Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Myanmar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Coat of arms

Has anyone else noticed the change of color recently of the coat of arms used in the politics template? The chinthe used to be kind of dark blue, now they are bright blue; the scroll used to be a magenta, now it is bright red. Have the colors officially changed, or is it just a different artist from somewhere? (plus the script is now kind of grainy). Chris 06:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving cats that use "Myanmar" as an adjective

I propose moving all of the cats that use "Myanmar" as an adjective be changed to "Myanma", following official government guidelines (even though the government does not have standardized spellings on many of its publications) on the spelling of "Myanmar" in adjectival form, and also to differentiate from the noun form. These include Category:Myanmar culture, Category:Myanmar law, Category:Myanmar media, Category:Myanmar music, Category:Myanmar society. What do you guys think? --Hintha 02:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. Andrew Dalby 13:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No Support. Are we rubbing the salt onto already bleeding wounds? It is bad enough as it is for people to find the articles that are related to our country due to you guys insistance on having dual name for the project. Now we are adding a third to make the confusions even worse. Stick to one, if you want the world to know everything about our country. Dont confuse everyone just because you have been given directives by "political masters". We have no rights to sit here and decide what our country's entry in Encyclopedia should be. It should just be "Myanmar". We dont need to support official government guidelines just the same as we dont need to take directive from NCGUB or writing/changing/naming articles and projects just to appease their followers. Our country is much more than just SPDC and NCGUB. So less of all these decisions making and "phin yarr mhuu"(if you are Bamar, you know what that word means). Phin Ma Yarr Kya Par Nae! Taw lout par p, a shat shi kya par! Okkar 17:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am tired of the personal attacks, accusations, paranoia and writing in Burmese. This is the English-language Wikipedia, use English here, and keep your comments civil. No one is being persecuted, discriminated against or targeted, just uncivil and unWikilike behavior. Chris 22:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are unbias and neutral, no one will be accusing you of anything. This is Myanmar project, and writing and quoting in "Myanmar" is absolutely acceptable. Are you saying we cant speak our own language? Are we being dictated what we can and cant speak in here by "you"? what is this? another form of neo-colonialism, where we are subjected to rules and restrictions laid down by "foreigners"? My comments are civil and it is exactly the same comment used by General Aung San in his speech at the roadside on Yangon-Mandalay road. If you dont know Myanmar history and culture well enough, I suggest you stop "dictating" how we should talk and behave. Being project facilitator doesnt give you the right to "rule" the contributors and dictate them to refrain from quoting in their own language. If you cannot handle that, I suggest you join the Wikiproject of native english speaking countries instead of being the facilitator here and fussing about what we can and cant say in our own country project. While you claimed not to persecute anyone here, your action on trying to silence the opposition and suppersion on the use of project country's own language not only show the discriminating attitude of this project but also the bullyish behaviour of yourself. Okkar 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Being Burmese doesn't give you the right to decide for everybody and make outlandish claims of "neocolonialism". Remember, this is a collaborative effort. We should discuss the semantics and grammar exclusively and not bash others. This Wikiproject is supposed to be all-inclusive, with everybody's ideas having equal weight. Please don't try to exclude or harass other members because they're not from Myanmar. We are all people, regardless of nationality. And we're not discussing the name in Burmese, because this isn't the Burmese Wikipedia; we're trying to figure out what is best-fit in the English language. --Hintha 07:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is truely a collaborative effort, and that everyone's ideas having equal weight, how come it is always that any ideas that does not suit the political leaning of the members are often rejected or ignored? for example, I have asked to split the Myanmar Armed Forces article, no one bothers to reply? Where else as soon as someone mentioned anything to suit the propaganda effort of opposition groups, i see all the project coordinators and facilitator jump up and support. So much for being collaborative and having equal weight! If you exclude others because they dont share your political views, then do expect to be excluded in return. You get what you give! It's the karma, pointless to complain when people hand you back exactly what you dish out to them. As for figuring out what is "best-fit" in the English language, who has the final say to it? only those who agrees with your views? or do you take into consideration the voice of those who opposed it? so much for the supporters of democracy, they cant even practise what they preach! Okkar 08:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• comments

1. My position as facilitator is not elected, I am just the fellow who got the ball rolling and invites other interested parties to join us. I have no more muscle on decisions than anyone else, and wouldn't want an official position for all the headaches caused this last week.

