Talk:Myanmar protests (2021–present)/Archive 1

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

Non-GAFAM social media? or briar?

@Hintha: or others: Do we have any sources saying that the protestors are using the Fediverse - a loose federation of social network servers running Mastodon and other software that can handle the open protocol of the network - in which the social networking is decentralised? These are harder for authorities to block, because there's more diversity and less centralisation. Communities can use their own fork of one of the software packages, run a server, and interconnect with each other or with the federation.

For communication between mobile phones, Briar (software) is secure and friendly free software that seems to be becoming used in protests like these, although real-life usage of smartphone ad hoc networks that is so far documented in sources only refers to non-free software. The idea is that people can communicate securely over smartphones with friends at short range over wifi/bluetooth when mobile network access is cut off (or even when mobile access is running, to avoid being spied on by repressive authorities).

I couldn't find any sources on usage of the Fediverse or Briar for the current Myanmar protests. Boud (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Gallery

The gallery section is definitely unencyclopedic. Captions such as "Release our leaders" and "Burmese army is worse" violate WP:ACTIVISM. SSH remoteserver (talk) 18:52, 8 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) 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 12 times in this article. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § The Irrawaddy. — Newslinger talk 05:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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) 03:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Supported by China

Block evasion by Alfred the Lesser.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

For the military government. Prins van Oranje 09:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source? CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:36, 25 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) 16:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Changed death toll (notes on sourcing)

The previous infobox of the page stated that a police officer is included in the death toll. Tracing this back to the original edit shows it came from a pretty biased (in my opinion anyway) news report by the Asia Times. It can be read here, https://asiatimes.com/2021/02/why-myanmars-military-will-win-in-the-end/. The article states that the military junta claimed that a police officer was killed, but looking through the archives of their state-run english newspaper finds no mention of that, and the other statement in the sentence, that a young woman was shot in the head in Mandalay is also incorrect, she was killed in Naypyitaw. A glaring error like this excludes the source from being reliable, and until other, better sourcing is found (I did look and found nothing, but don't speak Burmese), I've removed the claim.

The other sources for protester deaths were also out-of-date and not very specific (for example the infobox correctly said that 8 protesters had been killed, but the linked sources only talked about four. The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners has been keeping extremely detailed and up to date information on those killed, including full names and the location and circumstances of their deaths (see https://aappb.org/?p=13251). I recommend this source is the primary one used. Although, I am unsure if they would report on security force deaths, should they occur, so it may need to be supplimented if police officers end up being killed. Nrg800 (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Nrg800, regarding the cited Association I doubt that this one has been proved before as a WP:RS, they seem to be a political motivated organisation. I did not find any mention on the noticeboard WP:RSN - anyone might prove me wrong. I am totally aware that it is difficult for Independent coverage in Myanmar but we cannot post any amount of people dead which some human rights group might have seen (or not), see WP:NPOV. The BBC and Reuters both said today that they cannot say for sure the numbers of people being killed. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

'This article is semi-protected until September 5, 2021, at 00:57 UTC'

Why is it semi-protected until then? I know why things are semi-protected, but why is it semi-protected until a certain date? It doesn't make very much sense. Thank you, AidTheWiki (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

AidTheWiki, most protected pages are done so on a temporary basis. The duration is set at the protecting administrator's discretion. See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Guidance for administrators. ― Tartan357 Talk 16:53, 7 March 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) 02:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent material on coup page

@Hintha: In case you missed it, see these edits by me from a few minutes ago on the coup page.

