Talk:2021 Myanmar coup d'état

Russian trace

Russia is well-known country which organize military conflicts all around the world. 10 days before the military coup, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu paid an official visit to Myanmar. On January 22, he held talks with the commander-in-chief of the republic's armed forces - Min Aung Hlaing, who had organized the coup after. --109.87.110.226 (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

People's Republic of China too. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 11:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

So what? The US does this on a constant basis since WW II. 88.69.17.8 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

announcement made in Myawaddy

Channel Myawaddy has just announced the military has taken over control of the country. The VP, Myint Swe, a former military general is now the temporary president and he has given authority to the military chief. SSH remoteserver (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That's true. Nevertheless, Min Aung Hlaing is the one with the power. RBolton123 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Name of this article

Is there any particular reason why the name of this article includes the word "Myanma" instead of "Myanmar"? Or did the article's creator simply misspell the latter word?? Bahnfrend (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I was just going to move the article myself. Apparently Myanma is the adjective referring to Myanmar making this the correct location. Beaneater (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I now understand. It seems to be the usual practice for the names of articles about a specific coup d'état to use the adjectival version of the country's name. see Coup d'état#Current leaders who assumed power via coups. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Myanmar is sort of a weird case that I think is worth reviewing. I've noticed that news sources virtually never use "Myanma" as the adjectival form, and go to lengths to avoid it (by using the possessive "Myanmar's" instead of an adjective). When they do use an adjective, it's "Myanmar":

• NYT ([1]): phrases like "Military supporters holding Myanmar national flags" and "the Myanmar military". No uses of "Myanma".
• WaPo ([2]): "Myanmar military" in title. No uses of "Myanma".
• BBC ([3]): "Myanmar coup" in the title. No uses of "Myanma".
• AP ([4]): "Myanmar military television". No uses of "Myanma".
• Politico ([5]): "A Myanmar military coup", "the Myanmar military". No uses of "Myanma".
• FT ([6]): "Myanmar military", "Myanmar army chief", "the Myanmar military". No uses of "Myanma".

If you are skeptical about if a usage is adjectival, substitute in "French" and see if it sounds right. Perhaps a wider review of sources could be done, but I suspect that it would result in this special rule for Myanmar (not sure if there is a centralized place for endonym title consensus). I would support a move back to "Myanmar coup", on this basis. — Goszei (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the government, the proper adjective is Myanma. The problem is nobody really uses it, not even the government! How about 2021 coup d'état in Myanmar? If not, 2021 Myanmar coup d'état is good to me too. I am okay with anything. SSH remoteserver (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@OhKayeSierra: I strongly suggest a self-revert of the technical move here pending an RM, given the above. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we not use Burmese instead of this weird adjective? After all, all the individuals from Myanmar are referred to as Burmese people, and we have an article titled 1962 Burmese coup d'état. Keivan.f^Talk 07:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Journalistic sources appear to have phased out use of "Burmese" in their reporting, and instead use the possessive "Myanmar's" or "Myanmar" as an adjective. See above; all of the sources totally avoid using "Burmese". — Goszei (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

In 1962, the country was still "Burma". It was renamed as Myanmar only in 1989. Jpatokal (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

True, but 1989 is already more than 30 years ago. Myanmar is the official name the country wants to be known as nowadays, and most all RS refer to it as Myanmar, instead of Burma. Though there are a few countries that still primarily use "Burma" when referring to the country, I think we should stick more to what the RS are using and generally avoid getting ourselves bogged down in naming controversies. Goodposts (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Title

It’s not Myanma, it was misspelled History of the Burmese (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Myanma is the adjective referring to Myanmar which is the official name of the state in question. Beaneater (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Min Aung Hlaing

Hi

Do you have source about the official title of the post lead by Min Aung Hlaing? --Panam2014 (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

International reaction part needs expansion.

The reaction of countries needs to be separated and flags are needed. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't need a massive quote farm like we get on some articles. This one paragraphs seems nice and concise. And flags only really work well in bulleted lists, and it's better to have it in prose rather than a list. All in all, the current format is better in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Joseph and I've been keeping an eye on that section and tidying it up as needed. Unless a country pledges something substantially different than the others, it gets added to an existing list. WP:QUOTEFARM applies here. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we add this? -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 11:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Too many primary sources

@Novem Linguae: We have to wait for more secondary reliable news reports and then delete the primary sources. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I overwrote some edits due to Help:Edit conflict and I'm reverting them. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

BrandNew Jim Zhang, I think I fixed the rest of the edit conflict. Thanks for spotting. If we want, we have the option to delete all primary sources. Wikipedia is not supposed to be on the cutting edge of breaking news. We sacrifice speed for accuracy. Eyewitness reporting (Twitter), tabloids, and RS will all be faster than us, and that's OK. Let's keep an eye on that international responses section so that it doesn't balloon out of control. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

The infobox "results" list should include a point for "24 ministers and deputies removed from office". 194.204.57.145 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Not quite Tank Man, but...

