Talk:Burma/Myanmar

Suggestion of changing the page name to 'Myanmar' from 'Burma'

Hi Admins,

I would like to suggest that the admins change the page name from 'Burma' to 'Myanmar'. Increasingly, news media and international world is using the term 'Myanmar' ,especially in formal occasion. United Nation, IMF, World Bank and all the other international organizations are now using the name 'Myanmar'. Moreover, all the other Myanmar related topics for example, uses the term currently using instead of colonial names: for example, Yangon instead of Rangoon, Bago instead of Pegu and Rakhine instead of Araken and this article should not be left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thettin684 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Trust me. This page will not be renamed until a certain lady becomes president of Myanmar and she declares Myanmar as the correct name of this country. All those claims of "Burma being a more common name" is just going to be brushed aside, because it is not a solid argument to begin with. Wikipedia has made a name for itself as being the only major international source of information which calls a particular country by its former name.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia also insists on calling Ireland the "Republic of Ireland" which is not even its name (current or former name for that matter). I've asked on the "Talk: Burma" page for support to rename the Zimbabwe article as Rhodesia. I thought I might get support there. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, this should be Myanmar now. Google gives 401 million hits for "Myanmar", but "Burma" only gets 119 million, much of which must be already older material. Unless there is some need to side with a political faction this or that, Wikipedia should just go along with the most used English name. Drieakko (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

But do those hits actually indicate that "Myanmar" is the most used English name? Are those English only hits? Non-English usage is irrelevant here. How many of the "Myanmar" hits include something like "formerly known as Burma"? If the author feels the need to explain the word "Myanmar" it is not the common English term. --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Time to move the lemma to "Myanmar"

After a political "spring" igniting reforms to more democracy, the argument of pariah state impeding to name this country "Myanmar" is not valid anymore. The government becomes more and more legitimate. 49.147.167.108 (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I still don't really understand this argument, Germany is not called Deutchsland and Switzerland is not called Schweiz.

The meaning of an "official" name is that it is the name that has to be used in all languages. Locally some language users may use their own term, but refering to this entity officially, the official name has to be used. I'm not sure if Deutschland or Schweiz are the official names; if so, they need to be corrected too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.19.103 (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have NEVER heard this definition of "official name" before. Why should ANY nation get to dictate to any other language (much less ALL other languages) what to call something. THAT seems massively arrogant to me. --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

IP 61 and Khajidha, did you notice the information in the tan-colored box at the top of this page? There has been much discussion about this before, all archived so you can read it if you wish, and there is a link to the place where one can add more comments. CorinneSD (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The English for Burma is Burma (2.121.155.84 (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC))

This article should be renamed to Myanmar, it is the official name of the country. I am still confused why the name is Burma on here when for decades the country's name has been Myanmar.

To my understanding this issue centres around the moral argument of liberty and I include freedom to develop thought patterns free of propaganda in that. It is difficult to guage what people who speak the Burmese language think about all this as machine translation hasnt been developed. There is, remarkably, no language link from the Burma article to Burmese but any result here may not say much. Personally, until we get a clear lead on what to do, there are moral reasons not to change. Perhaps clarity on this issue can be achieved but, given the history, an argument should be pretty conclusive to justify a change. Gregkaye (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

--50.169.251.83 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Calling the article "Burma" had more credibility when it was still used side-by-side with Myanmar in the anglophone world, but, in formal contexts, "Myanmar" is almost always used now unless a political agenda is intended. Eventually, Burma will go the way of Ceylon and Rhodesia. 203.176.136.30 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To say "Wkipedia policy is to use most common name, not official name." is utter rubbish. Wikipedia exists to educate people, so it should teach people that the official name is Myanmar, not Burma. I just went to Myanmar under the impression it was Burma, until I got there, and was told off by locals for calling it Burma. Myanmar consists of 100s of different people, of which a lot are Burmese. The name Myanmar em composes all people of Myanmar. It was the British who called it Burma and the people of Myanmar do not like their country being called Burma.

