Talk:Burma/Myanmar/Structured mediation

This was an attempt to build consensus on whether the article currently located at Burma should remain there or be moved to Myanmar, another name for the country. So far, attempts at mediation have had very polarised results. This was an effort to bring the large number of arguments which have been used in the discussions together and reach a conclusion that is backed by most if not all participants.

The way this was intended to work is to start from the grassroots basics of naming conventions and propose statements (called "points of consensus") which may follow on from what has already been agreed on. Each point was to be polled for support and the outcome will determine the next point of consensus to be considered. It was hoped that this would eventually conclude with a point worded "______ should therefore be the title of the article." with a clearer consensus behind it.

As the discussion which follows shows, there was not nearly sufficient interest in going down this kind of route to pursue it. It is preserved here for completeness, but it is unlikely that discussion will be revived in this form.

Further discussion of this naming issue should continue on Talk:Burma/Myanmar or Talk:Burma.

Points of consensus

Current point for consideration

The current point of consensus for consideration is:

If one of the names is widely accepted in the English language above the other, it should be the title of the article.

Wikipedia conventions and policy relevant to this point: Naming conflict; Naming conventions (geographic names)

Please indicate your support below:

Agree

Disagree

(Slipoutside (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Next point for consideration

If the result is Agree:

______ is the widely accepted name of the country in the English language. ("Burma"/"Myanmar"/Neither name)

If the result is Disagree:

If the result is no consensus:

