Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2012 August 26

:{{MRV links|Burma|rm_page={{#if:

The closing administrator User:Tariqabjotu did not fairly evaluate the opinion and the evidence brought forward by the supporters of the proposal. They appear to be in the mistaken belief that "[the] primary force behind moving this article is that Myanmar is the official name". The opinion of the users on the page was divided with both names finding equal weight over a multitude of sources. Instead of attempting to find a middle path or a compromise to enable consensus, the closing administrator erred by inserting a palpably opinionated closing statement. I request a review of this decision. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Hidden archive top|brief discussion archived to keep page more clear and less cluttered}}

• here we go again with another appeal because someone did not like the result. The closing admins judgement was sound, and did not even take into account additional issues such as the biased canvassing which benefited the move camp and the fact the article had been at the location for 5 years, something that should have been an additional benefit for the keep side. The RM was opened for over 2 and a half weeks, there was clearly NO consensus for a move, with more editors opposing the move than favouring it. The primary argument of those who wanted the move, was the fact it is officially Myanmar and the closing admin in their statement clearly stated they accepted Myanmar was used widely too. Unbelievable. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

:*If you suspect canvassing, please point out the instances on Talk:Burma. Those opinions can be disregarded if they were not substantive. I find that there were many comments among both supporters and opposers of the proposal who based there arguments on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This discussion is about whether the decision by the closing administrator was examining consensus or inserting an opinion like other participants. Please restrain yourself from engaging in hyperbolic behaviour, it runs contrary to the kind of atmosphere we like to work with on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::: I think you will find i did highlight the canvassing that took place on a number of occasions. Wikirprojects from Asia were notified, including the Indian noticeboard, unlike wikiprojects from the majority english speaking world such USA, Canada, NZ, UK, and Australia (except two for a period of 24 hours that got reverted, compared to the asian wikiprojects that happened the first night of this extended RM.) That canvassing clearly benefited the move side, with Burma being more used in places like UK / USA etc BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

: It was a Requested Move, and extremely flawed one, but an RM none the less. A few people mentioned a compromise proposal, the vast majority of people who took part in the discussion did not mention it or say they supported such a proposal. I fail to see what you expect the admin to have done. Had they come up with an entirely different title and moved it to that, i think you would have found both sides here demanding a review. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Hidden archive bottom}}

