Talk:Saffron Revolution

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 24, 2017.

Myanmar 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

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

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

TOO MUCH SPECULATIONS AND RUMOURS/PROPAGANDA

Neutrality of this article is hereby disputed. For example, some generals and soldiers being arrested for not following the "allged" orders to shoot the protestors is clearly not verified by any sources. Random websites and anti-government articles cannot be deemed reliable. There is no evidence verifying the claim of such arrests. The article is politically motivated, aimed at putting the government's reputation into the worst possible state, and not in line with neutrality policy of Wikipedia.

Misleading, speculative and unverifyable facts must be removed. This includes, but without limitation, the number of those killed in the protests. For example, the government claimed 15 were killed and the UN put 31. So the truth is around that region, but the article put the number in "hundreds" citing random opinion articles and propaganda sources. This is one of many examples.

Re: Nagai's death---- the video shows him falling down and indeed he was shot but from the video evidence we have seen it was NOT clear at all whether the armed soldier who ran past him was responsible for it. From the video footage the "shooting" carried out by the soldier in question was NOT recorded. In other words, the firing of bullet was not recorded, only an armed soldier running past over him. Further, the breaching of legal issues exercised by Nagai was not addressed. He did not enter as a journalist, but as a tourist who should've stayed away from any politics or such disturbances. He voluntarily and deliberately, not accidently, put himself in the crowd to make video recordings of the incidents.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsci (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To that effect, the Burmese government sorces are also deemed unreliable as propaganda. The governments reputation is deemed compromised as the evidence from this event doesn't add to their statements. It doesn't matter who killed Nagai, the government is responsible for his safety, and his death they have addmited that, so your arguement is on this point is "void". The dead and missing is only speculation, the precise number will not be know as the government wont allow an investigation into the event for accountability. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Let us please use the name Burma. "The Saffron Revolution" is a consequence of the juta-terror regime, whom introduced the name Myanma. Neither the name Myanma nor the militaire juta are recognised by the Burmese people, the very same people who are now demonstrating in a non-violent way. Burma should be used.

There is no difference grammatical or otherwise between "Myanma" and "Myanmar". It is true that there is no "-r" involved -- that is just British Imperial spelling for [a:] as in "car" [ka:]. Both "Myanmaa" and "Baamaa" are legitimate terms relating to the country and its largest ethnic group. That is a discussion for another day however. -- Evertype·✆ 11:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As native Burmese speaker, I can assure you (Evertype and Nightstallion) that Myanma and Myanmar aren't the same, and that Myanma is the adjective of Myanmar. Myanma is the possessive form of Myanmar.Hybernator (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Myanmar has been moved to Burma, likewise for Politics of Burma and History of Burma per the decision at Talk:Burma#Requested move. Anyone want the grunt work?--Alf ^melmac 17:57, 5 October 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]

I am removing the recently-added Saffron Revolution tags as there only needs to be one, but they all just redirect you back to this original page and are therefore pointless. Alboreto 02:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that all the other color revolutions were successful...if this one indeed does topple the junta, I would support renaming the article to Saffron Revolution, because I suspect that's what the media would refer to it as. --Hemlock Martinis 03:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Economist's cover article for this week is about the protests. Perhaps their cover could be used as the lead picture? --Hemlock Martinis 03:44, 30 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]

Aung San Suu Kyi holds a sort of iconic status. She was the daughter of one of the leaders in the move to independence for Burma from Britain and holds a bit of his legacy. She also worked in the UN under General Secretary U Thant (also Burmese). She came back to Burma lead demonstrations and the outcry against the 8888 massacre in which a huge number of people were killed. With that fame, she was able to lead the NLD in Burma. However, although Aung San Suu Kyi is greatly respected, the main part of the protests (before the 26th?) seems to be about economic reasons. The greater anti-government sentiment seems to have grown afterwards.--Jonthecheet 08:29, 2 October 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]

They are, but they may be a local variant as the bottom stripe is pale pink, not orange. Chris 23:55, 30 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]