If you use the {{copied}} template on both of the talk pages, then shifting much of the material from there to here, and writing a brief summary over there, would allow a lot of re-use of text. The basic form, identical on both pages (if I understand it correctly), is what I did last time, and seems sufficient to me. Most of the coup page text seems reasonable to me, with only a bit of rewriting needed. Boud (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boud:, thanks. I've synthesized and expanded upon the existing content and re-organized the article for more logical flow. Cheers. --Hintha(t) 01:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Hintha: Nice work! Boud (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no explanation behind the three finger salute. It originated from the hunger games franchise and has now become a symbol of the revolution in Myanmar. BlueWizArdi99 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Timeline

This is an important protest in Burmese history, but why is there no timeline of the protests? Major protests usually followed with specific timeline. Is there any reason for it?PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

PaPa PaPaRoony, Wikipedia is WP:VOLUNTARY. You are certainly free to add a timeline if you want to. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Tartan357, yes I understand that. I was just wondering whether there's a specific guideline or something that may cause this, considering that many major protests usually include timeline.PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@PaPa PaPaRoony: simply because no one took action to add a timeline section. on site observers can't edit on Wikipedia due to a block by the military. Protests like that in Hong Kong have live coverage by many media entities, but not this, for out of country observers to write on the key points at those moments in time. – robertsky (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021

I see that date notation is wrong (March 27th). Can please replace that with correct notation date (27 March) 36.77.93.241 (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Done, thank you for spotting that. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Assistance Association of Political Prisoners reliability

All I wish to do is state that the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners "is widely seen as a definitive source" according to the Associated Press, with Al Jazeera, NPR, etc, also relaying their information. Their tallies have also lined up with United Nations statements, local media, and of independent researchers.

The "[better source needed]" tags are no longer being added to mentions of AAPP, but I've created this topic as a reference as to why they are not necessary in the future. Uses x (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Uses x fully. EkoGraf (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Children

I am surprised there is no mention of children specifically being murdered by the military. As such, this is an especially shocking and important fact about the protests. It demonstrates how ruthless the military is.

See for instance: 

"On Armed Forces day last Saturday, military forces killed over one hundred people, including children, bringing the total death toll to over four hundred. " [1]

US Trade Representative Katherine Tai: "The killing of peaceful protesters, students, workers, labour leaders, medics, and children has shocked the conscience of the international community." [2]

"Myanmar security forces have killed at least 510 people since the coup, with 14 shot dead on Monday including children and young people, advocacy group Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) said." [3]

--Jabbi (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Question

Shouldn't this page be merged with the coup page since it's an attempt to take back control from Hlaing?Elliottharvickfan94 (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elliottharvickfan94 My view is that the coup happened and is over, while the protests are an ongoing event. Looking at the coup article there's a lot of duplication I have to admit, but it points to this article anyway so people wanting to learn more can get to this. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree with :@User:Uses x. While the coup is over, the protests (as of now) do not seem like they are ending, although WP:CRYSTAL does exist for a reason. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Myanmar_protests#Casualties On the chart, it says that on 3/27, 141 protesters killed, when the actual list and AP News source says 114 killed.

I agree with what has been said that merging is not in the best interest as this is an ongoing issue. Also, I found the citation that supports Fakescientist8000's challange of the 141 protestors killed and it is reported as "at least 114". See https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/27/asia/myanmar-protesters-day-of-shame-intl-hnk/index.html for a reference to support the 114 number. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jurisdicta @Bokte I've double-checked it and the figure is right. The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners gives out the daily count and they keep the figure updated even after the day as they receive info about a death, while the CNN and other articles weren't updated since the 27th. The PDF is a bit complicated for the 27th since they've put the 28th in between it, but there's the difference between (489-464)+(449-334)+1 = 141, where the extra person is someone who died days later from a previous incident. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Sky News gives the 141 figure as well, with their article posted yesterday. I assume they're just relaying info from the AAPP. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Number of people detained

In the introductory paragraph it stated that 3,070 people have been detained. I've removed some Western media sources giving an outdated number for the number of civilians killed, I saw no reference to the number detained in those sources. The only source giving number of detainees is the support org AAPP, which can hardly be considered neutral: https://aappb.org/?p=14022. Do we use this or do we have other sources? --Jabbi (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi as long as the information is correct and the bias doesn't enter the article, it's not a problem. Wikipedia:BIASED: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". The AAPP has been reliable to date, so we can use their data. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge Casualties section with Timeline of the 2021 Myanmar protests

I think the article is growing, currently at a bloated 168 b. The casualties section is, mostly a detailed factual account, analyses should be reserved here. Facts logged there.