Still caught my eye: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/myanmar-coup-aerobics-class-video-b1796180.html [Don't WP:NOTAFORUM-me!] El_C 15:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

"Others compared the scene to the TV show Black Mirror and some Reddit users even photoshopped the dancer into videos of other seismic political events, including the recent storming of the US Capitol building."

Never heard of Black Mirror, but like the Reddit initiative. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I remember Black Mirror fondly, but I also remember that I stopped watching it after a few seasons. Don't remember the reason for doing so, though — may not have been due to the series jumping the shark or whatever, but for some possibly unrelated reasons. El_C 13:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason to let a military coup get in the way of aerobics. 2021 is going to be a memorable year, I reckon... Goodposts (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope I don't come across as a creep when I say that I find this video to be quite mesmerizing... El_C 14:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@El C, Goodposts, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Already exist in Ampun Bang Jago. Not sure if the video merits its own article. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, Jeromi Mikhael. Those are some catchy beats! As for a standalone article, I'm not quite sure about that yet. I will say that I am seeing this viral video mentioned on many main stream news sources all around the world, as a standalone story. The key question may be about how much material there really is to write about it at this time (beyond that terse mention on Ampun Bang Jago#2021 Myanmar coup d'état). Definitely worthy of a redirect to that section — well, if there was a good one that I could immediately conceive of, at least. El_C 17:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If the the State Administrative Council is an executive body.....

..then what is the status of the Min Aung Hlaing's military cabinet? Clearly the SAC is a legislative body, as mentioned in https://www.mmtimes.com/news/myanmar-military-announces-new-state-administrative-council.html. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

We should protect the page again

There is still mild vandalism going on, even after the protection was lifted. I recommend we protect it again for a longer while to prevent this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimjongundprk4life (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kimjongundprk4life: You need to request it in RFPP. 110.137.165.39 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of 2021 Myanmar protests into 2021 Myanmar coup d'état

The protest article is just copying the text from main article. No need for a separate article about this Joseph2302 (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the person that spun out the article should have gotten consensus first. I left them a note about this on their talk page. They've been spinning out a lot of protest articles lately, and have received warnings about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2021 (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:

• Protesters demanding Aung San Suu Kyi's release at Kasumigaseki, Tokyo after the February 2021 Myanmar coup.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I reckon this could become a good article

This page already seems to look like it can become a good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimjongundprk4life (talk • contribs) 09:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Some good, current major-media sources

As fast as the news is breaking in this event -- and as far away as it is from most major global media -- it's a bit of a challenge to find good, current, close-to-the-action reliable sources.

MYANMAR SOURCES:

The one that seems closest to the action, without (so far, yet) being muzzled or co-opted by the military, is Myanmar's main English-language online newspaper The Irrawaddy (online at irrawaddy.com) -- though I'm sure it will soon fall victim to Myanmar military censorship, control, or strangulation.

Since long before the coup, The Irrawaddy has been publishing fairly neutral point-of-view reports on the military's moves -- and, since the coup, it has flooded its website with dozens of detailed articles about every aspect of the coup, and its consequences, and public response. So far, none of this extraordinary coverage appears constrained by military censors.

Of course, in a nation under military siege, that probably won't last long -- and links to Irrawaddy articles may soon go nowhere, or to false military-edited revisions, or military-dictated substitute articles. But, for now, the Irrawaddy appears to be the gold standard on current coverage of the coup.

By contrast, the Myanmar Times (online at mmtimes.com) appears to regurgitate military statements, more or less verbatim.

MAJOR GLOBAL SOURCES:

On the global stage, Reuters News Service has long been the most reliable global source reporting on the region -- and Reuters has a "Myanmar" topics section with links to all(?) their current articles on the country. An excellent quick reference.

The BBC, (online at bbc.com/news/) with its British colonial-era ties to Myanmar, and the neighboring sub-continent region, is a rich English-language source on the region, and pretty disciplined and fairly timely -- though sometimes sparse or tardy on relevant content.

