Talk:Yangon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rangoon or Yangon?

Should this be listed as Rangoon or Yangon? -- Zoe

Good question. Looks like Google likes "Yangon, Myanmar" more than "Rangoon, Myanmar". However, searching for each term without "Myanmar" yields more or less a tie (these terms by themselves could be part of the names of any number of things though). --maveric149

"Rangoon, Burma" would probably be more likely than "Rangoon, Myanmar". Want me to create a Yangon page and redirect to Rangoon, or redirect Rangoon to Yangon? -- Zoe
Hum. The Burmese would have to make things difficult by renaming their country... Did they also rename their capital as well? Although official names are oftentimes secondary in importance to the most widely used (and therefore most likely to be searched for and linked) names when naming articles, it is an important thing to consider -- especially when a country has made a deliberate decision to rename their nation. --maveric149
The junta uses "Yangon" and "Myanmar." Nobody else much seems to--Burmese emigres still say Burma and Rangoon, as does the political opposition. I'd do "Rangoon, Burma" and "Yangon, Myanmar" and redirect Yangon to Rangoon. Vicki Rosenzweig
Then the question is, what do we do with the Myanmar article.... These quandaries are vexing because there are no easy answers. I would also err toward widest usage in this case (using the older names for both), but I feel a bit uneasy about not using the "Myanmar" and "Yangon" names because of the official name change and their acceptance by the United Nations. Using these names may also be viewed by outsiders as us taking a political stance on the validity of the current government (although the US doesn't recognize this government -- do other English speaking countries also not recognize the current government?). If we do this, then we might also have to revisit the Zaire vs. Democratic Republic of the Congo issue again (which is even a greater borderline case)... --maveric149
This seems like a Calcutta/Kolkata case. The concensus there was to avoid POV conflicts by using the version used by local authorities; see Talk:Kolkata. I sugjest we do the same here, i.e. move this to Yangon. - Efghij 04:04, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
In both cases it would make more sense to use the generally accepted English name (i.e. Calcutta and Rangoon). We don't call Germany 'Deutschland' or Moscow 'Moskva', do we? In the Burmese case you have the added factor that the regime which undertook the renaming is illegitimate, and the original names (Rangoon and Burma) are used by the opposition. Still, as usual, politically-inspired (and supposedly 'accurate') renamings win out over sensible considerations of common use. Sikandarji 08:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the writing of Yangôn and Mandalay in Burmese?

In Unicode (try the SOASMyanmar font) Yangon is ရန္ကုန္, or spelt in Burmese letters 'ya-gauk, na-that, ka-kyi, ta-chaung-ngin, na-that'. Not all Unicode fonts will cope with the spelling of Mandalay, which is မေလး (again, in SOASMyanmar font). The Burmese spelling is 'ma, na + ta-wun-bu hna-loun-sint, thawe-hto, la, wissa hna-lone pauk'.

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 Rangoon, 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)
As far as Yangon vs Rangoon, this is not a name change it is simply correcting incorrect Romanization of the cities name. The cities name has always been Yangon, this was not a change by the current government to change its meaning just to give a more accurate name for foreigners. The same has been done for Peking, Pusan, and others. The actual name has not changed at it is not even written in the roman alphabet! 208.66.26.3 06:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as Myanmar vs Burma. The country has always been called Myanmar. The British simply continuously translated the name Myanmar to Burma. The constitution even is written as Myanmar and this was written in the first half of the 1900's and has nothing to do with any military regime. While I am all for supporting these freedom movements, the name Myanmar is simply more accurate. It is also the one recognized by the U.N. 208.66.26.3 06:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Myanmar is the name for Burma in Burmese, but while the Burmese people are the majority in Burma, it is only a selective name. Burma on the other hand is a more inclusive name, for it is just a name for the area of land. I also believe that it should still be Rangoon, not Yangon because that also is the Burmese names for the city. It doesn't account for those who speak different languages in Burma. -Sez, 4/4/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.216.28 (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
In English, I support "Rangoon" and "Burma" for the same logical reasons as stated by editors above. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In British English it's always Rangoon and that's the official name used by the British Embassy etc

See here: https://www.gov.uk/world/organisations/british-embassy-rangoon

Yangon is just a different way to translate into English, neither is right or wrong - rather like Burma v Myanmar - most English speakers say Burma but either is ok, but for most native English speakers it will be Rangoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.168.17 (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move (2005)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was I've NO idea who came up with the circumflex accent in 'Yangôn' - it simply shouldn't be there. EaungHawi 12 July 2005

I agree, and I've formally requested that the page be moved to Yangon. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Requested move: the article Yangôn should be moved to Yangon. Please indicate whether you support or oppose the move and sign your name with ~~~~.

