Jump to content

Talk:Naypyidaw

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

Needs updating

[edit]

The article is quite out of date. Lots of sentences are still reflecting the shock of the initial move, and don't properly describe the crazed building work of the last year or two. Somebody needs to read all the recent articles, and photos and so on about Naypyidaw (I'm adding them to the external links) and then update the text of the whole article. Francis Irving 09:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can not follow the Myanmar Military Covernment term of Naypyidaw

[edit]

Naypyidaw is defined by Military government which robbed the People State Power since 1962 coup. Military government is exactly same as dictatorship. Now, rumor said, top military junta is happy with his closed disciples who serve him like a king. Therefore, Burmese military government members is dragging the country to 200 year back 4th Burmese kingdom. It is totally not acceptable behalf of democratic Burmese or Multi party supporters including Aung San Suu Kyi supporters. Finally, Myanmar new capital should be Pyinmana instead of Naypyidaw. We do not want to be influenced by Kingdom term.

While you have valid points, you must also remember that this is Wikipedia, an online Encyclopedia and it is politically "neutral". Therefore, I would suggest you would take your protest to nearest Myanmar embassay and camp outside there. Wikipedia is not a place for protest. If you cannot contribute anything, please dont desecrate it, it is still our country, whether we like the government or not. Okkar 04:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a typical anal retentive Wikipedia response. We must abide by naming conventions given by the people themselves even if "the people" means a brutal military dictatorship. Yes, there SHOULD be a place for politics on Wikipedia. Is this the capital recognized by the Burmese people? We could ask them but their internet was cut off by their brutal military dictatorship. Oh well. Stop treating the Wikipedia rules like the 10 commandments and understand that the rules should and can be changed.--Apples99 03:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs)

This link doesn't work and I can't find another. Quite an important thing to verify really, if anyone knows of one that would be great. If not I'll search more when I have time. Iancaddy 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pyinmana or Pyinmana-Kyetpyei?

[edit]

Why do Burmese news broadcasts almost exclusively refer to the site of the new capital as "Pyinmana-Kyetpyei" (the two towns adjacent to the relocation site), rather than Pyinmana? ([1]) Hintha 07:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but there are no Google hits for “Kyetpyei” as of 2006-05-02, so it seems the name (or rather, its romanisation) is not used on the English internet. The MOFA site even says Yangon is the capital. If you find out more, please share. 11:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

“Kyetpyei” is a village to the west of Pyinmana where government ministries have now moved to.

You report "superior invaders (in this case, the USA) would be defeated if Myanmar was invaded again". Is there some reason to expect such an invasion?Fconaway 23:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Pyinmana and Naypyidaw

[edit]

I think we should not merge the two articles, because they are different cities. Maybe perhaps someone should just edit out repeated information. Hintha 20:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Merging the two wouldn't be suitable. Though many people think that they are the same city, the truth is they're not. They might be quite close but they're in different locations. Naypyidaw is a new city built near Pyinmana.

  • I vote against merging. They are separate entities. Regardless of whether or not the junta is the legitimate ruler, the two locations are intended as separate locations and will likely effectively be separate locations. To merge them is hard to legitimize for anything other than political posturing and gamesmenship. --Bobak 20:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Merge -- Currently, the two are seperate (but probably overlapping) entities. "Naypyidaw" refers explicitly to the new captial built by the government in the area of the historic city of "Pyinmana". My guess is that if the new capital continues to grow, Pyinmana will eventually be absorbed into Naypyidaw, but even then, Pyinmana would still deserve its own aritcle (IMHO) as a hitorical entity, but of course we should save that discussion for if/when that happens.--WilliamThweatt 21:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONT MERGE -- Pyinmana does deserve its own article, it has so much history that is intertwined with our country's independance struggles. Naypyidaw is the new administrative city, which just happens to be built next to Pyinmana, that doesnt mean we have to nuke the Pyinmana off the map. Okkar 04:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against Merger for the reasons given by Okkar. Andrew Dalby 12:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to call Nay Pyi Daw Or Pyin Ma Ngar, but now in myanmar country capital city is a pyin ma ngar (Nay Pyi Daw). Its call a capitical city. Do u know they changed name : kyatpyae" is thapyaegone'

Coordinates

[edit]

Hi mates, the coordinates seem to be the ones of Yangon / Rangoon to me ...

