Talk:Myanmar

Archives
March 2003 – July 2006

Name conflict

Since 1989 the military authorities in Burma have promoted the name Myanmar as a conventional name for their state; this decision was not approved by any sitting legislature in Burma! Therefore we should change the name from Myanmar to Burma! This is the correct name of the country. The change will reflect a neutral POV as opposed to Myanmar which infers a recognition of the military rule in Burma.

I agree! I don't think it should be listed as Yangon, or Myanmar. The renaming is not recognised by most countries, and is a symbol of the military dictatorship. Many local people still refer to it as Myanmar, and use this name as a symbol of non violent resistance to the military government. I need not mention of course, that the military government changed the name in the ninties. As Wikipedia is meant to be a symbol of freedom of speech and democracy, we should not recognise this name and instead have it as "Rangoon" and "Burma". Segafreak2 22:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is politically neutral and impartial, it means it neither support nor appease oppositions and the governement. It recognise what has officially been recognise internationally. Wikipedia is not a symbol of freedom of speech and democracy, it is simply an "Encylcopedia", it is not a political PR tool or a propaganda website. I suggest you read Wikipedia Policies and understand what it really stands for. Okkar 08:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Many countries do not have democratically-elected legislatures nor any institutions of democracy for that matter (e.g. China, Laos, and Vietnam, to name a few). The military junta may be illegitimate, but that does not mean that we cannot ignore the local conventions of English name spelling (MOS conventions), which were changed in 1989. Showing "support" for nonviolent protest itself presents a POV; besides, Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral source of information, not a bastion of pro-democratic ideology. And you yourself said something about how many locals refer to Burma as Myanmar in English, which is correct. Expatriate Burmese are more likely to use the same terms recognised by pro-democracy movement (e.g. Burma, Rangoon, Pegu). --Hintha 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the names "Myanmar", "Yangon", etc. are in use by the United Nations and other international organisations, even though some of their members don't like the use of the name - it's in use for official purposes, so it should probably be left. Whilst I don't support the illegitimate regime and its alleged abuses, let's stick with what's on recognised internationally. JROBBO 01:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In my view even if every sngle Burmese rose as one and acclaimed the name of their country to be Myanmar we should still use Burma. It's Burma in English. I don't care what it is in Burmese. (Yes I know I'm losing to the PC advocates but I'd say the same for Calcutta, Madras and Florence.) Avalon 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You should care what it is in Burmese, because this article is about their country. Have you no respect for burmese people? English doesnt rule the world and you should stop living the dream of old colonial empire. Okkar 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Shakes head wearily.) I will try to explain once more. This is an English encyclopædia. We use English. The English word for that country is "Burma". It has a different name in Burmese and probably different names in German, Italian and Japanese. All of these are important for German, Italian and Japanese encyclopædias. I do not take offence that Germans call my country Australien or that Frenchmen call it Australie. Why should you be offended that we want to use English? Avalon 08:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, why should you have a say in what we should call our country? this maybe English wikipedia, but it doesnt have the right to insist upon calling other people country any name that is convienient in English. Do you insist that "Thailand" be called "Siam" and Mumbai be called "Bombay", because these are the English names? Isnt it a bit ignorant to suggest that "we call it what we want, cos it is English wikipedia"? Okkar 09:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Yes, No. Avalon 09:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is amusing to read the funny and childish discussions by some editors that to use Burmese is an insult like 'N' word. (May be they need to please their political masters. If not they would be arrested again!) We all Burmese knew that Myanmar is associated with SLORC/SPDC and most of the opposition is using Burma as a sign of resistance. Calling Burma is not an insult to anyone. If some of you think so, try to avoid using yourselves Bama/Bamar/Burmese. May be start to use Myanmarese? (I am amused that the person who said it is an insult, call himself Burmese. Is he trying to insult himself?

Wiki should stand on the neutral ground by using Burma/Myanmar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darz kkg (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I support this view. Let's use Myanmar/Burma. I will change the article if nobody have contrary views. 80.202.209.139 23:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Article name remains as it is according to UN charter. We will not allow the use of Wikipedia as a political playground. Keep your politics out of here please. Okkar 02:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree the article name should be changed. Many people refer to this country as Burma. 80.202.209.139 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

United Nation refer to this country as "Myanmar", it stays as it is. We are not here to accomodate the political divide. Okkar 10:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Accomodating political divide is exactly what we do by using Myanmar as page title158.37.149.25 14:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Capital

The capital of Burma is Rangoon (Yangon). We whould not base the article on an illegitimate military regime, but rather on the view of the majority of the people in Burma! Why should we base the article on the Junta rather than the views of the freedom fighters in the country? Change the references to the capital in the article!