The article does state that the official name is Myanmar. It's right in the first sentence. Why should it matter to the people of any country what another language calls that country, anymore than it matters to speakers of one language what another language calls anything else?--Khajidha (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning is just plain ridiculous. So does it mean I can call you by any name I want if it's not in the language your name originates from? To quote you, it would seem "massively arrogant to me" if you think it's right to just call a country by any name you like, especially when it has already specified what it would like to be called. Brewspit (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are speaking any language but English, then yes you can call me by a different name. It is only in my own language that I have the right to specify what I am called. --Khajidha (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you're suggesting I can call you Nigel if I wanted. Names are names regardless of language. You don't go call a French person whose name is Philippe "Philip" because of language or location, that's not his name. We don't go calling Beijing "Asian New York" just because the official name is not English. The official English name is Myanmar, not Burma, the people of Myanmar call their country, Myanmar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.151.244 (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you can call me Nigel in your language if you wish. Most people don't do this with other people's names but even people's names can be changed from language to language, For example: Jesus, Aristotle, Christopher Columbus and Peter the Great never used those names for themselves. Those are the English names for them. But, even leaving people out of it, PLACE names are quite often changed from language to language. The English language does not speak of Hellas, Nippon, Suomi, Beograd, Munchen, etc. It uses its own names for those nations and cities. Just as it uses Burma instead of the native Myanmar. --Khajidha (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Living in Russia, I notice that, for example, historically the country located just West of Russia was referred to as "White Russia ("Exhibit A", Exhibit B and the Soviet republic was referred to as "B(y)elorussian" in English. However, after an official name change of the country, the English name of the region/country changed to Belarus. Before the USSR fell apart, you would've rarely, if ever, seen "Belarus" or "Belarusian SSR" to describe that area in English-language sources. So, Belarus can tell English-language people how to call them, but Myanmar can't? P.S. I have no problem with calling Belarus exactly that, Belarus, unlike most Russians. I think no one should have problems calling Myanmar... Myanmar.188.32.30.95 (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's time for Myanmar!!!! Things change. It's time to move on. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! I find it completely appalling that factual accuracy on here is sacrificed by people shouting "COMMONNAME" over and over. Wikimandia (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't even the common name anymore, rather it is the archaic name. All news sources and media now use Myanmar, and it is ridiculous that the page move function has even apparently been disabled for this page. Nulla Taciti (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

People, you should go back and read the posts on the past efforts to change the name. Everything stated above has been stated before and each time the vote/decision was to keep it Burma. I was an advocate then for the name change and remain so today. Unless there has been a sea-change in Wikipedia opinion from the "moral" argument to reality, this will not be an easy change. --^StormRider 10:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