Also, there is already a "Use of force" subsection, where I think a summary of casualties would be fitting. Is anyone opposed to the merge? --Jabbi (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Jabbi, go ahead. if possible, a summarised paragraph on this page would be appreciated as well. – robertsky (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Jabbi, I used the (copied) template to note on this page that you moved content over to Timeline. Thank you for already making that note on the Timeline talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC) - edited soon after Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Things to watch

NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It seems to me we are taking the same steps with syria a decade ago, or even ukraine. Which leads me to ask...

We seem to be in the protest phase, but with the groups getting organized increasingly. What makes it a civil war? Continuous massacring? Declaration by participant or from outside countries? Just thinking out loud...

Not finished. Maybe alliance of protests with an ethnic group, leading to merger or expansion of ethnic conflict already declared? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe crisis is appropriate intermediate term? Or not. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly, not that kind of forum. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. --Mh

Section or Article on clashes and increased conflict.

I believe there should be a section, or maybe a separate article on armed clashes that have taken place since the coup. Ethnic Armed Organizations (Mainly the Karen National Liberation Army and the Kachin Independence Army) have drastically increased their activity with the KIA going on the offensive, with the groups naming the crackdown as one of their main motives.[1] Recently there have been credible reports of Self Defense Militias armed with proper or improvised weapons including guns fighting with the Tatmadaw in various towns and villages where protests and crackdowns on such protests have taken place lately.[2][3] I think as time goes on, we're going to see more of these actions, and thus that we should document such conflict. I can go ahead and create something but I wanted a general consensus first before I went ahead with it.Firesinge332 (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Firesinge332: Go ahead and do as you see fit. There's a subsection called Use of force focusing on the army/police as actors and a section called Protests, with more detailed chronology having been moved to a separate article, Timeline of the 2021 Myanmar protests. If you think content about armed clashes does not fit in either of these sections then do create a new section. However, be aware that the article is rather long, currently at 140 bytes. And I for one am of the opinion that it needs to be more concise. --Jabbi (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-politics-ethnic-idUSKBN2BM2KF
  2. ^ https://www.swoknews.com/ap/national/myanmar-junta-limits-internet-seizes-satellite-tv-dishes/article_fe6cadbf-6410-5056-83f7-4a349e2bc007.html
  3. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-07/myanmar-security-forces-attack-town-that-resisted-with-arms

China and Russia "supporting" the coup

There have been many people trying to paint Russia and China as aiding the Junta. Lets dissect it. The China allegations dont even come from some person or organization, The South China Morning Post article simply states that "Protesters outside the Chinese embassy in Yangon accuse Beijing of aiding the coup plotters" Thats it. Thats not suitable as a source for Wikipedia. Russia. Both articles are not indicative of any new developments in both countries relations and reflect a neutral, non-interfering stance chosen by Russia. Once again not a single action taken is a "support of the coup" or Junta. And of cource both countries official stance is also neutral on the Issue, calling for peaceful resolution. F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@F.Alexsandr: China and Russia vetoed a UN Security council resolution condemning the coup and have repeatedly referred to it as an internal matter. Does that not amount to at the very least, passive support? --Jabbi (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Regardless, we should revert edits that try and introduce this information into the infobox (high visibility, low context) before establishing it in the body of the article (lower visibility but with the ability to contextualize the support). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Myanmar protesters are claiming that China is supporting military according to various news and resources. Also, three weeks ago Myanmar protesters set fire on Chinese factories, which was also broadcast on CNN. These facts mean there is something between China and Military Government of Myanmar. Although we don't have any proof to say that is true, we should at least put China as "alleged" support country of Myanmar military government because the one side of this conflict continuously argues that. -- Wendylove (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This is not how Wikipedia works, or at least how it ought to. If you wish to add a side as a supporter in an infobox, please cite that using WP:RS. Both China and Russia promote a policy of non-interference in internal affairs, a pragmatic policy which they both uphold as a tool to challenge the interventionist worldview commonly championed by nations such as the United States, both nation's chief political rival, in an attempt to prevent the international influence of said rival from increasing or lending legitimacy to potential future interventions in or around their own nations. By itself, this does not construe support for the coup. A few Burmese protestors setting fire to Chinese clothing factories proves little, except that certain individuals within the movement have committed arson against foreign-owned civilian property (which really is not a good look for them, by the way, and might imply racism). If there is a proper source for Chinese involvement, that meets the WP:RS criteria, then it should be properly cited and should remain. At the moment, however, I am not seeing this. If such a source can not be found, then a claim such as this ought to be removed from the infobox. An explanation of there being a claim (as opposed to a factual statement) by some individuals, that cannot be independently corroborated, can still be placed in the body of the article, so long as it follows the rules of WP:DUE and includes the opposing party's counterstatement for the purposes of neutrality. Speculation that China could theoretically have backed it, or could back it, is not enough - WP:CRYSTAL. Editors' own conclusions and political analysis fall under WP:NOR, and as such - we need RS to establish factual claims like this. Goodposts (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I suggest we flesh out a subsection under 2021 Myanmar protests#International reactions. It's bizarre how light on China/Russia the article is. -- Jabbi (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that we can put China as alleged country, because Myanmar protester claims that China is supporting Military government and we can prove that claims of protesters. I saw many other "alleged support" countries in infobox, such as Yemeni civil war. If we find resources for that, then we can make this country as alleged countries like other articles. -- Wendylove (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I put some news from South Korea, and reverted what Alexander deleted. Maybe this can be the resources for protesters' claim. I know that burning Chinese flags is not a proof, but what protesters repeatly say to news is a proof for allegation. -- Wendylove (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Add "arrested of actor Ye Deight