Now thats something clear. Thank you for your explaination. Okkar 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The reason your proposals specifically are ignored or rejected, Okkar, is that you have not been playing well with others. Most articles and pages you have touched have become flamewars, unproductive and meanspirited. Hintha believes you may someday be a good contributor to the Wikipedia. I would like to see that happen, but you would have to learn that accusing others who have different ideas of partisanship, bias or attacking you gets you nowhere. Everyone in the world has differing views, and NPOV does not mean absence of those views, but a balance of those views. You may like apples, I may like oranges, that makes neither of us right or wrong, and both have a place. My fondest wish is to see you say "here's what I think we should do" without pointing comments to anyone, and seeing how far that takes you. I think a little kindness and selfrestraint would serve you well.

In your view it may not be playing well, but as far as I can see, I am the minority view in this group which is riped with support for opposition groups. I am not a supporter of government, and like you, I would like to see the articles being balanced and truthful to that fact. The sad fact of the matter is that it has not been the case. Most contributors and project members induldge this one sidedness to a degree, knowingly or unintentionally. For example, inclusion of the flag of NLD in the main Myanmar article, everyone turned a blind eye to it and wouldnt come forward to say it was not an appropiate place. No other countries article have the flag of opposition parties in their country article. I know this may or may not be a big deal for many of you, but it is imperative if we are to represent both sides of the fence and being completely neutral. So far I have yet to be convinced by the actions of members of this project. I have contributed in my areas of knowledge and restraint myself from contributing to areas that i have little or no knowledge of, however, if i see something has been misrepresented, i would go out of my way to correct it and if it turns out that i ended up upsetting the contributors then thats life, you cannot accuse me of not playing well with others. To play well with others, others needs to play fair too. I have tried to put my points across to everyone here, but so far, the deep entranched views and supports for political parties have made most people unable to accept the balanced and neutral suggestions. If you take time to read all that I have posted, I have clearly stated that I would like to see this project to be neutral. Okkar 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1. No one has been excluded for their political views. I have posted on you for 3RR, just as you have done to Simon, true; I have had you researched for sockpuppetry and bringing in ringers for the Project name arbitration, also true, and I am not apologetic that I have had to do so. Neither of these have to do with your politics, you could say you want Martians to take over Greenland for all I care. My wariness about you since your arrival has to do with your disruptiveness, your insults and your inability thus far to work politely with existing Wikieditors. I would love to be able to work with you in improvement of these articles, if you are willing to accept that there are several thousand other Wikipedians who also have different and valid views.

I am not expecting your apology either, but you must understand, all these actions doesnt exactly warm up to anyone who just joined the group and contributed, only to find out that anything you contribute that doesnt meet the political stance of oppositions groups get "jacked" and then when you speak up, you get bombarded with all these official complaints. Now, if you were in my place, would you feel that this group is actually neutral?

I have seen this gang culture and mob attitude of opposition groups, where they hounded anyone who speaks remotely neutral about our country, and I felt that it has starting to take shape in this project too (i.e. with you, hintha, simonbillerness 'etc.). It was entirely inappropiate and I should stand up to correct it and so I did. I offer no apology for that as it is simply a right thing to do and especially it is time someone take a stand on this issue. We should no longer be hounded by the supporters of opposition groups who simply just want to say all the bad things about our country in order to serve their purpose. Everyone should be able to say anything that is neutral about our country, without being feared of being hounded out. Here I am setting an example to that fact that we will not go quiet and keeps our head down simply because we are afraid of being ganged up and accused of disruptions. I am willing to work with anyone as I do believe that I have much to contribute to this project just as anyone else, but first we must ensure that this project represent our country, properly and fairly, and that no one should feel intimidated or afraid of saying contributing neutral contents that are not aligned with the objectives and propaganda of opposition groups. Okkar 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I wish all members well, and hope that this present vitriol will settle down and we can get back to the business of having a great Wikiproject. Chris 05:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, the greatness of this project will only hindered by the project members' accomodation to the will of opposition groups. Free this project of any political motivation and affiliation, make it entirely neutral and I am sure it will become one of the greatest wikiproject. Okkar 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from using vulgar language ("phin ya hmu", literally "itchy derrière") and considering that this is the English Wikipedia, you should try to use English so other members of this Wikiproject can understand as well. "Phin Ma Yarr Kya Par Nae! Taw lout par p, a shat shi kya par!" (Hpin ma ya gya pa nè. Taw loke pa pi, a shek shi gya pa!) translates "Don't be so eager [to change materials]. Enough is enough, please have some dignity/shame." Using "Myanmar" either way is not grammatically correct in the English language. So the only alternatives are "Myanma" and "Burmese" if we want to use the adjectival forms. Let's focus on the English grammar rather than on "support" for one side or the other. And do not accuse me nor others of being politically-motivated, as you have in the past. -Hintha 22:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am quite supprised to see that you are supporting the suppersion of using Myanmar language in Myanmar project simply to keep your buddy sweet. This is such a disgrace. Please dont be so eager to please your "buddies", do remember that we are burmese and the message I posted was intended for you and Myanmar people since you are the one who made the nomination. It is quite plain and clear for you what it meant, unless you forgot your own language in favour of "English". Please dont be ashamed of your country's language. Okkar 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that if you wanted to speak to me directly, you could have put the post on my talk page, if if were intended for my eyes only. But since this WikiProject is a collaborative effort, when other members who may not have knowledge in Burmese want to read and understand, they can't, making it exclusive. --Hintha 07:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted the rest of Myanmar community to see what you are doing and what has been "suggested" to you. It was intended for you and the wider Myanmar community. Seeing as this is a project for Myanmar, it is perfectly valid to post it here even though it might bruise the ego of Project facilitator, it should not be the reason not to post in myanmar language. The main question here is... is this project for Myanmar or not?

