Talk:Myanmar

I think we should follow Wikipedia's lead, and use this name (I participated in the discussion there). I saw the junta's name in an article (sorry, forget which) during the Big Write & thought it was time to raise this point. Ro Thorpe 19:19, 5 March 2008 (CST)

Why is it being called Burma in the article? David Finn 10:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is not an option. There is a redirect from the SLORC's name - and I've corrected their name... Ro Thorpe 13:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it - is Citizendium taking a political stance on the naming of this article? The United Nations members index lists the country as Myanmar. If that is what the UN call it, what reason does CZ have for an opposite approach - there is nothing in the article itself that elaborates on this point. David Finn 14:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the UN should decide CZ policy. As I say, neutrality is not an option. Ro Thorpe 15:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I asked what reason does CZ have for an opposite approach, which is a different question. I don't seem to be getting a straightforward answer here, I'll post the question on the forums and ask for community input. Cheers. David Finn 15:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As a linguist, I think we should prefer Burma in CZ. The traditional, usual name, in the English language, is Burma, not Myanmar. This is an objective fact that we have to reflect in the article's title. The name Myanmar is nothing but a bad transcription (although oficially supported by the SLORC) of the formal Burmese name of the country, which is in reality Myanma, not even Myanmar. Myanma (Myanmar*) is a Burmese name, convenient for an encyclopedia written in Burmese; it is not a genuine English name and therefore it is not suitable as a prioritary name in an encyclopedia written in English. The bureaucratic use of the UN, which uses Myanmar in English, is not a valid reference for a correct redaction in plain English.--Domergue Sumien 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We would need some kind of reference establishing that. Please see the thread in the Content section of the Forums for a discussion about this. David Finn 18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Use the current name established by the country. As always it's what the people want to be known as. I'd also reference previous names for the same country in the article. You can add this to the history.Mary Ash 18:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the people have nothing to do with it, in a military dictatorship. However, I am making an editorial decision that we use UN names as a standard, with older or alternative names in brackets if needed. It is actually non-neutral to use the name Burma, and inconsistent with CZ's Neutrality Policy (which applies until the EC makes new policy). Sorry to those who want Burma, but it is not the legal name. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

I strongly oppose this editor's decision. This is firstly a question of language use. When you speak English, you say normally, spontaneousaly and traditionally "Burma", "I went to Burma", "I learned to speak Burmese when I was in Burma", "I went to Spain", "I went to Germany", "I went to Japan", etc. You rarely say in English "I went to Myanmar" and you never say in English "I went to España", "I went to Deutschland", "I went to Nippon"... "Burma" is not a former name, it is simply the name of the country in the English language, in a neutral register.

• The Burmese junta has never changed the short form of the name. It's hard to explain, but this is an objective fact. The short Burmese name has always been, and is still today, Myanma (formal Burmese) or Bama (colloquial Burmese), before and after the junta.
• The junta only tries to change the use of the English language by promoting a new translation from Burmese to English (Burmese Myanma > English Myanmar). But this junta has no legal power nor legitimacy to say what is correct or incorrect in English. Nor the UN.
• There is absolutely no etymologic difference between English Burma and Burmese Bama or Myanma: this is just the same name and the same meaning, but with different forms adapted to different languages. You can't compare this with a real name change like Ceylon > Sri Lanka, where different etymologies and meanings are involved.

Therefore, imposing "Myanmar" in CZ is non-neutral, presenting "Burma" as a "former" name is clearly non-neutral: this presentation is a misunderstanding of a linguistic issue. A neutral position would be the following:

• Burma presented as the general, English name of the country.
• Bama/Myanma presented as the Burmese name of the country.
• Myanmar presented as an official translation promoted by the junta (and suppported by the UN), from Burmese to English, in spite of the English use.