How is the name Burma the "moral" choice? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the name Burma just basically refering to the main ethnic group of the country? That just doesn't seem right. Nulla Taciti (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, both Myanma as well as Bama refer to the same main ethnic group of the country. In that regard, neither name is different. Bama is colloquial and Myanma formal. Both names are equally discriminating against other ethnic groups in Burma. If you read the discussions on naming, the main argument for retaining the Burma name was the common name one and morality doesn't enter into Wikipedia naming decisions. --regentspark (comment) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Good, but regardless my one moral is to not wade through pages of tedious Wikipedia debates. Although the last change review appears to be over 2 years ago, consensus may have changed. Nulla Taciti (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change, but not without at least a little effort. If five minutes to find out why the previous decision went the way it did is too much, maybe you should ask yourself whether you actually care enough about this issue. Formerip (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No fancy arguments or "effort" about "Burma" are needed. Common sense is what's needed. We should accept the not-so-new name by consensus and then move on. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot believe that there is even a debate on this issue. The country's official name has been Myanmar for 26 years! Should we not use the name that the country itself uses, just as the UN and the EU and pretty much everybody else does? We don't refer to Iran as Persia, or Burkina Faso as Upper Volta, or Cambodia as Kampuchea, or Democratic Republic of Congo as Zaire ... and on and on. Is a quarter-century not long enough? If not, I'm going to propose changing the Vietnam article back to French Indochina, forthwith. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Joe-Although I agree, it's not that strange by Wiki standards. Wiki insists on "Republic of Ireland" even though Irish governments have rejected the credentials of diplomats where that description was used. It's just "Ireland" on its passports, constitution etc. But on Wiki, that's ignored. Frenchmalawi (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There ought to be some sort of superseding Rule of Common Sense, to cut through all the nonsense when an obvious change is blocked by a weird consensus. But since that magic wand does not exist (yet), how do we go about joining the rest of the world in changing Burma to Myanmar, and Republic of Ireland to Ireland? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess appeal to the governments of US, UK, Australia, Canada and about half the population of Burma/Myanmar. Maybe you can get them to change their minds. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That assumes that the prevailing consensus isn't itself common sense. To me, your assertion that the government of a non-English speaking country has any power over the usage of words in the English language is completely contrary to common sense. And the ROI is unlikely to be moved to Ireland as that page is about the entire island. --Khajidha (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

WP is not a government; it does not have an "official position" on anything. The U.S. doesn't "officially" recognize the name Myanmar because they don't like their government's human rights record; we are not qualified to make a judgment like that. Most U.S. publications and broadcasters have faced reality, and Obama called it "Myanmar" when he visited there a couple of years ago. Similarly, the British government doesn't use it, but the BBC does, all the time. Ditto Australia & Canada and the rest of the world. WP calls Macedonia Macedonia, despite the fact that all the governments you mentioned above, plus the UN, EU, etc., etc., call it FYROM. There are other examples, but you get my drift. Just looking for a little consistency. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 7:43 pm, Today (UTC−8)

When you say "nonsense" and "weird consensus" it helps to show the fact that the US, UK, Canada, Australia, the Burmese gov't in Exile and half the Burma/Myanmar population are all part of that nonsense and weird consensus. But this is all documented in prior discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 9:30 pm, Today (UTC−8)