  • Support since I'm the one making the request. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, sure. I don't see the circumflex appearing anywhere other than this article, so I assume EaungHawi is right. If anyone disagrees, they'll say so... GTBacchus 21:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. If it dosen't appear anywhere else... Does the UoM regime uses it? Is it used in linguistics, less specialized writings, etc.? If the answer to all of these is no, then the choice is obvious: Yangôn and Rangoon should redirect to it. El_C 23:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I can say pretty definitely that it isn't used in linguistics. The circumflex is occasionally used in transcription of Burmese to indicate the high-falling tone, but both syllables of this word have low tone. I don't know how to Google for "Yangôn" in a way that will exclude all instances of "Yangon". --Angr/tɔk tə mi 00:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Wake up! Google isn't the only search engine. [1] [2] Gene Nygaard 23:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote. My own preference would be Rangoon, which is far more widely recognised in English and has been used for longer. The Guardian uses Rangoon almost exclusively, as does the BBC, most US government websites, and the UK Foreign Office. We should not ape the US press's affectations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, everywhere I've seen it, including my passport stamp shows it as Yangon Dwstein 00:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --*drew 00:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like we have reached consensus here. I have, therefore, moved Yangôn (now redirects) into Yangon. El_C 01:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Why the hast? Could it not have waited for 5 days as the WP:RM guidelines suggest? If someone now moves it back they can argue that the WP:RM guidelines were not met and/or request another vote. Seems to me that it would have been better to wait five days because it does less harm than a precipitative move. PBS 10:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Burmese characters

Hello, I can't see the Burmese characters even thought I've installed several Unicode and TTF Burmese fonts in my computer's "Fonts" folder. Is there any way to make them viewable? I have a PC and am using Internet Explorer. Maybe I'm not the only one having this problem, so any help anyone can provide (posting here instead of on my "discussion" page) would be great. Badagnani 00:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I downloaded the font listed at the top of the Yangon article and I can now see the name of the city in Burmese characters. But in the Tofu article I can't read the Burmese characters there (on the right hand side of the page); they are showing up as small boxes. Badagnani 01:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The URL shown at the top of the page no longer resolves, at least not from here. Richard W.M. Jones 10:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

comments on closed RM

While I recently closed the move to Burma in favor, I must say that the edge here is less clearcut, both between editors and the sources. I briefly analysed Espoo's search results below (above), and, while persuasive at first sight, an (admittedly not too deep) analysis also reveals that "rangoon" is indeed more common in older texts; newer ones tend to use Yangon about as equally as Rangoon (see GScholar results Rangoon 1630:Rangoon 1390 for papers published in 2000s), as Timrollpickering's news search also indicated. Duja► 09:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Too bad you didn't also try my trick for finding use in running text (adding "and" or some other often used word). The results you found look as if they use Y and R equally, but include those texts using mainly or always Rangoon and only rarely or once Y, for example explaining "also called Yangon" etc. Using my trick, you can see that among those Google Scholar hits you found for the last 7 years R is still almost 2 times more common and that R is about 3 times more common than Y on edu pages up to 12 months old. All the seemingly equal use you found shows is that although scholars still use mostly R, they are required to mention Y because it's been in official Burmese and UN use for 18 years, but it's still nonsense in their opinion.

Rangoon is 1.7 times more common than Yangon in running text of articles published during the last 7 years found by Google Scholar:

118 Google Scholar hits for "and Rangoon.

69 Google Scholar hits for "and yangon.

Rangoon is 3 times more common than Yangon in running text of edu pages first found by Google during the last year:

18 over the past year for "and Rangoon" site:edu.

6 over the past year for "and Yangon" site:edu.

Rangoon is 2.2 times more common than Yangon in all edu pages first found by Google during the last year:

929 over the past year for Rangoon site:edu.