Another reason why reliable sourcing is required is because people often make mistakes and/or don't know what they're talking about. There is no real possibility of 'action' by the International Court of Justice because the issue has little to do with the ICJ. The primary purpose of the ICJ is for resolving disputes between 2 states when said states accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ. If Thailand and Myanmar/Burma had a territorial dispute for example they could agree to take it to the ICJ. The ICJ can also issue advisory opionions on request by UN agencies but this isn't really about taking action and is more to do with the legal issues surrounding something. There is possibility of action in the ICC but only on the request of the UN security council as the ICC lacks universal jurisdiction (because of the opposition of the US amongst other countries). Also I don't see how you can call this specific action genocide since it's quite clear their primary purpose is to stop the protests not kill people even if they have murdered a few people as a result. It may be wrong but it's not genocide. The junta may have commited genocide in other cases but this isn't one of them Nil Einne 15:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section, without any structural changes, was reinstated by Myauklay without any discussion or remarks on this page, in spite of deletion of the section earlier. Therefore, I have undone this modification. Andreas Willow 12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of the monks killed on 9-26?

Do we have names and photos of those monks?

Does it matter anymore after the new killings? Even if we did, there are too many missing/dead to be able to write them. We'll have to wait until this battle is over, and if the junta is toppled, we MIGHT be able to find out. Otherwise it will be nigh impossible, as they'll be perpetually missing. I understand the importance of their act, but its infeasible at the moment. --Fshy 15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message in Burmese

What is the exact message on the pictured banner? --Camptown 12:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to a commentator on [3] it means "Non-violence National Movement". No way of knowing if that's true or not. EconomicsGuy 12:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC

I'd like someone to confirm. It would not be amusing if it actually said, "support the junta!", and we captioned it as reading, "Non-violence National Movement". --Fshy 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exact translation, well done. Wagaung 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News

I dunno if it's appropriate but the BBC uses Burma in place of Myanmar (but many of us do, anyway), but interestingly they still use Rangoon in place of Yangon. Now I dunno if we can invoke WP:ENGVAR since Burma was a former British colony. --Howard the Duck 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dissidents in exile also say Burma and Rangoon. Probably because Myanmar and other new namings have been introduced in recent years by the junta. --Camptown 13:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, CNN uses "Myanmar" and "Yangon". --Howard the Duck 15:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the British this may have to do with the fact that they are the ones who named it Burma to begin with? I'm a bit confused by CNN using Myanmar since the US government repeatedly reffers to it as Burma. This may be CNN's attempt to be neutral by using the official name? EconomicsGuy 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, however the question is if we'd use CNN or BBC standards, or we use these separately when referring to cited statements from those 2 sources? Also, I wondering if we should include this "trivia," where BBC uses Burma/Rangoon, while CNN uses Myanmar/Yangon. I don't know what other news agencies refer to the country. --Howard the Duck 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well judging from the below mentioned BBC article it doesn't seem like we would be offending the people of Burma/Myanmar by simply calling it Burma. I'm a bit more reluctant to use Rangoon because I'm unsure what the local population calls it. As mentioned below it's hard to obtain information about these things because the regime doesn't let the people express themselves about these things in writing and most certainly not on the Internet. EconomicsGuy 16:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the confusion here Time is now using Burma and Rangoon. EconomicsGuy 16:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have strong feelings either way on what to call the country in this specific article (as opposed to the Myanmar article), I think it's flawed (as I remarked in the Myanmar article) to presume the people of Myanmar/Burma prefer Burma. We know the pro-democracy movement prefers Burma and we know the majority of the population appear to support the democracy movement. However while it's more likely then not, there's no reason to assume for certain the majority prefer Burma. Of course the majority probably don't speak English so this issue gets even more complicated but anyway... N.B. In terms of comparisons between sources I don't think that gets you anywhere. All it tells you is what you already know. Some sources particularly American, British, Australia and ~~New Zealand~~ ones use Burma. Some sources particularly Asian ones (Al Jazeera, Xiahua, Indian news sources, Malaysian, Singaporean) use Myanmar. Some sources are inconstent or appear to lack clear editorial policies (DWWorld and another German source are two I remember). Ultimately it seems pointless. Edit:I removed NZ as looking more carefully most kiwi sources actually use Myanmar. Somehow I never really noticed. Nil Einne 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to invoke ENGVAR then surely it should be what is preferred by the English speakers of Myanmar/Burma and as I mentioned in the Myanmar article we don't know the answer to that question because the military doesn't let people talk about such matters Nil Einne 16:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC's explanation on Burma v Myanmar. --Howard the Duck 16:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current de facto naming convention is to use Myanmar. There is a ongoing discussion about the name at Talk:Myanmar, but for now Myanmar should be used to maintain continuity. --Hemlock Martinis 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the Myanmar article should stay Myanmar. When it comes to this article I guess there are 4 issues.