--Domergue Sumien 12:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Domergue: this is a matter of international law. The official name of the country is established, and I cannot change that. The current government does not accept the name "Burma" and we do not have the right to tell them what they should do. Your comments are noted, but not relevant. If you wish, you may appeal my decision to the Editorial Council when it is appointed.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Or anyone can ask another Geography editor or Politics editor. D. Matt Innis 13:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to destroy CZ with editorial wars, that is an excellent idea. There is no CZ policy on editorial conflicts, they have to go to the Editorial Council. I will not accept another editor's decision on this matter, so you can predict the consequences for CZ. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether I agree with this statement or not, the consequences of asking another editor aren't my concern when outlining the choices. It's up to the individual to determine if the potential outcome it is worth the potential risk. D. Matt Innis 14:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems curiosly inflexible. I think most of us are hoping, if not praying, that the people elected to the new editorial council will be willing to co-operate, especially editors. David Finn 14:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the composition of the EC is crucial for CZ. I am being inflexible on this now, because otherwise we will have anarchy. The new EC can adjudicate on all these things when it is ready.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Martin:
The topic is the conception of neutrality. CZ is an encyclopedia which informs readers about objective facts, with a policy of strict neutrality. We agree about this principle. So I hope you will agree with the following arguments.
1. Reality and objective information are not limited to legal statements, they also encompass language use. We don't have the right to mislead readers about this. I'm afraid you can't claim neutrality if you only want to see one legal aspect of one government which legal legitimacy is severely contested (including inside, in Burma) and which linguistic legitimacy concerning English language planning is totally nonexistent.
2. If we name the article "Burma", we inform the reader that "Burma" is the general name in English and, by doing so, we respect the facts and give the reader an objective information about the real, objective, general use of the English language.
3. If we name the article "Myanmar", we give the impression that "Myanmar" would be the general use of the English language, which is not true; this is non-neutral.
4. When you put in the article's name the mention "formerly Burma", you give the impression that "Burma" would be an outdated word, which is objectively untrue and misleading; this is non-neutral.
5. Even if we name the article "Burma" (according to the objective, current and stylistically neutral English use) we'll have to add in the introduction that the junta claims the name "Myanmar" for official use in English, which is also a fact.
6. Please note that linguistics—the science of language—has proven that language use is not decided only by law, but mostly by speakers. If you want to be neutral, you should listen to linguists, not only to UN bureaucrats.
Before invoking an appeal, maybe we can find a solution which reflects the multiple faces (the linguistic ones and the legal ones) of this complex reality.-Domergue Sumien 21:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Domergue: personally I have no desire for this country to be called Myanmar, or for this article to be titled as such. The fact is that we live in a world dominated by law and nation states. According to these rules, the government of a country (subject to acceptance by other nation states) determines tha name of that country for as long as it is in power. These countries are admitted to the United Nations under their chosen names, and the names are recorded in international law for the purpose of signing treaties etc.

It is just not relevant what people call a country in normal speech. You can argue that the UK is more normally called Britain by the British, but that is not its legal name. Its full legal name is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, abbreviated to United Kingdom or UK. Now, the reason I mention this is that we get this argument over almost every country in the world! I am not prepared to argue about this for every country. Where there is one legal name, that is the one we use. Where there is doubt, we can debate it. There is no doubt in this case, and the biggest concession I can think of has already been made in the current page title. Sorry.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Martin, you simply refuse to answer to my precise arguments concerning neutrality and fact accuracy. Your attitude isn't suitable for CZ policy. And that's over, I have no more time to waste.--Domergue Sumien 23:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If you do not like my editorial decision, you may appeal it. Your last remark is in breach of CZ policy concerning civility on the wiki and indicates perhaps that you do not respect expertise.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Other needs

I have no particular position on the title of this article, at least as a Politics Editor.

As a Military and History Editor, we cannot simply banish the term Burma, as in the China-Myanmar-India Theater of WWII, under Lord Louis Mountbatten. There needs to be a rational system of redirects.

Remember that an article title should be that which works best in search arguments. Without prejudging whether it's a single or qualified word, the article lede can and should explain the names in use.

Should we have "Thailand, Siam (for a while)"? "United States of America (formerly the colonies of...)"? Howard C. Berkowitz 02:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)