Jump to content

Talk:2021 Myanmar coup d'état/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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.fTalk 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)

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:

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)

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)

  • 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)
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.


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:

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)

"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)
As you learned by reading the article you linked, the criticism largely had to do with exclusion of minorities such as the Rohingya people from the electoral process. While this undoubtedly benefited also the ruling party, the primary perpetrator in the oppression was the military. The same military that now usurped the power altogether. It would be rather unusual to present fraud committed by the military as a justification for a military coup. -2001:14BA:1FF3:F400:D0AE:5722:AF34:96A3 (talk) 19:15, 7 March 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)

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)
Evidence? just conspiracy theories? Aelmsu (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to protect the page from vandalism by restricting edits.

This page about latest Development in Myanmar is highly sensitive and susceptible to vandalism by politically motivated forces maintaing the neutrality of this page is essential therefore I propose this be protected for some time till the situation eases out and we can resume to have others edit it. Ashwanikm190805 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ashwanikm190805, request for increase in page protection can be made on WP:RFPP. Although it is a current event, the edit history of the article shows limited evidence of vandalism or POV pushing since it last came off from page protection on 11 February. – robertsky (talk) 03:56, 15 March 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)
Why not dump a complete list (with the refs) into a note or a subpage if it gets too large, that way the article isn't being slanted toward those countries that someone has decided deserve a mention? - NiD.29 (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Myanmar_coup_d%27état/Archive_1&oldid=1149755508"