Firstly since the pro-democracy movement prefers Burma should we choose Burma because this is after all about the protests related to the pro-democracy movement (although many of the participants are not part of the traditional pro-democracy movement and the views of some of the major new participants like the Alliance of All Burmese Buddhist Monks is unknown, I suspect most of them don't care greatly).
Secondly, while the democracy movement are the protestors, they're protesting against the junta. Does "Myanmar’s military dictatorship" or "Burma’s military dictatorship" make more sense?
Thirdly, should we try to maintain internal consistency by sticking with Myanmar as with the Myanmar article or is that silly given that we usually treat each article individually and there are a lot of examples where we aren't internally consistent.
Fourthly should we just go with the original contributors usage which was Myanmar which is the usual fallback when we can't decide?

Personally I don't really care that greatly so I wouldn't object to either usage in this article. Also perhaps we should just hope the democracy movement succeeds, the junta collapses, and the new government decides on a name which we can all agree on? Nil Einne 20:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the name of this country, we should use whatever is the consensus name for the country over at its article on Wikipedia so that the debate over there, which has gone on for years, is incorporated, which currently means we should use Myanmar. We should also mention right at the beginning that the country was previously known as Burma, not so much for political reasons or to cast aspersions on the validity of the change (those two items have been considered in the long-running Myanmar debate) but just in order to improve readability for millions of people who have heard of Burma and have not heard of Myanmar. Tempshill 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you see, the junta has renamed the country Myanmar, but a great deal of major nations refuse to recognize that name, and "officially" user Burma. That's the issue. I think that when we refer to the current regime(as of the time), we should talk about Myanmar, but when we talk about the country as a whole, we should refer to Burma. I know that may seem against one or another of the Wiki policies, but I think they are two separate entities, as Myanmar is a name given to the country by that regime, and as we know, regimes sometimes don't last, and countries end up being renamed again. Just my two cents. --Fshy 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

typo?

"Some Burmese internet users are trying to use internet forums to get outside and unbiased information about their situation.[42]"

There must be a verb missing in front of "unbiased"? Kellenwright 02:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, It's fine. They are trying to get info that is from the outside and is unbiased. I'm not much of a grammar person myself, but I think a comma is needed somewhere.. Tonerman 05:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest "outside, unbiased" would be more clear. Britmax 12:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unbiased part completely. The reference doesn't say anything about unbiased and IMHO it's a little misleading or excessive to claim the information is unbiased. While it's a lot less biased the crap the government shows I don't think any news source let alone forums can be said to be completely unbiased. Instead I changed it to say outside information uncontrolled by the government which is a more accurate description of the situation Nil Einne 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Removed. POV to include an appeal from a Facebook Campaign for Burma:

"We want the Burmese movement to become known worldwide as the Saffron Revolution. Ukraine had the Orange Revolution; Burma will have the Saffron Revolution." - US Campaign for Burma.[ref](http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204981909) US Campaign for Burma Facebook group [/ref]

--Camptown 19:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a facebook campaign, its the US Campaign for Burma which is an NGO. I could not find the quote on their website, so used their facebook presence. I believe it added to how and why it became known as the saffron revelution. --Alboreto 06:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Can it be slightly rewritten? --Camptown 10:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major outlets vs smaller outlets

I'm seeing some discrepancy between the BBC/CNN and the smaller ones in reporting the event. The major outlets don't seem to recognise at all the military movements or the infighting. Is this merely due to cautiousness or don't they recognise the legitimacy of the coup reports? It's been about a day since the reports of military infighting began. -- Permafrost 03:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that its really difficult to confirm such reports and so they're wary of repeating it. This page is probably better dealing with confirmed facts from large news agencies. -- Alboreto 06:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but things happen so fast that even if we decided that, someone else would just add it anyway. Usually what happens on these articles is that once things have calmed down the article is trimmed and better sources for the same information are found. I think the template at the top of the article is sufficient to let the reader know that things might change rapidly. EconomicsGuy^{Return the fire!} 11:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think that we should keep it, but a little warning about the source wouldn't go astray, no? Just so our readers can decide whether its reliable or not? --Fshy 15:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrations

The International Reaction section needs a sub-section on the demonstrations happening in many countries in support of the demonstrators. --Safe-Keeper 20:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While International reaction to the 2007 Burmese anti-government protests summarises the political reactions, it does indeed miss out on the demonstrations happening elsewhere (which have been noted in Burma; Ko Hla {a blogger whose work is being translated at burmanews.cbox.ws} wrote: "We have received photos of patriot Myanmar and people around the world wearing red-shirt showing our hour to those who sacrifice their lives and stand strongly behind the people who are brave protesting even thought the junta crackdown brutally. Thank You for the support."), I have seen very many mentions of external demonstrations, and boggle somewhat at the task that will entail.--Alf ^melmac 22:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daw Win Mya Mya

Is Daw Win Mya Mya a Muslim? We don't have an article on her and the relevance of the Ramadan reference unclear if she isn't a Muslim (and therefore may be fasting). The reference doesn't say anything Nil Einne 12:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She probably is if the family mentioned Ramadan. Fasting could also mean not eating a meal after noon, one of the Eight precepts kept by devout Burmese Buddhists as well as their monks and nuns. It appears that most outsiders are unaware of the fact that all this is happening during the Buddhist lent too which makes the atrocious acts committed by the military regime all the more sacrilegious, even such a seemingly mild measure as forcing the abbots to send young monks and novices home during their rains retreat when monks are not supposed to travel even to the next monastery. They are going home now for fear of attacks on the monasteries being carried out by the security forces. Wagaung 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First foreign casualty

It sounds as we are expecting other people to die. Can't we just say "only foreign casualty"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloviz (talk • contribs) 15:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...aren't we? I'm sorry, but as this is a current event, it is possible, and indeed, likely that more will die. --Fshy 04:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is better. There is no reason to presume there will be more casulties especially more foreign casulties. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However there is no reason to assume there won't be. So saying he's believed to currently be the only foreign casulty makes it clear we're talking about the here and now not what may or may not happen in the future Nil Einne 09:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chinese statement

"China hopes all parties concerned in [Burma] ... resume stability through peaceful means as soon as possible..."

that does not sound like "pro-protesters" or pressuring to me. I'd rather read it the other way round: "Dear Burmese government, take any violent measures u feel r necessary and after that go back to peaceful." The statement also suggests that protesters are acting violent too, which is rather a joke. So i say, wording should be much more reserved. Opinions? --Echosmoke 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't take any statement form china to seriously, they would react the same way to these types of protests. But the statement is fine and a reflection of Chinas stance. Enlil Ninlil 23:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public statements are really mostly unimportant IMHO. What really matter is what's going on behind the scenes. There have been numerous reports/suggestions that China is applying strong pressure (for China anyway) on the regime to avoid violence and to allow the UN envoy full access. We simply mention these reports/suggestions Nil Einne 08:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But thats my point - citing the statement is fine, but its commented and (wrongly) interpreted. --84.159.179.75 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs as sources

What do other people think about using blogs as sources (for reports of the situation in Myanmar) on for the article. I'm don't believe it should be done. While using Irrawardy, Mizzanet and other such news sites is probably okay, blogs is taking it too far IMHO. If these claims are picked up by other sources then we can mention them but if the only source is a blog then leave them out. Remember this is wikipedia, not wikinews. Currently there are 4 different things attributed to 2 different blogs Nil Einne 16:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well generally the information we get from both sides is biased and full of misinformation, especially the Myanmar government. But we should use them only if there corroberated from another source.Enlil Ninlil 20:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as its clear that its information from a (named) blog and not stated as fact..I rather see the problem here: which blogs are "relevant" and which should we not include - cant see how to establish guidelines there. do some exist?
Im also critical on the video and photo section. Anyone can goto utube and do a search themselves, also e.g. the childs brain photo is so out of context, it could be from anywhere and even fake --Echosmoke 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well when a statement or comment is made that may be biased it must be stated as that, frankly we will not have much information on this topic from Myanmar itself because of the information blackout. Most of the sourse will be second, third hand accounts after the fact. It is a hard topic to get reliable and accurate information on. Enlil Ninlil 04:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing things under control