No, I double-checked the cooridinates, they are correct. The longitude is almost the same because Naypyidaw is almost directly north of Yangon (same line of longitude), and it is about 320 km north so about 3 degrees of latitude. The coordinates of Rangoon listed in its article were slightly off, though. I think somebody forgot a "0" or misplaced their decimal point, but I fixed it earlier.--WilliamThweatt 22:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although, as I wrote above, the coordinates were correct in the Pyinmana article, they were incorrect in the Naypyidaw aricle (didn't realize the two shared a talk page). I fixed them so all three pages should give the correct coordinates now.--WilliamThweatt 22:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinates were incorrectly centered on the city of Pyinmana - I moved the coordinates of Naypyidaw to the area of newly-constructed buildings west of Pyinmana visible in the Google Maps imagery. Molas 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the map of Mandalay Region and you know how wrong the marked spot is positioned. Thanks for soon correction. Horst Emscher (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Some" three kilometers

[edit]

The piece states that the location is, "some 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) west of Pyinmana..." Why "some"? If we know that it is three kilometers away from Pyinmana then this information should be stated. If it is more or less, then that distance should be stated. When presenting a distance as short as three kilometers it isn't very useful to write in terms of "some." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.183.249.50 (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the formulation "some 3 km" in this context (except that it is too short a distance!); it is the over-precision of "3.2 km" that is inappropriate in this context. 3.2 km from where to where? We are not writing about, say, the re-location of a post-office building, but the foundation of a new city officially occupying an area of more than 7,000 km2. The map-distance between the centres of Naypyidaw and Pyinmana is, in fact, some 13 km, and I have amended the article accordingly. -- Picapica (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check out

[edit]

As I have checked out with Korean Correspondent living in Myanmar, the two cities are complete seperate entity. The chracteristics of Pyinmana and Naypyidaw is same as Minneapolis and St.Paul in the USA

And why is an unidentified Korean correspondent a useful resource for a question that does not involve Korea? Why not cite a candian farmer? Why not turn to a Namibian nurse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.183.249.50 (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporating more info.

[edit]

User:Francis Irving has recommended using [2] to incorporate further information to the Naypyidaw article. If any editors would like to, feel free to do so and cite the source. Thanks. Hintha 03:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Time to get workin'

[edit]

This is now officially a capital so we should try to bring this up to the same quality as Rangoon. Felixboy 16:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "Naypyidaw"

[edit]

So how is it pronounced? --さくら木 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nay" rhymes with "say", "pyi" rhymes with "see", but with the "y" sound placed between the "p" (soft 'p') and the "i", and "daw" rhymes with "law". The IPA of the pronunciation can be found in the main article. I hope these rough comparisons help. --Hintha 22:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --さくら木 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an "y" sound pronounced after the initial "ne" or not? You say it rhymes with say, but the IPA transcription does not show a "y".

Fair point. Hintha was right in that "say" is the nearest English comparison to the first vowel sound in Naypyidaw -- and that's exactly why the common transcription "ay" for this vowel was originally chosen -- but it's not identical. The first vowel in Naypyidaw is a close "e", without a following "y" sound. That vowel is not found in standard American or British English, though you might hear it in Caribbean English, in Yorkshire, in Scotland ... Andrew Dalby 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and in Wales, Midland and Ireland... pretty much anywhere else in United Kingdom that hasnt been infested by bogus refugees! Okkar 06:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meant as a joke, perhaps? For the record: there is no such easy correlation. Andrew Dalby 12:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population?

[edit]

Hasn't any reliable source even printed an estimate? 86.132.141.221 00:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy

[edit]

All, please let me remind you of WP:NPOV and unbiasness when writing articles. Please refrain from using yellow press, gossip style speculative writings in the article. It doesnt help anybody. This is Wikipedia, not PR website for NCGUB or NLD. Please have some respect for your country. Okkar 04:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is controversy, neutrality means that we report the controversy from all sides, without bias. The story in the Straits Times may be scurrilous and unfounded, for all I know, but it is a widely read and influential paper and doesn't come under the usual definition of "yellow press".
So, if there is controversy over the choice of the new capital site, in our article Naypyidaw we have to try to reflect the controversy fairly. That may sometimes mean we say things that seem disrespectful to the current government, or to its opponents -- in fact probably to both from time to time! Governments and political parties have to face up to it. They're strong enought to face worse things than that, I think. Andrew Dalby 09:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I dont mean to rub the salt in this issue, but can you ensure that "Straits Times" article is verifiable? As you may notice, there is a line at the bottom of this edit box which says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.". Just because it was written in widely read newspaper, that does not mean it is the truth. There have been many a time, big news paper had to come out and apologise for the content that were either unfounded allegations or untrue. Again, I must stress that Wikipedia is not a place for reprinting newspaper articles nor to endorse what it is the newspaper as gospel. I would like to suggest that we restrain ourselves from supporting "Yellow Press" style reports. It does not help with the quality of the article, nor does it serve the interest of consumption by general public. Okkar 15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naypyidaw's distance from Yangon

[edit]

The BBC website [3] says Naypyidaw is about 460 km (300 miles) north of Yangon. Is this reliable enough to change it, as the journalist has actually visited the city? Maninukca 06:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It was felt that a stronger military and governmental presence nearby might provide stability to those chronically turbulent regions."