Despite the illegitimacy of the military regime, the citizens of Burma do not have power. Hence, until power is transferred, what the military regime dictates is fact. It would be like replacing the name of the Head of State of the country, which falsifies information even further, because in actuality, the military leader Than Shwe is in power. --Hintha 02:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, This place is not for freedom fighters to do their propaganda work. It's an encyclopedia! stop bringing your political rubbish here. Okkar 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think - is this the capital or not ? See discussion here [1] I'm interested in peoples' opinions. I understand there are no embassies in the new capital, what's the significance of it. Shouldn't there be a footnote next to the capital in the infobox? Cheers, Amoruso 02:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for new Intro

Myanmar, officially the Union of Myanmar, is the largest country in geographical area in mainland Southeast Asia. Also known as Burma or the Union of Burma by bodies and states which do not recognize the ruling military junta, it is bordered by China on the north, Laos on the east, Thailand on the southeast, Bangladesh on the west, and India on the northwest, with the Andaman Sea to the south, and the Bay of Bengal to the southwest. There are over 2,000 kilometres (1,243 mi) of coastline. The country was ruled by a military junta led by General Ne Win from 1962 to 1988, and its political system remains under the tight control of the State Peace and Development Council, its military government, led by Senior General Than Shwe since 1992.

The guidelines for a "Good Article" say that the intro should briefly summarize the whole article. To that end, I suggest that we also add a second paragraph to this intro, briefly mentioning the long history, many and varied ethnic groups and the present-day domination of the Bamar as a segway into the "Origin and history of the name" section. Maybe something like:

Myanmar is populated by a variety of different ethnic and linguistic groups that have all, at various times in its long history, contributed to the richness of the culture. However, shortly after gaining independence from the United Kingdom in 1948, the Bamar took control of the government and have dominated all areas of life in Myanmar.

It probably needs some work and rewording but I think it is a good idea. What does everybody else think?--WilliamThweatt 04:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have incorporated the changes to the intro paragraph as they were mostly minor changes. I will wait for comment before attempting to add a second paragraph to the intro.--WilliamThweatt 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The minor changes are good. I've used your ideas and expanded them in the second paragraph. I've also moved the info. about the government and merged them into the second paragraph. Hintha 06:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation spot check

As part of this project, I randomly checked a few footnotes from this article. Results were as follows:

1. Footnote 3(a)/4. "Major news organisations such as the BBC and western governments, including those of the United States and the United Kingdom, still officially refer to the country as Burma."
   • So-so. From Sites: "Although the SPDC changed the name of the country to "Myanmar," the democratically elected but not convened Parliament of 1990 does not recognize the name change, and the democratic opposition maintains use of the name "Burma." Due to consistent, unyielding support for the democratically elected leaders, the U.S. Government likewise uses "Burma.""; " Britain's policy is to refer to Burma rather than 'Myanmar'. It is the form preferred by the leaders of Burma's democracy movement, the legitimate winners of the 1990 elections, who do not accept that the unelected military regime has the right to change the official name of the country."
     • This supports the US and Britain claims, but does not mention news agencies. No source is given for the news organizations that do use Myanmar. Case by case citations of states or organizations' policies is, in any event, less than ideal; could a secondary source that discusses the varying uses possibly be found?
2. Footnote 13. "Many major political parties, particularly the National League for Democracy, have been excluded, and little progress has been made."
   • So-so. From site:"The junta expels all of the NLD delegates." The "little progress" statement is clearly supported as of this article's publication in March 2004, but a more recent article would be a better source for this statement.
3. Footnote 26/27. "Dramatic change in the country's political situation remains unlikely, due to support from major regional powers, in particular China."
   • Problem. Both of these articles discuss Burma's close ties to China, but neither specifically discusses this aspect of the relationship. One article states "Second, China’s armed support may lead to militarization of the military junta who may be reluctant to contemplate political reforms which are necessary for economic development.", but it goes on to describe liberalization of Burma's regime as a relative certainty. In any event, this statement is an opinion, and should be stated as such (Scholars X and Y assert that...), with appropriate sources.
4. Footnote 40. "His administration adopted the Two-Year Economic Development Plan, which was a failure."
   • Checks out. "The Eight-Year Plan was a failure both in the sense of having failed to achieve its targets and also in that it diverted resources away from achievable goals."
5. Footnote 70. "Since the 1950s, westernised music has gained popularity, especially in large cities."
   • Problem. From site: "But young people are increasingly allured by the temptation of western pop culture that still seeps into this isolated nation through pirated videos and CDs, as well as on satellite music stations."
     • Touches on the popularity of Western music with the young, but nothing about the 1950s being the start point or large cities being the center of the phenomenon.

This seems to suffer to some degree from the great plague of Wikipedia citations--referring to sources that are related to but do not directly support the article's statements. It isn't a terribly severe case, but someone needs to sweep through and make sure that all statements needing citation are cited to a source that directly supports what the article says. --Robth^Talk 05:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Health Spending

I watched a short investigative documentary on Burma and the Regime tonight, and would like to include a fact mentioned there, that Burma spends less on health care than any other country in the world, and accordingly the health of the population suffers. I'm not entirely sure on the best place in the article for this, anyone like to advise? Thanks. 82.10.65.30 02:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Military Units in the second world war

I've made a bunch of corrections to the section covering WWII. First, the Karen Rifles were not involved in fighting the Japanese. While the unit was formed in 1945, it did not take the field until after the war was over. The same would be true for the Kachin Rifles (which were not mentioned). The Karens who participated in the 1945 uprising had been armed by British SOE teams as had many other groups in Burma. They can nomially be called Karen Levies, but no force called "Karen Levies" existed in as far as I know. (there were Karen Levies in 1942 however).

