Talk:Myanmar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Main name of article

I don't want to go and stir up unnecessary debate, but shouldn't the main name of the article be given to some sort of vote or discussion as to whether it's Burma and directs from Myanmar, or Myanmar and it directs from Burma? I think this ought to be informed more or less directly by the number of countries around the world which currently recognise the military junta. I'm British and we neither recognise the junta officially or refer to it as anything other than Burma officially and in the media - it's the same with most of the rest of the Commonwealth. I'm not sure about the United States, but I know officials refer to it as Burma (and it's in the CIA Factbook as Burma). I'm not sure of the most correct and hopefully democratic way to resolve this or even if I'm correct in thinking that Burma is still the most commonly and widely-used English term, but I can't help shake the feeling that "Myanmar" is simply the name promoted by a dictatorial regime and not recognised by the majority of the international community.JF Mephisto 10:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The main reason, I think, is that Myanmar is the name used by the U.N.. For example see here. Further down the talk page you can see more arguments for and against this. Polaron | Talk 15:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What gives people the right to decide the name of the country. It doesn't matter if we like it or not the junta is the ruling power in Myanmar. They call it Myanmar. Just because we don't agree with the way they came to power or the way they rule doesn't mean that it should be called Burma.

Well, what gives the regime the right to decide the name of the country? It should be based on what it is most widely known as internationally as well as what the majority of its people wish it to be called. Again, I request a vote on this issue. JF Mephisto 17:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with JF MEphisto-it's not a case of "us not agreeing with the way they came to power" it's the fact that legitimatley the country is still called Burma and the majority of countries call it Burma. If i took over your hosue I don;t think you'd like me re-naming it because legitimatley I have no right to and the majority of people you know would still call it by it's original name/number. So let's base it on whether the majority of countries call it Burma or "Myanmar". UN counts for no more the the CIA World Factbook. Up the NLD. --Declan nld 22:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all countries are ruled legitimately by the will of their people, but their leaders and country names are still listed as being 'legitimate'. If we continue to use 'Burma' over 'Myanmar', it would be contradictory to continue to state that Than Shwe and Soe Win are the country leaders, merely because they were not elected. This issue has been brought up several times already. Likewise, coming from Myanmar, there are many people who accept and use 'Myanmar' over 'Burma' in modern times. Usage of 'Burma' among those from Myanmar is more common among expatriates. Maybe this debate should be raised again, but if it does, we must change all articles that contain 'Myanmar' to 'Burma'. Hintha 22:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Debate: Myanmar or Burma

Should Burma really re-direct to Myanmar? Burma was a distinct country for a long time and a lot of people went and did things in *Burma*, not *Myanmar* (e.g. the hippie trail, the British Empire etc). charlieF 10:12 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

The consensus is, Burma should have the redirect to Myanmar. Although I'm not totally in agreement with this, for now, it is for the best. I'm glad someone asked this question since it is worthy of discussion since many issues need resolve.
The unwritten rule has always been to use a term that is most commonly understood. Sri Lanka (formally Ceylon) would remain modern Sri Lanka out of convenience, despite its lavish history, so that those researching using Wikipedia will not get lost. Also, out of respect for the current nation and government.
Perhaps we should just work more on the Burma section at Myanmar? Usedbook 16:15 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

The article on East Germany is stored there (and not at 'German Democratic Republic') on the grounds that supposedly Wikipedia goes with the most commonly used English name, not necessarily the official one. You imply that Myanmar is the most commonly understood English name. However, Burma is the more common name in the UK (where it is used by the BBC and most other media). Possibly Myanmar is better understood in the US. But this is by no means certain, since the US government prefers the name Burma. The New York Times seems to prefer the name Myanmar. What about other media? Canadian, Australian, NZ? If you google for Burma vs Myanmar, and then restrict the search to English-language websites only, Myanmar is marginally ahead - but what if foreign embassies etc were excluded from the search? 81.154.252.230 22:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think "Burma" is more commonly understood than "Myanmar" in the US. —Casey J. Morris

