Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:38, 3 May 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:

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.
2. have an automatic redirection , 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 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)

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 . 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). --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)

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)