The WikiProject is about Myanmar, but not only for users from Myanmar. If you took the time to read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice (Wikipedia's guidelines, not mine), you would find that "Use English: No matter to whom you are addressing your comments, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is because comments should be comprehensible to the community at large." This was the same reason I initially provided, but you interpreted as my being "ashamed" of Burmese, and my "suppersion" (suppression) of using Burmese. I believe I'm entitled to an apology for your accusations, once again.--Hintha 08:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to underline one simple fact in your refrence of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice, it state "preferred" not "ordered", it is a suggestion, it's neither a command or a gospel that everyone "must" follow. If it is appropiate to direct the particular comments for wider myanmar audiance, it is allowed. As a burmese, you should have no objection in being talked to in burmese. It is neither bad manner nor rude to make the point clear in burmese to a burmese person in order to avoid accident such as "lost in translation". Unless you specifically claiming not to have clearly understood what has been said to you in burmese, I see no reasons for you to be fussing about what was said to you. The comment was directed at you, you understood clearly - so why is there the need for such drama? Also, one should not exploit on the spelling mistakes of others to get the upperhand, it is a bit cheap to score points on the small spelling mistakes which is common to anyone who is not born "American" or "English". As for the apology, if you are not ashamed of being spoken to in Burmese, why would you need an apology from me for speaking to you in Burmese? Is our language not worthy enough for you, your highness? Okkar 09:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why on the edit page of the talk pages, there's a clear message stating: "Please respect the talk page guidelines". And I couldn't have been able to quote you if I didn't include the spelling error, or else that would be putting words in your mouth. Remember, we should discuss only whether the cats should be renamed. Any further discussions not about the semantics of "Myanma" should be put in a new header. And I'm asking for an apology for your totally xenophobic, innappropriate, and accusatory comments, not for using Burmese (I believe I made that clear already). --Hintha 09:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My comments are niether Xenophobic nor inappropiate. It serves the valid purpose of the principal of this discussion and as you have stated, you are not fussing about using burmese in your post, so why was it necessary to make the fuss about talking to you in burmese in the first place. You are looking for an apology out of the reason that is clearly unfounded. Okkar 09:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Support as nominator. The English language requires that adjectives be used to modify nouns, not nouns (e.g. "French society" as opposed to "France society"). --Hintha 09:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you "English" or "Myanmar"? 213.165.224.166 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is off-topic--it doesn't matter what nationality or race I am.--Hintha 07:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on new layout

What do you guys think of the new layout at this WikiProject? Feel free to add comments, suggestions, and advice. Thanks. --Hintha 04:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it, it's cleaner and much tidier. Chris 04:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Myanmar

I have removed it, because it is no clear difference netween city and town in Myanmar- TheNeon 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I had tried to merge the two a month ago, your way was more effective. ;) Chris 04:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Myanmar

I have requested the Wikipedia Protection of this page due to excessive reverts from opposition groups and their supporters. I am truly amazed that I seems to be the only one from this project who have been trying to fix the article in a more neutral tone. There was no revert nor fix from Project facilitator or other members of project, it seems everyone is turning blind eye to the vandalisim on this page so long as it is "pro-opposition". So much for not having political agendas!! Okkar 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've found many of your edits to be ungrammatical, misspelled, and containing unsupported assertions and innuendo. Far from being "more neutral," I find your edits to be generally very negative towards to Burma's pro-democracy movement. This Wikipedia needs protection from your biased editing. It does not need protection from those who correct you. SimonBillenness 18:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)SimonBillenness