Probably because the name "Myanmar" is the name promoted by the ruling military junta, an opressive anti-democratic government if ever there was one. The Government of the United States regards recognition of the name "Myanmar" as recognizing and condoning the regime. Thus, the U.S. government refers to it officially as "Burma". I would be inclined to have both Burma and Myanmar redirect to Burma/Myanmar, with a large section explaning the name change. However, if you think that the military regime deserves respect (despite its constant violation of the most basic human rights of its citizenry), perhaps you don't want to change this.
--Xinoph 18:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, USA also commits a lot of violation of human rights, and it doesnt mean i can redirect USA to "the yankees nation". --130.236.117.206 13:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well put. ☭ Zippanova 09:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Comparing the two is absurd. 70.25.25.53 05:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw in another comment: The United Nations uses "Myanmar", not "Burma", so people researching it in that context will be looking for that name. Agree that it's a sticky situation all around. UOSSReiska 21:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And one key difference between the case of East Germany and Burma (I refer to the comparison between the two that was made above) is that the UN and other international bodies obviously no longer take a position on how to refer to East Germany. For historical states, Wikipedia can only try to ascertain and adopt the most commonly-used name, whereas it can be sensible to adopt standards used by international bodies where there is no real consensus in the English-speaking world. --87.80.141.71 02:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

---

What this discussion misses is that Myanmar has always been the name for Burma in the Burmese language. But Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopaedia and should use the English name for the country, which is Burma. We do not call Germany Deutschland or India Bharat. It is not as if the country has actually changed its name, as happened when Upper Volta became Burkina Faso, for example.

This might be a different matter if a democratically elected government asked foreign countries to use a different name. This happened when Ivory Coast asked to be called Cote d'Ivoire, a change which has been generally adopted. But the Burmese military regime has no moral right to rule at all, let alone make decisions about what the country should be called. Aung San Suu Kyi, the democratically elected leader of the country, continues to call it Burma.

"Respect for the current nation and government" does not apply in this case since the government deserves no respect and the "nation" was not consulted. Dr Adam Carr 03:23, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't like the current government of Myanmar either, but deciding one way for "a democratically elected government" and another for a régime that we don't like is not NPOV. Democracy is not universally accepted as a touchstone of what is good; some people even consider its majoritarian bias evil. In addition, whether the government of Côte d'Ivoire is democratic in any meaningful way is certainly debatable.

It's not a matter of deciding one way for a "regime we don't like" and another for democratically elected governments; it's a matter of deciding one way for a name change requested by a government with no moral legitimacy to rule and another name recognized by the elected leader of the nation, Aung San Suu Kyi.
--Xinoph 18:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I purpose that the name be "Myanmar (Burma)", in keeping with the practice of most internation English-language sources. In fact, I am changing it now. There should be no objections, as this name is used already throughout the artical, if there are, bring it up here or on my talk page. Pelegius 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirection from "Burma" to "Myanmar", together with a discussion of the onomastic controversy, is entirely appropriate and should be preserved. Shorne 21:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. This discussion shows that the name is subject to debate. I have put the title as "Myanmar (Burma)" which acknowladges that Myanmar is, perhaps, more common, but that Burma was once more common, and is still used quite often, even appearing on most maps. The same cannot be said for, say, Zaïre. Thus, Myanmar is special. Pelegius 23:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This page was renamed without discussion or explanation. I do not mind it being renamed, but I think it should have been debated here. Pelegius 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Just my own two pence (worth very little, since I knew nothing of the controversy in general until a couple of weeks ago), but I think it would be unnecessarily confusing to have duplicate pages where issues like this arise - Burma and Myanmar have never (as far as I understand) both existed seperately, at the same time, so the information only constitutes one topic. The argument about who has the right to change a name is a complex one, I agree, but if you agree that there is not a whole topic to be had on each, I can think of 3 options:

1. have a short entry for Myanmar explaining that this is the new name for Burma as decreed by a military government (which has power, but arguably no mandate) - a kind of manual redirect, if you like. [or, of course, the other way around - a stub on Burma pointing you to Myanmar]
2. have an automatic redirection [in one direction or the other], which many people won't notice happening, and thus makes the page essentially have two names (the current situation)
3. have both entries redirect to one called "Burma / Myanmar"; this would seem to solve the problem, but which would go first? It also probably breaks any number of Wikipedia naming conventions...

