Talk:Burma

"Usage notes: Burma is a traditional name of Myanmar, and was the official name until 1989. It is still used to express disapproval of the current military government which changed the name."

I find this wording rather wimpy, given that Burma, not Myanmar, is the name officially recognized by the US Government.

See, e.g., the CIA World Factbook, entry entitled "Burma."

"note: since 1989 the military authorities in Burma have promoted the name Myanmar as a conventional name for their state; the US Government did not adopt the name, which is a derivative of the Burmese short-form name Myanma Naingngandaw"

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html

(Previous versions added something like: Myanmar will be recognized if and when an elected legislature adopts it. That may still be there, but I don't immediately see it, and the site is slow as dead lice today, so I'm not motivated to look. :-) )

70.161.109.57 01:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary is about words, not politics. Myanmar and Burma are synonyms, so both are here, which one is the official keeps changing, depending on the source of the claim. Both words are used frequently and Myanmar is currently more frequent in the media. I would leave the fight for the name to Wikipedia. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Anatoli, many thanks for your answer. I see that my concern is buried in all the verbiage, and easily overlooked. It's limited to "I find this wording rather wimpy," far narrower than the tougher question you're tackling. In addition, please consider this out-of-community feedback; I have no intention of signing up and attempting to edit the entry myself. Thanks again. 70.161.109.57 02:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And a second question. Would someone be kind enough to tell me what reference is used for the "official name" data on your site? I attempted to search the help and whatnot, but couldn't find anything helpful. (In case it's not clear, that's merely a question; when evaluating and combining research results from multiple sources, it's helpful to know what references are used by each one. I have no desire to start a debate on that topic either.) Thanks. 70.161.109.57 02:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the usage note (not the etymology) is not so creditable and may not be required to be there. Finding who did it, why and what sources were used would take time but you can check the history and ask that user directly. I will probably add the etymology section and remove the dubious usage note section later on. See also Myanmar#Etymology I have just added. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 02:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's very helpful, Anatoli. So I didn't miss it; Wiktionary has no standard source, and what's reflected in the official name brackets depends on the individual author's preference, no citation required. Gotcha. And thanks for the tip on how to track down those individual authors. I'll make a note of it, since it might come in handy some time. But for now, site policy is all I need. I've consulted many entries, of which the Burma/Myanmar pair is just one. Thanks yet again. 70.161.109.57 03:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations may be requested for an entry, sense, etymology, pronunciation, etc, I don't know if we have strict requirements for citations for usage notes, unless there is a conflict. The info seems subjective, besides a bit encyclopedical. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 03:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)