We can't allow this article to become a running chronicle of Burmese history - it already covers eight days of it. The focus should be exclusively on the protests, as the title indicates - and those already ended a couple of days ago. Let's try to rein in the article and excise material not directly pertinent to the protests, and not especially encyclopedic. Biruitorul 21:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know

Are these monks pacifists? 132.241.245.48 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all Buddhist monks are pacifist. Totnesmartin 09:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are suppoise to be. I remember in Korea some monks arguing over a temple and they were very angry.Enlil Ninlil 04:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who Are The Burmese Monks?

I heard on ABC News most young men in Myanmar are monks for at least some of their lives? Is this so? It would be helpful for someone to define what a MONK is in Myanmar and how Monks relate to the general population. Because in the Western World religious people are a calling and not something every day people participate in. 4.142.45.84 23:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)nick[reply]

There is a difference between full time monks and just Buddhist followers. In Burma, it is traditional for young men to go to a monastery for a month or two to learn some of the Buddhist text, prayers, and meditation. During this time, they completely shave their heads, wear the traditional saffron robes, and follow the strict window of eating, from 6am to 12pm. I personally went through a similar experience, albeit only for 5 days and here in the United States. Monks permanently devote themselves to Buddhism. In Burma, the monks live off of the donated food from the local area. Monks cannot cook for themselves, nor own many possessions. Buddhism is definitely a large part of Burmese culture. My family (aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins) have been donating thousands of dollars to building/maintaining monasteries in Burma for years.--Jonthecheet 08:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you look up Buddhism in Myanmar and Shinbyu? Wagaung 22:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed from international reactions

I removed this

“

Singapore is a only good friend of Myanmar generals. All top generals such as Than Shwe, Maung Aye, Khin Nyunt (detained) came for medical treatment in Singapore General Hospital. General relatives and children live in Singapore to study or business. Many believed that they purchased properties in Singapore. Due to tremendous pressure from USA, UK and EU countries, Singapore and ASEAN country strongly asked Junta to solve problem peacefully. Almost all of Myanmar Embassies faced protest. Singapore government never allow political motivated gathering but they closed eyes on peaceful protest at Embassy front started from 2nd September. Opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan and team also there for signature campaign together with Myanmar nationals 24 hours "Candle Light" memorial function. [4]

”

as the tone is POV and it is poorly written. If there is something to be garnered from it, it needs a rewrite. Chris 08:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

broadcast on FOXNews ticker 3 October 2007

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,509232,00.html 'They Come at Night and Murder the Monks' Chris 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mutiny reports

We need a separate section on mutiny reports. Here is some info:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14950921

http://www.guardian.co.uk/burma/story/0,,2182816,00.html

http://www.unpo.org/article.php?id=7217

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2180449,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/30/wburma330.xml

http://newspostindia.com/report-16907 --Espoo 09:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, let's limit this article