First Burma Division was mentioned but Burma Rifles is more appropriate. The Burma Rifles were in continuous existance during the war (though only one battalion in strength after 1942).

The force that fought with the Japanese in 1942 was the Burma Independence Army. That force was followed by the Burma Defense Army and the Burma National Army in succession. The Japanese also created sub-forces in the border areas. In Arakan there was the Arakan Defense/National Army and there was the Chin Defense Force (I think that was the name) in the Chin Hills. The Arakan forces of the Japanese went over to the allies before the BNA did.

The British gave the Americans a sector of Northern Burma and allowed them to recruit Kachins in the area. They became the Kachin Rangers late in the war. But its generally wrong to say that all Kachins who fought with the Americans were part of the Kachin Rangers.

168.127.0.51 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights in Myanmar

I have created a seperate heading for this as is found the in DPRK and Iran articles given that the lack of respect for any form of human rights in Burma. A seperate section would highlight this whereas as it is currently subsumed under the "politics" section it is not immediatly obvious Cxk271 10:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"That may play in the sticks, but this is Capital City"

What's the deal with the capital? Editors keep switching it back and forth from Yangon to Naypyidaw. The only source I've seen other than Wikipedia that claims a change of capital is this Chinese "People's Daily". Does anyone have a cite for this from a more reliable source? L0b0t 06:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian provides an article ([2]) as does BBC News ([3]). There are many other articles if you search "Pyinmana", "Naypyidaw" or "Nay Pyi Taw". I believe anonymous editors keep on reverting the capital back to Yangon because of a bias (favouring the stances of western countries, and the exiled government) because they believe the current government is illegitimate, although it has jurisdiction within the country. --Hintha 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this is a bias attitude to take. It isn't some fringe US-imperialist stance to say that Aung San Suu Kyi is the properly elected and rightful leader of the Burmese people. This happens to be the stance of the vast majority of countries whose readers use the English wikipedia, not to mention the UN. Therefore, I see no reason why any creedence whatsoever should be given to any decision made by the illegal government. If the Chinese and Japanese apologists want to propagate the revisionism by the illegal government on their language wikipedia, fine, but not on the English wikipedia. This is just one of those cases where there is no ambiguity at all over who is right and who is wrong. So continue to expect prompt removal of the illegal government's revisionist propaganda. --130.127.121.188 16:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Aung San Suu Kyi was not elected (she was General Secretary of her party)--National League for Democracy parliament members were elected to office. Provide me with a reference that states that Aung San Suu Kyi would have assumed the office of Prime Minister in the 1990 election. --Hintha 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Myanmar/Burma → Myanmar – An editor came along and unilaterally moved it from "Myanmar" to "Myanmar/Burma" without discussion. This move has been discussed many times over the history of the page and the consensus has always been to keep it at "Myanmar" since this is the official name of the country and including "Burma" in the pagename would reflect a POV bias. I can't change it back myself because "Myanmar" became a redirect when it was moved. WilliamThweatt 14:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - Myanmar is the official name of the country and it is only called Burma by some in the US and the UK where even media organizations are beginning to refer to the country as Burma.
• Speedy close, and move back - an RM re-vote is not needed to restore a consensus that has lasted a long time, especially as this move was made wholly without discussion. Get an admin to move it back to Myanmar now, and if the editors wish to change that situation they can go through WP:RM Aquilina 14:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Aquilina.--Húsönd 15:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. -- Evertype·✆ 16:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per intro. BTW, I really dislike false claims of a "re-vote" . Gene Nygaard 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move. Its still recognised as Burma in the countries that dont recognise the military junta.Infact even within the country its mostly called Burma and throughout most of its history it been called Burma.And why should we support the miliatary junta.POV i know,but forgot about the wikipedia police.I say Myanmar/Burma. DERMO 17:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• I moved this as a speedy, given that there had already been extensive discussion of the naming issue and there had been no new discussion in support of the recent move. older ≠ wiser 14:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation

Could someone please change the pronunciation guide to IPA, or else add a link to whatever system is used currently? As it is, the pronunciation key doesn't help.--345Kai 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pronounced "Mee-an-mar" (got it from Seinfeld) but I'll go check. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's pronounced in 2 syllables, "meean - ma" (rough transliteration), and not in 3 (e.g. "me-an-mar").--Hintha 04:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Capital

The discussion on german wikipedia came to an opposite result than the english wikipedia: The administrative capital was moved to Naypyidaw but the capital is still the Yangon. For me this is the same with the netherlands where Amsterdam is capital but The Hague is the centre of goverment. The problem I have is that different countries come to different results and if this is the point a didputed tag should be put on all Myanmar capitals in all wikipedias until a result is found.--Stone 14:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It changed a few minutes ago so now I am really confused!--Stone 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

195.212.29.92 changed it without discussion!--Stone 15:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

the department of foreign afairs [4] think the capital is Yangon.--Stone 16:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Auswärtiges Amt (German government) is a little undesided staing in the text Naypyidaw and on the small screen to the right rangon (yangon).--Stone 16:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think having a footnote would work well here, stating that "Naypyidaw" is the capital, but that many countries still recognize "Yangon" as the capital. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs website is probably not updated often.--Hintha 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is similar to the discussion about Israel's capital, see above. Amoruso 12:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Here a clear statment of myanmar government if this is only relocation of government burocrats or more would end the discussion.--Stone 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Restrictions on travel to Myanmar

Does the Travel Department allow me to go to Myanmar?

