Talk:History of Myanmar

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 4, 2005, January 4, 2006, and January 4, 2007.

Myanmar Top‑importance

History of Myanmar is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.MyanmarWikipedia:WikiProject MyanmarTemplate:WikiProject MyanmarMyanmar articles

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet, requested articles on Burmese subjects and articles on smaller towns and villages
Expand : Top-importance and High-importance articles
Photo : add photos of incumbent politicians
Stubs : Category:Myanmar stubs
Update : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet after 2015 election
Other : If you know Burmese, go on the Myanmar Wikipedia and make sure each article on the English Wikipedia has one in Burmese also

Southeast Asia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Pre-history of Burma

========

While the chronicles of Burma clearly speak of pre-Buddhist Indian political influence on Burma and while such politico-culturo-religious influence has been seen in each every modern day country of South East Asia, it is travesty that there is no effort to research or even mention this in the pre-historic section. South East Asia was extensively influenced by the Hindu kingdoms of India before the original peoples were over-run by peoples coming in from other places ( Sino-Tibetan). The result of this intermixing and peopling resulted in not only displacement of the original civilisations but also decimated culturo-religious traditions and political chronicling. Greater effort must be put to investigate and properly mention pre-history before such "peopling" of the region, especially when the Hindu Indic influence is present for all to see everywhere, right from the name of the biggest river Airawaddy, along whose banks the majestic Burmese elephants were found and became famous. That's the reason why the river was named after Indra's elephant. This is commonsense and so clear, yet nowhere to be found in any "authoritative source" written by Europeans of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOnlyEmperor (talk • contribs) 11:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anniversary of Independence

An event in this article is a January 4 selected anniversary

Separate histories for Burma and Myanmar?

Yes I am being provocative by establishing a separate History of Burma page rather than expanding the History of Myanmar page. I feel strongly about the Burma-Myanmar issue, as do the people of Burma, who sadly have no voice here or elsewhere. If this page is reverted to History of Myanmar I will be very cross. Dr Adam Carr 04:45, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Would it be forward of me to suggest that the two pages be merged, with one re-directing to the other. It seems to me this would make the most sense, as it allows the same information to be available whichever name you choose. It has already been done with Burma -> Myanmar - OK, so which direction you re-direct in is open to debate, but both that page and this refer to the controversy, so users can make up their own minds. (And since very few people will notice the re-direction at all, it is a fairly academic debate at that). See also my comment on Talk:Myanmar - IMSoP 03:50, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think it should be left as it is. The real-world situation is rather ambiguous, and the page structure reflects that. Adam 05:22, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I disagree - many topics covered in an encyclopedia are likely to be amgiguous, and even controversial, but that is no reason for the structure of the encyclopedia itself to be confusing and inconsistent. History of Myanmar is currently never linked back to from this page, and is essentially a stub version of the same article. I see no reason for both to continue existing.

I'm going to stick my neck out, and

copy the "see also" section from History of Myanmar (the only advantage that page currently has)
attempt to correct a few biases in your language

I won't put the re-direct in yet, in case you can suggest a solid reason not to

- IMSoP 19:18, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I naturally have no objection to abolishing History of Myanmar. I would strongly object to abolishing this page. The English name of the country is Burma. Adam

I will move this to History of Myanmar (merging the two page histories in the process). The English name of the country is not Burma. I also left a comment on the bottom of Talk:Myanmar. --Jia ng 23:44, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Reverse bias

Seems like History is always the victor's... now that the ex-colonies have gained independence, they get to write their own version of history that was formerly written by the colonial powers.

Let's restore some factual statements and leave the propaganda aside.

reply: You could start with giving us a piece that you feel is biased. From that point we could evaluate the evidence and make changes accordingly. I completely understand your initial point and do not mean to reduce it; however, let's be specific. The ball's in your court.richardtgreer (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Wagaung (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with dates and/or ordering of events

The last paragraph in the "World War II and Japan" section of the artcle, says the following:

In March 1945, the Burma National Army rose up in a countrywide rebellion against the Japanese. Afterward, Aung San and others began negotiations with Lord Mountbatten in October 1943 and officially joined the Allies as the Patriotic Burmese Forces or PBF.

Either there needs to be some reordering of events or somebody needs to check the dates. I'd do it myself, but I'm not a Burmese history buff (yet) and currently do not have the time to look up the dates/order of events myself. Matatigre36 07:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the correction. The October 1943 date refers to the earliest contact between the AFO/AFPFL and the British. The date was left in as a fragment from successive rewrites of the paragraph. 168.127.0.51 16:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information from authoratative sources with citations

I've published three papers on early modern Burmese history (c. 1350-1600). I'm adding the most essential information from what most historians accept as authoritative sources for this period like the late Dr. U Than Tun, Dr. Yi Yi, U San Lwin, Dr. Sunait Chutintaranond of Chulalongkorn university, U Tun Aung Chain of the Burma Historical Commission, U Thaw Kaung of the national library, professor Victor Lieberman of University of Michigan, Dr. Charney of University of London, Mon scholars Nai Pan Hla and Halliday, Emmanuel Guillon, etc. I'm starting with timelines like those found for the Tudor dynasty in England. I will provide citations and references. I am a writer for the Bangkok Post newspaper in Thailand.

