| Revision as of 22:25, 2 January 2005 edit81.154.252.230 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:49, 19 November 2024 edit undoUnsungHistory (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users542 edits →Kingdom of Ava missing under 'Formation': ReplyTag: Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} |
|
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 ], the ] etc). ] 10:12 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
|
|
{{British English|date=September 2010}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
| action1 = FAC |
|
|
| action1date = 2006-06-07, 15:59:28 |
|
|
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Burma/Archive |
|
|
| action1result = failed |
|
|
| action1oldid = 56901414 |
|
|
| action2 = PR |
|
|
| action2date = 2006-07-16, 17:55:18 |
|
|
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Burma/archive1 |
|
|
| action2oldid = 64136476 |
|
|
| action3 = FAC |
|
|
| action3date = 2006-07-24, 15:13:44 |
|
|
| action3link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Burma/archive1 |
|
|
| action3result = failed |
|
|
| action3oldid = 65398704 |
|
|
| currentstatus = FFAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2008-01-04|otd1oldid=181993750 |
|
: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. <br>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 Misplaced Pages will not get lost. Also, out of respect for the current nation and government. <br>Perhaps we should just work more on the Burma section at ]? ] 16:15 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd2date=2009-01-04|otd2oldid=261873276 |
|
|
|otd3date=2010-01-04|otd3oldid=335581240 |
|
|
|otd4date=2011-01-04|otd4oldid=405944205 |
|
|
|otd5date=2011-03-27|otd5oldid=421034628 |
|
|
|otd6date=2012-01-04|otd6oldid=469484641 |
|
|
|otd7date=2013-01-04|otd7oldid=531231493 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Myanmar|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Southeast Asia|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Buddhism|importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press|year=2006 |section=2006 |author=Maria Kruczkowska |title=Birma. Od Rangunu po Chaungtha |org=Gazeta Wyborcza |date=14 January 2006 |url= http://szukaj.gazeta.pl/archiwum/1,0,4559888.html?wyr=Misplaced Pages%2B }} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
{{BurmaMyanmarRMArchive}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 3 2017 (24th)|Jan 31 2021 (11th)}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archives|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=60}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Myanmar/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2023burma == |
|
::The article on ] is stored there (and not at 'German Democratic Republic') on the grounds that supposedly Misplaced Pages goes with the most commonly used English name, not necessarily the official one. You imply that Myanmar is the most commonly understood English name. This is far from certain. Burma is certainly 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? (Sometimes I wish British English had its own wikipedia so that we weren't tied down by the pro-dictatorship policies of the English-language wikipedia!) But this is by no means obvious, since the US government prefers the name Burma. The New York Times seems to prefer the military dictatorship's version of the name. 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? |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Myanmar|answered=y}} |
|
What this discussion misses is that Myanmar has always been the name for Burma in the Burmese language. But Misplaced Pages 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. |
|
|
|
] (]) 20:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> --] (]) 20:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023 == |
|
"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. ] 03:23, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Burma|answered=yes}} |
|
: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. |
|
|
|
] (]) 09:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 11:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Myanmar /en.wikipedia.org/Myanmar == |
|
:Redirection from "Burma" to "Myanmar", together with a discussion of the onomastic controversy, is entirely appropriate and should be preserved. ] 21:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global edit find Pagan replace Bagan. ] (]) 19:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
---- |
|
|
|
:{{notdone}} Both terms exist and have their own Wikipages: ] and ]. Can be done only on a case-by-case basis after a careful read. ] (]) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Kingdom of Ava missing under 'Formation' == |
|
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: |
|
|
# have a short entry for Myanmar explaining that this is the new name for ] as decreed by a military government (which has power, but arguably no mandate) - a kind of manual redirect, if you like. ]] |
|
|
# have an automatic redirection , which many people won't notice happening, and thus makes the page essentially have two names (the current situation) |
|
|
# 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 Misplaced Pages 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. - ] 04:04, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Kingdom of Ava is missing in the history section between Pagan and Taungoo Era. https://en.wikipedia.org/Kingdom_of_Ava ] (]) 02:44, 29 August 2024 (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, ] should be moved to ]. --]] 22:04, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{not done}},Please provide a source ] (]) (]) 20:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
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 ] and India ]. 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. ] 00:05, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Rhoticity of English pronunciation of "Myanmar"/"Burma" == |
|
:No, the German Embassy calls the country Germany in English . The UN calls Burma Myanmar in its English texts . 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). --]] 00:51, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
The UN is obliged to follow the wishes of member governments. We are not. ] 00:54, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "Etymology" section would benefit from a reference to the article ] |
|
: 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? ] 01:03, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please change "non-rhotic variety of English" to "]" ] (]) 22:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
By what we believe to be right. ] 01:04, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (] / ] / ]) 05:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I appreciate it! ] (]) 20:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Rohingya genocide == |
|
: 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. ] 01:35, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that the history section largely jumps from 2016 to 2020 without mentioning the Rohingya persecution in 2017, which seems a notable event that got a lot of international attention, at a minimum resulted in mass migration, etc. Is there a reason it wouldn't be appropriate to mention here? -] (]) 08:32, 28 October 2024 (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 ] ] - 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 ] 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. - ] 12:28, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Further comment: I do see that the topic is presented within Government and politics> Human rights and internal conflicts> Genocide allegations and crimes against Rohingya people. |
|
---- |
|
|
|
:Given the international attention, demographic changes to the country, refugee crisis, etc., I am not sure it doesn't belong in "history" too. |
|
i have some questions related to Burma myth. |
|
|
|
:However, even within the aforementioned section, the "2013 onwards" seems to have minimal commentary on the 2016-2017 period. At the beginning of the genocide allegations section, there is a "see also" link to "2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar" (which is not the current name of the linked article - I'd think we should link to the current name regardless rather than engaging in a separate debate) but those events aren't really mentioned much in the "2013 onwards" section of this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think there could be some improvement here. -] (]) 08:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
* At Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, there's this birdy, beasty, and godly gargoyles: |
|
|
|
::@] I fully agree with everything said here. The genocide of the Rohingya is far too notable and significant to be confined to only one small section of this article. I also noticed that the topic of Rohingya refugees is mentioned in Demographics> Ethnic groups, but it had no word of refugees past 1991. To rectify this, I added this sentence: "Since August 2017, an estimated 23,000-43,700 Rohingya have been killed in the ongoing ], and another 730,000 have fled to Bangladesh.", with three added sources. (Hopefully it doesn't get reverted by some genocide denier, ugh.) Regarding your concern about the "see also" link, it appears as though someone thankfully changed it to "Rohingya genocide" to match the page title (unless you're the one who did that, in which case nice!!) Thank you for pointing all this out, by the way - it's really important stuff. ] (]) 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
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 ] 16:38, 2004 May 3 (UTC) |
|
I noticed that the history section largely jumps from 2016 to 2020 without mentioning the Rohingya persecution in 2017, which seems a notable event that got a lot of international attention, at a minimum resulted in mass migration, etc. Is there a reason it wouldn't be appropriate to mention here? -KaJunl (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --AntiDionysius (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done Both terms exist and have their own Wikipages: Bagan and Pagan Kingdom. Can be done only on a case-by-case basis after a careful read. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)