You say Burma, I say Myanmar

I just checked the online version of the AP Stylebook, and it says to use Myanmar. I'd go with that.

In the Southeast Asian region, this is a political question.

One uses "Burma" if supporting the traditional name of that part of the region and is showing support for the Shan people.

One uses "Myanmar" if showing support for the vicious, murdering, repressive junta.

Did I give away my politics regarding the issue?

Unfortunately, you can't let your personal politics dictate style.

Just to make this even stickier...

This is not a political piece. It's a story about a group of American acupuncturists who have been teaching the Karen tribespeople acupuncture techniques so that they have their own 'medics.'

So while it does discuss the issues surrounding the Karen rebellion, it's not political per se.

I suppose I could use Burma/Myanmar throughout, but that seems awkward.

(I have my own thoughts on the politics of that region, but it really has no bearing on this article)

as I am friends with many Burmese people, I refer to their country as Burma, just as they do. I agree with dabjite, it's very political.. but I'd say go with what the country's refugees and inhabitants call it, and that would be Burma.

AP says Myanmar.

Burma.

I have Burmese friends who are refugees here in Canada and I'd say go with what they call it, as they would know best.

Well, what style guide does your house use? The AP may say Myanmar, but Chicago leans towards Burma (that is, I can't find any discussion of how to refer to the -country-, but it -does- use "Burmese people" to refer to the residents thereof).

[Whoops, I guess you answered this in your post. I lose at reading comprehension. Still, it interests me that the guides have different opinions, so I'll leave this up here.]

We use AP.

At one point, the author had used "Burmese army."

So does that stay the same, or does it become "Myanmar army?"

Myanmarese? That sounds like a sentient form of mayonnaise.

I think it actually depends on whether or not the country referring to Burma/Myanmar recognizes the validity of the current regime, and therefore the validity of that regime to change the name of the country. There are countries, I believe, that don't recognize the junta as the valid goverment of Burma, thus they would call the country Burma.

I think. Don't take my word for it.

Just seems to me this is the type of thing where you can't avoid the politics, no matter how hard you try.

The UN recognizes Myanmar. Take that for what you will.

Let me begin by saying that I do not know the current AP advisory on this.

I've seen both usages, and it seems to follow along these lines, which I agree with:

The ruling junta wants people to call it Myanmar. It is, I believe, in fact illegal within the country to call it Burma. I don't know the reasons for this, but they are obviously political.

By most accounts, the ruling junta is brutal and ruthless. The use of 'Burma' is apparently a reaction to this, a form of passive resistance, as well as a statement of solidarity with the people of the country, who did not vote on the name change, and upon whom it is enforced, apparently against their wishes (or at least without public consent).

It makes sense that the UN would use 'Myanmar,' as the nation is a member, and all members are afforded due respect according to whomever currently speaks for them in that forum. However corrupt, the ruling junta is represented at the UN by representatives who insist upon the name Myanmar.

Several years ago, usage outside of the country and diplomatic circles seemed to be about split. There seemed to me an earlier attempt on the part of many journalists to afford tacit respect to the regime on this matter.

Since then, however, I've seen 'Myanmar' less and less, and 'Burma' much more. It seems to me that outside circles where it's required, most people refuse to use the new name, apparently due to ugly feelings towards the ruling junta and a sense that this is not the name their own people would prefer to use. That is, while the actual citizens may not use 'Burma,' almost everyone else can, and does as a matter of deference to an oppressed populace.

A quick Google News search finds the use of 'Burma' by: BBC, Times of London, Voice of America, Washington Post, Boston Globe, SF Chronicle, Guardian, Christian Science Monitor (adding 'Myanmar' in parens after), Telegraph, and ABC.

Meanwhile, I find 'Myanmar' used by Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters, Bloomberg, New York Times, and Economist, as well as the majority of Middle Eastern, Asian, and Western Pacific sources (Commonwealth sources not represented), plus the majority of represented smaller domestic sources.

I have not checked all these links. I've tried to ignore what I believe are commentary pieces (in which contributors are usually free to use their own preference, apart from house styles). I also don't know which examples may be externally sourced (originating from AP, UPI, etc.). However, unless I missed one, it looks to me like every direct AP example used 'Myanmar'.

So if you need to know the AP standard, I would probably go with Myanmar. Otherwise, I would say to use what you feel is your best judgment.

I will say that it appears to me that the majority of larger Atlantic-area (British, UK, Western Europe) sources prefer 'Burma,' except for what I believe are more business-oriented sources (WSJ, Bloomberg, etc.), who seem to prefer 'Myanmar'. Major global sources AP and Reuters seem to prefer 'Myanmar'. CSM seems to prefer Burma, but adds the clarifying 'Myanmar'. I did not notice examples from UPI.

Well said and well done.

I would say overall the parallels are to Cambodia/Kampuchea, or Congo/Zaire. If the junta were to fall tomorrow, the country would be officially Burma again the day after tomorrow.

I think the split you observe between some news outlets and business sources using the official Myanmar and so many others retaining Burma has to do with whether one needs to work with the junta on a day-to-day basis or not.

Avoiding the hot coals and the style guides, I will mention that I have seen the construction "Myanmar, formerly known as Burma."

That's what I did for the first reference. But now I'm all confused...

I've seen instances of "Myanmar, formerly known as Burma" in one of the national papers here, which seems to tread the line.

A lot of this depends on in-house style. Many places that otherwise go by AP have their own exceptions on certain things--"Native American" v. AP's "American Indian," for example.

I'd ask your editorial board.

We usually go by Getty for anything we're not sure about. They call for Myanmar, since that's the official name used by the government in charge. However, the US government's official stance is still to call it Burma, according to the CIA Factbook.

In this case, because of the potentially touchy political issues involved, I'd say defer to the author and cite the alternate name on first reference. (And any reference to the current country's army should use the current ruling body's name, so it doesn't appear to refer to any kind of opposition army.)

Much as it pains me to agree with the CIA, I think that's where I'm leaning.

This is what I would do, and say "Myanmar" when referring to the army.

F' math – politics is hard. Mostly, I think, because math changes less.

Myanmar...Burma...Cambodia...Kampuchea

Damn countries change their names more than I change the oil in my car! :>

I don't know much about the issues involved, but I have frequently seen the formulation "Burma [Myanmar]" or vice-versa, "Myanmar [Burma]." This formulation does a good job of recognizing that the country's official name is Myanmar while giving proper acknowledgment to the fact that it should be Burma. On the other hand, even that could be cumbersome used throughout a lengthy piece.

Coming late to the party...

Personally I take the view that the most recognisable (to the reading market) is the one to go with. What confirmed me in this was the bombings in Mumbai (c BBC) in 2005 when everyone in Britain said, 'Where? Right. Whatever.' When it finally emerged that the city involved was actually Bombay, the reaction was more like, 'OMG!'

I see it as a local terminology/pronunciation thing. Such as, you wouldn't call Paris 'Paree', though that's what the locals call it. That doesn't mean we in the west are rubbish for calling it 'Paris'.

This whole (political) kerfuffle invariably reminds me of the Londonderry/Derry controversy that dogs the Northern Ireland city of the same name(s). If you're of a British inclination (politically), it's the post-colonial Londonderry; for the Irish it's the older Derry - which led to the typically Irish jibe of its new nickname, Stroke City. The Irish have always been good at calling shit.

Edited for terminology. Bloody foreign names.