Completed points of consensus

Motion to close

We have already had straw polls of this sort and they were not conclusive. This process is therefore vexatious since it attempts to prolong the dispute in an unhelpful way. Please note as a precedent USA. The United States article has many alternative names redirecting to it and I suppose that most countries are similar. Editors must learn to accept that their preferred name for an article will not always be chosen. Since redirects exist to cater for the numerous aliases, this is not a real problem. Please let us move on. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unaware of any straw polls of this sort, only straw polls on "Burma" vs "Myanmar" and it is wholly unsurprising that these have failed. If we are to accept a lack of consensus then I am happy to agree. My impressions of the most recent discussion is that there was still interest in achieving this, but perhaps the emergence of these comments suggests otherwise. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support motion to close. If, as according to the initiator of this effort, the results of previous efforts are polarized. I don't see how this is likely to change anything. Editors must accept that there are alternative views that may not be consonant with their own views but are still acceptable views. Our energies are best spent on building the encyclopedia. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 13:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous views have been polarised but not opposite. This is the aim of this effort; to pin-point what, if anything, people actually disagree on, making differences a little more trivial to accept than the name of a whole country. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand. But take the very first point (more widely accepted) which has been much debated without any firm conclusion because each person defines widely accepted differently. I don't see how this is going to resolve anything. A coin toss would be more effective. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 15:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close, every mediation/discussion/debate that has had a result or consensus drawn from it has been in favor of Burma. It is simply pro-Myanmar supporters who keep opening these damn things hoping for the off-chance the majority may agree with them in the absence of Burma supporters who can no longer be bothered in participating in an endless argument --The High Commander (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point me to any mediation/discussion/debate that has had a consensus drawn from it? I proposed this because it doesn't give the option to simply "agree with pro-Myanmar/pro-Burma supporters" but be held accountable for statements of reason. I'm afraid that in discussions about whether we even need a consensus, those anti-consensus appear far more guilty of trying to push a pro-Burma stance than those still seeking it are of a pro-Myanmar one. I am not accusing you of this but would respectfully appreciate not being accused of the same. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with BBF here. The MEDCAB case's result was 1 pro-Burma, 1 pro-Myanmar, and 1 "retain status quo, acknowledging that the current status quo was never a consensus." That doesn't smell like consensus to me. SDY (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose motion to close No the RM that got the situation to where it is at the moment has been heavily disputed and the closer's comments were telling. And every attempt to resolve this has had people who want it at "Burma" trying to prevent any attempt to get a clear accepted consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If my clarifications above still do not engender confidence I will gladly ditch the process, but don't expect me to be fielding questions at Talk:Burma about the title. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that this dispute will not be resolved, and it may simply be a volcano in the landscape of Wikipedia that erupts from time to time. My concern for this process is simply that it lacks enough force to send a clear message to the next admin that decides to "just move it because it's obviously wrong." The current location lacks the force of policy (there are two commonly accepted English names and usage is split), the RfC was just a screaming match, the MEDCAB case gave no clear result. SDY (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be honest I'm not bothered either way if this structured mediation gets going or not. It seems we either try this, or we look for the next step from a failed RfM, which would be ARBCOM. I'm content either way. But as people have pointed out, and I'd love to assume good faith, but the people closing it seem to have an ulterior motive for doing so. I mean if someone opposed the RfM, and now oppose this attempt by Bigbluefish to end this debacle, then what do you support? If you just want the debating to end, then the only other way is ARBCOM (we've tried everything else), and if you don't support that, then you just support the title of the article as is, and just want to "reverse-filibuster" any attempts at finding a consensus for once.
The High Commander said, "It is simply pro-Myanmar supporters who keep opening these damn things hoping for the off-chance the majority may agree with them in the absence of Burma supporters who can no longer be bothered in participating in an endless argument." It's funny how it's only those who want the article to be at Burma who can't be bothered with the endless discussion. At other articles where there has been trouble over something like here, and a result is reached, normally some new users will come along and ask "Why is the article here?" and then a user who has been around for longer will answer by referring them to the locations of where consensus was reached, effectively closing the discussion. This hasn't happened with Burma, we haven't had consensus, we haven't had a definitive result, and we haven't exhausted all the possibilities for ending this discussion, so those like me and other people who want the article moved to Myanmar aren't new users who suddenly appeared and weren't around when the "elders" came to a decision which can be quoted to us. The decision to be quoted to new users in future that complain about this has yet to happen.
Regents Park said, "Editors must accept that there are alternative views that may not be consonant with their own views but are still acceptable views." Yes editors should accept that sometimes they may be wrong, but this isn't merely 3 vs 20 or anything, this is a 50/50 split debate, and there has been no consensus for Burma (or Myanmar), so why should HALF the people involved just lie down and let the other half dominate the article? You don't own the article. Besides, if we should accept that your views may be acceptable, then the reverse is true: "that you should accept that there are other editors with views different to yours but acceptable." And I don't use the word "still" there, because as views go, there can only be one correct one. There is only one correct answer to every question, thus there can be only one answer to the question "Should this article be at Burma?" It's called objectivity. While we may never find that truth and this argument might continue for all our lives, it doesn't mean that that truth never existed. Truth exists. There is only one acceptable view, the fact of the matter is that we have no consensus for what that acceptable view is at the moment.
Finally, a question to those above who have rejected this attempt here: hypothetically, would you support a request for arbitration? Deamon138 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make my point very well. If, as you say, there is a 50/50 split then it means that either view is acceptable. You go on to say that "why should HALF the people involved just lie down and let the other half dominate the article." That, it seems to me, is flirting dangerously with WP:POINT since clearly a 50/50 split involves one half or the other accepting a viewpoint that is not their own and so trying to change the article title does seem to be an attempt to win a battle that has little to do with consensus. In such a situation, structured mediation won't resolve anything whether the article stays at Burma or changes to Myanmar (what will stop the other HALF from not just lying down and letting the other half dominate the article?) --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An Arbitration that determines Burma to be THE common name by using Wikipedia policy and guidelines (which we Myanmar-namers have linked to several times) will make our half lie down, I think. If Mediation had told us as much, it would have ended there. I don't see it happening though. Remember that, counting Nichalp, 2 out of 4 bureaucrats thought Myanmar the better name, 1 out of 4 thought Burma, and 1 out of 4 called for status quo. The 1 bureaucrat who sided with Burma also had very little explanation for his rationale. Many of us Myanmar namers feel that once a committee actually makes a decision based on policy, they are highly likely to side with Myanmar, the name the article had been at for so long before the October majority vote. This is why we want arbitration—not to keep appealing past decisions, but to actually have a decision made. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration is fine with me. This structured mediation is a waste of time (for the reasons outlined above). Personally, I'm ok with either name (though I think Burma is the common name in English). I think framing this as a battle is particularly unproductive. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, just because it has so often turned into a battle, there's no reason for me to perpetuate that, sorry. A lot of the stress from my end is the either/or mentality that seems to be the reality here, with no version of Liancourt Rocks. That, combined with the perception (be it real or... well... "perceived") that some editors may have interest in putting off consensus in order to "win" themselves. I know, that's bad faith. I think most of us would love to compromise, but none of us see how. Split the article? What does the one about the modern nation get called? Yech. This structured mediation is fine, but I think it's a slow-paced way for us all to verify that 1) We all agree that the widely accepted name is the way to go, but 2) We disagree which name is more widely accepted, or if they are too close to call. Ramble complete. :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with BG. I have no interest in letting a couple of fascists name the place, but I do want to see the dispute resolved in a way that does not leave it open to yet another run around two months from now. I will not contest: A "fourth opinion" in the MEDCAB case, a formal mediation, or (obviously) an arbitration. SDY (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regents Park, none of those that want the article moved to Myanmar are trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The system hasn't found any consensus, so we are merely following process. As SDY pointed out, fascists named the place Myanmar, and it is those fascists that are denying the people of that country from having freedom. In fact, the very thing I and the rest of "Myanmar-namers" here are trying to do, is utilize Wikipedia's "pseudo-legal" processes to reach an end. Speedy closing every discussion we try to have on the name is denying us the access to dispute a name that hasn't reached consensus, just like the people of that country are denied the ability to challenge the name and rights they should have, and again haven't reached consensus there. I would say that most who want either this discussion or arbitration or wanted mediation, will "shut up" once an actual decision is made, as BaronGrackle said, or consensus can be shown to be found. That to me, is not dangerously close to WP:POINT, after all, there have to have been times when an article has been at a wrong place, and further discussion was needed that didn't violate WP:POINT, so why can't it be this time? (Oh and BG, out of interest, where did User:Nichalp make the comment about Myanmar? I never saw it. Thanks in advance if you find it.) Deamon138 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was one point raised here which I 100% disagree with. It was said "because as views go, there can only be one correct one. There is only one correct answer to every question, thus there can be only one answer to the question "Should this article be at Burma?" It's called objectivity." I don't know where this logic came from but it is wrong. There are plenty of questions with multiple answers, each one being correct. And being objective can also result in multiple correct answers. Do you truly think that by showing a group of 100 people every conceivable angle of this argument that if all 100 don't come up with the same answer then those in the minority simply aren't being objective enough? And debates like this are never 100 objective to begin with...like Olympic diving or figure skating. Subjectivity will always be there unless you can break it down into some sort of mathematical equation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, you missed my point, I think. I never said we could eliminate subjectivity. Nor would I say that a vote of 100 people produces the objective truth. Remember I followed up the point that "It's called objectivity", with the point, "While we may never find that truth and this argument might continue for all our lives, it doesn't mean that that truth never existed." An objective fact as defined by it's article, is "true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity." Hence, those 100 people can't necessarily find the objective truth, even by vote. In fact, sometimes it's the minority that's being objective. But the plain and simple truth is that there is one objective answer to the question, "Should this article be at Burma?" or in fact any other question. Hypothetically, if I built 100 omniscient robots, and one of their laws that they HAD to follow (more extreme than Issac Asimov's laws) was that they should be objective, then all 100 robots will agree 100% on the answer to any question. But "being objective can also result in multiple correct answers" is false I'm afraid. Yes, you may argue that the answer to "What is 2+2?" can be 4, 2^2 or 100 in binary or whatever, but these are all just different ways of representing the same answer. Hence, there is still only one answer, just infinite ways of phrasing it, but all these different ways are merely semantically different (like answering in French "quatre" instead of in English). The answer hasn't changed, merely it's presentation. If you can think of a question with which objectivity doesn't hold, then let me know, because there isn't one as far as I'm aware. Deamon138 (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I missed your point. You used a simple math problem but you could also have used (2+x)(3+x)=0. This Burma situation could be more in line with that. I won't get into omniscient robots because that is an impossible scenario. In a jury they have to make objective decisions but they are forced to give subjective weight to the different types of evidence. We are talking about an objective decision not objective fact here. If we take an example like the little boy with his finger in the dyke and we say "we need some putty to fix this, what is the best type we could use for the best price?" There might be several offers of $10 for different tubes of gunk that will last 100 years and there might be one offer of $15 for a tube of gunk that will last 200 years. Since the dyke itself will only last another 80 years any of the $10 tubes should work identically. The little boy decides and chooses one. If you filled 3 holes with the 3 different gunks and in 80 years the dyke collapsed but the leaks still held then the truth was that either choice was correct... there were multiple truths on the query of what to use. I have learned in my life that the black and white of youth has turned more into shades of grey. All I'm really saying is that if all the facts are laid out and human beings make their best stabs at being equally objective you will not have 100% agreement and it won't be the fault of being more or less objective. People see the same evidence differently... just look at Liberals and Conservatives. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Liberals and Conservatives" would be fine, it's just that this page has more of a "Hatfields and McCoys" relationship. SDY (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I like your analogy much better than my own. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In a jury they have to make objective decisions but they are forced to give subjective weight to the different types of evidence." Of course, and I completely agree. My point about objectivity that you originally criticized was against Regents Parks point that, "Editors must accept that there are alternative views that may not be consonant with their own views but are still acceptable views." My point mainly wasn't based on the Burmyamar shindig we have here, but the fact that yes we should accept that others might be right, but that I don't accept that there are multiple acceptable views. I mean people do "see the same evidence differently... just look at Liberals and Conservatives" (or Hatfields and McCoys lol) but that is because we can't possibly be both equally objective, so one of us at least must be being subjective. All I'm saying is that at the end of the day, Liberalism, Conservatism or neither is the correct way of politics when a completely objective decision is made (they can't both be right, they have completely opposing philosophies). While I don't think that this Burmyanmar debate can find that answer as I said (or find any objective truth at all), it's not right that I should accept that your view may be as acceptable as mine (unless of course both are wrong!), because only one of us (at most) can be correct on this. It's not the same as the quadratic equation you gave where a solution would be x=-2, and another would be x=-3, but objectively, there is no reason to prefer one solution over another, so the answer is "x=-2 or -3". It's the same with the question "what is the name of a city in the UK?", and you might answer "London", but objectively there is no reason to prefer London over Birmingham or any other city there, so the objective answer would be to give all of them. It is the same with your "gunk" question. The objective answer is all three (never mind that usually if three chemicals have exactly the same properties then they tend to be the same chemical, but whatever, I get the point of your analogy).