So WP has joined the governments you mentioned in taking the side of the Burmese government in exile? How obvious a violation of WP:NPOV is that? The official name of the country is Myanmar, and NPOV dictates that we use that name, as we do for most other countries, regardless of the political ideology of the government in power. If/when the Burmese government in exile takes back the country, we change the name back. Once again, I can't believe there is a debate on this. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a question of taking sides. If you start saying that calling it Burma is warped then all those other sources are warped as well, not just wikipedia. The official name by whom? By a military gov't that is not recognized by many countries? There are many many countries we don't call by their "official name." Did you even read all the previous discussions? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of arguments in the archives, all just as bogus as this one. Who used the word "warped", other than yourself, and what does that have to do with anything? And of course it's a question of taking sides; the refusal to acknowledge the name change (which is confined almost exclusively to English-speaking countries, BTW) is rooted in a desire to show disapproval for the noxious regime there. It's a violation of WP:NPOV for us to subscribe to that disapproval. We should call every country what it calls itself, and stay out of the politics. No East Timor for Timor-Leste, no Ivory Coast for Côte d'Ivoire, and of course, no Peking (heaven forfend!) for Beijing. To mention three more examples. One of WP's basic problems is that there is no hierarchy, no one in charge, no way to establish a consistent policy in situations like this -- just the alleged wisdom of crowds. Sometimes that is good, but this is not one of those times. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"Which is confined almost exclusively to English-speaking countries", so the English language usage in English speaking countries shouldn't be relevant to an English language resource? And you claim to be on the side of common sense? --Khajidha (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I claim to be on the side of not taking sides. By refusing to acknowledge the name change, we tacitly agree with that political view, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. And it does not follow, because four English-speaking countries refuse to acknowledge the name change, that ALL English-speaking countries do. Most, in fact, do not. Remember, also, that Burma is the name that the British imposed after colonizing it. It's been 30 years since anyone went off to Rhodesia to hunt kaffirs -- and it's been 26 years since the majority of the world has called Myanmar Burma. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Point by point: 1) So you didn't mention a "Rule of Common Sense" before? 2) We DO acknowledge the name change, it's mentioned in the very first sentence. 3) I don't see how politics enters into it, I use the common English name of all countries whether I like, hate or am completely ignorant of their governments. Thus, I say Finland instead of Suomi and Burma instead of Myanmar. 4) When the majority of native English speakers live in those 4 countries, they can reasonably be given extra weight in questions of usage. 5) Burma is the English adaptation of the native Bama. Which is, in turn, the colloquial form of the same name that is adapted as Myanmar (adapted from the more formal term). Not that I see why colonization would enter into the discussion. 6) It has also been thirty years since anyone actually referred to the modern country as Rhodesia, while people are still constantly speaking of Burma. Your reference to the "majority of the world" is irrelevant as the majority of the world's population are not native English speakers. While foreign language usage and English as a second language usage can inform as to data, it is native English speaking usage that determines the presentation of those data. Just as native speakers of any language determine the standards of that language. --Khajidha (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, as others have seen before me, that this debate is a waste of time. Suffice to say that the "English speaking world" is not the world, even though many of us who speak English think it is. And when the current Myanmar government falls -- as it surely will, eventually -- the chance that a new government will choose to return to the artificial colonial name is close to zero; the political opposition and some English speakers insist on continuing to use that name for political reasons, nothing else. The UN uses Myanmar, presumably deferring to the idea that its members can call themselves what they wish. Someday, perhaps Wikipedia will come around to that bit of -- yes -- common sense. If you want the last word, you're welcome to it. I'm outta here. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have read this whole thread. By way of background, the people who live in this country have always called the country Myanmar. Burma was only ever an anglophone approximation but, as colonial powers, their spelling stuck. Part of shedding colonialism is the reversion back to the spelling and pronunciation of the people. In this case, Myanmar. The only reason there was ever any contention about is was that Ang Song Su Chi claimed that the government that happened to be in power at the time the name was "officially" changed was legitimate, and therefore all their laws lacked legitimacy. But she would have said Myanmar all her life. Now we have got some semblance of legitimacy in Myanmar, most press and governments have come around and decided to use Myanmar. I have observed that the United States generally tends to be quite late in adopting local pronunciations and spellings of place names. I fear that we have moved on from the days when the objections to Myanmar were political and we are now simply seeing US tardiness in adopting change dictating the policy of Wikipedia. Here in Australia I haven't heard Burma said in many years. H6PAYH 9:44pm, 21 March 2015 (EDST) 58.110.112.188 (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should we change to the spelling and pronunciation of the people? That spelling and pronunciation is Burmese. This wiki is written in English. Just as we can say Japan, China, Greece, etc as the English name for regions that have very different indigenous names so, too can we use Burma. Turning it around, I neither know nor care what other languages call my country. It is, in fact, none of my business what they call my country (barring only that it not be directly derogatory in that language, you can't call a country "Shitheadia"). --Khajidha (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@H6PAYH: Thank you, that was my point -- at least in part. Since joining this discussion I've done some research, and here in the US the great majority of news articles and commentaries have switched to "Myanmar" as well. The last time I heard someone actually voice the word "Burma" was during a screening of The King and I, some years ago. Perhaps someday Wikipedia will come around as well, but I'm not holding my breath, given the small but tenacious group that inexplicably remains committed to the artificial colonial name. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It totally is POV to use a political term that was pushed in such a way. Should we consider Taiwan to be the rightful claimant to the entity China, just as the United States has long done? Or call South Korea "Korea" and North Korea "Communist Korea"? The world calls it Myanmar. Using outdated sources to prove that different is pointless. As far as I can tell Khajidha is the main person in this whole debate that wants it to remain "Burma" and he will challenge anyone who says differently. That's not how Wikipedia works. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If you truly think that consensus is in your favor, then make a formal move proposal. --Khajidha (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Why would anyone even discuss with a person like Khajidha, who to any valid argument and example will answer "I don't call Finland Suomi". This is most ridiculous shit I've ever heard. As if Finland sometime ago has called itself "Finland" and THEN officially changed it to "Suomi". But the fact is - this has never happened, just as the fact is - this is just what happened with Myanmar. Leaving it as "Burma" on Wiki is unacceptable nonsense.Faust-RSI (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said Finland had changed its name to Suomi. I said that the English name for Suomi is Finland. And it would probably remain Finland even if the government of said country decided tomorrow to change the name of the country to Susan. Finland is the English name of that country. Burma is the English name of this one. What they call themselves is irrelevant to English, just as what my country calls itself is irrelevant to Burmese. All of you are arguing from the point of view of the Burmese people, but the relevant point of view is that of the native English speaking populace of the world. THEY are the ones who set standards for English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be an excellent argument if it were correct. Fact is, Myanmar is a direct pronunciation in English of the country’s official name, Myanma — meaning fast and strong people — just as Burma is a direct pronunciation of the native name Bamar. So Myanmar is the English name of that country as well. Try again. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Renaming

