Jump to content

Talk:Myanmar civil war (2021–present)

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

Map Update (April)

[edit]

War map updated as of May 3 2025,

Map fixes: Salin labelled, fixed Western Bago towns, Kyaukpadaung not district capital Removed Kyar Thet label near Pale, village not town

Map changes: Several changes made based on Nathan Ruser's Myanmar Control Map (link) annotated as NR

EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Map Update (May)

[edit]

Updated to June 4, 2025

  • AA advances near Kyaukphyu (Leik Khamaw [1]), Min Tet Taung ([2])

EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Payataung and Yaypu villages in Nyaungshwe Township" update, is it worth an entry on Op1111 article? My browser translator software can't translate it. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put the wrong article before. The actual link is https://yktnews.com/2025/06/216576/
Here's a translation from Google Translate of the first paragraphs:
"An official from the 1009th Battalion of the Inlay People’s Defense Force told the Yangon Times that the military council troops and the PNO militias, who were about 1,000 strong, attacked a military column in Nyaung Shwe Township, causing casualties among soldiers and PNO militiamen. The military council troops burned down at least 10 civilian houses, an official from the 1009th Battalion of the Inlay People’s Defense Force told the Yangon Times.
Yesterday, June 2, at around 8 am, the 1,000-strong military council troops and PNO militiamen entered the villages of Pagoda Taung and Ye Pu in Nyaung Shwe Township, and the People’s Defense Force’s 1009th Battalion of the Inlay People’s Defense Force fought back, and the exchange of fire lasted until around 4 pm.
It is not known whether the military council troops and PNO militiamen were injured in the attack, but it is not known exactly. The People’s Defense Force members were forced to withdraw from Ye Pu village due to the lack of strength, and no one was injured."
I moved the KNDF front up along the east side of the Mobye Resevoir to just south of Yaypu/yepu and added a control in Payataung for the PDF which is very far north on Inle Lake EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll update it once I get some free time to do it :) Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that gt text saying PDF lost said villages? Military council and PNO is the side fighting the Karenni and PNLA. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they used to controll Yebu/yepu and they had to retreat EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if this is too late, but Bawlakhe under attack. Should be contested on map? :) https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-junta-suffers-heavy-casualties-in-battle-for-karenni-town.html Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah yeah, it should be- it'll be in the next month's update if the battle continues. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Map Update (June)

[edit]

Not too many map changes, but to keep up with the months:

Fixes from last month:

New changes

Continued confirmations

ahhh I knew I was missing something relatively major as I was about to publish- Mobye was retaken. Though from the situation it might still be "contested" EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 02:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have two sources on Mobye
https://www.bnionline.net/en/news/junta-retakes-part-mobye-town-and-highway
https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/war-against-the-junta/myanmar-junta-retakes-mobye-in-southern-shan.html
The two saying slightly different things. Irrawaddy says Mobye is taken, my understanding of Network Media Group is, the center has fallen and much of the town, but some wards are still in Karenni control and Fighting is ongoing for those. :) Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh awesome, we'll see what happens in the coming month then! EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SAC dissolved

[edit]