---

You don't say where you are from, but Americans are allowed to go to Myanmar without difficulty. Netdance 04:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no restrictions on travel to Burma from either the US or the European Union. SimonBillenness 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no restrictions on travel to Myanmar from anywhere in the world, provided that you have a valid passport and visa. Okkar 19:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Flags of Political Parties

It appears that it is the general consensus of WikiProject Burma/Myanmar to include the flags of all political parties, oppositions groups and insurgents groups even though no other countries articles contained any flags of opposition groups. Therefore I have added a few of the insurgents flags and will be adding more flags in order to be consistance with the theme and directive from the project. Okkar 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding hundreds of flags into the article. Unless you are able to tie in the relevance of each flag into the country's history, it's highly inappropriate and would only clutter the article. If for example, the BSPP (Burma Socialist Programme Party) flag, NUP (National Unity Party) flags were added, there, the captions were explained, and they were tied into the history, I would not have a problem. But, adding an excessive amount of flags from all opposition groups only to prove a point is fruitless and unnecessary. By the way, flags can be found here [5] on Wikicommons. You don't need to upload more flags unless they're not already there. --Hintha 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no relevance of having any flags apart from state flag, however, it appears that it is general consensus to include NLD flag, so I see no point in discriminating other opposition parties, insurgent groups flags since they all have as much history with the country as NLD does. for example, BCP, KNU, KIO, they all have enormous history and they have been there long before NLD. So if you and other supporters of NCGUB and NLD wishes to include NLD flag in country article, it is entirely appropiate to include other flags too. It is neither fruitless nor unnecessary but FAIR. We must include every single party no matter how small or irrelevance they maybe, if they are opposition party like NLD, they have a right to be in the article. You cant have one rule for NLD and one for the others, you either include everyone or none at all. Dont chop and change the policy to suit your political agendas. Okkar 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okkar, please stop removing the NLD flag from the article. It is quite valid to include the flag/emblem of a political party cited in the article. If you wish to include other group's flags, make sure that they are cited in the article.SimonBillenness 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of cited information and ISBN numbers

I have reverted Okkar's edit, because it have removed the ISBN numbers in the citations, and because I believe that my edit was not "politically-motivated." I sourced the UN News Centre, which is more accurate than Reuters, a second-hand source of information. Your edit said that the same view held by China was held by Russia and Indonesia, which is in fact untrue. According to UN, Russia believes that the Security Council is not best-fit to remedy Myanmar's problems. And, you failed to cite most of your other claims. And you misquoted Wang Guangya, who did not in fact say "the situation in the Southeast Asian nation, one of the world's poorest, does not threaten peace and security of the region"--in the Bangkok Post article, he is paraphrased, not quoted. Please discuss what issues my edit may have (and don't focus on my political orientation, Okkar). And provide more sources--the Bangkok Post article you referenced made no mention of ASEAN, although your citation is after the sentence that says that ASEAN does not believe that Myanmar is a security threat to the region.

Hintha's edits:

In January 2006, United States submitted a draft Security Council resolution, backed by Great Britain, in an effort to end political repression and human rights violations to United Nation Security Council. Belgium, France, Ghana, Italy, Panama, Peru, Slovakia, the UK and the US voted in favor of the resolution, while China and Russia vetoed, and South Africa voted against the resolution. Indonesia, Qatar, and the Republic of the Congo abstained. Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya stated that domestic problems in Myanmar were largely internal affairs, while Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said that the issues would be better handled by other UN organs, such as the Human Rights Council and humanitarian agencies, rather than the Security Council. The Indonesian Ambassador, who abstained from the vote, deplored the situation in Myanmar, but said that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), did not believe the problems in Myanmar were threats to security and peace in the region.

In the annual ASEAN Summit in January 2007, held in Cebu, the Philippines, member countries failed to find common ground on the issue of Myanmar's lack of political reform. During the summit, ASEAN foreign ministers asked Myanmar to make greater progress on its roadmap toward democracy and national reconciliation. Some member countries contend that Myanmar's human rights issues were domestic affairs of Myanmar, while others contend that Myanmar's poor human rights record is an international issue.

Okkar's edits:

On January of 2006, United States submitted a draft security council resolution in an efforts to end political repression and human rights violations to United Nation Security Council. This resolution was backed by Britain. 15 nations members of UN Security Council voted 9-3, however, the resolution was soundly defeated after vetoes from China and Russia, both permanent members of the council along with United States, France and Britain. All five permanent members of the Security Council wield the power to veto any resolutions that brought before the council. China's UN Ambassador said "The situation in the Southeast Asian nation, one of the world's poorest, does not threaten peace and security of the region and if the Security Council passed a resolution on the Myanmar issue, that would have exceeded the duties of the Council laid out in the United Nations Charter". This view was supported by Russia, South Africa and Indonesia, which said that Myanmar government and its people should resolve their problems without outside interference. Indonesia's Ambassador, who abstained from the vote, deplored the situation in Myanmar. But he said the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) this week did not characterize the problems in Myanmar as threats to security and peace in the region and therefore the council had no role in condemning that country.

