Jump to content

Talk:Myanmar civil war (2021–present)

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

The "Timeline" section is too long and simply unreadable

[edit]

This is actually a common issue of all wikipedia articles covering ongoing conflicts. Every new event is added, but when they turn out to be minor and next to irrelevant to the conflict, they aren't removed or edited according to the context. In fact this section isn't even in chronological order as it is necessarily the case with a timeline. There are many sub sections about specific operations and geographic areas and the text travel back and forward in time at a dizzying pace. It is more like a dump of news articles than an informative text.

I am not a frequent Wikipedia writer either and I don't know what would I be allowed to do if I decided to summarize this text, therefore I ask the community what could and should be done here, because at least to me the issue is very visible.I personally think that ongoing/recent conflicts' articles have no reason to be so drastically different from historical ones and this is where the problem is.138.62.255.10 (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every so often I end up being the one summarising, doing some splits and shortening the sections. One of the unique issues with the coverage on the Myanmar civil war is that it's harder to find analysis on how to group all the news events. I think early on we grouped it by locaiton within a broader timeframe that had overarching takeaways. However, analyses have certainly shifted to a more constantly updated regional focus.
I know analyses have not been properly incorporated into the article yet but it's certainly harder to follow now that the most recent "timeframe" has the most events and the longest timeframe. I'm personally a bit busy for a few weeks but I'd be happy to try to find those analyses and reorganise the sections- especially post 1027. For now I guess I also want to see what others think. I know a few months ago we dicussed if it would be worth spliting the entire article into a Myanmar civil war (2021-present) and a Myanmar civil war (2023-present) or if that would be misleading to the average viewer who probably isn't aware that there is a war at all. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this; the whole point of Wikipedia is to provide readers with an archive of information with everything they’d want to know about a topic. Removing information just to make the article shorter would not provide any meaningful benefits, especially when there’s a timeline in chronological order that organizes the content already; if you want to look for one thing and not the other, just click on the hyperlink on the side and read what you want to know. It’s not very hard. LordOfWalruses (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we should probably WP:SPLIT the timeline. If you look at, for example, the Anglo-Burmese Wars page, we definitely don't need as much detail as we have here if the information is adequate in separate Operation 1111, Operation 1027 etc pages. The issue is more the other theatres like Chin and Kachin which have a lot of info and news but no narrative. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that sounds like a good idea. LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may chip in, Well, each section in the timeline could have a {main|blabla} or similar and then the stuff removed from the main article is added on those. And I know that similar to proposed above, but that the sections/headers would have clear links somewhere else for further information. I sometimes find people add something OR don't add something say for Op1111 on the main page but don't add it on the satellite article. Ending up with essentially only me adding content to one article and someone else here and them being written separately. Imo the relevant section and daughter article should be written more cries-cross. Where main article essentially has an up-to-date 'summary' with clear link, so the reader if interested can get to the other article and read more. I actually did this here recently when updating the sections. I agree that the main article doesn't need to be overly detailed.
I think this is similar to what EmeraldRange is talking about. and in that case I agree. :)
My two cents. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did by linking to the sections in the other articles. I think I'm going to take a crack at editing this out today- generally thinking to split the whole "New conflict landscape" section into three sections and trying my best to clean up the specific articles. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly did the major trims and splits for the post Laukkai section and there's definitely more that can be done but I wanted to see what other editors thought before I proceeded further (not that I'm likely to soon anyways due to time constraints). I think we definitely need a Karenni/South Shan theater and a Karen State theater and maybe even a Kachin theater article so that there's a more cohesive narrative somewhere since I have split everything up a lot more than before. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 23:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as information isn't deleted from Wikipedia and still found somewhere with linking to find more, I'm ok with it. Only problem I could see if there's nowhere to put the information, there's no article for said subject. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few sub-sections

[edit]

I added a few sub-sections from Operation 1111 to Myanmar_civil_war_(2021–present)#Mon_and_Karenni_resistance. I added them mostly verbatim and I know people think there is too much stuff on the main article already. However thought it relevant since there was important info missing, like that the city of Loikaw switched hands to fully being in Junta's control now and so on. So feel free to shorten etc. the text to fit main article if you so wish. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MNDAA should not be listed as an ally of the NUG

[edit]

This source that I found says that whilst the MNDAA is still at war with the junta, it’s no longer allied with the NUG and has clearly separated itself from NUG affiliation, and as such, it should be moved to the “other belligerents” category. LordOfWalruses (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November Map Edits

[edit]

Nitpicks, Suggestions, and Maps:

Indisputable Edits:

Disputable Edits:

IdioticAnarchist (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pekhon situation you listed as undisputed is 'disputed', see Operation_1111#Fighting_along_the_Karenni-Shan_Border_area. Have four sources, listed in linked section, saying two to three different things. I resolved this by adding all povs to the article stating who said what with refs. :) Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with the following deviations/notes
Nitpicks:
  • UWSA/Thai issue is because border is not demarcated/UWSA is right on border on the other side- nothing we can show on the map
  • agreed on Kalewa
  • Male is not shown to be under PDF control
Indisputables:
  • Kyaukkyi, Thabeikkyin is already next to the frontline; modified frontline slight to match the Google War Maps's inclusion of bombing KIA troops in Twinge village
  • Ann article in Burmese talks about the battle to take the RMCHQ starting- no confirmed news yet AFAIK about it falling; Ann area updated based on other details in article
  • Zee Khon is the same as Chigon; also using Narinjara article on battle and advance stalling at Ywar Thit Gone to update Gwa advance to the Ah Lel Chaung (Ah lel stream)
  • "Kyaik Shwe" added- actually in Kyaik Ywe probably a typo in Burmese that got translated.
  • Paingpwe is at 21.9924'N 97.4241'E; reads as a raid rather than significant RCSS presence- area is already SSPP coded.
  • "PNO" added some territory to the PNA on the township border but could not locate the "main village" of Banmauk in the GAD pcodes or maps.
  • "areas around Inle Lake" is Thantaung. Given the joint nature of many operations, going to keep it as Junta control; see below.
Disputable:
  • Waingmaw not contested
  • PNA or "PYO" activity there and in all the other ones in Kalaw Township or just over the border into Nyaungshwe Township should be treated like Pyusawhti militias or the way we treat KIA/PDF joint north-Sagaing attacks
  • Pekon not secured by junta as per above from Kenneth
Other fixes by me:
  • Hopang -> Hopong in southern shan
  • Nyaungshwe moved north since it was far too south
  • Is there another svg that I can take from on wikimedia that has the lakes of Myanmar? It's probably relevant to put Moebye and Inle on there.
EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map mistake

[edit]

The source given for Khaunglaungphu's capture on the map doesn't say that the town itself has been captured, just that the "Lahu Se" militia camp within the township has been captured. Khaunglaungphu has not been captured. IdioticAnarchist (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I corrected that. Borysk5 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does Japan support Tatmadaw?

[edit]

Does Japan support the Tatmadaw? 93.70.114.163 (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that say they do? If not, then probably no. LordOfWalruses (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mindat

[edit]

Hey guys I think Mindat has been captured 2400:AC40:627:7D10:6462:AF69:A98D:89C0 (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typically we wait until the end of the month to add things to the map IdioticAnarchist (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myanmar_civil_war_(2021–present)&oldid=1264615459"