Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Myanmar/Reliable sources

Myanmar Project‑class

Wikipedia WikiProject Myanmar/Reliable sources is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.MyanmarWikipedia:WikiProject MyanmarTemplate:WikiProject MyanmarMyanmar articles

Project

This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment 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

Nomination 1[edit]

The following are all independently-published private medias and news agencies in Burma.

How should we consider their reliability?

Option 1: The sources are recognized as being generally reliable.
Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
Option 3: The sources are recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though they can be used under certain circumstances.
Option 4: The sources are recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated. Htanaungg (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Option 2 These are major media in Myanmar and reliable in some case but not military related reports. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 It depends on their "conflict of interest." They are generally unreliable on cases pertaining to the anti-junta movement. I have read articles that are certainly a part of coordinated psychological warfare against the junta. However, they can be cited for more general news. Curiousdroid (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Curiousdroid, it should be Option 2 then. Except current situation related to junta, they could be used as RS. Htanaungg (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Cool. I changed it. Also, they can be used as an additional source if other, more reliable sources agree. Curiousdroid (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]