And I suppose you are very neutral with your persistent abuse in adding NLD flag to Myanmar article... is that because no one would bother reading NLD article? or does it not have it's own article. Spelling mistakes and grammatical errors are trivial, but you werent correcting either of those, infact, you are plastering the article with NCGUB propaganda dialogues. It is plain to see what you are trying to do. Okkar 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly appropriate to include the emblem of the National League of Democracy in an article that mentions that political party. Your insistence in trying to falsely portray that as "abuse" or "vandalism" reveals your own bias. SimonBillenness 21:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a PR website for NCGUB or NLD and should not be used as such. Please adhere to Wikipedia's policies or you will be reported. Okkar 09:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As I stated previously, it is perfectly appropriate to include the emblem of the National League of Democracy in an article that cites that political party. If you report that, any reasonable person would rule against you.SimonBillenness 18:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing the inclusion of NLD in article, however, it is wholy inappropiate to include the "FLAG" of NLD in the article as it serves no purpose. If you wish, it would be more appropiate to include the flag in NLD's own article. No other countries article include the flag of oppositions, if that has to be perhaps we should allow the inclusion of all other opposition groups, KNU, KIO, SSA flags too 'etc. Dont just think to promote NLD and NCGUB, please consider the wider effects it has on the country article as a whole. You are not raising awareness, rather you are showing the world what a joke our country article has become... and it is quite astonishing to see the project facilitator and project members, who claims to be politically neutral and have no political agendas, did nothing but turned blind eye to this abuse! Okkar 19:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the project facilitator and other members of this project have turned a blind eye to the abuse of User:SimonBillenness and does not object to adding NLD flag to the article even though no other countries article carry the flag of opposition parties, I assume that it is now the general consensus on this project to include each and every opposition groups flag in the article. Therefore, I have added a few of the opposition groups flags and I will be adding more of the flags in order to be consistant with the theme. Okkar 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the blind eye nonsense-Okkar-do you think this is all we do all day? Do you not think we have jobs, families, perhaps even interests in other topics outside this one? There are over 800 articles in this topic alone, and we are a handful of contributors-and I remind you again, contributors, not content police. You make the edits you want, we make the edits we want. Chris 19:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have time to patrol my edits and revert them, I'm sure you have time to revert the edits of others too. Myanmar is the main country article and it is the neucleus of this project, how can anyone not noticed that there have been such changes and edits? Please step down as project facilitator if you cannot handle the workload, no one expecting you to work 24/7 and we all have jobs, families, interests in other topics outside this one, but if you are going to be project facilitator, there are some responsibilities goes along with it. It is your responsibility to ensure that this project remained neutral, unbias and free of any political influence. If you cannot take that responsibility, I suggest you step down as the facilitator and let someone, who can ensure that integrity of the main country article would be maintained, and that project would stay completely neutral and free from any form of influence, take your place. Okkar 20:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Facilitator is not a position of responsibility, I've already explained. There is nothing for me to step down from. What you're thinking of is administrator, and we don't have one. If you want to call for elections, groovy. I won't run, I don't want that. I watch and revert your edits because you are the most contentious editor of articles. You have cut out information I have sourced and verified, and you like to pick fights. The reason no one here steps up in your defense is that the edits you make are often untenable. Your tone had softened earlier today, I had hoped you were understanding that working together means working together, but you are still slinging about vitriol. Every person on Wikipedia can make exactly the edit they intend to make, and if it is properly sourced and documented, then its wholesale removal constitutes POV on your part. You are so quick to call us all partisan, and you think we all know each other and go out for a beer or something; I wouldn't know any of them if I saw them on the street. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. That's why I watch your edit list as I do. And if you notice, I leave most of your edits alone. Settle down and learn to work with your Project mates. If you want their votes for administrator, you will have to start treating them as equals and not enemies. Chris 20:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to be an administrator, nor do i believe in buying votes by buttering up to anyone. If you have been reading what I wrote, you can see I am not the type to say things just to please/appease anyone. I made my point plain and simple, and as clear as it can be, i dont believe in beating around the bushes and if that upset people, well Cel la vie. As for me being contentious editor of articles, I follow Wikipedia guidelines closely. The reason I follow these guides closely is because I almost get burned by that 3R rule on my first day (thanks to you), luckily enough an admin see through your mistakes and gave you dressing down instead of me. Nevertheless, it was you who give me a lesson on how to deal with others using Wikipedia policies. So if you think I am contentious, well, I learned that from you my master! Like the old saying, you reap what you sow. Everything I do/say here are reaction to an action of others. I have no reasons to be hostile towards anyone, if they werent hostile to me in the first place. I defend myself when attacked, it's natural for anyone. As for the partisan statement, while it may not necessarily to the fact that you all go out and share a few pints together, however, it appears everyone on this project is quick to side with anything in order to appease everyone, even if it means keeping quiet and turning blind eye to things that are contradictory the goals of this project. Okkar 20:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tin Tun