Personally, I'd go with number 2, with as much prominent drawing of attention to the controversy as you like, but with the information easily available under both names. - IMSoP 04:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Though most of us must agree that those who named the country Myanmar are a bunch of thugs, this gives us no right to supersede their decision because they do exercise authority over that country. Whatever is de jure is always very debateable, but whatever is de facto is easily agreed upon. Aung San Suu Kyi does not rule Burma - this gives her no right to decide on the name. The government of a country has every right to call their country whatever they want. Otherwise, Cyprus should be moved to Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus. --Jiang 22:04, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting point but not necessarily true. Why is it so easily agreed upon that the name is de facto? A number of governmental bodies, news outlets, and members of the general public call the nation Burma. We can't poll the English-speaking populace of that nation to find out what they generally call themselves in English, so that's no help. What's clear is that the name was universally "Burma" in English until someone violently took control of that nation and issued a statement that it was no longer to be called "Burma." After some time, some people began referring to the nation as "Myanmar" consistent with the decree of the violent party. -- Look, if I come up to you and hold a gun to your head and say, "From now on Jiang your username is Bob," that doesn't mean it's de facto so. And other Wikipedians aren't likely to start calling you Bob. --70.145.102.253 07:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Burmese millitary Government is really bad and their management system is terrible. I could not understand why Government make bad things to their burmese civilian. In history, burmese people, they are very kind, loving, respect, understanding, honesty and loyalty among people. But now a days, what the government is doing, even they do not care about country education, economics, agriculture and health problems which are foundation of country stablization. And also why they can not make official election again against only one lady Dr. Aung San Su Kyi. Why they depend using weapon to win anything. Who can give me simple and open minded answer. I hope our country will not be able to be developing country in 50 years if they are still keeping their power.

I'm not going to revert Jiang's change because I know he will just re-revert to spite me, and he will eventually get his way, as he always does. However for the record I reiterate my basic point, which is that the name of the country in the Burmese language has always been Myanmar, and its name in English has always been Burma. What the government of Burma wants or doesn't want makes no difference to that. On Jiang's logic we should call Germany Deutschland and India Bharat. That is quite apart from the fact that accepting the whims of the Burmese regime is a calculated insult to the long-suffering people of Burma. However I know there is no point in arguing with Jiang, so I will say no more. Adam 00:05, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, the German Embassy calls the country Germany in English [1]. The UN calls Burma Myanmar in its English texts [2]. The U.S. not only calls the Union of Myanmar "Burma", but likes to translate the conventional short form into "Myanma" (no r at the end). --Jiang 00:51, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The UN is obliged to follow the wishes of member governments. We are not. Adam 00:54, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam, if we don't go by UN's standard, which is by far the most accepted and legitimate in the international arena, what are we to go by? Fuzheado 01:03, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

By what we believe to be right. Adam 01:04, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My kind suggestion would be to fight the right fights -- expose the truth in the history section, in the politics section. Agonizing over the label used on the international arena is not the best focus of our energies. Fuzheado 01:35, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam, doesn't that rather beg the question of who gets to be "we", since there doesn't seem to be complete consensus on this. Insisting on using Burma would in some ways be like calling the Republic of China Taiwan - what gives us the right to say which governments are "morally" correct? Furthermore, using an accepted standard, such as the current usage of the UN, is surely far more consistent with an aim of neutrality than trying to decide what is "right". As, incidentally, is Fuzheado's suggestion that you put energy into detailing the historical and political facts at the heart of the debate. - IMSoP 12:28, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To my humble opinion, the whole question is too much politicized. I think we should be more tolerate to the Myanmarese military regime, just as we were tolerate to the authoritarian regimes of Chiang Kai-shek, Park Chung-hee and many other Asian, African and Latin American dictators. In this historical environment an appeal to promote "democracy in Burma" sounds a little bit hypocritical, doesn't it? — X-lynx 08:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you, but it doesn't matter, this is not a political debate, it is a usage debate. Pelegius 23:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey I thought that the Myanmar (Burma) title was a great compromise for this issue. I'm not sure in fact what is has going against it: it clearly implies that there is an alternate name for the country, which I think we can all agree on, but gives precidence to Myanmar which should make those who liken themselves to descriptionists happy. (I'm not sure it's really descriptionism, since we don't know what name is more commonly used in English.) -- joeOnSunset 07:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

---

i have some questions related to Burma myth.

• At Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, there's this birdy, beasty, and godly gargoyles:

http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/las_vegas/mandalayluxor.html

is this based on some Burma lore, or just some random design? if lore, who or what are they? (reference appreciated)

thanks.

Xah P0lyglut 16:38, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

SUU KYI IS THE RIGHTFUL LEADER OF BURMA-SHE CALLS IT BURMA-END OF STORY-IT SHOULD BE CALLED BURMA! If I decide to call the UK Liamland will Wikipideia redirect "UK" to "Liamland"-NO because I have no right to change the name-jsut like the regime! The US and UK governmnets refer to the country as "Burma"-by redirecting the article to "Myanmar" wikipedia are endorsing the regime! Liam

No, it's endorsing the fact that this regime is in power. El_C 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll go one more, it's endorsing certain power structures. In this case governments. VeriGGlater 11:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No it is endorsing the regimes right to change the name of Burma and thus their right to rule- 1990 ELECTION RESULTS-SUU KY IS THE RIGHTFUL RULER!