Myanmar's one of the top 10 actors, Ye Deight also spelt, Ye Tike was arrested on 3 April. source [4], [5], [6]. Thanks 185.205.142.79 (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Split proposal

Originally, I believed that Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM), constitutes the entire protests, but as we see later, more organizations are getting involved with the protests, and recently, armed insurgents are also getting involved as the violence against protesters and civilians are rapidly increasing. Thus, by this point, CDM isn't the only movement that constitutes the protests. As such, I propose that some content from this article be split into an another article, Civil Disobedience Movement (Myanmar). Also, this article is very large in size, and as seen from many split proposals in March, it is a problem. MarioJump83! 05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey

  • I strongly agree! This article is heavily on weight and too large ! This movement was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize. [7]. 185.205.142.79 (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I support the split but not the target. If the proposal is altered to split to "Civil Disobedience Movement (Myanmar)" I would support. Once split, it would be arguable that the Myanmar group should be WP:PRIMARY, but that isn't proven yet and it would need to be a whole other discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Firefangledfeathers: Okay. I have changed this into the original one, once again, but I'm also opening up the discussion to select which title because I'm confused. MarioJump83! 05:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I support a split of the article, so that it's content can be edited to be more concise. I am however a little unsure as to what the implied understanding of what it is that is happening in Myanmar. Is it then fair to say that on the main issue are the ongoing protests which mainly consist of a civil disobedience movement and therefore this is the logical thematic focus? --Jabbi (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose I don't think it needs to split because that will create unnecessary repetition of information. I've seen that happening in quite a few pages covering protests or civil disobedience movements --Sitaphul (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Title

There are numerous proposals about the title. Here is the discussion for the matter:

Per the link that typing it created, yes, there is. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest to restore the original article Civil disobedience movement in Myanmar. 185.205.142.79 (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I suggest we name the article "Civil Disobedience Movement (Myanmar)" as this will avoid any naming issues and there is no article on this site with that name.2600:1700:6030:B8E0:687A:1D79:DBFE:F417 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    This was my original proposal. MarioJump83! 03:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going with the Wendylove's proposal. While the original Civil Disobedience Movement refers to the Indian one, this current iteration of CDM is very much recognizable, and as the IP pointed out, was nominated for Nobel Peace Prize, as such, this can be considered as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In regards to the original title, I think it is very much unprintworthy (as the redirect was tagged for {{R unprintworthy}}), and wouldn't be helpful in reproductions of the article. I wouldn't recommend it. MarioJump83! 13:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC) I'll going to separate the title discussion into a separate section to decide which one. MarioJump83! 05:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are the options:

Since there is a flood of title proposals that confused me and making me unsure to select which one, I'll opening up this discussion, separate from above discussion. MarioJump83! 05:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Option 3 - Looking through the most recent news, it seems like the lowercase "civil disobedience movement" is the WP:COMMONNAME. This might change over time. I suggested the capitalized version above, but have changed my mind after the news review. Overall, I don't care too much about the formatting as long as Myanmar is mentioned in the title. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Let’s keep the article exactly where it is since Wikipedia is a neutral platform. Protests in Myanmar all refer to this article, and since Wikipedia is a neutral platform, we wouldn’t call the Protest, a “Civil Disobedience Movement,” as not everything is covered and revealed for the duration of April 2021. Information is still under way, let us determine all the details before making this move/action. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk)

  • Don't Agree, length is not an issue.Civil Disobediences and all are related to this particular military crisis in Myanmar. We have articles like Arab Spring, which are very large as they cover every sphere of the move. Hence keep it as it is.Heba Aisha (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree, No need to separate the content as per Heba. Btw, how can one draw a clear line between this disobedience and the rest of the page? --Mhhossein talk 06:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree, I don't believe that the suggested options accurate reflect what is going on in Myanmar. I also second the opinion of Mhhossein as it would be difficult to differentiate a clear line between what is going on and the rest of the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

If you are specifically looking into the Civil Disobedience Movement in Myanmar, I suggest NOT splitting an article, but create another main article in a neutral point of view. -From Burgundian Feudalism (talk)

  • Oppose any proposed article title change per WP:NOR and WP:COMMONNAME - it's not for us to determine whether this is a civil disobedience movement, a protest, a more open rebellion, or whatever. We follow reliable sources, and these seem to prefer using the term "protest", so that is what we go by. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. They are best described as 'protests'. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment At this point I don't think there is no need to continue the discussion. Withdraw. MarioJump83! 13:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Death toll

I may be mistaken, but some of the soldiers and policemen listed as killed in action have actually died in a sort of ethnic conflict, not protests. Prins van Oranje 18:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Prins van Oranje, I think you are correct. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Prins van Oranje, Tartan357 Agree. The 10 policemen and 14 soldiers should be removed from the death toll. The ethnic conflict is a separate event from the protests. EkoGraf (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

For renaming the article

I think this article can be renamed as 2021 Mass uprising in Myanmar. Because I think this name is more suitable for this article. Thank you. Wiki N Islam (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your proposal here. I just reverted your edit to the split proposal in the article. You shouldn't change someone else's proposal. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Wiki N Islam, what's your reasoning? Because I think this name is more suitable for this article is a statement that contains no reasoning whatsoever. Sources most frequently describe the events as protests. This "mass uprising" label is new to me. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

ASEAN

Cite error

A reference was deleted a few days ago, but it had a ref name and was in use elsewhere in the article. This has caused a cite error, see the reference section.
The affected reference is at the end of the armed resistance section, currently ref[216].

The missing reference is:
<ref name="Irrawaddy">{{cite news |title=Karen Rebel Leader Warns Myanmar Regime of More Fighting |url=https://www.irrawaddy.com/in-person/interview/karen-rebel-leader-warns-myanmar-regime-of-more-fighting.html |date= 3 June 2021}}</ref>

Either the reference should be readded, replacing <reg name="Irrawaddy"/>, or a new source found for the final paragraph.92.5.2.97 (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