• From closing admin I spent a lot of time reading and evaluating the move request and writing my closing statement. I have nothing else to say. -- tariqabjotu 13:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Uphold (note: I participated). The premise on which the review request is based - that where editors are divided on the question of COMMONNAME the closer should impose a compromise - is false. In such circumstances, if the closer judges there to be no consensus, the status quo should be retained. However, the closer didn't judge this. He judged Burma to be the COMMONNAME. Although I would agree that this is a bold call, it is also perfectly defensible and within reasonable parameters. In any case, it makes no practical difference to the outcome. The only valid basis for overturning would be that the closer put the evidence substantially to one side in determining that Burma is the COMMONNAME, which I don't think can be reasonably argued. Formerip (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Uphold (I opposed the move). Tariq judged consensus accurately. Many of the supporters of Myanmar (not all, but a majority) supported moving because it's the official name, which goes against policy. On another note, it was nice of you to discuss this with Tariq before opening up a move review. Hot Stop 15:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Dissent I don't think either name is the right article name, so I don't know whether I am actually upholding this specific action. The article name should be 'Burma/Myanmar', with a category of articles created where there is no first preferred name. English is an international and national language, and naming regarding third places should not be overweighted in favor of the residents of one country over a second if there is not strong international consensus against the second. In addition, since this naming is already significantly topical to the country article itself, how the article name comes to be (for now?) can be encapsulated in both a short article header and inside the first sentence of the article (with the briefest additional section also). As regards the category idea generally, I give an example of Reversi/Othello as a different type. While the trademarked game has had numerous countries' nationals participating in a world championship for around 4 decades, the name for the game that it is originally a slight variant of and which itself has largely de facto changed to for an obvious legal reason now holds the article. This particular case also may have some kind of national bias foundation, as the game became popular in Japan following World War II using milk-bottle caps and was trademarked by a Japanese person after the demise of the original game's (British) trademark had lapsed. This was done without mention of the original game by the new trademark claimant, although it is not clear this was deliberate or from lack of knowledge as far as I know. The (relative) popularity of the game internationally is in good measure probably because of the efforts of the various country's trademark holders for Othello (and, therefore, also for the action of Mr. Hasegawa whatever one may otherwise think of him or of trademarked games that also have a non-trademarked close relative). And there may likely be other very strong reasons for just calling it a tie in article naming.173.15.152.77 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::The move request was about whether to move the article to "Myanmar" not "Burma/Myanmar". It would have been inappropriate for the admin to move the article to a location that was not the focus of the move request. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Uphold (supported the article remaining at Burma) – The closing statement by the admin summarised the situation very well and was a very balanced explanation. I would just like to make the following points and I will try my utmost to avoid making additional comments on this page:
• The closing statement shows the closing admin did fairly evaluate points made by those who favoured the move whilst at the same time clearly stating that points made by some of those opposed to the move were dismissed and almost led to the page being moved.
• The primary argument throughout by most of those who supported the move was the fact Myanmar was the official name of the country, ignoring the fact we are meant to go with the common name.
• The closing admin clearly referenced WP policy and explained the reasoning was in line with such policies.
• I do not believe there was equal weight over a multitude of sources as suggested by the person seeking the review. The sources clearly showed that Burma was the more common English language name for the country. Whilst Myanmar is widely used, even some which use it also said that Burma was the better known name.
• The closing admin clearly stated they did not take into account where the article title was, giving even more advantage to the “move” side, seen as the article had been at Burma for 5 years and that too could have been taken into account.
• The fact that clear canvassing took place on the first day of the RM which unintentionally benefited the voting in favour of the move was not mentioned or factored in. Had such canvassing not taken place, there would have been less votes for the Move side.
• There was not a clear majority view, but on numbers there were at least half a dozen people more against the move than in favour of it. In such circumstances the only reasonable options for the closing admin would be to endorse the current name or simply find as no consensus.
• This review request seems to suggest that the admin should have chosen a third option, that only around half a dozen people even mentioned in a vote that involved more than 90 people. Such a third way would have been totally unacceptable and hugely controversial, along with violating WP policies.

:The right decision was made by the closing admin and I hope that this matter will be put to rest swiftly after such an extended RM which was also listed as a RFC. Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn Although I fully believe the closing administrator made a well-intentioned decision, it was simply the wrong way to go. He missed an amazing opportunity to finally settle a longstanding, contentious issue in a manner that not only would have been in line with Wikipedia guidelines, but also would have made the majority of both sides happy. He could have been a hero by doing what I strongly believe was necessary, appropriate and warranted, which would have been to use both names in the title. Both Burma and Myanmar are the common names of that country. From a completely objective standpoint, no one could possibly conclude that one name is significantly more common than the other. There was an enormous amount of input, with strong arguments on both sides. Plus, the entire world - lay people, media and publishers - knows that the Burma-Myranmar name debate exists. Clearly, there was no consensus on either side. Therefore, the article title should either be Burma/Myranmar, Myranmar/Burma, Burma (also known as Myranmar), Myranmar (also know as Burma), or similar. There were numerous comments that very effectively justified the rationale for using both names in the article title. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::On a final note and with all due respect, I hope that BritishWatcher does not essentially hijack this discussion as he appeared to do in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burma#Requested_move_.28Burma_.E2.86.92_Myanmar.29_August_2012 Burma talk page discussion], where he posted about 40 comments. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

:::There was no consensus for any of those alternative titles you mentioned. Those alternatives were barely even discussed, and it would have been completely inappropriate for the admin to move it to a title that was not what the requested move was proposing. The requested move was solely about whether or not to move the article to "Myanmar", not "Myanmar/Burma" or "Myranmar (also know as Burma)". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