These exclamations are unrpoductive. The country's official name is currently Myanmar. El_C 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Official name to who? The UK? No! The US? No! THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNEMNT? NO!

Please review WP:SIG. To the military regime, who hold physical power. Sorry, PHYSICAL POWER. El_C 15:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Politcs: Edit by 128.135.103.151 on 11 January 2005

This edit included a number of changes. I have reverted the addition of two instances of '(???)'. This has set me wondering about he following additions:

US sanctions against the military government have been largely ineffective, due to loopholes(???) in the sanctions and the willingness of mainly Asian business to continue investing in Burma and to initiate new investments, particularly in natural resource extraction

and

although Total (formerly Total-Elf-Fina) is now facing a lawsuit in French courts for alleged connections to human rights abuses along the gas pipeline jointly owned by Total, the American company Unocal, and the Burmese military.

I will do some digging to verify these claims and add citations. --Etimbo | Talk 18:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's done. --Etimbo | Talk 19:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Non-working characters

The following characters seem to be an attempt to write "Union of Myanmar" in a non-Latin alphabet. They were in the article until now but invisible because they don't quite work. I've moved them to here until they can be fixed because I think they'll confuse new editors.

ပ္ရည္‌ထောင္‌စုမ္ရန္‌မာနုိင္‌ငံတော္‌

Iota 03:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Go and Install Burmese or unicode fonts. Ask me if in doubt.

Tan 11:37, 6 June 2005 (UTC)

"Burmese"? A quick question.

Even though the country is official "Myanmar", is the adjective still "Burmese"? This puzzled me the other day.

Thanks to whoever responds.--ZayZayEM 06:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, the adjective is Myanmarese

Russavia 10 June 2005

Myanmarese has been used in English, but it doesn't really work as an adjective. One of the problems with using the term 'Myanmar' in English is that is *doesn't* yield a well-formed English adjective. (Though it does in other languages, if people want to make such adjectives: eg Hungarian 'myanmari', German 'myanmarisch', Russian 'm'ianmarskij', Japanese 'myanmaa-no' - or 'myanmaa-go' for the language, and many others, European and otherwise). As a teacher of the Burmese/Myanmar(ese) language, this is an ongoing problem for me!

I don't see any problems here actually, since Myanmarese stands for the country of Myanmar (which is multinational), and Burmese stands for the Burmese language and its native speakers (the Burmans, or Bamar). There is the same connection as between British and English. No one would argue, I suppose, that Britain and England are two different subjects, though both terms were historically derived from ethnonims. There is no "British" language except for the old language of the Britts. Similarly, there is no "Myanmar" language except for the old language of the Mranmas, who were ancestors of the Burmans. — X-lynx 09:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

hey..does anyone know what is the most appropriate way to call myanmar people? BURMESE?? MYANMESE?? so much confusion

I think you're probably on pretty safe turf calling the people Burmese, esp. in the U.K. and U.S.

Put it this way, if you were in the U.K. you would not call a Welshman an 'Englishman', you would either refer to him as a Welshman or as a Brit(ish). Same in Myanmar, if you call a Shan person 'Burmese', don't expect them to like it! If you call a Shan person a 'Myanmar', then you're ok. Calling a Bamar 'Burmese' is fine but you can't call everyone in Myanmar 'Burmese'. People here don't say Myanmarese or Myanmese, they simply say 'Myanmars'.Mandalay Resident 19:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Population?

What is current population estimate? The article gives two numbers differing by 10 millions. I remember there was vandalism some time ago and maybe this is leftover. Could someone add link to reliable source?

Meaning of "Myanmar"

The article says: 'Myanmar derives from the Burmese name Myanma naingandaw, which literally translates as "country of Myanmar".' That makes no sense a all! A word with a recursive meaning?

I think it's a case of sloppy wording saying Myanmar is short for Myanma Naingandaw, and Naingandaw is the "The Country of..." part. —Casey J. Morris

I didn't notice that before. I tried to fix it, though I don't speak Burmese, so please look it over. El_C 12:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Internet Control?

Craziness, but anyone know more about the internet control of Myanmar, I did a quick search and came up with...