@Pktlaurence: You are invited to make your case for your proposal to the infobox here. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Preemptively adding my thoughts:
I think the main issue is maintaining a consistent guideline for what should be in the infobox and avoiding a bloated infobox. This issue arose when similar articles (e.g. 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, 2020–2021 Belarusian protests, Internal conflict in Myanmar) were being developed, because there are so many groups within the protest movements. In this regard, my first thought was MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the idea that the purpose of an infobox is to summarise key facts that appear in the article. However, this is where disagreements arise once again.
What does "support" mean? The KNU/KNLA made a statement in support of the protesters almost immediately after the coup, which is why they were included in the infobox early on. The KNU/KNLA also attacked Tatmadaw positions and broke their pledge under the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement signed with the civilian government in 2015, specifically as a response to the coup. The KIO/A on the other hand has been fighting the government long before the coup.
The only mention of the KIO/A within the body of the article is, "The CRPH also proposed the formation of a "federal armed force" to combat the military. The Kachin Independence Army (KIA) has already been on the offensive against the military since February ..." This implies that the KIA, like the KNLA, launched offensives in response to the coup. However, the citation given does not state or imply this, and says that the KIA carried out their "usual" operations (i.e. Their military offensives since 2011). The article references KIA operations in February, after the coup, "The KIA has launched numerous offensives against the military in Kachin state since February", but the incident they reference is, by their own report, an attack by a KIA garrison that was not sponsored by the KIA central command.
To my knowledge, the KIO/A have only expressed concerns over the situation and have not publicly supported the protesters, unlike the KNU/KNLA. If someone has a reliable source (in either English or Burmese) that states the contrary, please provide it. I have seen Kachin protesters at international protests against the SAC, as well as photos of KIO/A flags at protests in Myanmar. However, I have yet to see a statement by the KIO/A explicitly supporting the protesters.
TL;DR: I am fine with keeping KNU/KNLA in the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, but I do not think KIO/A should have been added. CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok my dude i need to edit the page there are lots and lots of things and stuff missing on this page i need the permission to edit thank you Duke of Rangoon (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing

I think we should add the Ta'ang National Liberation Army as well. Duke of Rangoon (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit

I need an edit permission.There are a lot of stuff missing and i need to edit it thank u Duke of Rangoon (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

I am a Educated guy from Myanmar currently in the US i have friends in the People's defense forces they are in close to know everything about the revolution i request to edit beacuse there are a lot of things that need to be put in the event page so please Wiki let me edit.I swear that i will edit true sources.Thank u Duke of Rangoon (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

i request to edit beacuse there are a lot of things that need to be put in the event page so please Wiki let me edit.I swear that i will edit true sources.Thank Duke of Rangoon (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I will not watch my beloved country suffer.I must let the world know every inch on an event as i said many things left inedited so let me edit the event page thank u Duke of Rangoon (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ◎ | melecie | t 09:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Renaming to Civil War

Seeing as the National Unity Government now has their owned armed force which is fighting the government I feel that changing the title of the article to civil war should be considered.The Boleshevik Walrus (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It may be a civil war already, or headed that way soon. So far, a quick review of recent reliable sources suggests that most are not yet referring to the conflict as a civil war. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Just because the NUG has formed an armed force does not automatically turn this into a full-scale civil war. AFAICT, there hasn't been any major fighting by the PDF yet, and the coup opposition is still largely a protest movement. Sources have said the situation could devolve into a war, but they aren't saying that's happened already. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Unless "Myanmar civil war" enters the mainstream and a majority of credible English-language news outlets start using that or a similar term, no such move should be considered, per WP:COMMONNAME. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
What about 2021 Myanmar Unrest?--Franz Brod (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Template

Current template is so big! Pls fix it. Taung Tan (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Taung Tan: Fix it yourself. We are not your slaves. 73.63.210.254 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 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) 04:23, 18 October 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) 04:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Myanmar protests → Myanmar Civil War – The protests, combined with the low-scale internal armed conflict that has been existing in the country for a while, have unfortunately escalated into a full-scale civil war according to a countless number of sources. You may search for Myanmar civil war on google and see the sources but here are some from the most authentic news sources
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/outgoing-un-envoy-says-myanmar-has-spiraled-into-civil-war-2021-10-21/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teakvetenadze/2021/10/21/myanmar-has-descended-into-civil-war-un-envoy-says/
https://www.economist.com/asia/2021/10/30/rebels-fighting-myanmars-junta-are-doing-better-than-expected
https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-united-nations-army-188d831750dc171ca7e69250a860c7bf
https://www.thedailystar.net/news/asia/south-asia/news/myanmar-has-spiralled-civil-war-after-coup-2204301
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teakvetenadze/2021/10/21/myanmar-has-descended-into-civil-war-un-envoy-says/ 78.191.85.27 (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). 78.191.85.27 (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: many of the cited articles are referring to comments by the departing special envoy from the UN. I don't think we should change the title based on this round of coverage. The real WP:COMMONNAME argument would need more sources using "civil war" in their own voice and not ones that describe one expert opinion. Additionally, the envoy states her preference for "internal armed conflict" over "civil war". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
”Internal armed conflict” is a formal name for civil wars in UN and most sources use civil war 78.191.85.27 (talk) 14:30, 2 November 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.