(conversation moved from Talk:Burma)

I think a renaming to Myanmar should be discussed soon. The name seems to have growing international acceptance, including in the media such as the BBC. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

As someone who opposed the last move request, I do recognise that the BBC has gradually shifted to "Myanmar" over the last year or so (incidentally, I think this is not unconnected to the fact that it struck a content distribution deal with the Burmanyan authorities last year) is significant, and a new discussion may be warranted. However, while the BBC is obviously highly influential, it is still pretty much on its own in terms of British usage. A new discussion now would probably be as fraught as previous ones and may end up with no change. If we were to wait to see if the BBC's lead is taken up elsewhere (I personally think this won't take too long), then I think it likely that the page could be moved with a decisive consensus and not much fuss. Formerip (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

After a quick scan of "elsewhere", it appears to me that it has already happened. I've mentioned before that in the US, the great majority of news articles and commentaries have switched to "Myanmar". Perhaps someday Wikipedia will come around as well, but I'm not holding my breath, given the small but tenacious group that inexplicably remains committed to the artificial colonial name. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's time to reopen this, as the tide is turning on WP:COMMONNAME. Most news reports these days refer to it as something like "Myanmar (formerly Burma)" or "Myanmar (also known as Burma)". For example, a Google News search for "burma -myanmar" returns 413,000 results, while "myanmar -burma" returns 7,810,000. Anyone brave enough to open a formal RM? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Name

(conversation moved from Talk:Burma)

I feel this page should be moved to "Myanmar" or "Republic of Myanmar". "Burma" is the name that replaced "Myanmar" by the regim. What do you think? --SO2 (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Burma/Myanmar --regentspark (comment) 23:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Well then, thanks. SO2 (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh! I'm so sorry! I mixed the both names together! Myanmar is the namn that is taken in use by the regim. Sorry. SO2 (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It’s fine to be at odds with what a regime thinks. The English language is not mandated by them. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] @ 1 June, 2015; 07:44

However, I think the tide is turning on WP:COMMONNAME. Most news reports these days refer to it as something like "Myanmar (formerly Burma)" or "Myanmar (also known as Burma)". For example, a Google News search for "burma -myanmar" returns 413,000 results, while "myanmar -burma" returns 7,810,000. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(from Burma talk page) Why is the title still Burma when it's officially Myanmar? The first paragraph should say that it was previously Burma, but that shouldn't be the title. 73.179.216.228 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2015