::::I firmly believe that most completely neutral, uninvolved editors reading that discussion will clearly see that there was no consensus, one way or the other; that there were strong arguments, balanced in number, for both sides. My point is that both sides need to come together and do what is obviously fair and correct: use both names. Wikipedia has guidelines, not rules. They allow for flexibility when it's warranted, especially when there's an extremely contentious issue that's been going on for a very long time. Again, the bottom line is that Burma and Myanmar are essentially equal in terms of common name standards. Btw, I have no doubt that if the current article title was Myanmar, the closing admin's decision would have been the same, maintaining Myanmar. I'll leave it at that and let other editors give their input. Thanks. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::The boat containing alternative names sailed many years ago when it was decided that names like Derry/Londonderry were not acceptable (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Multiple local names) -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::Exactly. Naming the article "Burma/Myanmar" or "Burma (Myanmar)" would blatantly violate Wikipedia naming conventions. To fully comply with Wikipedia policy, the article must either be located at "Burma" or "Myanmar", whichever name is the most common English name for this country. Other considerations like what the official name is, that a military dictatorship chose the name, or that it is the most common name in the non-English speaking world are basically irrelevant to this debate. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse close (note: I opposed the move) - Let me first say that although I opposed the move, I am certainly open to the possibility that someday common usage in the English speaking world will change and necessitate a move of this article to Myanmar, but that day is not here yet. The closing admin gave a sound, lucid, thorough, and impartial closing. His decision was based on a thoughtful weighing of the arguments on both sides and on Wikipedia's article naming policies. In fact, his closing was probably the best, most well thought out closing I have ever read on Wikipedia, which makes this review completely unwarranted and bordering on an abuse of process. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse close Consensus was fairly obvious and the closing admin has made a fair determination. (Note: I would have preferred a move to Myanmar.)--regentspark (comment) 20:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Flawed process The move review gives wide leeway to the choice of the closer, which in turn leads into a rehash of the original discussion like the above assertion that using official names is against policy. The result will be somewhere between endorse to no consensus defaulting to endorse. So why bother in the first place? Agathoclea (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

: As a "Myanmar supporter" the process was done correctly. Going by Wikipedia policies for a move to have happened there needed to be shown with a clear majority that the English speaking world uses Myanmar over Burma oppose to the roughly 50/50 split demostrated. Also with the article supposedly written in "British English" the move would be a bit confusing as the United Kingdom is probably the biggest supporter of Burma in the English speaking world. Personally I think it is only a matter of time before the move will happen as the usage of Myanmar has grown over the years, but that's a bit of using my crystal ball and as seen over the past few weeks this time is not now. JoshMartini007 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::With process I mean this move review. not the RM itself. Agathoclea (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse close The closer did a good job summarising the views expressed. LK (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment from move nominator - While I'm not going to request this close be overturned, I would like to see the closing comment be amended to indicate a no consensus. It also give undue credance to the ngrams I have called into disrepute. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:::{{outdent}}

:::I totally agree that the closing comment must indicate that there was no consensus, because that is a fact. I know we look at the arguments and do not count "votes," but I would urge the administrator handling this move review to please [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burma#Request_for_comments look at how many editors indicated Support and Oppose]. There were nearly 100 opinions given (!) and the split was approximately half on each side, so clearly there was no consensus on either side. I would also add that a number of the Oppose opinions inappropriately stated political considerations as the reason for opposing the move, which violates WP guidelines and therefore should not have been considered. Any fair and objective assessment of the results will show that there was no consensus. A "no consensus" determination of course will not change the outcome (which is to leave the article title as Burma), but it will officially put it on record what really happened. Thank you. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:::: What really happened was a majority of the people who took part (although by a small margin of about half a dozen) supported keeping it at Burma, and there were people on the move side who simply referenced the fact it was the official name of the country as justification, when WP policy clearly states commonname is what matters, not official name. The closing admin assessed the situation based on the points made, wikipedia policies and logic, agreeing that the article should be at Burma. Just because there is no clear consensus in terms of votes does not always means it must be closed as no consensus. Infact another country article was not that long ago moved when there was no clear consensus, and that result was reaffirmed by people here with it not being overturned. If this is all about basic numbers of the vote, then there is no point even having admins close RMs at all, it may as well just be a bot count at the end of a set period. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:::::BritishWatcher, thanks for trying to convince all of us "what really happened" and how you can read the mind of the closing administrator. And teaching us how consensus is determined, as if we don't know. But here's the thing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burma#Requested_move_.28Burma_.E2.86.92_Myanmar.29_August_2012 Everyone can read that discussion for themselves] to see what happened. They can count the Supports and Opposes, and they can read all the comments. It will be abundantly clear to any neutral editor that consensus was in no way achieved. And I'm totally fine with that, even though I was on the Support side. But the official result must reflect what truly happened. I have no doubt that the closing admin meant well, but he/she should have ruled that there was "no consensus, so the article title stays the same." --76.189.108.102 (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