Please include references/citations for the sources regarding your claims. No references = Non verifiable claims. Just because you wrote the article it doesnt mean it is verified. Please adhere to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Okkar 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

All references are clearly marked at the bottom of the page, and have been there since the beginning of the article. Chris 23:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Political Agendas

Hintha, you claimed not to have any political agendas in public but I see you have reverted the edits in Myanmar given "incorrect information" as a reason and added opposition leaning statements. The information was correct since i provided the link directly to the news page. If you can accept what Reporter San Frontier wrote as gospel, I'm sure you can accept what Reuters wrote as true fact too. Isnt it time you admit that you do have a political agenda instead of claiming not to have any in order just to get support from others? Why do you feel the need to deny when your actions betrays you? So please, come out and say that you do have a political agenda and that you intend to paddle contents and information that suits the propaganda needs of NCGUB. Okkar 01:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're able to differentiate between factual and incorrect statements. Many of the edits you made were misleading. Please see Talk:Myanmar#Removal_of_cited_information_and_ISBN_numbers for a more thorough analysis. If any of my cited edits are "opposition-leaning", provide me with clear-cut evidence, other than your typical "you're-doing-this-for-National-Coalition-Government-of-Burma" or the "you-have-political-agendas!" argument. Thanks, and good day.--Hintha 05:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Victory

Finally, the common sense has prevailed and triumphed over destructive mindset of opposition groups and their minions who are using this project as a political propaganda tool. It is a victory over those who seek out to degrade our country by insisting to use the old colonial name of the country as the name of the project and the axe handles who colluded with foreigners with mob mentality to remove anyone who don’t support or share their politically biased views from this project by any means necessary, even if it means they have to cheat or lied. Okkar 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Urgent action alert! Okkar, I'm sure this will be of interest to you. I was looking at the Chinese Wikipedia, and I discovered, to my no small chagrin, that it is located at 缅甸 (pronounced Miandian), rather than the correct Myanma name, "Myanmar". I suggest that you hop into action at your earliest convenience in order to correct this injustice.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I might just do that! whats the matter, cant handle the truth so you have to throw in a little sarcasm and come up with cheap jokes? :-) like it or not, commonse sense prevailed in the end, I'm sorry if that bruised your ego! Okkar 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, everybody won, we got to keep both names like our project started with, that we all agreed upon. :) Chris 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Template

I have moved the template from {{WikiProject Burma/Myanmar}} to {{WikiProject Myanmar (Burma)}} in accordance to the settled mediation. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop being famous?

I have noticed in quite a few articles on Burma/Myanmar that places and people are described as being "famous" or "renowed". Can we temper the use of the phrase? I think that in most cases the content speaks for itself whether the subject in question deserves the fame or renown, and more in line with keeping NPOV. More importantly, after going through some of the articles by jumping across links, the famousness comes off as being a little bit provincial. In the same light, we also don't describe certain places and people there as notorious or infamous. Kanbawsa 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Too many articles that are not in line with NPOV, too much political paddling. 213.165.224.166 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kanbawsa, I have been noticing that as I clean up the stub articles, I have been modifying it to "notable" when I can, removing it entirely when there is nothing good to go in its place, and citation-tagging when I can. I'm going through geography now, biographies come next. Chris 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wildlife of Myanmar

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

See Wildlife of India for reference.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 13:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Scouting articles

There are a lot of unsourced informations in scouting articles relating to Myanmar. I would like to urged those "scouting fans" to source the articles with verifiable facts. If not, they should be removed as they all read like a whole lot of "fan articles" and advertisements. Source it or Remove it! Okkar 14:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is retaliation for what I placed at Tin Oo. I have sourced each article. Okkar, this time your actions are so blatant anyone can see them. Chris 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm only doing what everyone else is doing in this project - "ensuring the integrity of the articles", just as you have done so. Okkar 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is retaliation. No one can make a change to one of your articles or poor edits without having their own contributions attacked. If I fact tag one thing, that is ensuring the integrity of the articles. If you seek out articles and dump fact tags all over them in inappropriate places, that is retaliation and against Wikipedia etiquette. Chris 18:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a mere accusations. I tagged the articles accordingly in the correct places, where citations are required. Please remember wikipedia is not your own, you may not like other people's edits but you have to accept it if it is according to the policy. Please dont make accusatory remarks as it can be interpret as "personal attack". Okkar 18:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Biography articles