Take a look at the conversation above, as well as previous ones in the archives, and you'll see that this has been a bone of contention for quite some time. I am amazed (as are you, apparently) that there is even a debate on this; but there is a small but adamant contingent of editors who insist on perpetuating the "Burma" title. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This was a bone of contention since the article was created 12 years ago. It's been at Burma for what... 8 years now? I argued to keep it at Burma. The question would be, have things changed a great deal in those 8 years? This is an English based wikipedia. What do Canada, USA, UK and Australia officially call the country? Has that changed (because I haven't looked in a long time). Does the gov't in exile still go by Burma? Is the country still controlled by an illegitimate Junta? What do the people inside the county call it (in the recent past there were more that called it Bama than Manma). In the past discussions, the news sources in the UK, Australia and Canada were split, with the USA in favor of Myanmar... has that changed? Has past former political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi changed her views on the country name? These are the questions (maybe more) that will need to be looked at in deciding whether it's worth taking a look at renaming. I admit I haven't done so in awhile. If someone does the the verifiable research on those things, and if they've substantially changed, that's when it's time to take a re-looksee at the title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The country's official name has been Myanmar for 26 years. President Obama uses that name, as does the UN, presumably acknowledging that sovereign countries are entitled to call themselves whatever they wish. WP does not refer to Iran as Persia, nor Burkina Faso as Upper Volta, or Cambodia as Kampuchea, or Democratic Republic of Congo as Zaire, or Zimbabwe as Rhodesia ... and on and on. The legitimacy of the ruling junta is not supposed to be a factor here, per WP:NPOV. I don't really know what would need to change for WP to face reality. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Official as recognized by whom? Not the US, UK, Canada, or Australia. Countries can certainly call themselves whatever thy wish, and in English we can call them whatever we wish. Look, those items you just mentioned were debated last time, and the time before and the time before, etc. Burma was chosen as the name after listening to all the arguments. Your list of other countries were all countered in the previous debates. Didn't you read them? If so why bring the same old stuff up that is easily dismissed as "been there done that?" IF new developments have happened in the interim then certainly lets discuss them... I always listen and re-evluate if need be. But if only the same identical themes are brought forth with no new material on which to judge by, then it's not worth the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't believe that any new information is necessary, since the argument for using "Burma" was never that cogent in the first place; but if you need something new, how about the fact that most American and British media now split the difference, using Myanmar on first reference, then later add a post-script that the country is "also known as Burma"? Even the opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, seems to be facing reality -- she usually refers to "my country" or "our country" -- essentially, also, splitting the difference. The fact that the four governments you mentioned continue to insist on using a local name instead of an internationally acknowledged one for political and nationalistic reasons shouldn't be a determining factor here; we are supposed to be neutral. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Well you'd be 100% wrong on your first point then, since most people disagreed with you. As for the rest, American media split the difference before so nothing new there, however UK did not, being almost completely in the Burma camp media-wise. So if that can be shown in sources to be 50/50, that would be something new and worthy added to the table. If the opposition leader has been calling the country Myanmar, that would also be new and worthy information. Again it would need to be verified. But you'd be wrong to say that the major English speaking countries gov'ts don't matter in what they officially call the country, or that what the locals call themselves doesn't matter... it all matters. We look at everything just as we did in other discussions. We didn't leave things out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that people disagreed with me doesn't necessarily mean that their argument was cogent (fallacy of Appeal to Popularity). And where did I say that it didn't matter? I said it shouldn't be the determining factor. Everything should be considered, as you said. Such as general acknowledgement by the rest of the world. But again, this is fruitless. I'm not even sure why I bothered to weigh in again. Be my guest, leave it the way it is. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 07:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

How is the usage of "Myanmar (also known as Burma)" an argument in favor of Myanmar? If anything, the fact that the name Burma is being used to clarify the meaning would seem to argue in favor of using Burma. --Khajidha (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)