439 over the past year for Yangon site:edu.

The world's only peer-reviewed printed research journal on Burma published outside of Burma used only Rangoon in the running text of an article in 2005. (Y was used only in the name of an institute and the bibliography.)[3] --Espoo 18:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why only edu? What about edu.*, ac.* etc? Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article still called Yangon when the consensus has been to revert to Rangoon. In any case we must restore the consistency with the Burma article--Mountwolseley (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? And using the location of the country article as reasoning isn't wise as the only reason it's at its current place is because of a disputed RM. Until that article has the location settled it should not be used to drive other changes. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Using Yangon is pandering to an illegitimate regime as well as ignoring the normal useage in English so why is this article gien this name--79.78.204.44 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The status of the regime is irrelevant. As for usage, the indication in the last RM is that Yangon is at last as commonly used as Rangoon. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
"Pandering to an illegitimate regime"? It makes as much as sense as saying using "Rangoon" panders to/legitimizes British colonialism. "Normal English usage"? We'd still be stuck with calling black people the "n" word. I don't like this sadistic regime as much as anyone but I prefer Yangon which is much closer to the actual pronunciation in Burmese. One person's opinion, to be sure and I fully respect people's right to disagree. But there's no consensus to move this article.Hybernator (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. Correct pronounciation of Burmese by foreigners has always been a rarely-mastered skill. Do you say Warszawa, or Moskva or Roma? Normal English usage is entirely relevant in terms of wikipedia policy. (As a matter of fact, British colonialism was quite legitimate at the time - as neither its existence nor the indigenous monarchy it superceded was expected to be based on a direct mandate. Quite unlike the current regime, which pretends to be a people's government.)--AssegaiAli (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, you're entitled to your opinion--even the one about the legitimacy of British colonial rule. (You ought to give more credit to the Brits; they did think they were the civilizing influence on the children of lesser gods.) No one said English usage wasn't relevant. But it's also self-evidently true that English usage isn't set in stone. (Reread my previous post more thoroughly.) You say, Warsaw, I say Beijing. Where does it end? I've refrained from these types of childish (often intellectually lazy) debates because I believe most people on both sides are well meaning (and care about the plight of Burmese people), and because they usually produce little of substance. Both sides tend to argue with emotion and result in verbal overreach that often doesn't stand up to logic or scrutiny. My two pyas.Hybernator (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

City Centre Point Building in Central Yangon

Not sure if this is the right place to point this out, but the picture titled "City Centre Point Building in Central Yangon" that is part of the "Economy" section of the article is not a real picture. It's a computer rendering. There doesn't seem to be anything that explains why this computer-generated picture is present, and even on the picture's page that is linked to the article, there is no mention that the picture is computer generated. I don't know what wikipedia's policy is on this, but it seems like there should at least be a mention that this isn't a real picture, and perhaps an explanation of why a computer-rendered picture is part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.109.224 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

File:DowntownYangon.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DowntownYangon.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:DowntownYangon.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2012

Yangon, Myanmar Or Rangoon, Burma

124.120.184.36 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Request unclear - please state what you want changed/edited. - Happysailor (Talk) 10:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Opium usage in colonial yangon (rangoon)

http://books.google.com/books?id=xhRQAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=oM8tAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=XOcoAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA109#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=kfA3AQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA109#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8AUCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA109#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)



Communications information needs updating

Information regarding mandated licences for watching of foreign satellite TV is out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robincard (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Certain foreign newspapers and periodicals such as the International Herald Tribune and the Straits Times can be found only in a few (mostly downtown) bookstores. This needs updating as the IHT has ceased publishing in 2013. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

2020 and 2025 as "historical"?

In the table "Historical Population" in the Demographics section, it is listed that the population in 2020 is 5.361 millions and 2025 5.869 millions. It is 2014 now. Can 2020 and 2025 be considered historical? These two figures are at best estimates, not historical data. 無聲 (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Yangon

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Now,Myar is'nt Mg Mg Soe.Myar is U Phyo Minn Thein. Hteinlin mit (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—103.25.13.92 (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You haven't explained in what way you think the coordinates in the article were erroneous, and they did indicate a point within the boundaries on Yangon. Nevertheless' I've tweaked them a bit to indicate a spot more centrally located within the city's boundaries. Deor (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Yangon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.