Alternatives, of course, include the Associated Press (AP) though it's commonly an under-informed late-arrival to breaking news in Southeast Asia), and the arguably less-professional Agence France-Presse (AFP) (which is often "first on the scene" and provides more information on the region than Reuters and Associated Press, combined).

The New York Times, though providing good and substantial material from their Southeast Asia reporter Hannah Beech, seems to be -- like the Associated Press and most American sources -- slow to respond to emerging events, weak on understanding, and devoid of much crucial detail, or inside information -- reflecting (like most American media) America's general disinterest in the region.

BANGLADESH SOURCES:

In neighboring Bangladesh, the Daily Star (online at: thedailystar.net) appears to be a fairly WP:NPOV source on the coup events, though perhaps with a more populist/liberal approach than its chief rival, the relatively conservative Dhaka Tribune (online at: dhakatribune.com) (which seems close to the Bangladesh government).

These two very different major Bangladeshi sources largely report on Myanmar through their different viewpoints on the Rohingya genocide (Bangladesh hosts, as refugees, most of Myanmar's Rohingya people, driven out by Myanmar's military in a series of violent purges, especially in 2017-2018. The Bangladesh government is increasingly hostile to the Rohingya refugees, and wants to "repatriate" them back to Myanmar, and is willing to look the other way at the Myanmar coup, just to get the Rohingya repatriation done. The Dhaka Tribune seems to join their government in that perspective, while the Daily Star takes a more sympathetic view of the Rohingya, and less respectful view of the Dhaka government or Myanmar's military).

A caution for both (all) Bangladeshi sources is their frequent use of unedited articles from the "UNB" (United News of Bangladesh) -- a news service that far-too-often simply reprints government press releases (even, apparently, from Myanmar). Check the author/source of any article in Bangladesh media for the "UNB" label, and regard with appropriate skepticism. Such articles are often simply being relayed on, mostly unedited, from an unreliable primary source with a conflict-of-interest.

TRADITIONAL MAJOR SOURCES in the REGION:

• in neighboring India
  • NDTV (New Delhi TV) (ndtv.com)
  • The Hindu (thehindu.com)

• in neighboring Malaysia
  • The Star (thestar.com.my/tag/myanmar)
  • The New Straits Times (nst.com.my)

• in nearby Indonesia
  • The Jakarta Post (thejakartapost.com)

• in regional neighbor Australia
  • ABC-Australia (abc.net.au/news/)
  • The Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au)

OTHER MAJOR SOURCES IN THE REGION:

Generally, good reporting on Myanmar (and Bangladesh, and Rohingya crisis), has come from two major English-language publications in nearby countries:

• in Thailand: The Bangkok Post (online at: bangkokpost.com/world does much original reporting in Myanmar.

...and...

• in Singapore: Channel NewsAsia (online at: channelnewsasia.com does a substantial amount of original reporting on Myanmar, but also relies heavily on Reuters and AFP articles.

HOWEVER... both of these publications are in somewhat authoritarian countries. Thailand has, in recent years, been taken over by a military coup similar to what's happening now in Myanmar, and that military remains in control of Thailand. Singapore has long been ruled by an essentially-authoritarian government with a fig-leaf of "democracy." Reporting on their neighbor's authoritarian coup may be somewhat tempered by the need to not offend their own country's authoritarian governments.

Of course, virtually all coverage of this topic may be influenced by whether the media outlet is in a relatively free or authoritarian country.

~ Penlite (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding to the list, Frontier Myanmar (online at: https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/) is also a good, reliable news source even though the same caution should apply in case it falls under the military censorship. -Pyinnyarlo (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Myanmar Now (myanmar-now.org) is a first-rate domestic news service. Additional reputable domestic news sources (albeit in Burmese) include 7Day News (7day.news) and Weekly Eleven (elevenmyanmar.com and news-eleven.com). BBC Burmese (bbc.com/burmese), VOA Burmese (burmese.voanews.com), and RFA Burmese (rfa.org/burmese) all have a strong radio news presence, especially during media blackouts like the one taking place now. In addition to The Irrawaddy, there are 2 other longstanding former exile news sources, namely Mizzima (mizzima.com) and DVB (burmese.dvb.no). It's also important to recognize domestic media consumption peculiarities; Facebook is the internet for many in Myanmar. This effectively means that Burmese language news sources (and government agencies) more than likely publish articles, announcements, and late-breaking news as Facebook posts first before they publish on external websites, OR altogether do not have any real-time external presence outside of Facebook. -- Hintha(t) 19:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Split domestic reactions to the 2021 Myanmar protests