I believe we should adopt the following suggestion from Chris regarding Biography articles. He stated that - "You misunderstood. It is not enough to says "x archives", that's like saying "It's in the library, look it up". Your sentence reads like "Jackie Chan is the best actor". You can source that Jackie Chan's last movie made so much money, or that his website got so many thousands of hits in 2004, but you cannot by itself say that Jackie Chan is "beloved". What you've done is not sourcing, properly. You can say Tin Oo won this medal or had that citation, those are physically provable. The way that sentence reads is not" - This is quite interesting and perhaps it would be a good idea to follow his advice and start editing biography articles relating to Myanmar, starting with Aung San Suu Kyi as it definately needs clearing up and it does contain statements that meet Chris's suggestions here. Okkar 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bilateral relations discussion

I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:11, 8 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)

This is what i have been suggesting all along. I have repeatedly tried to beat some sense into the likes of SimonBillenness and other political lobbyists that it is entirely inappropiate to include NLD flag in the main article and warned that this would set a precedence for others to include their own political and commericial materials, however, all my suggestions and warning goes unheeded. To make it clear for everyone, I can categorically state that I do not work for the government or nor am I on the payroll of the government as it has been suggested by SimonBillenness and his gang. Unlike SimonBillenness, I do not have any association or affiliation with any political, government or NGO organisations that would raise conflict of interest for my contributions to Wikipedia. I would like to ask SimonBillenness and his followers to produce any solid evidence, not just hearsay and rumours, that I am indeed working for the government if they want to continue their accusations and be desruptive about the contributions I am making to Wikipedia. If they cannot, I suggest they stop all these childish accusations and move on in constructive manner and keep their political orientation and affiliations out of Wikipedia. Myanmar article may not be a big deal for SimonBillenness who just want to use it to promote NLD /NCGUB, but for those of us (regardless of whether you are pro-government or pro-democracy) - it is our country's article and it means a great deal to us. It deserves to be treated with same dignity and respect that every other country articles have on Wikipedia - this means not to include flags of opposition groups and parties in the article simply for political propaganda purpose. Political and economic issues of our country will always be a subject for debate and disagreement, but Wikipedia is not a place for this debate nor is it a place to lobby/promote/campagin for certain causes, so please have a little respect and let our country article have the dignity it deserves. I hope it is not too much to ask Okkar 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made it clear many times the reasons for my edits. I have tried hard to confine my comments to Okkar's contributions. He continues to attack me personally citing my personal associations outside of Wikipedia. By doing this, Okkar is continually violating Wikipedia policy around civility and avoiding personal attacks. I refuse to descend to that level; I will not speculate or cite facts about his past associations.SimonBillenness 04:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not personal attack to ask relevant questions when there is a conflict of interest. If you do not like being question for your motives, perhaps you should think twice before using Wikipedia for campaigning. If your personal asscoiations outside of Wikipedia have a conflict of interest in your contribution to Wikipedia as neutral contributor/editor, it is only right that I question your motives. This is entirely in accordance with Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guidelines, perhaps you should adhere to Wikipedia's neutral policy before you cry wolf about personal attacks. Okkar 12:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

wikibreak

Due to circumstances in my life, I need to reduce my activity in Wikipedia, and will be taking a leave of absence. I wish the Project the best of success while I am away. Chris 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish you well. I'll miss your part in editing and discussions. Have a great and rejuvenating break! SimonBillenness 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fighting Peacock

I believe SimonBillenness seems to be misrepresenting "Fighting Peacock" as NLD "emblem". "Peacock" represent our country's flag before we were colonised by the British, hence why ABSU flag included a peacock emblem to represent our nation's struggle to gain independance from the British. Fighting Peacock on the other hand is the emblem of the "Student Front" (Kyaungthar Tat Oo) of ABSU. "Student Front" represent a wing within ABSU that includes a group of students, who sworn to sacrifice their lives for the greater cause in the name of their country. They are always at the forefront of ABSU and student lead demonstrations and they are the ones who always take the first strike from batons and galloping horses during the colonial era. It is a fact that many students have died under the flag of "Fighting Peacock" througout the history of our country. Although, "Student Front" was officially disbanded and banned along with ABSU during BSPP era, the stories of "Student Front" with their dedication, sacrifice, courage and honour has masmerized and captivated every generation of young students.

