Category talk:Myanmar

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Burma is Burma, not Myanmar

Rename Myanmar to Burma[edit]

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree on this issue, it should be in line with the category naming scheme on Wiki. The article Myanmar is in local Burmese anyways, so we have both versions. Gryffindor (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Myăma is the local Burmese name; "Myanmar" is an anglicisation used by the SPDC military government. The Celestial City (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, it is still official.--23prootie (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree Goodness this was put up in May and I didn't know about it. 04:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree For decades this country's name has been Myanmar. I understand the motivation to call it Burma, but we do not support political positions; we state facts only. The name of the country is clearly Myamar; there is no other position to take that does not also disagree with reality. -- 05:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC).

The "reality" is that most major English-speaking countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, quite rightly do not recognise the legitimacy of the Burmese military to rename their country when the majority of the Burmese public are opposed to this. For these countries, which collectively contain the majority of the world's English-speaking population, Burma is accepted as the name of the country. The Celestial City (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Who cares what those countries think. They have as much an influence on Myanmar as a turtle does. ASEAN is the one who really holds the key (Aung San Suu Kyi should thank them) so what ASEAN says should be the basis.--23prootie (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree The name Myanmar is the same name as Burma, but in a old forgotten spelling. Next year the country will change its name again. U. S. A. (United States of Asia) or U. K. (The United Kingdom of Burma) or People's Republic of Burma or something new and unknown. 07:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree The Constitution of Myanmar officially uses the name "Republic of the Union of Myanmar" not "Burma" so this name is valid. 11:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 23prootie (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

On that basis, do you also think that the Libya category should be moved to the (constitutional) Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya? Or that the North Korea category should be moved to the (constitutional) Democratic People's Republic of Korea? The Celestial City (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure.--23prootie (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree The nation's own government, the United Nations, and the vast majority of media sources (outside of the U.K.) refer to the country as Myanmar. -BaronGrackle 14:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is in Burmese, I think that's a fair compromise. Gryffindor (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean. The category page I'm looking at has titles all in English. -BaronGrackle 13:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
There are categories, and there are articles. I am talking about this here မြန်မာပြည်. Gryffindor (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Strange that articles are titled by vernacular while categories are titled by English. Well, I don't think I agree with your point. We're not discussing Bama vs. Myanma; we're discussing the English versions. :) -BaronGrackle 13:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree The nation's own people refer to the country as Burma. haabet

