| Revision as of 04:04, 15 November 2003 editIMSoP (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,541 edits my two pence← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:04, 5 January 2004 edit undoJiang (talk | contribs)43,437 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| # 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... | # 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) | 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) | ||
| 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) | |||
Revision as of 22:04, 5 January 2004
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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.
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)
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 Burma 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. - 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)