China and other ASEAN nations on Saturday accused the United States of overstepping by seeking a UN resolution against Myanmar. The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) declined to take a position on the U.S. resolution. Thailand's Foreign Minister said in Cebu, where ASEAN annual summit was being held, "it was now up to the Myanmar's Southeast Asian neighbors to show they could handle the dispute. I think we should perhaps redouble our efforts to see what we can do to help one another in terms of keeping this matter -- give it a regional focus the way it should be -- rather than to have it internationalized".

Russia and China, which had not cast a double veto since 1972, argued that human rights violations were not the purview of the Security Council unless they endangered regional or international peace and security, which Myanmar did not. Chinese UN Ambassador said "As a matter of fact, none of Myanmar's immediate neighbors ... believe the notion that the current situation in Myanmar poses a threat to regional peace and security. If you read the United Nations Charter, you'll clearly see why China voted against."

Thank you.-Hintha 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was it necessary to remove the statement of Chinese UN Ambassador and Thai Foreign Minister? is it because it was emberassing for NCGUB? Anyway, now that you have shown me, it is possible to revert edits "if" I can find a better sourced information, I shall be editing some of the articles citing a better information source. Thank you for your pointer and I hope you will have no more issues when I edit some of the poorly sourced information in other myanmar articles. Okkar 01:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit provided misplaced citations, and cited materials that were nonexistent in the source materials.--Hintha 01:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that statements from Chinese Ambassador and Thai Foreign Minister were not in source materials? please dont try to pull the wools over the eyes of spectators. Anyway, two can play that game, and watch the space. I will be sourcing UN and other more firm valid sources to edits the articles just the same way you did. Okkar 01:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In the article "China, Russia veto UN Burma resolution", which you cited, there is no mention of Thailand. And it states

During the debate, China's UN Ambassador Wang Guangya said the situation in the Southeast Asian nation, one of the world's poorest, does not threaten peace and security of the region.

and did not quote him. A lot of your edits included information not found in the single source you provided. --Hintha 01:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If you did not delete the later part of the edit you would see there there is another information source that was provided at the end of the paragraph, you would see i cited http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK270788.htm, it clear states the following and in consistent with my edit:

China, one of the five permanent Security Council members whose no-vote automatically kills a U.N. resolution, was tight-lipped about Myanmar's crackdown on pro-democracy activists and directed its criticisms at Washington's resolution, which it said did not warrant Security Council attention.

"The situation in Myanmar does not constitute a threat to regional and international peace and security," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in Beijing, according to the official Xinhua news agency on Saturday.

"If the Security Council passed a resolution on the Myanmar issue, that would have exceeded the duties of the Council laid out in the United Nations Charter."

Beijing's criticisms of it were echoed by the Indonesian foreign minister, who said his views reflected other Southeast Asian countries.

"The case would be more appropriately brought to the attention of the human rights council rather than the U.N. Security Council," Hassan Wirajuda told Reuters.

Thailand's Foreign Minister Nitya Pibulsonggram said in Cebu it was now up to the Myanmar's Southeast Asian neighbours to show they could handle the dispute.

"I think we should perhaps redouble our efforts to see what we can do to help one another in terms of keeping this matter -- give it a regional focus the way it should be -- rather than to have it internationalised," he told reporters.

Now be a gentleman and admit that you have cheated and put back the correct information. You have been caught redhanded. Okkar 02:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Reuters did not directly quote (it paraphrased) the Thai foreign minister, which you did. Secondly, my edit: "while Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said that the issues would be better handled by other UN organs, such as the Human Rights Council and humanitarian agencies, rather than the Security Council.[1]" lines up with the view Indonesia takes (Reuters: "'The case would be more appropriately brought to the attention of the human rights council rather than the U.N. Security Council,' Hassan Wirajuda told Reuters."), but you state that Indonesia and Russia all have the same viewpoint as China, which is untrue. And you wrote "China and other ASEAN nations on Saturday accused the United States of overstepping by seeking a UN resolution against Myanmar.", which is unfounded, considering some ASEAN nations have different views than others, a situation I cited. (Reuters stated the same thing: "The question of Myanmar has exposed rifts in ASEAN, an organisation that has prided itself on consensus. Some members say ASEAN should not interfere in Myanmar's domestic affairs; others say the junta's rights record is already an international issue.".)--Hintha 02:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? no you didnt, so go read it first before you say it is unfounded. Okkar 02:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