"Computers, Internet, and E-mail: The military government carefully controls and monitors all Internet use in Burma. The government has made available a censored version of the Internet and has allowed several cyber cafes to open. However, access to the Internet is very expensive, and the government prohibits access to most “free” international e-mail services. It is illegal to own an unregistered modem in Burma. Tourists may bring in one laptop computer per person and must declare it upon arrival. Limited e-mail service is available at some large hotels. All e-mails are read by military intelligence. It is very expensive to send photographs via e-mail. One foreign visitor was presented a bill for 2,000.00 U.S. dollars after transmitting one photograph via a major hotel's e-mail system." Source:USgov travel site

I think it deserves mention, anyone have any arguments or more information about it? I wonder if they get wikipedia?

--Capi crimm 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You can get internet access through MPT (Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications) or through Bagan Cybertech (Privately owned but linked with the Government). The internet is heavily censored. Yes you can access Wikipedia pages on Myanmar, the fact that I am writing this is testament to that! Recently Bagan Cybertech have stopped new subscribers as the service is dire to say the least (I'm referring to performance i.e. speed), if you visit www.bagan.net.mm you will note that links for new subscribers have been replaced with text. It is not possible to access online email, i.e. Yahoo mail, Hotmail etc as they can't be censored, as with other similar websites they are blocked. It is not possible to use Skype either or Google Talk, whether or not this is a result of them being blocked or because the service is so slow is unknown. Bagan Cybertech currently charges US$60 as an annual fee and US$35 per month for 400mb download limit, each Mb over that is charged at US$0.20/Mb. Prices do vary depending on what package you have, some pay US$720 as an 'one off' installation fee for ADSL (14.4 modem like performance!) and an additional US$65 per month, again with a 400Mb download limit.Mandalay Resident 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion?

This article appears to have no mention of the religions of Myanmar - let alone what sort of relations there are between the political sphere and the religious sphere. Does Myanmar have a secular (albeit military) state? What sort of religious education is there? Is this because no-one knows?

Belongs under the 'Culture' section I guess. Probably a brief mention (one sentence) in this article and a redirect to a separate article would be a good idea. Any volunteers?PiCo 10:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Burmese word for tofu

Any Burmese speakers or Burmese language experts out there? I've just listed the Burmese name for tofu as "pebya," but I'm not sure if this is the right romanization. Please check the tofu article and see if it's correct. Thanks! Badagnani 22:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Myanmar word for tofu is "Pebya". Actually this is a two word name in Myanmar language. The first part of the compound word "Pe" means bean, in a generic holistic way covering the whole genus called beans.The second part of the word "bya" means something flat, i.e., a flat cake. So "Pebya" is a "flat bean cake", flat not as paper thin but can be thick but not any other shape. The Myanmar language being monosyllabic,contains many words that are compounded to form a single one from two or multiple words having their own meanings. You may notice I used the word "Myanmar" instead of Burmese as this word has the proper sound and meaning in the native language which is pronounced "Myanmar Sar", "Sar" stands for language in the vernacular. Thane, 21:30, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Checking up the article on tofu as requested, I found the second word for "tofu" mentioned also as "tofu" in Myanmar. It is true in the sense that this other word is used for several other kinds of bean curd made from different varieties of bean other than soy. There are many varieties of bean curd that are eaten by Myanmar people and they can be made from many varieties of bean. Thane, 21:43, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

There is a Shan dish named "tokehu." Tokehu is made out of bean also and the word was derived from tofu. Jojo, Jan 27, 2006

Use of Metric system

I have read in several places that the Metric system is not officially used in Myanmar, but have never been able to discover the details. Is there a local system of measurement that is used? Have there been attempts at metrication? Seabhcán 11:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The SI system is used in Myanmar, but the Burmese language has adopted the English system's measurement names (eg. pound, mile, etc.) instead of the SI system's, because of British colonisation, but their equivalent measurements are those of the metric system. Hintha 01:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Civil War?

I've could've sworn there was some student lead armed resistence against the government in the aftermath of Aung San Suu Kyi's arrest. In fact, I still hear some reports now and then of Mon rebels attacking government troops from time to time. Why is there no mention of this? Typos 02:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Burma's losses in WW2

Can anyone provide authoritative information on Burma's civilian losses in WW2 1941-45?--Berndd11222 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Internet access in Burma

I've just returned from Burma - Rangoon, Mandalay and Pagan - and was able to access the WWW - at least the sites I wanted to, such as bbc.co.uk, without any problem, in hotels and internet cafes. Access to Hotmail and Yahoo webmail services are blocked (to force locals to use the government service, I believe), but I was able to access my own independently hosted webmail service with no problems. So I think the comment about internet access in this article isn't quite on the nail.