As for "the black and white of youth has turned more into shades of grey", I agree. While someone may say "killing is wrong", what about self-defence? Eventually you come up with a quote saying "Killing is wrong except when X,Y,Z etc" and then there are no more quibbles with that. Technically, that morality has become a shade of a grey, but that shade of grey (if reached objectively) can be the only correct answer.

My main point basically is that all questions have an objective answer. We may never find it, but it still exists. So there is an objectively correct answer to what this article should be called, and it's a fallacy to suggest that both Burma and Myanmar may be both perfectly acceptable, as Regents Park originally stated. (Philosophical rant over lol). Deamon138 (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just thought I'd also mention: not a lot of action seems to be going on here. We have four (including me) users who have put agree, so we don't seem to be going anywhere. BigBlueFish (or anyone else) when do we go onto the next stage in this (or decide not to), and what is that stage? Deamon138 (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With more people engaged exclusively in meta-discussion than the proposed process, and no discussion about the proposed points being polled on, I think it's pretty safe to say this isn't going to result in progress. The suggestion of Arbcom is moot: the Arbcom doesn't deal with content disputes, and there isn't really a conduct issue here. While I view some of the comments since the medcab case as disruptive, they haven't been intentionally so.
- Since those interested in ending this discussion without reaching a consensus on naming now clearly outnumber those interested in taking the discussion further, I suggest we properly agree to disagree so we can move on. This means agreeing to settle with "Burma" until something new happens or is brought to light. This is an acceptable agreement because:
  - It is the original title of the article (article creation is influential in less controversial naming issues like American/Commonwealth English)
  - It is the current title of the article
  - Most related sub-articles have been stable using Burma for some time
  - It is clearly close enough between the two to do this since we've had so much difficulty reaching any sort of an agreement
- Well I'm in. Anyone else? BigBlueFish (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, but I don't agree. Firstly, Arbcom does deal with this kind of issue, it clearly states that it is for when all other forms of resolution have failed, which they have in this case. As was said by Timrollpickering here and the previous edit, the original title was questioned straight away in the first edit to both the article and talk page. The article hasn't been stable at one name or the other. The current title, isn't a good status quo to have, as others have said, it was moved to Burma without consensus apparently. I would also say that the sub-articles have been stable, because the problem is with the name of the country, so the argument to change it to Myanmar is taken on the main article talk pages. I am sure that if a decision is reached to change to Myanmar, then this would filter down to the subpages.
  