ASEAN did not say that "China and other ASEAN nations on Saturday accused the United States of overstepping by seeking a UN resolution against Myanmar.". Reuters explicitly says that "China and other Asian powers on Saturday accused the United States of overstepping by seeking a U.N. resolution against Myanmar." There's a clear difference between Asia and ASEAN. -Hintha 02:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that you read it, would you please be a gentleman and take back your accusation of "unfounded". Asian Nations = ASEAN, unless you want to say Asian Nations are Sudan, Lebanon 'etc. Need a lesson in geography? Okkar 02:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the news article before claiming - the headline says: "Asian powers say U.S. overstepped against Myanmar" - http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK270788.htm <== go there and read before you sit and insist upon it. If you have trouble reading it in English, I shall translate it for you, please do let me know. Please dont try to defend yourself stubbornly, you were caught cheating by deleting the source and claiming that it was not source. Dont beat around the bush and create excuses. It is plain and simple and the world can see what you did. Okkar 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that you have read it, please do readd the comments of Chinese Ambassador and Thai Foreign Minister. If you are neutral as you claimed to be, why were you witholding this information now that you have read the article and verified it? what possible excuse would you have now to exclude the headlines and the content of this news? Now, please show us that you are free of political agendas, if you cant, then please admit publicly that you do have political agendas and you are bias. Okkar 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you not biased? "Asian powers" does not equal "ASEAN" (You made no mention of ASEAN being unable to come to a consensus on dealing with Myanmar either, and implied in your writing that ASEAN countries all follow one side). And you misquoted officials, in any case. Don't ridicule me ("If you have trouble reading it in English, I shall translate it for you, please do let me know."). This is considered a personal attack.--Hintha 02:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go, everytime the likes of you get caught redhanded, you scream personal attack, yet you expect to get away with the misdeed by trying to overcloud the issue at hand with personal attack claims. It is truely amazing to see this form of mentality in Wikipedia. Not only people cheat, lie and do all kinds of misdeeds, they have the audicity to claim to be victim. No wonder there are soo many sorry stories about Burmese refugees, this is just one fine example of the propaganda tactics of opposition groups - hit first then pretend to be victim .. amazing, truly amazing!! Okkar 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

was your comment If you have trouble reading it in English, I shall translate it for you, please do let me know. necessary? I was merely pointing out that the article never claimed that ASEAN "accused the United States of overstepping by seeking a UN resolution against Myanmar.". --Hintha 02:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan, South Korea, North Korea, India, Japan, Bangladesh, and more countries are not a part of the "Association of Southeast Asian Nations", but they are still countries in Asia. Unless you mean to say that Southeast Asia is Asia, and every other part of Asia is something else. Response to "Asian Nations = ASEAN, unless you want to say Asian Nations are Sudan, Lebanon 'etc. Need a lesson in geography?" I believe someone else needs that lesson. --Hintha 02:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying those countries that are not in ASEAN are considered to be Asian Nations, in that case, you are saying these countries opposed US resolution? thank you for the clarification. Now I know more country believed that Myanmar's problems are internal... cool! and on a note to that, I must remember that according to you, I am not an Asian, but South East Asia is not part of Asia. What a great geography lesson! Okkar 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you mistook the article's name. I'm saying that "Asian nations" could have referred to Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan. You indicated that ASEAN forms all of Asia, hence your illogical "Asian Nations = ASEAN", not that ASEAN nations form a part of Asia, and that other countries do not. And your statement (Now I know more country believed that Myanmar's problems are internal... cool! ) indicates your biases as well. --Hintha 02:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as everyone in this project is bias, it would be out of fashion for me not to. Like I said, I followed you guys example, you have shown me today that I can edit and replace contents from articles if i can provide a better well founded source. I will be doing just that for all the articles, call it house maintanance. Okkar 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Myanmar articles often lack citations. If you find articles that lack citations, please provide them. --Hintha 02:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So you admit that you are bias? or are you still going to dodge the question and deny as usual? Okkar 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Admit what? I haven't done anything wrong, except voice my opinions. That is what democracy is about, as you once said. Although Wikipedia is not a democracy, I am obligated to voice my opinions when I see something not fit. I only tried to improve upon what you initially wrote, and strengthened the statements with more citations, and cleared up some ambiguities (like the ASEAN/Asian part, the same view held by China, Indonesia, and Russia, and which nations voted which way). --Hintha 02:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was improvement, why did you delete the statement of Chinese Ambassador? ;-) Okkar 03:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you lumped statements by two people into a single statement said by Wang Guangya. Reuters reports ""As a matter of fact, none of Myanmar's immediate neighbours ... believe the notion that the current situation in Myanmar poses a threat to regional peace and security," China's ambassador to the U.N., Wang Guangya, said in New York.. Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing (who is not the Chinese UN Ambassador), according to Reuters, said "If you read the United Nations Charter, you'll clearly see why China voted against," You failed to differentiate between the two persons, writing "Chinese UN Ambassador said "As a matter of fact, none of Myanmar's immediate neighbors ... believe the notion that the current situation in Myanmar poses a threat to regional peace and security. If you read the United Nations Charter, you'll clearly see why China voted against.", as if Wang Guangya had said everything above. Did you just want me to turn the blind eye and allow you to misattribute others' statements? If you would like to correct that fact and reinstate it and not misquote others, then feel free to do so following what Wang Guangya said. I believe you should should accept that you made a blunder. And feel free to cite and expand other articles in the WikiProject. It would improve the quality. Thanks! --Hintha 03:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Extinct Burmese primates

Four species of Early Cenozoic primates have been found in Myanmar: Amphipithecus Colbert, 1937, Bahinia Jaegar et. al., 1999, Pondaungia Pilgrim, 1927, and Myanmarpithecus Takai et. al., 2001. They are all known from the late middle Eocene Pondaung Formation of Central Myanmar, also famous for large mammals. The presence of early anthropoids in Myanmar adds evidence to the assertion that anthropoids originated in Asia.

Pilgrim, G. E. (1927) Mem. Geol. Surv. India 1-26.