I´m removing your section here: Testing

Burma and the Internet

Burma is among the very worst enemies of Internet freedom and in many ways its policies are worse than China’s. The price of computers and a home Internet connection is prohibitive so Internet cafés are the target of the military regime’s scrutiny. As in neighbouring Vietnam and China, access to opposition sites is systematically blocked, in this case with technology supplied by the US firm Fortinet. Web-based e-mail, such as Yahoo! or Hotmail, cannot be used and all Internet café computers record every five minutes the screen being consulted, to spy on what customers are doing.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that while the enforcement of Internet restrictions is unyielding in Yangon, the smaller Internet cafes of Myanmar's other cities occasionally advertise their ability to hack through government firewalls.

Before any of this can be put back in, the text must be refined, neutralized, and properly merged. --Lotsofissues 20:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the second paragraph, and that was my experience. In Mandalay and Bagan I saw Internet cafes that had painted the Yahoo and Hotmail logos onto their storefronts; each had their own way of getting around the restrictions, using computer programs that must have been illegal. These places were mostly catering to travelers. Agreed that the first paragraph needs cleaning. -- anon

Demographics

I've removed the reference to wikipedia from the demographics section. I've also noticed that this article claims that there has been no census in 70 years and the "demographics of Myanmar" article says that the last census was in 1983: can someone who knows the correct date please correct? Tellkel 13:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mandalay Palace

I've just tagged the article Mandalay Palace for copyediting, but I think it needs someone familiar either with the subject or the native language of the person who wrote it...perhaps someone here could help out...it's just a few sentences, but I couldn't make sense of them. NickelShoe 01:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A new Capital for Burma/Myanmar

Accroding to this newsitem [3] and this other link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/25/MNGMDGD9OP1.DTL&feed=rss.news. This is really happening. So at what I am going to do is edit the information to recognize that the capital of Burma is moving.

outpost of tyranny

Shouldn't the fact that Rice added this to the 'outposts of tyranny' list be included here?Evilbu 11:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is encyclopedia and not tool for propaganda. Pavel Vozenilek 23:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but there is a difference between siding with one party and mentionning poor relations.

Coat of arms

I'm pretty sure that the coat of arms of Myanmar is not coloured in blue, pink, and orange. I've only seen it completely in gold. Hintha 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Motto

The French Wikipedia lists Myanmar's motto as: «Le bonheur se trouve dans une vie harmonieusement disciplinée». 69.234.149.76 05:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know whether or not that was a question, but if you seek translation : "One finds happiness in a harmonious and disciplined life". Or do you know that yourself and do you propose a correction?

Evilbu 20:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

New Title

I deeply regret the new title, but the same person who changed our last title without consulting this talk page has also made it imposible to change back without help from an admin, which I have requested. Remeber those words of Shaker wisdom "turning, turning, we come out right." Again, I apologize the awkwardness, Saalam Pelegius 19:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You moved the article from "Myanmar" to "Myanmar (formerly Burma)". I have now moved it back.

While the correct title of this page could be Myanmar and conceivably could be Burma, it could not be a clumsy title like "Myanmar (formerly Burma)", which does not meet any of our article title naming standards, nor "Myanmar (Burma)" for that matter, which you attempted to move this article to back in January. [4]

If you wish to propose a name change, you could do so by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and then a discussion and voting could take place. However, please do not try to do so by trying to move the article to some ill-conceived hybrid title that is completely at odds with article title naming standards.

By the way, new additions to a talk page are usually added at the end, not the top of the page. Accordingly, I have moved this section to the bottom. There are occasionally exceptions, such as the discussion and voting procedure as per Wikipedia:Requested moves, which would indeed go at the top of this talk page. -- Curps 21:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I am well aware of the usual order of talk pages, however I made an exception due to the extremely important nature of this topic. I have, as I note requested a move, quite some time ago; not only were there no responses, but the request was deleted. I, explaining my reasons, moved this article, to the two word, hardly clumsy title "Myanmar (Burma)." There was little discussion, but all of the comments were favorable, if you objected to the name change, you should have posted here before moving, instead of regenerating an old conflict over the name which I aimed to solve via the previous move.

