Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Myanmar/Reliable sources

Nomination 1

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

• Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB)
• Mizzima News
• Daily Eleven

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)

Vote

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

New Sources added

@Battlesnake1 - I see you added new sources to the list. The proper way would be to discuss on here for consensus first. I want to gather consensus on all new additions here.

New sources proposed to be added by Battlesnake:

• Generally reliable sources:
  • Myanmar Now Burmese Edition
  • Myanmar Now English Edition
  • Frontier Myanmar
  • Democratic Voice of Burma (English and Burmese)
• Marginally reliable
  • Burma News International
  • Narinjara News
  • Kaladan Press
  • Eleven Media Group
• Generally Unreliable:
  • Global New Light of Myanmar

I agree with the characterisations. For the new marginally reliable I have found their coverage accurate but biased. However it may not be worth keeping the "marginally reliable" additions on the page based on the conversation above from 2021.

Additionally I want to propose the following:

• Marginally reliable: NP News
• Generally unreliable: Facebook or Instagram sources (to re-iterate general wikipedia policy given Myanmar's news landscape)

The options are as follow. Please vote below with reasonable for all of these additions or for just some in particular.

• 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.

EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging some others who may be interested @Htanaungg @KhantWiki @Ninjastrikers @Gråbergs Gråa Sång EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for not seeking consensus on the sources beforehand.

Battlesnake1 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Vote

Option 3 for NP News. Considering that they were founded after the coup in Myanmar itself and report on alleged crimes from the PDFs and EAOs but not military war crimes. At least Eleven News allows syndications from affiliated ANN publications calling PDFs “resistance” and critical news of the junta’s actions (even if Eleven refers to the junta by their official names). Battlesnake1 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I will give my clear assessment and I can elaborate my vote based on their reporting, structure, facts-checking, practices and reputation. Option 1 for Myanmar Now Burmese and English news edition, as they are published in August 2015 by the Thomson Reuters foundation that is ahead of Myanmar's general election. Also for Frontier Myanmar, as it's a bilingual news and business weekly magazine ,founded in July 2015 by news journalists from trusted and well-reputable outlets like the Myanmar Times and The Irrawaddy. The staffs also possess deep experience in local reporting and have won major regional awards like SOPA, and Human Rights Press Awards. And for the Democratic Voice of Burma and both its English and Burmese news editions, are also generally reliable; they are a nonprofit media network founded in 1992 and revived under Burmese reporters after 2012. They also operates independently in bilingual format, aiming to provide an accurate and objective content. They also had been recognized by Reporters Without Borders and won press freedom awards.

Both Option 2 and Option 1 for the Burma News International, as it is a coalition of 15 primarily ethnic and regional news agencies, offering bilingual content. They focus on minority and border issues—adds diversity of perspectives. They also had a code of ethics, editorial oversight across members. From my opinion of vote, this Burmese news agency can be considered as "marginally to generally reliable". Good for niche/local coverage—watch for unevenness.

Option 2 Now for the Narinjara news, it can be used as a reliable and independent sources, the news company is a Rohingya-focused outlet within BNI, covering conflict in Rakhine. Marginally reliable. Valuable source, but verify with other reporting.

Option 2 for the Kaladan Press Network, another BNI member, focusing on Rakhine and western Myanmar. The news press network is also similar to Narinjara: regionally vital. The news can be considered Mmrginally reliable. Good for context on local issues, but cross-check for accuracy.

Option 1 and Option 2 for the Eleven Media Group, Eleven Media Group is one of Myanmar's largest private media conglomerates, founded in 2000. They had a broad reach, mix of news, commentary, and investigative pieces. The media group was also previously awarded “Media of the Year” in 2011 by RSF . But here are the challenges based on my research: fired investigative editors and faced legal battles (Section 66(d), defamation). Apologies and retractions suggest occasional lapses in fact-checking or editorial rigor. In conclusion they are marginally reliable based on that alone but if they provide a base of accurate news, articles and investigative pieces, they can be considered Option 1. They have strong capabilities and reach, but incidents of errors and legal pressure show careful scrutiny is needed. KhantWiki (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this your real opinion or ChatGPT's opinion? EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This is based on my opinion with research from Google. Apologies if it seems ai generated but it's obviously not ai generated or from ChatGPT. KhantWiki (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the accusation, I suspected it is AI-generated based on the phrasing such as "Good for context on local issues, but cross-check for accuracy", the use of the em dash and calling Narinjara a Rohingya-focused outlet.

In either case, Option 1 is generally for sources that can be almost always trusted (i.e. if a cited text uses Myanmar Now that information is correct.) Option 2 is for sources that may seem reliable but have issues. For instance, Narinjara is a Rakhine-focused outlet and can sometimes repeat AA press releases uncritically. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

No problem EmeraldRange, if I have to be be honest about it, it may come across as ai generated because I have used information from the research on Google and I have fixed some google ai generated words and replaced it with my real opinions and perspective on it. Based on the vote between Option 1 and 2 for Burma News International, and Eleven Media Group, it would depend on your perspective on it, but for me I would say it's probably 1, if they have fixed and improved their news reporting and facts checking accuracy statistics. You can feel free to ask more on your thoughts and opinions on what should be the options, and I will provide to you with a raw opinion and views, based on my research from them. From my research, Narinjara News indeed is a Rakhine-focused news media outlet and you're right that they mostly repeats press statements release from the AA. So I can say that Narinjara News is indeed a 2. For others, we can vote on what should be the correct numbers between the options. KhantWiki (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Kaladan Press would probably be a 2 as well because they are a Rohingya-focused publication. Battlesnake1 (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe we have consensus at least on the following: Option 1: Myanmar Now (both versions), Frontier Myanmar, DVB Option 2: Narinjara News, Kaladan Press Network Option 3: NP News, Global New Light of Myanmar

I've added those to the page The remaining controversial ones- mostly from @KhantWiki are Burma News International, Eleven Media Group I believe BNI should be in Option 2 since we already have the other BNI subgroups in Option 2. I don't think we have consensus on Eleven though since I believe they are generally reliable expect when it comes to gaps in coverage on war issues. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)