The strategy I have decided to take is to leave the page intact and add specific biographical and dynastic entries which I will write providing thorough citations for all information. It will be easier to separate out exactly what I added in this case Jonfernquest 05:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Myanmar

I have extracted everything from History of Myanmar and summarised it on the "History of Myanmar" section in the Myanmar article. If any citations, clarifications, or corrections are made, can any editor please do so on the Myanmar article? Thanks. Hintha 23:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do (Jonfernquest 11:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Updated Ava and Pegu section with Chinese - Tai relations (Jonfernquest 02:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Related merge

I am proposing the merger of multiple articles into Burmese Kingdom-it's a horrible article, but the bulk of the others are stubs, and it is a good place to grow them from, and catch information for the uninformed reader who doesn't know where to look. The only reason I suggest _any_ of these merges are there are so many little stubs, a larger more inclusive article would be better. Chris 18:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Races??

Why is "race" used in the first sentence? Even if race were real, and its not in humans, the region was populated with "peoples" or "ethnic groups" or migrants. Mulp 05:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I see no reason why race can't be changed to ethnic group. richardtgreer (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam borders Burma?

Why in the first section of this article is it stated that Viet Nam borders Burma? Can we agree to remove Viet Nam from that sentence? Or, perhaps the author can express better his/her meaning of neighbor?--richardtgreer (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say Vietnam borders Burma, just included in the neighbouring countries which it is since there is only the northernmost stretch of Laos in between. Wagaung (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decent point. I concede. Obviously, my intuitive though of neighbor is an adjacent country.richardtgreer (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Can someone just clarify in the article if the Pyu kingdoms were from China and if the section on Pyu being the first civilization holds true seeing as the paragraph above it cleary contradicts it being such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.14.210 (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful study guide

Editors can find a credible amount of help from Cooler, Dr. Richard M. (Last updated: 11/02/09). "THE ART AND CULTURE OF BURMA Introduction" (Illustrated study guide). The art and culture of Burma. SEAsite, Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Illinois University. Retrieved 6:17 PM 1/20/2011. The purpose of this on-line study-guide and course-outline is to make text and visual materials on the arts of Burma readily and inexpensively available, in particular to students and teachers. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) --Pawyilee (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naresuan's alleged conquest of Toungoo

To the users (or sock puppets) who've been making repeated edits, saying that Naresuan conquered Toungoo. What's taught in Thai school books notwithstanding, the fact is that Naresuan laid siege to Toungoo in 1600 for about a month (April to May) but he was driven back by the combined Toungoo and Arakanese forces. This is an accepted fact, not just by historians on Burma but also by historians of Thai and Southeast Asian history, including David Wyatt, perhaps the most prominent academic on Thai history. I'm not aware of any English language books by historians of any nationality that claim otherwise. (Find a modern Thai historian who has written in a peer-reviewed paper that Naresuan conquered Toungoo.) Yes, you've cited Prince Damrong's book, which has an English language translation by a Burmese man. No offense but that book is not a history book; it's a highly nationalist account written by a Siamese prince with an ax to grind that took a lot of liberties with facts. I understand Damrong's version is what's in Thai school books. Have you given thought that not everything you see in schoolbooks may not be true? I request that you consult other sources too.

Till then, I'm going to revert the changes you've made in all other articles, and I'll have to report the incident.Hybernator (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of Myanmar. 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:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Myanmar. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509013747/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5greyFH3qkj9mc9oagSoulgjN4KHgD90HICSO3 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5greyFH3qkj9mc9oagSoulgjN4KHgD90HICSO3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious or confusing prehistory claims

Currently the article says, "About 1500 BCE, people in the region were turning copper into bronze, growing rice, and domesticating chickens and pigs; they were among the first people in the world to do so." Which of these is it they were among the first to do based on this activity in 1500 BCE? Not make bronze, which had been going on for some 2,000 years by that time. Not domesticate pigs, which had been done for some 7,000 years by this time. Not domesticate chickens, which had been done for some 4,000 years by this time. Not grow rice, which goes back at least 7,000 years, and likely more, before this time. So is this sentence simply ludicrous or just badly written. It is true that one of the places chickens were first domesticated was Southeast Asia (as well as India), though much earlier. So perhaps the article was merely stating that all of these activities were ongoing by 1500 BCE in the region of Myanmar and chicken domestication had actually been adopted there much earlier than anywhere else. If that's all that was meant, it's not clear what the significance of 1500 BCE was; it seems like an arbitrary date. In any case, the section needs revision. Ftjrwrites (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Myanmar. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of Myanmar. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annexation_during_the_Third_Anglo-Burmese_War

The source used in last sentence of this section does not make any sense. Marx died two year before the event. Mootros (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on History of Myanmar. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Free Daw Aung San Su Kyi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits for Readability, Grammar, Fragments, Unclear Meanings (New User please, don't know codes to make changes)

I read The (first section, I believe it needs a Sub-heading under 'History of Myanmar') and from 'British Rule' through to the end. I am not a Wiki editor, I've read some of the guides but absolutely don't know how to edit the text itself, I'm afraid I'll mess it up if I do direct edits so I would appreciate if someone makes the changes themselves.