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree The nation is commonly known as Burma and per category naming reason per Gryffindor.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The nation is more commonly known as Myanmar in India, China, and Southeast Asia, which combined constitutes half of the global population.--23prootie (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Only small minorities of those countries, though admittedly growing, speak English, and those countries' usage has more to do with international politics (they haven't spoken out against the recent sham election, for example) than anything else. The Celestial City (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Please look at List of countries by English speaking population. Half of the English speakers around the world do not live in English-speaking majority countries.--23prootie (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree Res Judicata - The issue was thoroughly debated. The average Burmese refers to his own country as "Burma". Either choice carries political baggage, but if we are to look beyond politics, as we should, we find no reason substantial and compelling enough to overturn the overwhelming choice of the native population. Istvan (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This issue is not how many names citizens refer to their own country, but the actual name of the country, which is Myanmar. All citizens from all nations use different, common names rather than official or identified preferred names. The choice of Burma is clearly a decision that meets political and emotional objectives. Storm Rider (For some reason it keeps kicking me out of being registered; strange)
The actual name of the country is how it is referred to by its people, not what some unelected military regime decides to call it. The Celestial City (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
But you have to accept that the people of Myanmar also includes the military government?--23prootie (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree Myanmar is the constitutional name of the country and it is used by the vast majority of governments in the world (including all of its neighboring states), the U.N., and most United States-based media (CNN [1], New York Times [2], Associated Press [3], etc.) --Tocino 09:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree as per BaronGrackle and Tocino. As long as the title is in English, the name that is most commonly used in English-language reliable sources is the appropriate choice. Burma is a historical name like Yugoslavia or French West Africa, and therefore less precise and less recognizable. --Mason (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. Yugoslavia and French West Africa no longer exist, whereas Burma and Myanmar are two different spelling varieties for the name of an existing country. There's nothing historical about this. Húsönd (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree Myanmar is the official name of the country. Its ludicrous that Wikipedia is still caught up in systemic biases favouring western media renderings. The country name has changed to Myanmar for two decades now. 12:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference between the renaming of Burma and that of other places around the world is that the Burmese junta has no legitimacy to change the country's English-language name against the will of the Burmese people. The Celestial City (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Well the United States has no legitimacy in imposing their own opinions on other countries so tit for tat.--23prootie (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree Burma is the most widely used name for the country in Southeast Asia, and is the name used on the English Wikipedia as well as by Burma's only democratically elected and legitimate government in the 1990 election. The Celestial City (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not even remotely true. Myanmar is by far the most common name. It gets twice as many hits as Burma on Google; what other way would you propose that Burma is more common? 07:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I completely disagree; simply counting Google hits is a very poor way to analyse which name is more widely used. On Google Books, which lists much more reliable sources, "Burma" gets 1,690,000 results, while "Myanmar" gets just 249,000 results; over six times fewer. "Burma" is absolutely the more common terminology in reliable sources. The Celestial City (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, Burma is the colonial name so it would probably appear more in historical documents than Myanmar.--23prootie (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree Use common names rather than official names. Húsönd (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree It is not clear which is more common overall, Myanmar or Burma, and Myanmar is used more often since the name change. Political activism, such as changing it to oppose the Burmese government, should never be a cause for such renamings on this website. Quigley (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with your claim that "Myanmar" is more widely used. Please see my sources above. The Celestial City (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
As a historical and colonial term, Burma is most commonly used, the same goes for Persia.--03:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree. Burma has been the normal English name for most of my (b. 1950) life. The new name is associated with the regime; plus it has too many different pronunciations. Rothorpe (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC) 22:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well then, we might as well uses Persia for Iran, Siam for Thailand, Kampuchea for Cambodia, Ceylon for Sri Lanka, Zaire for DR Congo, Dahomey for Benin, Upper Volta for Burkina Faso, and Tanganyika for Tanzania. Most of these states had repressive regimes during their name changes so those aren't valid. Anyway it is about your life not ours. --23prootie (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The difference is that the international community accepts these name changes, and today it is rare to see the former names used except in a historical context. This is absolutely not the case with Burma. The name Myanmar is very strongly associated with the military regime, while the country remains widely known as Burma. The Celestial City (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
But the international community did accept the name change of Myanmar. Both the United Nations and the Non-aligned Movement, organizations that represent at least 2/3 of countries around the world, advocate that name. So do all ASEAN countries. If you ask me only Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States use the colonial name Burma which is nowhere near the international community. Whose say has bigger weight anyway, theirs or ASEAN?--23prootie (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be better if we ask Aung San Suu Kyi herself and see what she thinks. --23prootie (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
She and the National League for Democracy support "Burma". See Names of Burma. The Celestial City (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
We need the most recent source, her views may have changed given that she now advocates peaceful dialogue over radical change in government. --03:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree . I am from Myanmar. Since 1948, in all the published books in Myanmar language, there is no Union of Burma. If Wikipedia doesn't recognize name change of illegal government, why recognize flag change? Burma is clearly British creation during colonial period, so did Rangoon (Yangon). If we prefer to stick with colonial names, why not we rename Rangoon? I couldn't understand above arguments.

1) "Every" South East Asian country uses official name as Myanmar.

2) "Myanmar" is "both" official and common name.

3) I tried Google search for both;for Burma there are About 26,900,000 results (0.06 seconds); for Myanmar About 67,100,000 results (0.05 seconds).

4) United Nations officially recognizes as "Myanmar".

Soewinhan (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree Basing anything on the names used on Wiki is messy because the name has been subject to endless discussion and procedure that has never produced consensus, not even when the article was moved from Myanmar to Burma, and everything else is copying the main article location, which just reinforces the problem. Both names are widely used in English and opinions on the regime that made the name change should be irrelevant (as point out above there are lots of countries whose names were changed by similar regimes). Myanmar is increasingly the most common used name and there's no point in changing backwards. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree Between Burma/Burmese or Myanmar/Myanmarese in this English-centric wikipedia, I'll stick with Burma until the US, UK, Canada, Australia and Burmese gov't in exile tell me they also recognize the name given by the illegal gov't in power. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this is not suppose to be English-centric only.--23prootie (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia UN article[edit]

According to the article below, Wikipedia specifically mentions Burma/Myanmar as Myanmar. And all other names of nations in this article, match with the nation article names.