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Unanimous decision to split the protests from the military coup de tat and to merge the civil disobedience movement in Myanmar to the protests. Closing both this split discussion and the merge discussion in Civil disobedience movement in Myanmar article (I'm suggesting to rename the article though to a more concise one). Please do the required procedures needed to complete the split/merge. PyroFloe (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Looking at the domestic reactions, it looks like that civil disobedience campaign against the coup is building up. This is going to be similar to 2020–2021 Armenian protests which had the similar but not identical background in what led to it. For this reason, I propose that the section "Domestic reactions" should be split into a new, separate article, 2021 Myanmar protests. MarioJump83! 06:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. Ytpks896 (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Wait Let’s see if these protests last long, for which we will make a separate article for. Unless it doesn’t last long, we will have to keep it merged with this article Ridax2020 (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Oranjelo100 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support There is now plenty of coverage to support the notability of post-coup resistance efforts within Myanmar. Per WP:Be bold, I will begin transitioning content to the target page. There is also likely a need to merge content from Civil disobedience movement in Myanmar into this target page. --Hintha(t) 19:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support The sources strongly support the existence of a civil disobedience protest movement that shows no signs of weakening. Boud (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Protests are clearly breaking out in Myanmar. All reliable sources say so. 24.150.136.254 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Keeping the Myanmar protests page separate is now a WP:SNOWBALL case. Someone uninvolved should feel free to close the proposal. Boud (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support there are several new sources that support a growing moving against the coup d'étate. I also agree with Hintha that content does need to be merged from Civil disobedience movement in Myanmar. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I have started a merger discussion for Civil disobedience movement in Myanmar article into 2021 Myanmar protests, as I don't believe that article is necessary anymore - as it is a content fork. I also would like to see this closed now as this is a WP:SNOW support. MarioJump83! 01:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Democratically Elected"?

Is that really neutral language? Why just assume they were fairly, democratically elected when the military had to swoop in and take over? They clearly didn't seem to think it was legitimate. Then they make up some crap about the general wanting to be president to smear him, and of COURSE no clown party would be complete without accusing Russia of being behind it all. Are Russians your version of the Jewish Scapegoat trope? Knock it off and get real, China and Israel are almost always behind any of this crap. Seems more like the President's party were globalist goons and the military just wanted their country back from hostile occupiers... Further, isn't it obvious to anyone else how astroturfed this subject has been? It's pretty clear that what happened in the American 2020 election parallels the Myanmar election-coup up until the point of the actual coup itself... I'm just mind-boggled by all of this. Does no one else see the clear, perverse bias on this site? The alternate reality bubble its users choose to perpetuate? Go figure I got banned from Twitter for discussing this very issue with Larry Sanger. Anyway. Why is it so hard to accept that a cabal of crooks stole the election, admitted it, gloated about it, and have so idiotically set up all the same dominos that led to their Democrat parallels being arrested on the other side of the world? If nothing else, people are trying to make the Myanmar coup look as despotic and "Russian" as possible BECAUSE they know how perfectly it lines up with the problem we Americans are having. You guys just want to jump right on top of it and nip it in the bud and literally OPPRESS the citizens of our country, is what it seems like. Instead of shouting me down or calling me a nazi, how about you change my mind? Remember, the media's side is putting a lampshade on a party that openly persecuted Muslim minorities, and is allied with all the same crooks and perverts one would expect to find on Epstein's Island. Why the kneejerk need to play defense for these guys, and project blame on nonsense targets, if it's not to astroturf people's opinions when this same problem happens here down the line. You know exactly what I mean. That's not a threat; it's an educated guess based on some pretty egregious trends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.225.60 (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You have some points. The truth is the elections were criticized by many parties, including Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/05/myanmar-election-fundamentally-flawed. Many Western observers note fundenmental bias and lack of accountability. Many critics, opposition, and journalists were imprisoned before the elections. Still, nobody expected the coup. SSH remoteserver (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

71.74.225.60, I'm going to assume you're not a troll and are actually being serious, and that you truly care about Wikipedia, as you say in your edit summary. While I agree that Wikipedia has a partisan bias, what you wrote has almost no substantiated claims, so if you want to contribute meaningfully to the article, you'll need Reliable sources. 777burger ^{user talk contribs} 05:24, 11 February 2021 (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:

• Teenagers are protesting while wearing skirt in Mawlamyine (9 February 2021).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of The Irrawaddy

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of The Irrawaddy, which is currently cited nine times in this article. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § The Irrawaddy. — Newslinger talk 05:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

GA

How to nominate good article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimjongundprk4life (talk • contribs) 10:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)