::::::Not "abundantly clear", I think. It could have been validly closed as "no consensus", but the closing admin is entitled to look directly at the evidence and policy and make a judgement as to whether all voters are interpreting it correctly. It seems like the closer has given particular weight to WP:COMMONALITY, which is a sensible thing to do in this context. Formerip (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It's stunning how some of you completely ignore not only the numbers, which were basically split evenly, but the clearly inappropriate and therefore invalid political reasons given by a number of editors who Opposed. Here are some examples of these wildly inappropriate comments, including one (of several) from BritishWatcher:

• “Oppose, per Suu Kyi, who as of July 3 was still showing grit in the face of the regime's continued thuggery on this issue: "The State Law and Order Restoration Council...didn’t bother to consider what the public opinion about the new name was. They didn’t show any respect to the people." Kauffner (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• "It leaves a rather sour taste in the mouth that wikipedia would capitulate by appeasing a regime that is using clear threats and intimidation to try and prevent the use of the common english language name Burma. This article has been at this location for years and if it is changed will have massive implications for use of the name throughout wikipedia. Im not entirely sure this out of the blue RM to last just 7 days is a reasonable way of determining something with serious implications for 100s of other articles and usage in articles, not to mention the success for a regime intent on wiping out a name they dislike." BritishWatcher (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• “Both names are equally common (give or take a source or three). The question boils down to what the consensus political belief or personal preference is. No point in pretending otherwise and generating long lists of who uses what name." --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• “Oppose. Clearly still known as Burma to most except for the totalitarian regime in charge." -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• “Oppose Heavens no. If we don't go along with the Ivory Coast government's request to use Côte d'Ivoire, we certainly shouldn't take directions from the Burmese junta.... I would argue that it is impossible to separate politics from this issue: the use of Burma or Myanmar is a political statement, and inasmuch as we must make such a choice, it's a clear one to me." --BDD (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that's proof. There are plenty of other examples. Some editors need to stop the hypocisy. And also note in the discussion how many of the Opposeds admitted that there is no consensus on the country name. And there are plenty of comments like these: "Both names are equally common (give or take a source or three). --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)" and "What would hypothetically have to happen for a consensus to occur? I know it's not a majority vote. Regardless of how the remaining votes go, it seems that there is too much support for both sides for the "c" word to ever happen. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)" If there's one thing that there was indeed consenus on, it's the fact that there was no consenus. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:That is entirely selective posting, especially of one of my comments when i stated very clearly in the next post that the decision should be based on policy, not the situation with the regime. "We must go by what is the commonname, i believe Burma is still the common English language name despite attempts by a regime to prevent that being the case. Whilst the decision should be based on policy such as going with the commonname rather than the official name, it is impossible to ignore the political dimension to this considering just over a month ago people were being threatened by the regime for using the name Burma. BritishWatcher (talk)

::Except that the most commonly used name cannot be demonstrated. Both sides have claimed to use the most commonly used name. What do we do when it is not clearly demnstrated that one name is not the most common? -^StormRider 10:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

:"Some editors need to stop the hypocisy." - Considering your attacks on me for joining in with discussions in the way you are making a number of posts in this debate and others now, i could not agree more. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Overturn I did not participate in the move discussion. The closing admin made these statements:

:: I see greater evidence that "Burma" is more widely used in English language...

