Talk:2021 Myanmar coup d'état

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)


 * So long as it stays up, using archived copies of Irrawaddy news stories (via internet archive) instead of direct links should mitigate any attempt to alter existing stories. We'll need to see how long they manage to remain independent. Btw, has anyone heard any sources discussing UN involvement? Word on the ground says they might be, but that could just be hope outrunning reason.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Tough news, according to the BBC, March 9th:
 * "Monday, the military... revoked the publishing licences of [most of your suggested sources], including...
 * * Mizzima,
 * * DVB,
 * * Khit Thit Media,
 * * Myanmar Now, (whose office was raided, and cmoputers seized), and
 * * 7Day News
 * In a Facebook statement, Mizzima said it will defy the ban... "by publishing and broadcasting through [various] multimedia platforms." Here's hoping.
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Didn't Thailand support the coup d'etat
Although, The government of Thailand told that they are in neutral but they've support the military of Myanmar many times such as sending supplies to the Myanmar military ( https://www.bbc.com/thai/thailand-56470493 ) Mix2802 TH (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The coup was a one-time event; that BBC source talks about supplies going to the Myanmar Army through Thailand in late March. Regardless, the accusation from the Karen National Union is that Thai authorities aren't doing enough to stop those supplies going to the military, but they aren't accusing the Thai government of supporting the State Administration Council (military junta). Centre Left Right  ✉ 01:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2021
change '707 civilian deaths' to 'over 750 civilian deaths.' Mysteryboiii (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The UN secretary general does condemn the junta's arrests
As clear from the link in Intergovernmental responses. The text currently implies that he has only expressed concern.--95.42.19.211 (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction
The article says that it’s unclear whether the military could declare a state of emergency since only the president could. Well, then it is not unclear. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a contradiction. Generally speaking, constitutional issues are clear only when they are settled, usually by a court giving a definitive interpretation. The military can declare a state of emergency (well, actually anyone can) but whether it is constitutional is something that can only be determined if it is challenged in a court. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * (I obviously meant if it can be declared constitutionally, not just de facto.) I teach logic at uni and this is definitively a self-contradiction. It’s not a matter of opinion. If only a court can decide whether only the president can do X constitutionally, and that hasn’t been decided by a court, then we should avoid saying that only the president can do X constitutionally. And if we do say that only the president can do X constitutionally, then it is self-contradictory to say that we don’t know if someone else can also do X constitutionally. Because that’s what “only” means: it means no one else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.70.45 (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the cited Crouch article, I don't think the text was accurately reflecting what she said. I've rewritten it. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, since the article isn't protected, you can dive in and edit it yourself. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)