When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Allied war memorial recreational?

Why does an allied war memorial count as a recreational site? 86.132.221.162 (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yangon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Ruthenium is there anyway

Holdup smelting Hurlford ruthenium ruthenium giving tryst Cuxton fuzzy ferrari fuzzy fuzzy 185.241.227.192 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move (2007)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. While I recently closed the move to Burma in favor, I must say that the edge here is less clearcut, both between editors and the sources. I briefly analysed Espoo's search results below, and, while persuasive at first sight, an (admittedly not too deep) analysis also reveals that "rangoon" is indeed more common in older texts; newer ones tend to use Yangon about as equally as Rangoon (see GScholar results Rangoon 1630:Rangoon 1390 for papers published in 2000s), as Timrollpickering's news search also indicated. Duja► 09:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yangon → Rangoon — Rangoon is more common in English. —Reginmund 03:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - as nominator Reginmund 03:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support If you're explaining to a majority of native speakers how they're wrong, it is you who are wrong. dcandeto 15:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The official name of the city is Yangon. The majority of American media call it by its official name of Yangon. The UN recognizes Yangon. Tocino 17:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The UN is forced to use the names dictated by its members for the members and their geographical entities. This says nothing about common use in English, which is the basis of WP naming policy. Even if you'd supplied data to support your claim about US media, that would be a weak argument as shown in the RM discussion on Talk:Burma. Newspapers usually follow some guide, for example the AP's, and don't make independent decisions on names. Independent informed decisions by scholars and other experts strongly favor Rangoon. (see below for data) --Espoo 12:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose CNN is using Yangon, as is the BBC, and other news outlets. 132.205.44.5 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Rangoon is neither more used (than Yangon) nor the official name of the city. There is no logical reason to move this page. This has already been discussed and decided. When is this nonsense going to end?--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 22:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The current name is simply a naming error. WP naming policy is not based exclusively on "official" names, see East Germany and North Korea. On the contrary, it's based on most common use in the general public and among scholars and other experts (in English-speaking countries!), all of which use Rangoon 2.5 to probably about 6 times (general public) more. See data in Discussion section below. --Espoo 12:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per same reasoning as Myanmar --> Burma. "Rangoon" is a far more common form used among English speakers. Húsönd 03:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose no clear evidence that Rangoon is the overwhelmingly more common form. Timrollpickering 08:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per reasoning Myanmar --> Burma. Rangoon is the most common form in English. Used, amongst others, by the BBC, ITN, UK Channel 4, ABC in Australia, The Times of London, The Independent, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Financial Times, Melbourne Herald Sun, The Age (Australia), The Australian, Sydney Morning Herald, TIME magazine, Washington Post, Boston Globe, The Scotsman etc. etc. --Folantin 11:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No evidence to support nomination. PC78 11:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not clear cut. Many news organizations use Yangon over Rangoon including Xinhua, CNN, AP, AFP, Al Jazeera, India Times, New York Times, Daily Yomiuri, Channel News Asia, ABSCBN (Philippines), Bloomberg News, Radio Netherlands, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Wall Street Journal, International Herald Tribune, The Scotsman, Seattle Times, Independent Online (South Africa), Bangkok Post, New Straits Times (Malaysia), AGI (Italy), RTE News (Ireland), etc. Neither is dominant in current English publications. In the absence of an obvious primary name, we should defer to the standard international name, i.e. what does the ISO use? --Polaron | Talk 00:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. ရန္‌ကုန္‌မ္ရုိ့ is the official name of the city, not "Yangon." Wikipedia is not bound to throw out the English name of the city and follow SLORC's weak transliteration system. —  AjaxSmack  21:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support since Rangoon is far more common in English than Yangon. Chris! my talk 06:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The UN recognized Yangon, The only reason for changing the name to Rangoon is to show support for pro-Democracy movements. The name Rangoon is no more accurate, and this is not the place for political agendas. 66.92.44.172 01:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The UN is forced to use the names dictated by its members for the members and their geographical entities. The reason for the proposed move is no doubt also to show support for the legitimate and democratically elected government kept in opposition by the illegal military regime, but the name change is based on WP policies, including the principles of least astonishment, preference in reputable sources, most common use by general public, use by governments of English-speaking countries, to name just a few... --Espoo 12:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The reason for using Rangoon is that English does, and always has. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support: Rangoon is much more common on reputable websites such as edu-pages and in Google scholar hits. (see data below) --Espoo 11:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Please read Names of Burma/Myanmar before deciding on the best name for this city. Also what do most reliable English language sources use? --PBS 12:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • As a random start, a Google search of English for yangon -rangoon yields 2,670,000 English pages. rangoon -yangon yields 2,630,000 English pages. Can either said to be the overwhelming contemporary English usage? I'll look through news and scholar later. Timrollpickering 12:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reliable websites show a very clear preference for Rangoon:

Rangoon 3.5 times more common than Yangon in running scholarly text: 462 Google Scholar hits for "and Rangoon, 131 Google Scholar hits for "and Yangon

Rangoon 2.4 times more common in all scholarly texts found by Google scholar, including those texts always using Rangoon and only once explaining this as "also called Yangon" etc.: 6,600 Google Scholar hits for Rangoon 2,730 Google Scholar hits for Yangon]

The situation on edu-pages is even more in favor of Rangoon:

Rangoon 4.7 times more common in running text on edu pages: 272 for site:edu "and Rangoon 57 for site:edu "and Yangon

Rangoon 2.4 times more common on all edu pages 38,300 for site:edu "Rangoon 16,400 for site:edu "yangon

The world's only peer-reviewed printed research journal on Burma published outside of Burma uses only or mostly Rangoon[4]

--Espoo 11:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, there is no consensus below that one or the other of these names is the Commonname. Additionally, the arguments for consistency are not supported by consensus. Because the unresolved consistency arguments and commonname arguments are in opposition to each other and our titling policy does not prioritize these criteria in anyway, there is no consensus in this discussion to make the move. Mike Cline (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yangon → Rangoon –It's been several years since we moved to 'Burma', so I think it's time to revisit this. Sources which use 'Burma' also use 'Rangoon', and those which use 'Myanmar' use 'Yangon': the two go together. "Yangon, Burma" is not used any more than "Rangoon, Myanmar". (As for 'Yangon' being official, yes, it is, but that's not what we base our decisions on. As for it being 'illegitimate', that's not what we base our decisions on either.) — kwami (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose No one term is predominant in English, both names are used widely by media sources and the location of the country's article argument should not be the determinant of where the city's article should be. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - seems a fair assessment of the status quo and it's nice to be consistent. Given that the FT has just changed its usage policy in the other direction, we may yet have to watch out for change in usage, but presently I think this move is the right thing to do. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose per SWH's comment below. Bigbluefish (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Yangon is not some obscure name. It's widely used, perhaps even more so than Rangoon nowadays. And also per rationale by Timrollpickering. Consistency? One can argue for Yangon, Myanmar as well. Wikipedia's change to Burma in 2007 shouldn't drive other name place changes. Hybernator (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
    • If anybody has evidence that Yangon is more widely used than Rangoon, that would be most helpful; without that, this is mere assertion. JCScaliger (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, per JCScaliger's ngram, which shows three times as many RS mentions for "Rangoon" as for "Yangon". GeoNames gives "Rangoon" as the "conventional" (meaning English-language) name of this city. World Encyclopedia (2005) and the Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (2005) both give "Rangoon" as their preferred spelling. "Rangoon" certainly blows away "Yangon" as a search term in the U.S., according to Google Insights. (See the bar graph on the right.) Kauffner (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Google Insights proves the folly of a blind search/comparison of Rangoon and Yangon. Look closely and people are searching for crabrangoon! Most media sources (save perhaps some UK ones) now use Yangon. Even FT has changed. You have to prove that Yangon is not commonly used, and that it's not a common term. Hybernator (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop making things up. Adding "crab Rangoon" shows only that it is vanishingly rare compared to either name of the city, as one might expect. JCScaliger (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think he is not "making things up". He is talking about the Google Insights and not about the Ngram.SWH talk 12:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is Google Insights without "crab". It certainly makes a difference. But "Rangoon" is what the majority of readers are searching for. Kauffner (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, to paraphrase Twain, then there are statistics! Your selective slice takes out "crab" and "recipe" but covers the US only. Even then, Rangoon is ahead but it's a leap to say "the majority". When you also take out other terms (-restaurant -creeper -movie -Philadelphia -beyond -cheese -palo -piya -red), the two trends are practically the same: [5]. Now, even in the supposed bastion of Burma/Rangoon use, the UK, the two lines are the same: [6]. If anything, Yangon is slightly ahead. Australia? It's Yangon, hands down: [7]. Now, if we dare look at what the entire world is searching for, it's Yangon by a wide margin: [8]. Even in the Anglo-centric world, the search trends show Yangon is a common term. The stats, however one may slice them, haven't proved otherwise. Hybernator (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment: If we compare "Yangon Myanmar" and "Rangoon Burma" (In US), Yangon is taking the lead by a wide margin. Unlike comparison between Rangoon and Yangon, the shown-up categories seem to be more relevant. (Categories:People & Society, Arts & Entertainment, Travel, News, Reference, Autos & Vehicles. But for "Rangoon and Yangon" comparison, categories are Food & Drink, Arts & Entertainment, Health, News, Hobbies & Leisure and Shopping) SWH talk 02:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Well, if one looks at Ngram, I am sure he'll find Rangoon is predominantly used. But please note most of the books are dealing with Rangoon as the British Burma's capital. Not today Yangon. For the search term usage, I found evidences to the contrary. (Search term usage is also not RS). General search term usage is misleading because nobody knows whether one is searching for today Yangon or Rangoon as the capital of British Burma. (Also, check out top searches. People are searching for things like Crab Rangoon or Beyond Rangoon rather than Yangon as a city in Burma. And during the Nargis cyclone in 2008, the results for Yangon almost double that of Rangoon. ) If we change the setting to other English speaking countries like Singapore, the result for Rangoon is almost non-existent. Check out search term usage in News search, usage for Rangoon is almost non-existent.


