Talk:Saffron Revolution

Myanmar Start‑class High‑importance

Saffron Revolution 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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-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

Myanma is correct

Before anyone else moves this -- it's the correct name, "Myanma" is the adjective for "Myanmar". —Nightstallion 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! — WiseKwai 14:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN, The Economist, and The New York Times use "Myanmar" as the country name and "Burmese" as the adjective. (source: Myanmar article - etymology)--TheFEARgod (Ч) 00:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That argument could be caused by a western POV. The Myanmar/Burmese name debate seems to have political ramifications. Since the protesters support the name Burma, that seems like the right name for this page. Jeff Carr 01:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron Revolution

I found a couple of news articles from the UK and Bulgaria referring to these protests as the "Saffron Revolution". I added this info with the caveat that there are news reports dubbing the protests as such. I saw the term used in a Yahoo news article (the article's page was updated and the term disappeared), so I searched Yahoo News and googled it. It seems a newspaper in Qatar and a Buddhist organization are also using the term so far. Anyone who can elaborate on this, please add more in, and maybe we ought to retitle this article if indeed the protesters are using this term.

Ajbenj 19:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Saffron Revolution, that certainly seems to be the name being applied, though often cautiously with quotation marks, by the international media. I noticed the phrase myself and enjoyed it, and set up a separate article to discuss its usage, which has now been linked to from this page and a few others. If "Saffron Revolution" does turn out to be the name used by press and protestors alike, is it useful to keep both articles, or should they be merged?

Wadeguyitt 20:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so the color revolutions got the names too under quatations... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the "Velvet Revolution", the "Rose Revolution", and "Orange Revolution" were all named by Western (British/US I believe) journalists, and not by anyone actually involved. I guess a snappy name just helps them sell papers. Anyway, I just read a number of articles that use "Saffron", so it should be definitely be included but quotes are a good call.--Patrick Ѻ 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this phrase really widespread enough for the article to feature it so very prominently? Just because you liked it doesn't mean part of the article should be made into a soapbox in order to try and popularize it. Tempshill 05:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related to detention of Aung San Suu Kyi ?

Aren't the protests also related to the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi? I'm not intimately familiar with the politics of this area. It appears she was elected to rule the country around 1990 but the military ceased control instead. She has been her under arrest for the last 17 years. Jeff Carr 01:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well from the BBC news feeds that I've read, her party, the National League for Democracy initially avoided participating or associating itself with the monk protests but have since joined in since the monks called for all people to help them. So though they may be linked now (by meeting with her on Saturday, etc.), it did not initially start out that way. As the protests have become more brazen, so has the involvement of traditional activists. -- Permafrost 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A duplicate/redudant article

Apparently another article, Burma Monk Protest, has been compiled over the last 36 hours. What are thoughts on merging them or somehow removing the redudancy? -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 14:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been bold and redirected it to this one. EconomicsGuy 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources ([1] , [2]) were cited in that article. Could these be combed for information to add into this article? -- Reaper X 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China reaction

I cannot recall exact source, it was report or maybe speculate China quietly advice Myanmar Government to show restraint in manage the civil unrest, to avoid past mistake repetition. Wen Hsing 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add it to the China section if you can cite a reliable source. Tempshill 05:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Which flags are these? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those are Buddhist flags. --Kachyna 12:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News 24 Reports - 2007-09-26T09:45Z

The BBC is reporting that the crowds in Myanma have been fired upon, and that Gordon Brown has called a UN council meeting to 'discuss' the matter. Not sure whether this needs to be added, or where to put it if it does, so I'll leave it to someone else to merge in. --Veratien 09:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Government

Should it really be called anti-government? The protesters aren't really against government, they're against the current type of government. They happen to be pro-government as a matter of fact, the protests are to encourage Democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.195.17 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it should be called anti-government as you are only government when you are in power - else you are opposition. Government itself covers every conceivable type of politics - it only relates to who is in charge. The protesters may be pro-democracy but they are still anti-(the current)government. Daeve 11:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-government doesn't mean "anarchist"; it means "against the current government". Tempshill 23:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove image of Than Shwe

The proposal to remove the image of Than Shwe is suspicious and may be an attempt by someone in the Myanmar government to censor information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.193.152 (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What proposal to remove Than Shwe's image? 204.52.215.107 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh. the user who made the proposal was a woman from Finland, User:Mysid. Hardly sounds like a junta member to me. 204.52.215.107 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. The fair-use criteria was fine. --Hemlock Martinis 20:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

updated

Why hasn't the front page been updated to reflect the violent confrontations today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.150.130 (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's updated now. Next time, go to WP:ITN/C to propose updates so it can be updated a lot faster. --Howard the Duck 06:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Economist Predictions

Now that the crackdown has apparently started, should the first paragraph of "Speculation on outcome" be either deleted or modified to reflect the fact that The Economist was right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.86.112 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whole section should be removed. Wikipedia is not a fortune teller and it is out of date now anyway. Nomadtales 06:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Are there any objections to this? EconomicsGuy 09:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I was bold and fixed it myself. EconomicsGuy 09:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes against Humanity

Due to pretty obvious POV concerns, I removed this section:

The actions taken by the military junta is groundless as there were no riots. No public properties had been reported damaged or destroyed by any direct or indirect consequences of the demonstration since it started. There are no armed resistance against the Myanmar military government. Unless Burmese are classified as a sub-human, there shall be possible actions from International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court and the United Nations towards Myanmars's or Burma's military leadears on the charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. (--by 211.31.47.183 (talk · contribs))

I'd suggest that the section is properly rewritten and sourced before it can possibly be returned to the article. --Camptown 11:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would have a hard time finding a reliable source for those claims by the anon. That's the downside of being NPOV - sometimes we need to keep our opinions to ourselves and stick to the bare facts no matter how unpleasent and unfair they are. Does anyone know to what extend Wikipedia is censored there? EconomicsGuy 11:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of the monks killed on 9-26?

Do we have names and photos of those monks?