I posted above, without much effect, that "we can't allow this article to become a running chronicle of Burmese history". Please understand that the article refers to the protests - which, for all intents and purposes, have been over for a week - and not to their aftermath, which is being covered with far too excessive detail. We are not a news blog, but an encyclopedia, so please make an effort to respect that and find a reasonable cutoff date for the chronology, which now details 11 days of Burmese history. Biruitorul 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well first I'd say your sort of correct, we can not have this article dealing with every day chronologically, people can and should go to Portal:Myanmar and do news reports there, they need it. The article should be rewritten with what is provided into an encyclopedic article. Second is because of the news cutoff from Myanmar, we don't know if the protests have stoped. The aftermarth of the protests is relevant to this article as it is dirrectly related to them, and the consequences of the protesters actions caused by the protests. Enlil Ninlil 04:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree the situation is fluid and we can certainly wait, let's say, two months before things really die down (assuming they do), then go back and, with the benefit of hindsight, fashion a more coherent article. 2. On the other hand, yes, the aftermath is relevant, but only up to a point. Hypothetically, if the junta announces new elections in six months, will we keep going until then? Will that be considered part of the aftermath? Time will tell, I suppose, but one sees here why it's more satisfying (for me at least) writing about events well in the past - we know how those ended, but we don't yet know quite how this article should be brought to a close. Biruitorul 04:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok maybe we should tone down the article and put some sections of it in the History of Myanmar, elections would be mentioned but it isn't dirrectly related to the aftermath of the protest, like the crackdown, arrests, extraduditial killings are. For the close, well if the protests start up again of a full blown revolt! well that the article gets expanded. But I don't know how to end the article as of yet. Hope other's will comment. Enlil Ninlil 05:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that things have settled down a bit it would be appropriate to start trimming the article and concentrate on the things that are well sourced using indisputable sources. Things happened very quickly; with the few number of foreign journalists inside the country to report what happened and the lack of Internet connection there were many roumors. We piled on quite a lot and now may be a good time to start being a bit more selective. At the tijme we didn't really know what eould be significant and what would turn out to be just roumors - even sources that we normally refer to as reliable can be wrong when things happen this fast. EconomicsGuy^{Return the fire!} 12:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

I think the answer is to spawn off a timeline page. See, for example, Timeline of the 2006 Lebanon War (late August) and the entire genre at Category:Timelines of military conflicts.

The timeline is the most objective tool for confirming the flow of events and information relating to claims made in the associated encyclopaedic article. It's also very good for tracking how the official story changes -- something which is obviously not going to be well reported in the most recent news article. Even timelines produced by major news sources, eg BBC timeline for Iraq missing seven years of the Iran-Iraq War, can be brutally selective.

The timeline is an example where wikipedia hugely surpasses any other automatic searching of news articles, since you either have to search it on relevance, in which case the articles are all out of order, or you show them in order, in which case you will receive pageloads of irrelevant articles. So please don't throw the information away. Put it somewhere very safe and look after it. Goatchurch 11:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I created a timeline article entitled Timeline of the 2007 Burmese anti-government protests. It is just a copy of what is on the main page now, but now we can begin to summarize the events on the main page and add more information to the timeline. Remember 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related template

{{User burfreedemo}} produces

This user strongly advocates freedom and democracy in Myanmar.

Chris 03:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prologue

I created the prologue section because I thought the page needed to examine the back story. Any input would be welcome. Remember 21:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good article [5] if someone wants to add more backstory. Remember 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did the media arrive?

The article is missing information on when professional journalists arrived in Burma. Was it immediately, or after the story had been picked up on by the web dissidents? Were they denied access at all? Who went and who didn't, generally speaking? --Tom Edwards 14:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Videos

Uhhh...I can't view any of the Youtube videos at the bottom of the page. They're all private. We might as well take them out since we can't really view them. 68.8.104.62 02:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"anti-protester propaganda billboard" picture

The sign, claimed to be "anti-protester propaganda billboard" is one of the signs that were for a long time situated (I think as propaganda for tourists) on the entrances to the Mandalay palace. I have its picture dated last May. It has nothing to do with the protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.62.128 (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. These anti-insurgent/dissenter slogans have been around for decades all over the country. Wagaung 22:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the picture should be removed, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.182.176 (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, is it a government propoganda billboard? Sue Wallace 16:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Just take a look- "Tatmadaw and the people, cooperate and crush those harming the union". The union of the army and the people... But it is not anti-protester, it's, as been told, "anti-insurgent/dissenter slogans" that existed for years. So no reason to insert this picture into the article about the current protests —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.150.71 (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentary moved from article

“

Start from November First, Internet connection was too slow. I have to wait 1 hour to access www.google.com, on 3rd November today we got back a little faster but still too slow. Now the Government let use internet but I think 30kbps

”

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayar (talk • contribs)

What's going on?

What has happened regarding the protests since the last update? --the_hoodie 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"US-TO-IMPOSE-NEW-SANCTIONS" :
- [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7011607.stm US to impose new Burma sanctions] BBC, September 24, 2007.
- [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7011607.stm US to impose new Burma sanctions] BBC, September 25, 2007.

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]