Yangon is also predominantly used in News. (2,140 results Vs 724 results) (Unlike book and scholar, news results are not interfered by the historically significant usage of Rangoon) Yangon is also more common in General Search. SWH talk 15:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I took out the crab and the movie, but that doesn't change much. I get 49,400 post-2000 English-language Google Book results for Rangoon -crab -Beyond-Rangoon, 18,600 for Yangon -crab -Beyond-Rangoon. In the news, Rangoon gets 15,400 post-2000 hits, Yangon 22,600. The BBC uses "Rangoon". Kauffner (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the sake of consistency. I'm not so sure about the arguments based on WP:COMMONNAME - it's difficult to evaluate which name is really most used in English, since even if 'Rangoon' gets more hits they may be from older or historical sources, while 'Yangon' might be more common in modern usage. But the one thing I am sure of is that we make ourselves look silly by calling the articles Burma and Yangon. In the absence of the former being moved to Myanmar (which doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon), the least we can do is move the latter to restore a semblance of logic. Robofish (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Both the US and UK embassies refer to themselves as being in Rangoon. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yangon has entered the lexicon in the English speaking world - The New York Times, for example, sees no reason to bother with Rangoon ([9]) at all. Since both terms are apparently well used in the English speaking world, and since the article has been at this title for a considerable period of time (since October 2003), there is no reason to move it now. --regentspark (comment) 21:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • ::::::Comment: Cambridge and Oxford Universities both continue to use Rangoon, so do SOAS, arguably the leading and most prolific (in terms of quantity of output) academic institute on matters Burma/Myanmar related. BBC uses Rangoon. As does CNN [10], Der Spiegel [11], The Guardian [12], The Irrawaddy Magazine (the leading foreign-language news source focussed on Burma/Myanmar) [13]. Robincard (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Religion pie chart is all wrong

The religion pie chart seems very wrong. Islam apparently constitutes 4.7% of the population and Christianity 3.2%, yet Christianity isn't even visible yet the "other" religions making up 0.1% is about as big as the Islam slice. Hinduism is ten times bigger than "other", yet is also not visible. Additionally there is no source for this information. It's not clear to me how to fix this. --Craig (t|c) 14:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Religion Pie Chart

I'm new to editing wikipedia, but I see that the religion pie chart is inconsistent/wrong. How can it be fixed? 205.175.106.108 (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yangon/Archive_1&oldid=1219019914"