[edit]

This phrasing is a bit odd - felt by who? Seems like either direct Myanmar government propoganda or a restating of it. A government engaged in ethnic cleansing is hardly likely to be interested in 'stability' except as a covering excuse for its actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.68.154 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious image?

[edit]

File:Nptintl.jpg looks like a CGI simulation of the new airport, not an actual picture? If so, the self-made copyright claim seems improbable, and the caption is wrong. -- Beland (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nptintl.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Nptintl.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons 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 upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • 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 Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 August 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Naypyidaw → Nay Pyi Taw – The official and now common spelling for the capital. This can be verified by:

  1. Google Books: Nay Pyi Taw (25,200 results), Naypyitaw (649), Nay Pyi Daw (284), and Naypyidaw (2,590)
  2. Encyclopaedia Britannica
  3. Myanmar's Ministry of Foreign Affairs: See "About Myanmar" and click on the link which leads here. Other government sites using "Nay Pyi Taw" include Myanmar's Supreme Court, and the Ministry of Industry.
  4. Media: BBC, Indian Express, Xinhua, Myanmar Times.
  5. (Added later) Google News search: Naypyidaw (5930) vs. "Nay Pyi Taw" (9440)

-- Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Survey

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

Important Note - In checking the news sources given in this move request posting, all of them currently use Naypyidaw as well as Nay Pyi Taw. The BBC and also here, the Indian Express, the Xinhua and even the Myanmar Times. Just an FYI but it brings into question the fairness and objectiveness of the rm creator. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they might use both versions, but since they do so in roughly equal measure (i.e., according to your searches, but they actually don't and significantly prefer Nay Pyi Taw), it makes sense to use the official name. Google Books use however indicates that Nay Pyi Taw is overwhelmingly preferred.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is yet to be proved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - Numbers are funny things. Comparing the totals given in the RM premiss, all google search gives Naypyidaw 468,000 and Nay Pyi Taw 450,000. Pretty close in all real world usage. The BBC also uses Naypyidaw so that argument is useless. Heck, so does Indian Express, Xinhua and even Myanmar Times. So throw out the whole blurb about why it should change. The US State Dept often uses a different version, Naypyitaw but also uses Naypyidaw. The Guardian uses Naypyidaw as does the Daily Beast. The New York Times uses Naypyidaw as does Radio Free Asia. There are heaps of examples such as these for Naypyidaw and I'm sure heaps of examples for Nay Pyi Taw, the point being that the original RM creator's premiss that Nay Pyi Taw is the common name is in serious question. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): Thanks for looking into this. I see that you've simply ignored the overwhelming Google Books numbers. Anyhow, as I said, Nay Pyi Taw is both the common name and official name for the city. If both variants are on equal footing, then IMO the official spelling for the place should be used. We can then start calling things like the city's airport what they are rather than what we think they should be. This applies to other Nay Pyi Taw articles too which appear to be Naypyidaw-ed for reasons of consistency. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell thus far, Naypyidaw is the common name and Nay Pyi Taw is the official name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Naypyidaw. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Naypyidaw. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Naypyidaw. 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) 04:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naypyidaw. 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) 01:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to eliminate weasel words

[edit]

Hi, I have just tried to edit the repetitions on the opening date and reasons for the new capital. Especially the mention of this having been a "vanity project", citing The Guardian, seems to me unsubstantiated. (The original quote from The Guardian reads: "The city’s origins are clouded in rumour and speculation. Some describe it as a vanity project of Than Shwe, the former military leader of the country.") - Hope this meets consensus and makes it possible to delete the mention of weasel words, as so far, I don't see any other examples in the text. Munfarid1 (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Munfarid1[reply]

Naypyidaw Development Committee & Naypyidaw Council

[edit]

It's never quite made clear on any article concerning Naypyidaw the difference between the Naypyidaw Development Committee and Naypyidaw Council are in terms of their competencies. One can assume the NDC is more local and the Council is the state-level. But other than guessing that, what's the difference in what they do? --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it that the council delegates its powers to the development committee? I've searched and searched and have yet to find an answer. I see that former Mayor Myo Aung was both chair of the council and chair of the development committee, so I am more confused. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale behind moving the capital

[edit]

Since the construction of the new capital was begun in 2002 and completed enough to hold a parade there in 2006, it doesn't make sense to suggest that the cyclone in 2008 was a reason for moving. The use of "could" in that sentence is another example of the weasel words mentioned above. And the ref cited doesn't support the climate claim, either. So I deleted that sentence. Dgndenver (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 17:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Railway gauge at new capital city station?

[edit]

Are there any 1435mm gauge railway lines serving thr new capital at Naypyidaw? ----MountVic127 (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naypyidaw&oldid=1258265721"