At the beginning of 1988 uprising, it was the students from High Schools, came out carrying "Fighting Peacock" flags along with their school banners when they marched through the streets of our cities. The 88 generation high school students immidiately assume the position of "Student Front" during the 1988 uprising and it was them who paid the highest price. NLD, as political party adopted the symbol of "Fighting Peacock" into their party flag after the uprising in order to honour the students of Myanmar, who were always at the forefront of the struggle for their country and those who lay down their lives in the name of "democracy" and "freedom". Fighting Peack is not just a mere representation of courage or freedom, nor is it a mere logo on the flag of a political party, it is much more than that. It a symbol that represents courage, honour and sacrifice of the "students" of Myanmar, it represent the history of our country's struggle from both foreign invasions and tyranny, it represent our forefathers and it represent the fighting spirit of the "students" of Myanmar. NLD and ASSK would not be where they are today, if it wasnt for those students waving "Fighting Peacock" flags in 1988. If you said you are for freedom and democracy, then honour those students who brought about the change, honour those students who gave up their lives so that NLD can sit and complain about how they have won 1990 election and still not in the office.

Thanks to a mixure of political correctness and pure ignorant, we all have forgotten the fallen heroes and the spirit of "Fighting Peacock". Instead of honouring them for their sacrifices, we sat by sideline and watch people like SimonBillenness exploiting "fighting peacock" to promote NLD and NCGUB. Is this the way their death should be honoured? They didnt die for NLD, they died for our country and now we are repaying their deaths by letting political parties exploit the "Fighting Peacock" symbol. It is an insult to suggest that "Fighting Peacock" represent NLD as NLD has done nothing to earn the honour and respect that goes with the symbol of "Fighting Peacock". It belongs to the students of Myanmar. It should be clarify in the description of NLD flag, otherwise, we are effectively rewriting the history of "Fighting Peacock" and dishonouring those students who gave up their lives during the struggle. Okkar 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Name Game

Myanmar or Burma or Pyi Thar Yar ?

The bottom line: Any changes in any country should be done in legal ways, legal terms, legal laws. Legal means laws written, endorse and implemented by the people, for the people and of the people freely and justly. A nation that don't even had a running/using constitution is deplorable and disputable in making changes, any changes especially as important as national flag or country's name etc.

Texxexx 03:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, we are not interested in political views. Perhaps you should post your comment to other pro-opposition website, it will be more appericiated there. Okkar 09:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion is appropriate on the the talk pages. I welcome your feedback, Texxexx. Moving forward, how would you provide input to the discussion of the NLD flag/emblem, particularly the "fighting peacock?" SimonBillenness 13:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. Now let's move on. The input of NLD flag and emblem in this site is appropriate after all NLD is the legitimate political party of Burma/Myanmar, winner of 1990 general election chosen by the people. When searching for the truth on the history of Burma/Myanmar all events and true facts should be shown and learn by the world. It doesn't matter the military regime nullified the results of Burma/Myanmar's general election. What counts is that when a person, any person foreign or domestic wants to learn about Myanmar or Burma, they should know the true facts, good or bad. To be honestly neutral, I had emphasize the authenticity of the word "Myanmar" as very native and yet the fact and the truth remains for Burma was colonized by the British and as conqueror British has every right to imposed their will. America was once colonized by the British and the Americans liberated their nation from the British and yet Americans and British are the staunchest allies in this world. As far as I understand this site is for knowledge of finding the truth, seeking for understanding from all angles. Comprehensive approach is the best way to promote the very project this site is pursuing for. Pursuit for perfection should be the corner stone for this site. All angles and views should be taken into account. I am an individual free from any side or political affiliation and thus I can present from the point of neutrality and unbiased manner. Truth is truth. Sometimes it is good for the military and sometimes it is good for the opposition or what ever. Portraying just one sided facts is not true wisdom. When one talk about Burma/Myanmar one has to know this is a very controversial nation. We can debate, argue and present our feedbacks without belittling any one or insulting any one or discrediting any one for if we want to pursue for civilized manner, all of us had to respect each of us and find common ways to promote Myanmar or Burma. Not only the NLD flag/emblem should be included all other parties and their actions or conduct should be included for example National Unity Party (NUP) the pro-military party that lost to the peoples' chosen party....NLD. with due respect to all.

Texxexx 17:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So are you suggesting all other parties flags should be included too? like KNU, BCP, SSA? We cant have one rule for NLD and one rule for the others, right? Okkar 10:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes! no problem. Include as much as possible. Their flags, their emblems, their motives, their principles, their conduct, their motto, their behavior and their history but all must be verified and true facts. No deception or frictional factors should be allowed. When we seek for the knowledge we should base on TRUTH. Any knowledge that base on untruthful manner is not knowledge at all. It is purely deception. Wiki web is a “free” flow encyclopedia that reveal truthful knowledge, facts for people to understand more thoroughly, widely and wisely. To broaden the scope of understanding.

