/myanmar page where every non wiki member and his brother would look at that as a green light to start little fires. Maybe I'm wrong on this but that would be my first thought. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My intention was the exact opposite (to relax the rules and hence the edit wars since there wouldn't be a prescription from Wikipedia), but if you think this will raise more tensions then of course I withdraw my proposal immediately.--Avg (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I could be very wrong with my thoughts on this issue. It does sound reasonable, but my gut tells me that a few nuts would see the notice and look at it as a green light to replace the terms (both ways) across the board with reckless abandon. Like a device in a Star Trek episode that can be a boon to man or a horrific weapon in the wrong hands, and I always see a Romulan right around the corner :-). Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Mispronunciations? IPA? Why not "myan-MAR"?

Is it a good idea to list incorrect pronunciations at the end of the first section? Compounding the problem, I know that Wikipedia house style is to assume that everyone can read IPA, but that isn't true. Less than 2% of all native English speakers can read the IPA.

The BBC article cited as the source of the correct pronunciation uses "myan-MAR" to explain the pronunciation. Wouldn't this article be a whole lot better with that instead of the wrong IPA transcriptions, which so few understand anyway? 75.36.154.125 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The German version has the IPA pronunciation /pjìdàunzṵ mjəmà nàinŋàn/. I think Template:Pronounced or Template:IPA might work. Although, like most people, I have no idea how to read IPA. 130.39.188.56 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

South Asia template

Academics often include Burma in South Asia. Burma is clearly mentioned as being sometimes included in South Asia via Template:Countries and Territories of South Asia. Another user has started an edit war and has began to remove this template. The template is auto-collapsed, so the idea that it takes up room at the bottom of the page is nonsense. This template fits and should remain on this page Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arms Trade With North Korea

NY Times 22 June 2009 has an article about a U.S. naval destroyer shadowing a North Korean freighter bound for Myanmar. Should this or how might this be folded into the section on Myanmar's foreign policy/military including mention of an arms embargo within the first paragraph?

Note: my original post of this discussion point included this link encased in http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/world/asia/22korea.html?partner=rss&emc=rss but does not show up (perhaps my naivete on wiki editing)

QueueNut (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

External "government" link

The external link under "government" [1] in fact leads to a commercial site with no government information.