Again, I cannot stress enough the importance of using this talk page to explain your actions, as you failed to do in January. Please remeber that Wikipedia is a democracy and if only two users agree on something, they are in the right until at least two users disagree with them, which must be expressed here on the talk page.

Pelegius 20:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 13:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

User:Pelegius has posted the following proposed move to the Requested moves page:

Myanmar to Myanmar (Burma) N.B. the title was changed and obstructed without consulting talk page.

Voting and discussion

• Support. The country's name-change is still relatively recent; folk consulting an encyclopedia may not know it identifies the nation formerly known as Burma. David Kernow 21:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. "(Burma)" is a dis-ambiguation suffix; how is a dis-ambiguation page at Myanmar possible?? Georgia guy 21:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's a clarification suffix. If and when moved, no disambiguation page required under title "Myanmar", but a redirect to "Myanmar (Burma)", so I don't see the problem...?  Thanks in advance for any enlightenment, David Kernow 22:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• "'Support'" There is as yet not clear preference in English. Google hits for Burma: 73,400,000 Top Hit: CIA World Factbook. Google hits for Myanmar: 171,000,000 including several that use Burma as the main name. Top Hit: www.myanmar.com Pelegius 21:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. If Wikipedia is going to shill for the butchers of Rangoon, do it right without a parenthetical Burma. Will support a change to the English name of Burma, though. AjaxSmack 02:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

At present, it looks like the page will stay at Myanmar... is that okay with you? David Kernow 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose One or the other, not both – a parenthetical title/alternate looks shoddy. Despite grumblings, we should not presuppose why a country's name is what it now is – the country is recognised as "Myanmar" by the UN and this rendition also prevails online. As well, for example, Sri Lanka is not rendered "Sri Lanka (Ceylon)" in Wp nor is Cambodia entitled "Cambodia (Kampuchea)", so I see no reason to do so in this instance. Any ambiguities are and can be dealt with through effective article leads/intros, DABs, redirects (Burma → Myanmar), etc. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We do not purpose to suggest what the name should be, the CIA already does that, and they are one of a primary English-language sources. The government of Myanmar likewise is proscriptive, rather than descriptive in its naming. Shalom, Pelegius 15:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I defer to my prior comments: the current article lead, article sxn, and dedicated article regarding the names are sufficient. Take a look at the Republic of Macedonia article for another example of an article for which toponymy is controversial and a conciliation reached. As well, I purposely did not note the CIA reference since it arguably reflects the position of the American government in their relations with Myanmar. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title "Myanmar (Burma)" is too cumbersome. The reason "Burma" continues to be used is explained in the first sentence of the article. Also, there is an article that thoroughly explains Burma/Myanmar naming. Burma was also the name of the British province, which was composed of only Burman (Bamar) territories (now called divisions), and did not include the ethnic territories (now states) adjacent to Burma Province. Using Myanmar would lessen the ambiguity, because Myanmar refers to the whole country today. Hintha 07:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The title is far less awkward than Harry Potter (character) or the like, espescialy as both Burma and Myanmar will redirect to it. Saalam, Pelegius 15:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• I Oppose the move. Seeing as many (more or less) neutral and reputable source will give the current name, that is a preferable title. Whether such an alternative name is a (now deprecated/obsolete) historical name, a less common (but perfectly acceptable) current alternative or a foreign name makes little difference as I see it. Parentheses in the title of a Wikipedia article should be used only when it is needed for effective disambiguation. Regards. //Big Adamsky 15:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Big Adamski. This is not a disambiguation. --Deville (Talk) 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contradiction about literacy rate

The figures cited in the section Education seem to contradict with the statement that "Myanmar's (has a) relatively high literacy rate, which stands at 89.7%" that is in the section on culture.

Perhaps we can check the veracity of the doubts raised in the Education section or water down what is being said in the section on Culture?

Agreed. Actually, the statistics listed in the "Culture" section are cited from UNESCO's Institute for Statistics which, according to their website simply sends questionaires to "relevant Ministries" of the countries in question and then compiles the responses. In other words, these are the statistics given by the government of Myanmar. Other UN organizations that do independant research (UNICEF, for example) as well as private charities and NGO's have documented far lower statistics as cited in the "Education" section and dismiss the "official" figures as unsubstantiated government propoganda.