:: WP:CRITERIA encourages us to choose a name that is recognizable and natural for readers, to choose something they are most likely to look for.

:I do not believe there was sufficient evidence to have adequate support in the first claim, considering several comments that showed various forms of evidence that Myanmar might well be used more in English-speaking countries. I also don't believe the closing admin has not applied WP:CRITERIA correctly. People who are familiar with the name Burma are probably just as familiar with the name Myanmar, if they are familiar at all with the country, so this isn't really a compelling argument either. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

::I agree with Jethrobot, and I'm not sure the admin was correct in stating: "The primary force behind moving this article is that Myanmar is the official name." That would be akin to saying that the primary force behind keeping the article was that Burma is the "legitimate" name - it's only looking at some of the arguments. In truth, most of us who supported the move to Myanmar do believe it's equally as recognizable as Burma at the very least. You can read as much in the comments. Now, of course, the closer could argue that the people who believe this are mistaken... but there's no need to pretend that commonality isn't part of the Myanmar argument. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:::Well stated, Baron. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Uphold per WP:STICK. Warden (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Uphold (I didn't participate in the move discussion) this is English Wikipædia and 'Myanmar' is not recognised by the English-speaking world. 78.150.102.108 (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

:*The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Washington Post, CNN and the international English-speaking journalism community at large would beg to differ. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

::Just to note that the Washington Post in among the US publications that appears to prefer Burma. Formerip (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

:::Not in recent times. The Washington Post is inconsistent but uses [https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=us&as_q=Burma&as_eq=Myanmar&as_occt=any&as_qdr=a&as_nsrc=Washington%20Post&authuser=0#hl=en&gl=us&as_qdr=a&authuser=0&tbm=nws&q=Myanmar+-Burma+source:%22Washington+Post%22&oq=Myanmar+-Burma+source:%22Washington+Post%22&gs_l=serp.3...17884.21272.0.21482.11.10.0.0.0.2.169.892.7j3.10.0...0.0...1c.tiV70S2REeY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=15b9f0a0918f3ec1&biw=805&bih=339 Myanmar] more often than [https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=us&as_q=Burma&as_eq=Myanmar&as_occt=any&as_qdr=a&as_nsrc=Washington%20Post&authuser=0#hl=en&gl=us&as_qdr=a&authuser=0&tbm=nws&q=Burma+-Myanmar+source:%22Washington+Post%22&oq=Burma+-Myanmar+source:%22Washington+Post%22&gs_l=serp.3...113388.117315.0.118781.15.12.0.0.0.1.160.1204.7j5.12.0...0.0...1c.1E9RAmtlnfU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=15b9f0a0918f3ec1&biw=805&bih=339 Burma] by a wide margin. If Burma is the more common name, it's in spite of American media. -BaronGrackle (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

::::You need to read WP:SET. In my locality I get 18 for Myanmar and three for Burma. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

:::Compared to my 85 for Myanmar and 3 for Burma. I thought narrowing the search to the Washington Post would give a standardized answer. But the Washington Post has different results in different localities? How bizarre. -BaronGrackle (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse. Fair close. Whether someone else would have closed differently is not the point, the point is that there no no clear failure in this close. Yes, the closer is given wide discretion. (My personal general preference, to favour the first non-stub version, is ambiguous here. Was Manning’s new page a stub? The next edit 11 days later it moved to Myanmar and it endured there for a while).

  The current title should now be considered the default. It should not be moved again with anything less than consensus support. I recommend a semi-arbitrary period of 6 months before allowing a fresh rename discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

:*Ahem. As someone who favors Myanmar, I still say that 6 months is way too short a time, if nothing in the country changes! -BaronGrackle (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

::*Yes. Funny. I still think six months is about right, but that's whether or not something changes. Something will always change, and even everyone in the real world unexpectedly makes the decision to changes to Myanmar, it will take time, months, for the change to permeate reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)