  I just don't see why Arbcom would fail with this. By definition, its resolutions are binding, and that is what is needed if we can't agree, and an end to this that we can quote in future. Deamon138 (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Please read the second paragraph of WP:RFAR and get back to me. As for what you have to say about "Burma", you are missing the point. Yes, there is no consensus to keep at "Burma", but there is also no consensus to move to "Myanmar". That's the whole point: there is no consensus. By settling for "Burma" now, we would be accepting that either name is recognisable, which is true, that settling with a naming convention is not a support of a POV, which is true, and that both names have current support; but in terms of editing, the most convenient choice is "Burma" because it's already there and was there to start with. The history of non-consensus moves and mediation is irrelevant because there never has been and still is no firm consensus. Furthermore, we are in a situation where the majority of parties have no interest in continuing to seek a consensus. That seems to me like a consensus to disagree. This leaves us either with the option to agree to disagree until something new happens to the name, or to firmly decide that anyone who wants to discuss content is welcome to, and if people don't want to participate then that's also fine. We can move this process on and see how it works out but it will have to be under the understanding that the thoughts of those who have panned the process are not important unless they express them. BigBlueFish (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dual name compromise, revisited

In line with Ignore All Rules, polices are determined by consensus and by the needs of Wikipedia. I would like to rediscuss the possibility of moving this name to Burma (Myanmar), or something similar. Rationale:

Both Myanmar and Burma are recognizable today because of their appearances in so many sources. I’m not going to convince the Burma-namers that Myanmar is more common just because the charity collector who came by my door talked about the disaster in Myanmar, or because my Wal-Mart had toy globe-balls that identify the nation as Myanmar. I’m sure the other side has had their own experiences with opposite common use.
Why should Burma go first? Burma should go first because its name was common in English first historically, while Myanmar is the more current English term. A matter of chronology.
Parentheses are used for disambiguation within a topic, not for inclusion. Fine. Consider it this way: this is the page for that part of Burma which is located in Asia and currently controlled by a military junta—that part being Myanmar. If you are confused by the nation’s infobox in the article, you might be looking for the part of Burma within the United States that was democratically elected—the NCGUB (which, incidentally, has its own infobox as well).

The three main objections to this are that it is against Wikipedia policy, there will be disagreement over which name is first, and it sets a precedent. (1) Again, Wikipedia policy is built on consensus, and there are exceptions to every policy. (2) I think we have potential to agree to have Burma be named before Myanmar without recognizing it as more common or correct. (3) We shouldn’t worry too much about precedent—if we had OUR OWN precedent in this case, we might not have filled up so many talk pages arguing over it. Compromise involves both parties giving up some ground, and I think in this cause Wikipedia convention needs to give up some of its own ground. Thoughts? -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this could be a good solution/compromise. I would not oppose the article to be moved to "Burma (Myanmar)". Hús ö nd 16:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BUT, "Burma" would still be the primary name of the article, meaning that mentions to the country throughout the article (and other articles) should remain "Burma". Hús ö nd 16:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blast! I forgot about this point of contention! :-) -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with this compromise also. I'm not sure it really does a lot but if it brings a level of cohesion to this argument I'm for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what the point of this would be. If you navigate to the page using the Myanmar name, it already displays "Burma (Redirected from Myanmar)" at the head of the article. The article's lede, which is where most people start reading, says "Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar...". What is the value of yet more repetion and duplication? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If we change the article back to Myanmar, the way it was, then when you navigate to the page using the Burma name, it will already display "Myanmar (Redirected from Burma)" at the head of the article. Then the article's lead will say, "Myanmar, formerly Burma...". But I don't think you'd want to go that route instead. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a random idea: make a Burma (British Colony) article and a Burma (Myanmar) article. It fits with policy, and also follows one of the recommended splittings of the article. There are two Burma articles, so there's a reason to have two names in the title of the article. SDY (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the move and agree that it is against Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blootix (talk • contribs) 21:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have gone for "Myanmar (Burma)," because I think that if both names are commonly used in English the later one should come first, as in e.g. Mumbai (Bombay). However, I'm okay with "Burma (Myanmar)," because it at least includes both names. Someone the Person (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to take sides. the government in the country had changed it officially to Myanmar (as in Bombay, etc). Burma still exists as a page (and will be redirected), with the lead lead still calling it Burma with the regular caveats. Lihaas (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]