Two things need to be done. The figures in the Education section need citations and the "Culture" section needs to be rewritten to maintain internal consistency. I'm too busy now but, if somebody doesn't do it first, I will do it this weekend.--WilliamThweatt 20:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the figure, but the figures from UNICEF, UN, Red Cross, WHO, CIA and other organisations all differ. Which ones are reliable? Hintha 07:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To try to answer your question, they are all different because the Burmese government makes it difficult (or impossible) for these "outside" organizations to survey the entire population. All of these figures are their best estimates based on the data the respective agencies have available to them. However, the point is that the "independent" estimates, while different, are in the same relative range and differ significantly from the "official" figures published by the Burmese government.

Ethnic Guerilla groups

Can you please try to include more about the ethnic guerillas in Burma. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.16.225.80 (talk • contribs) .

I've added a few sentences in the article about ethnic guerilla groups working in Myanmar, but if anyone would like to add further, feel free to do so. Hintha 01:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Capital

We need to discuss the situation with the new capital to establish consensus and prevent this back-and-forth, slow-motion edit war from continuing. This is how I view the situation. A "capital" is the location of the seat of government. The current government, regardless of how we view its legitimacy, has moved the seat of government to Naypyidaw. Therefore, Naypyidaw is now the capital. Likewise, Yangon is no longer the seat of government; therefore Yangon is no longer the capital. If there's a flaw in that logic, somebody please point it out.--WilliamThweatt 14:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As a recent editor of capitol information, I feel that I should comment here. I made a good-faith edit to correct what I perceived to be an error regarding the location of the capitol. The only reason why it was even brought to my attention was that there was a conversation on the IRC channel #wikipedia about the unknown population entry on the Naypyidaw article. I decided to investigate and my research led me to believe that Yangon (Rangoon) was the capitol of Myanmar. The United States' Central Intelligence Agency recognizes Yangon as the capitol and makes a note of the junta beginning to shift the seat of government to Pyinmana. The site is updated daily and as of 14 June 2006, the United States still recognizes Yangon as the official capitol of Myanmar. [5] As we live in a world where the United States does not dictate global policy (although at times it may seem otherwise), I'd be more than happy to concede that Pyinmana (rather than Naypyidaw, because of the name-change in March) is the official capitol, as that seems to be what the Burmese people consider their capitol to be. I was simply going on what one of the world's leading intelligence agencies led me to believe. In fact, perhaps we should just make a note on relevant pages that the capitol is disputed? I'm open to pretty much anything. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 15:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Naypyidaw in traditional usage simply means royal seat or capital e.g. Mandalay was known as Yadanabon naypyidaw and Ava as Innwa naypyidaw. It's never been a name in itself, like naingandaw in Myanmar naingandaw simply means royal country, and is not a proper noun. I don't know if people call it Pyinmana naypyidaw or Kyatpyay naypyidaw for that matter. They call the country itself Bama Pyi/Pyay or Myanma Naingan synonymously although I suppose the latter is now politically correct as the former could mean just the Burman homeland or the dominant Bamar's habitual usage for the entire nation. Wagaung 18:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you pronounced Myanmar? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.138.186 (talk • contribs) .

Contrary to popular belief, Myanmar is pronounced as two syllables: (1) Myan (pronounced myun), and (2) Ma (long a sound without the 'r' sound). Hintha 23:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Could someone with actual IPA knowledge add that to the article? I'd wager it's something like ['myanma:], but I'm no expert. —Nightstallion (?) 11:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Myanmar is pronounced / mjəNmàpjì /, but is increasingly being pronounced / mjəmàpjì / by Burmese speakers (especially in the Yangon-Bago region). Some, by preference, use / bəmàpjì /. / pjì / translates "country" in the aforementioned cases. Hintha 23:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikified as part of the wikification drive.

Wikified as part of the wikification drive. KarenAnn 19:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Size of Image.

I think that I may ask this question in this page about image. Is changing the siza of image allowed in article? Because I want little bit bigger, but not too much. *~Daniel~* 23:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think most images in Wikipedia articles are thumbnailed, but some editors force a size to enlarge (or shrink) the image. Most images aren't any larger than about 250-275 pixels. But keep in mind that when you force a size on an image it will appear different on different screens, depending on what browser and what resolution the user is running. A large image can make an article look really bad in lower resolution as well as take longer to load. My advice is to go ahead and experiment (within reason, of course)-- if it turns out bad, somebody will change it back.--WilliamThweatt 00:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

burma Vs Myanmar

this is not even an issue. burma was named by the british during their rule. now we call our real one. what seems to be the trip? UK and US are such jackass... This is our right. Stop calling my country burma. in my country, we think USA stand for United States Of Asshole...