2022

Since this is continuing into the current year, 2022, the article title should have 2022 included. How do other editors feel about this? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Split

Consensus for the split (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.


Armed resistance by the NUG and PDF and by the general populace should be in another article. Not a civil war yet but an anti-coup resistance. Sgnpkd (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Would make it a little simpler sure, though I'd class this as a fairly high level insurgency based on the amount of junta soldiers being killed. Jacob Hellflames (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with a split, but the title should be "People's defensive war", as it is the English term used by the NUG/PDF to specifically refer to their own armed resistance beginning after the coup. There is a relevant discussion here. CentreLeftRight ✉ 09:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I support the split, but the title for the new article should be "2021 anti-coup insurgency in Myanmar" as a more neutral description of the conflict. The conflict which the anti-coup forces in Myanmar described as a "People's Defensive War" can also be described by the junta as a "Terrorist Campaign". - Hu753 (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I support a split and agree with the title mentioned by CentreLeftRight – "People's defensive war". Htanaungg (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Giving it my support. Opposition to the government has grown far beyond protests, Hu753's purposed insurgency title is a good fit. 51.37.97.34 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
As a Senior Burmese editor, I support the split because the current one is too large and protests are over. Taung Tan (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I also support the split and the new article's title should be "2021 anti-coup insurgency in Myanmar" as Hu753 proposed earlier. LP2-2020 18:36, 13 december 2021
I support the split with the name "People's defensive war". Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 03:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Giving another support for spilt, agreeing the name suggested by Hu753. -- Wendylove (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2022 (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.

Requested move 5 January 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus against the move, but there is consensus for a split as discussed above (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


2021 Myanmar protests → ? – The title of this article is quite out of date. The situation has evolved into something bigger than simple protests a long time ago, with armed clashes as well. The Spanish Wikipedia calls the events the "Burmese Revolution", I don't know if the title of "civil war" or "revolution" is correct, but certainly "protests" is quite inappropriate. Maybe a title like revolt, insurgency or something along those lines would be better.

Some suggested titles:

I say move it to 2021–2022 Myanmar protests as I suggest in the section above this one per the manual of style. The protesting is still ongoing and if the conflict becomes further violent, then unrest may be the better title. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

We should split the article as is being discussed above. Perhaps into 2021-2022 Myanmar protests and 2021-2022 Anti-Coup Insurgency in Myanmar as seems to be the evolving consensus in the split discussion EmeraldRange (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Sources have not coalesced around a term, and if there is a split, it makes sense to keep an article with this title since the civil war aspects will all be in a new article. ― Tartan357 Talk 13:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The title is outdated! The protests evolved into armed clashes. Several sources support this:

--Fontaine347 (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It is better to make new articles than changing the name, because armed clashes between two factions are rather consequences/results of protests, not a course of protests itself. -- Wendylove (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose split, support rename: to the 2021–2022 Myanmar protests as this event continues into 2022. A split to new articles is not necessary and causing confusion. 36.77.64.79 (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2022 (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.

Consensus

There was no consensus on changing the title. But there was consensus for splitting the article into "2021 anti-coup insurgency in Myanmar". Could anyone implement the decision? --Fontaine347 (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As the person who suggested the new title for the split. I shall perform the split to the best of my abilities. - Hu753 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myanmar_protests_(2021–present)/Archive_1&oldid=1192684548"