I predict that in the future so is the name: People's Republic of Burma. Burma is a country which is different from all other countries, as you know.haabet 22:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no controversy there, Myanmar is the legitimate name of the country, and the United Nations, ASEAN, Southeast Asian countries, Japan, and France rightfully recognize it as so. It is only the imperialistic countries (the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Israel) that refuse to recognize that name primarily because of their colonial interests. --23prootie (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah right... same old baloney. 00:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no debate on the topic at en:United Nations member states, 23prootie is a tendentious editor banned at the English Wikipedia. Please also see en:User:Elockid/Long-term abuse/23prootie for more information--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I for one didn't know that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Haha. Attack the message not the messenger. I think it is becoming desperate when people start character assassinations. Anyway as long as it drags the discussion, I'm fine with that.
The fact is I am banned there not here, and I believe that cross-over bans and references to such should be disallowed since they derail the topic and politicize the situation rather than contribute anything productive.--23prootie (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Your own comments speak volumes of your character better than I could illustrate. My job is just to enlighten. You'll stick your foot in it here ere long.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
How does referencing one user's past enlighten a discussion about a topic like Myanmar?---23prootie (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Two can play that game. (What exactly does "piss up a rope" mean?)
It means that the comments of a banned user hold no weight and don't need to stay on my talkpage.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, I am not banned here. Anyway, you are the one who sought for comment so it is only polite of me to reply.--23prootie (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
You are aware that the longer this discussion drags, the less likely there is going to be a consensus?--23prootie (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Which is exactly what you're aiming for.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the name into the proper name "Union of Burma Boy Scouts" so it doesn't have to be changed to Myanmar,--23prootie (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The category you are shoehorning is incorrect and shows your complete lack of knowledge on the subject. You are here only to point-push, and I have reported you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You should have told me that there were two organizations in the beginning. Anyway, thank you for your cooperation.-_23prootie (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not my job to babysit you-I would prefer you keep going as you are, I want to see you banned from Commons too. You'll get there!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
If you don't want to babysit me, then don't. Your not exactly helping your cause by being openly hostile. Come on, what happened to the spirit of consensus? Plotting to have other users banned isn't really that nice. Then again, mean people don't really live long, or do they? Also, Merry Christmas. :) :) :) --_`23prootie (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
This topic has been discussed over and over already in the English Wikipedia. Please move the category so that it is in-sync with the rest. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it is the English Wikipedia that is not in sync with the rest. It says there there are "more than one name for this country" meaning they haven't resolved anything, while the rest of the world is ahead of the curve and knows that it's going to be Myanmar in the end.--23prootie (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is. The category [4] and the article [5] are both named "Burma" after lenghty discussions and voting. The Commons category needs to be aligned now. Gryffindor (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Other languages are in also in use in the Commons and it would be biased against them if a rigid definition is used based on the "official" use by a narrow list of countries (basically 5: the United States and its puppets, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom). Other dialects of English, like Singaporean English, Philippine English, and Indian English use Myanmar. Even the thankfully liberal and socialist New York Times use that name.--23prootie (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yuck. Nice of you to admit your bias. Meanwhile Danish, English, Esperanto, Spanish, Franco-Provençal, Hornjoserbsce, Italian, Norwegian Bokmal, Polish and Swedish Wikipedias use Burma or some variant. Since the five you mentioned are the primary English speaking countries, then your bias is against English, which by the way is the largest and most trafficked Wiki.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
So, what's your point?--`23prootie (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of all the Wikipedias you only found ten (all European languages) that support the neo-colonial oppression of the Myanmar people. Show me one language outside Europe that uses Burma and you may (as in allowed to) convince me.--`23prootie (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
You want to know what's funny? Norwegian uses both names in bokmål and nynorsk.--`23prootie (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)