In general there is a lot of great information in this article but the way the sentences are structured makes it hard for someone unfamiliar with the history to digest the information-- I will make some edits here but I would do this all day if I don't stop myself, so I've set a timer and will not get to all 12 pages... Could you use these suggestions and then, ultimately:

Could someone please just try reading this out loud? You will see where it gets confusing. Passive tense, run-ons, some sentences seem to start (then a comma and another part) then not finish what was started. Just needs clarity, some simplification to improve readability.

For example: Second sentence reads: 'The earliest inhabitants of recorded history were a Tibeto-Burman-speaking people who established the Pyu city-states ranged as far south as Pyay and adopted Theravada Buddhism.'

Improvement: 'The earliest inhabitants of recorded history were a Tibeto-Burman-speaking people who established the Pyu city-states, ranging as far south as Pyay and adopting Theravada Buddhism. (Also you could add 'as a religion.' at the end?)

Next (Fine.) Next sentence: They went on to establish the Pagan Kingdom (1044–1297), the first-ever unification of the Irrawaddy valley and its periphery. The Burmese language and Bamar culture slowly came to replace Pyu norms during this period. After the First Mongol invasion of Burma in 1287, several small kingdoms, of which the Kingdom of Ava, the Hanthawaddy Kingdom, the Kingdom of Mrauk U and the Shan States were principal powers, came to dominate the landscape, replete with ever-shifting alliances and constant wars.'

Improvement: ...'They unified the valley for the first time, establishing the Pagan Kingdom (1044-1297). The Burmese...(Fine). ...'After the First Mongol invasion of Burma in 1287 several small kingdoms, (including* the Kingdom of Ava, Hanthawaddy Kingdom, Kingdom of Mrauk U and The Shan States) were principal powers came to dominate the landscape, replete with ever-shifting alliances and constant wars.'

note: I could not tell upon reading this whether 'were principal powers' meant that they were ALL the kingdoms, or if there are many and these are the most notable ones. If the former you could say 'principally the Kingdom of...' or 'consisting of...' but if there were numerous kingdoms and these were just the largest/notable ones you would want to say 'including...' or 'among of the (then name them) came replete with ever shifting alliances,' etc...

I'm not fantastic with punctuation but I know this could be much more clear. To be completely honest, these sections read like they are written by a very intelligent, high-level fluid-English speaker that may have learned English as a second language. If I find time to commit myself-- first I would have to learn how you actually edit the page directly and to be frank I tried to learn from the help pages but it's been hours and I'm afraid to touch things because I don't know what will happen to your beautiful article. So don't count on me-- in the mean time, could one of you please just:

Read this article out loud. It's hard to do, you will see where things are not clear.

If anyone wants to message me direct perhaps I could improve. Thanks for your help.

p.s., this doesn't apply to ALL of the article, much of it is very clear and simple. There are just some spots, you can tell it was written by different people.

Sentence clarification under WWII section

Please make this change?:

Last part of WWII section: 'Ba Maw was afterwards declared head of state, and his cabinet included both Aung San as War Minister and the Communist leader Thakin Than Tun as Minister of Land and Agriculture as well as the Socialist leaders Thakins Nu and Mya. When the Japanese declared Burma, in theory, independent in 1943, the Burma Defence Army (BDA) was renamed the Burma National Army (BNA).[36]'

Change to 'Ba Maw was afterwards declared head of state. Aung San was made War Minister, and notably the cabinet also included the Communist leader Thakin Than Tun (Minister of Land and Agriculture) and Socialist leaders Thakins Nu and Mya.*(What offices?)

Note: The other offices were listed. Either need offices for everyone or else remove the office title for Thakin Than Tun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insight12345 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence clarification to be made under 'Joining the Allies'

Again, sorry for my incompetence-- please consider making these changes (for me) to improve readability and Grammar--

Run-on. Should say: '...and Socialist leaders Ba Swe and Kyaw Nyein. Leading to the formation of the Anti-Fascist...'

After '...League (AFPFL)'... While in Insein Prison Thakin Than Tun and Soe co-authored the Insein Manifesto. The manifesto conflicted with the prevailing Dobama movement opinion* by identifying world fascism as the major adversary/obstacle** presenting the Burmese people at the time. It also called for building a large allied coalition to improve the chance of success in the coming war, which should include temporary collaboration with both the British and the Soviet Union. Than Tun was able to pass on Japanese intelligence to Soe, while the other Communist leaders Thakin Thein Pe and Tin Shwe made contact with the exiled colonial government that had been displaced to Simla, India."

- Which is? It conflicted with prevailing opinion of Dobama movement but then it implies Dobama movement believed something else was the main enemy of the coming war. I don't know what that is, you should mention it (again) in a word or two.
'enemy' sounds awkward. Are any of these synonyms more appropriate to your intended meaning?: Issue, challenge, adversary,
- - I feel like 'World Fascism should maybe be capitalized. But I'm not sure why. It's a grammatical intuition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insight12345 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]