Colbert, E. H. (1937) Am. Mus. Novit. 651, 1-18.

Jaeger, J.-J., Thein, T., Benammi, M., Chaimanee, Y., Soe, A. N., Lwin, T., Wai, S. & Ducrocq, S. (1999) Science 286, 528-530.

Takai, M., Shigehara, N., Aung, A. K., Tun, S. T., Soe, A. N., Tsubamoto, T. & Thein, T. (2001) J. Hum. Evol. 40, 393-409. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Wildlife of Myanmar

Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 00:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Muslims in Myanmar

I read and reverted a contribution by Abc.aggaon Muslims in Myanmar. I appreciated Abc.agga's hard work and good intent but the contribution was far too long and contained too much material that was off-topic or advocating a specific point of view. (It also contained a few comments that might be regarded by some as anti-semitic.)

I left a message asking Abc.agga to consider instead adding material to pages devoted to Muslims in Burma. I also urged Abc.agga to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines concerning editing with a neutral point of view (NPOV) and to try to be more succinct! SimonBillenness 17:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

Abc.agga, just be sure to say NCGUB and USCB is great in the first few lines of your article, I'm sure Simon will leave your articles alone after that. Okkar 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

IP Adresses?

I'm not sure if anyone can help me with this, but is it true there are only 4 usable IP addresses? 24.6.118.254 16:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not true, but what you are seeing is the ip addresses of 4 proxy servers from Bagan Cybertech, which most internet users use to browse the web 'etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Okkar (talk • contribs) 13:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Information on Tourism

I've twice edited Okkar's contribution on tourism in Burma in the Economy section. I felt that the original edit read like a tourism promotion instead of an encyclopedic entry. I also edited out numerous mentions of commercial airlines that fly into and within Myanmar because it made the entry seem too commercial as well as overly long and repetitive. I'm open to discussion by others, including the original contributor, on how to edit this better. I just reverted the edit made by Okkarthat reincluded all the above extraneous information. However I would prefer to discuss this with the whole Myanmar editing community rather than engage in a revert war.SimonBillenness 09:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you pay attention, you will no doubt realise that those were not my contributions. They were contributed by other editors. If you would like to keep this article as a pure encyclopedic entry, perhaps you should start by removing your political propaganda materials - such as NLD flag. It is you who started this precedence of turning this article into NLD promotion page, and now everyone is following your foot steps to promote various things for various reasons. This article has become too commercialise and too political that it now looks like a propaganda leaflet handed out by opposition groups at the rallies instead of being a simple encyclopedic article regarding the country. I whole heartedly understand that there must be a great conflict of interest for you to keep your contribution to Myanmar article purely encyclopedic and factual since you are the Director of US Campaign for Burma and as such you do have a duty to promote NLD/NCGUB, however I do not think Wikipedia should be use for political propaganda purposes just as it should not be use for commercial promotions. If you start leading by example, then perhaps it would be eaiser to bring others in line according to Wikipedia policy. Remove the flag and show the "whole Myanmar editing community" that there is no conflict of interest. Okkar 13:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I just re-checked the history of the tourist information that I edited. It was added by you in the "Revision as of 23:08, 10 April 2007." You later re-added it. The history record seems quite clear unless I'm reading it wrong. In any case, if the tourist information was not added by you, I'm sure you won't include it again.SimonBillenness

If you check properly, you would see that it was 203.81.161.154 as per Revision as of 11:37, 9 April 2007 added the Tourism information. Perhaps you dont read quite well! I shall include the information as long as you insist upon including NLD flag. It is only fair to allow both side to promote what they see fit as you, personally, as the Director of US Campaign for Burma, turned this article into propaganda material. Okkar 14:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. My apologies. The language in question on tourism was originally added by 203.81.161.154. When another editor removed it, you re-added it. You've now re-added it twice. If you are re-adding bad content as part of a dispute over a different edit, that constitutes bad editing practice and may even be vandalism. Please refrain from re-adding poorly written contributions in order to serve your personal agenda.SimonBillenness 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you should also refrain from re-adding politically motivated materials which are clearly in breech of Wikipedia NPOV policy in order to serve your organisation's (US Campaign for Burma) agenda. I readded those commericial materials simply to give other the same chance that we have given you. If you have the right to include NLD flag (which ofcourse have no relevance whatsoever in the main country article) then they also do have the right to include their commericial materials. We cannot have one rule for NLD/NCGUB promoters and one rule for the rest the world now.. can we? and ofcourse it is only fair and "democractic" ... dont you think? p.s. you should practice what you preach before you complain about others. Okkar 23:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

NLD FLAG

Once again, I re-included the emblem of the National League of Democracy (NLD) in the Politics section. I feel that it is appropriate to include the emblem of the party (the NLD flag) in an an article that cites the party and its 1990 election victory. The emblem has been part of the Myanmar article since before I joined Wikipedia as an editor. Okkar has continually removed it. I have replaced it on numerous occasions. Rather than continue this edit war, I'd like to start a discussion over whether the emblem is appropriate in the article on Myanar in the Politics section.SimonBillenness 09:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we turning wikipedia to NLD/NCGUB propaganda page? I already told you time and time again that there are no other country articles that include the "flag" (what you included is a flag, not an emblem) of opposition parties in the article. It has no place in it. However, your staunch insistance upon including the opposition flag in the country article along with your position as the Director of US Campaign for Burma does raise the questions on whether there is a conflict of interest. In any case, this article is a country article and should adhere to wikipedia NPOV guidlines and should have the same format as any other country articles. I suggest you move your "flag" to a more appropiate article such as NLD article. Edit war will continue if you keep using Wikipedia as a political propaganda tool. Okkar 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. As I have said numerous times, I feel that it is appropriate to include the emblem of the party (the NLD flag) in an an article that cites the party and its 1990 election victory. The emblem has been part of the Myanmar article since before I joined Wikipedia as an editor.