Expanding the horizon is good, especially for general knowledge. Texxexx 14:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All well and good sounding rhetoric but would you care to back those up with the action? perhaps you would be kind enough to start with inclusion of KNU and BCP, the two most prominent opposition groups, followed by SSA-S, SSA-N, KIA, KNPP 'etc. Okkar 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding Footnotes to Economy of Myanmar Page

I've heavily re-edited the Economy of Myanmar page. However the footnotes do not appear at the end of the page. Would someone fix them and then refer me to the resource on the proper use and editing of footnotes.? Thank you! SimonBillenness 06:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropraite to include the following paragraph in "Economy of Myanmar" page?

Military regime of Myanmar economic strategy is to base on selling off natural resources of the nation. Every vital sector of Myanmar's national wealth is control by the military regime. National forests, Gems and precious stones, natural gas and oil, agricultural products, marine products, even rivers and human resources the military regime exploit at the fullest of their power to avoid the pressure of sanctions by the west mainly from United States (US) and European Union (EU). As Myanmar is a natural resource rich nation, the military regime exploit this to the fullest of their power. Recently (April, 2007) EU extend their sanctions on Myanmar regime for another year and so is US likely to extend her sanctions towards Myanmar in coming months. Myanmar is not conducting a normal economic pattern. It is an economic practice that base on hard headed doctrine policies of rather be poor than surrender to the calling of democratic reforms of releasing their grip on state power that they attain through "coups". Military stronghold is very deep (46 years and counting) and thus the economic pattern of Myanmar depends upon the flexibility of Military generals' motives and incentives. Myanmar economy is not in the status of conducting normal practice for it is under heavy sanctions and thus the prosperity of the economy will be a lot slower if there is progress. Myanmar's money situation is getting worst and the regime had to expand 5 fold or even 10 fold for government employees to cope with the increasing prices skyjacking inflation on monetary system (Kyat). Texxexx 14:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Union of Myanmar States and Divisions flags

Myanmar had 7 States and 7 Divisions. Although I am sure all the "major" (prominent) races or states have their own flags, I am not sure of the divisions. Divisions are widely lived by the majority race, Bamar/Burmese. On this "free flow" Encyclopedia concerning with Myanmar, not only the national flags history but also the existence of major ethnic flags and emblems should be presented for broader understanding on this country. Peacock is the national symbol of Myanmar (Bamar/Burmese) since ancient times but it is not for the ethnic races. The ethnic races have their own flags and emblems. True respect to all peoples/races of Myanmar and acknowledging the existence of their culture, beliefs and history backgrounds is a good step towards getting the full picture of Myanmar and not partial. Respecting the majority and the minority which make up the "union" fulfills the true understanding of Union of Myanmar. In a project to build more understanding of Myanmar this move will broaden the scope of knowledge from all angles, perspectives and improve the perception concerning with Myanmar. Texxexx 13:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Airlines

I am working on edits of the following airlines

• Myanmar Airways International
• Air Bagan
• Air Mandalay
• Yangon Airways
• Air Myanmar
• Myanma Airways

In the infoboxes we provide the Burmese name for the airline. As I don't speak Burmese, could one of our Burmese speakers please check the names as being correct. Also the Burmese name for Air Mandalay is available on this website [1] but I am having difficulty in accessing it. Cheers. --Russavia 04:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting topic. Good work/hobby, keep it up! Texxexx 05:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Burmese democracy activists

Earlier today I created Category:Democracy activists by country, along with several new subcategories thereof, including Category:Burmese democracy activists. I've aleady placed Aung San Suu Kyi in this category, but I'm not familiar with the other individuals who also belong there. In light of current events, I thought perhaps some of you folks might wish to lend a hand with this endeavor. Regards, Cgingold 01:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Myanmar -> Burma

Following a week of discussions, the Myanmar article was moved to Burma. --Hemlock Martinis 21:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no proper vote or concensus based on the discussion. I have open a voting so we do this properly. Please vote at Talk:Burma#VOTE: Burma or Myanmar and provide your reasoning. Thank you. --Zack2007 12:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Southeast Asian cinema task force

The Southeast Asian cinema task force was recently started as a joint project of WikiProject Films and WikiProject Southeast Asia. Editors who are writing about the Myanma/Burmese films are welcome to join the project, where they will find support for collaboration on new articles and the expansion and promotion of existing articles. — WiseKwai 11:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)