It is not an emblem, it is a flag. This article is not about NLD nor it's 1990 election victory. I am sure it would be more appropiate to include in NLD's own article. I have no objection to that. The country article as a whole is not a suitable place to promote for NLD (as if they needed promoting), if we have to include any political parties emblem, we can start by including KNU, KIA, BCP (all of which has relevant parts in the article just as much as NLD does) and all other 1001 political parties and insurgent groups. You cannot have one rule for NLD and one rule for the rest. We either include all the "emblem" or "flag" of every opposition groups or none at all. Deep down you know that it is wrong, however, you are insisting to include it simply because you, as Director of US Campaign for Burma have a "duty" to ensure that this article remains a propaganda material for NLD/NCGUB. Okkar 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about politics and it cites prominently the NLD's victory in the 1990 Election. That makes the emblem relevant in my opinion; you are entitled to your views. And please stop making personal attacks on me by imputing (incorrectly I might add) bad motives on my part. Your are violating Wikipedia rules so please cease. Thank you. SimonBillenness 14:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is NOT about politics, it is about the country. If you would like to make prominent point about NLD victory, I suggest you use the article Politics of Myanmar. This is the main country article and it's not just about politics or who win which election, as such NLD flag has no relevance to this article at all. I am not making personal attacks here but it is hard to accept that there is no conflict of interest when you insist upon including NLD/NCGUB propaganda materials and being the Director of US Campaign for Burma. You are violating Wikipedia rule for Conflict of Interest and also breaking Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy, so please cease using this article to lobby for NLD/NCGUB on behalf of US Campaign for Burma. Thank you. Okkar 15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we are dug into opposing positions on this point, I'm requesting a discussion with contributions from others. That will be productive than an edit war. SimonBillenness

In other words, you are canvassing for other supporters of opposition to step forward to help in your crusade? I hope you do realise that this kind of canvassing can be attributed to "sock puppetry". Okkar 14:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not canvassing for support for my position. I'm asking for input pro and con. That's not "sock puppetry." That's free discussion.SimonBillenness 14:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Canvassing and Meatpuppets and then digest whether or not your "free discussion" contribute to Sock Puppetry. Okkar 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry is when you recruit your supporters to back up your position. I'm asking people to weigh in on whatever position they see fit. Again, that is just free discussion. It is not meatpuppetry.SimonBillenness 15:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse you would say that, but in the view of public it's certainly is Meatpuppetry and canvassing, quite apperent by your choice of wording such as "free discussion" as if to potray this pathetic disagreement for the inclusion of NLD flag to somekind of democractic struggle against good and evil, thereby canvassing other opposition supporters to join in the debate. You lobbyist are amazing, but I guess anyone with brain can see through the usual rhetorics and tactics used by opposition lobbyists. Okkar 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I think we've both done this discussion to death. Anyone else care to comment either way or a third way?SimonBillenness 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean "anyone else who work for US Campaign for Burma or who support/lobby/promote for NCGUB care to comment?" - if that is not canvassing and meatpuppetry, i dont know what is. Perhaps you should just come clean and admit your conflict of interest here instead of beating around the bush for this stupid flag which has no relavance whatsoever to the country article as a whole. I do understand that you find the need to lobby and promote NLD/NCGUB some how, but that doesnt mean you have to keep insisting to include that flag, I'm sure there are other more subtle ways of doing your propaganda. If you are going to use the main country article for lobbying purpose, then you must accept that other people will start using this article for the commercial and political purposes too. That is the reason why I am always against the idea of including this kind of propaganda materials in the article. I knew it would become a precedence for others to follow, however, you and your fellow NCGUB partisans stubbornly refused to heed my warnings and insisted upon inclusion of NLD propaganda materials. Please remember, as a member of WikiProject Myanmar/Burma, you are setting an example in editing the project articles. If you include your own lobby materials, other people will think it is a right thing to do and they will follow suit. Okkar 23:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As a third party and politically neutral entity, I would suggest to include the NLD flag ONLY in the article "Politics of Myanmar"; NOT in the main article "Myanmar". Okkar has a point there. The article "Myanmar" should only cover an abstract of the political scenario in Myanmar and the article "Politics of Myanmar" should cover more in depth sense on main oppositions, major parties, elections etc, thus making it relevant to include the NLD flag there. (And I think the concerned editors here should self-restraint a little more. One maybe working for the government, and the other for the opposition but the continuing war here on Wiki edits is really unproductive in my point of view. Please don't mind me saying. You guys are battling far too long and getting personal.) Kyaw 2003 15:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)