@EmeraldRange: Are you sure "military regime" or "military junta" are "unclear"? These are commonly used terms by media and scholarship, the SAC is the regime's formal name for itself, Wikipedia tends to use common terminology. And it seems especially worth changing when the regime has abandoned the name of SAC and the war continues. TEMPO156 (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "regime" is also WP:POV to describe the military as the governing body rather than the government. It is also unclear as both sides have several "militaries" and therefore military regimes. The Karenni IEC, the MNDAA Shan state Special region are all effectively also Military regimes.
The general standards also discuss to disambiguate when can be done with specific terms, even if not official terms. Their abandonment of the name doesn't me we should follow suit just yet. But I wouldn't be opposed to updating the infobox to the junta's new name rather than a generic "military regime". The infobox calls other groups by specific names too for clarity and brevity For example, "Myanmar Army" rather than "junta soldiers" as more commonly reported or "PDF and allies" rather than based on the day to day changes on whether the "Myingyan Black Tigers" group makes a facebook anouncement about following the NUG MOD command that week.
For the infobox, it is a summary to reflect the article and is not and cannot convey all the nuances. Right now, given that 100% of the article calls it the SAC junta, it is vague and premature in my opinion to change it.
However, I think there's a good argument to update the name for the infobox, add appropriate text to the article. I don't think "military regime" is specific enough though.
Pinging some other editors for opinions on what to call the SAC controlled area on the map and infobox- @KhantWiki @IdioticAnarchist @Kennet.mattfolk EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 01:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I use all of these terms, they are wp:pov, however they aren't my pov. Honestly I have very few emotions invested in any participant, I'm sitting in an place far away. The Ukraine conflict hits a lot more close to home. Thus if the sources uses it, I use it. Then let everyone else deal with the rest, Wikipedia is supposed to be an collaboration, anyone can change these via copy editing. Another frequent term is Tatmadaw. I try to keep the interperting to an minimum, changing the term could be argued to be interperting. Thus references are important, for the reader to go figure out their own pow on the subject.
Now then, for me 'Junta' is neutral, as in the Spanish juntas during the Peninsular war, describing an military led govt. Regime too. But in some English speaking contexts they can have an negative tone. While the Sac/Nug are about self. Technically also pov, just maybe better pow than 'regime'.
If netrality and correctness is the goal 'Formal Military led-government' and 'Informal Military led-goverments' might be the more correct ones. However, how many sources use it? Thus, is pov more important than interperting? As an example, frequently one can tell from sources that things are not going well for the 'Informal Military led-forces' and an retreat is imminent, if not already happening, by statements complaining about 'ammunition shortages' in sources, but no source yet spells it out that Mobye or what not has fallen. Thus should one take liberties and interpert? Imo no. Same with interperting what sources say on these terms. If the reader reads the sources and then this article, they'll know which is which. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EmeraldRange: Really, we're arguing that a term used by the likes of the Associated Press [3], pretty much the most dispassionate impartial reporting out there, does not adhere to a neutral point of view? If you want to take that up at RSN, be my guest. It's a word, and the accurate and correct one. There is only one military government in Myanmar, the militias are not referred to as such in any professional reporting I've ever seen. Please remember to keep your editing based in scholarly sources that you've read rather than trying to figure it out yourself. Personally I've always favored just saying "Tatmadaw" since that's always there, commonly reported, and isn't subject to their constant rebranding, but that was reverted when I tried it a couple years ago. TEMPO156 (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tatmadaw makes the most sense yeah. I don't remember the context of that revert but I would imagine it might've been because "SAC" is more specific. Of course now, it's confusing with the new rebranding of the SAC.
Regarding the AP, yeah you're right, "the regime" is used broadly also by other RS who cover the war more regularly. Broadly, I've seen the usage of "the junta" and "the military" for sure now that look at Frontier, BBC etc. I still say that it is confusing, but I admit most of it is coming from me monitoring edits that often mention things like "5 military sodliers were killed" etc which I find confusing in prose as there are soldiers on both sides. I would rather we have a less ambiguous terms like "the Junta" and to make the article consistent with updates instead of just updating the infobox. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, reading wp:pov you link above, interperting is a must. Stating "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." We thus must interpert sources bringing a certain pov and give it an, English-speaking worlds pov on what is neutral.
But then again the article also says "For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
Thus I take that as ok when I write:"In contrast, the Irrawaddy reports that Hpasawng has been under siege since February 2024, with two battalion bases now falling to the Karenni resistance." on Op1111, bc the source uses the term 'resistance'.
Idk, that pov wiki article is a little contradictory tbh. But I do think we're 'safe' in using 'junta', 'sac', 'Tatmadaw' etc. regardless if the sources are known to use them. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Came to think of one possible solution, if these terms are felt to be confusing, same with the numerous accronyms. One could add one section before or after the background section. There list all of them in bullet points, give each an short explainer.
  • Tatmadaw - meaning the [military]
  • Pdf - [Peoples defence force] affiliated with Nug
  • Junta - reference to post-coup government in Naypitaw.
etc. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Map Update (July)

[edit]

Updated to August 4 2025 General Updates:

Changes

Please let me know if there are any changes I'm missing EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The map shows Hpasawng as part of KSIEC, but I have reports it's 'under siege', though for how long, being disputed among sources. With Irrawaddy reporting the furthest time since Feb. 2024. I could've sworn I remember it fell to the Karenni at some point, my suspicion is that it may have changed hands a few times. Same as with Mobye probably now what 5th change since Op1111, but that with Hpasawng, the exchanges of that might have not been mentioned my sources or been overshadowed or missed by me. I think one could consider it as Tatmadaw or contested imo. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it's "under siege" esp. according to this article [4] but the way it's written might seen to indicate that it's under siege by airstrikes while isn't the same as contested. Relevant section: "The regime relied heavily on its air force to defend the town as it could not send reinforcements by road. It reportedly carried out dozens of airstrikes daily while a junta operational command in Bawlakhe town provided artillery support."
If you have a couple other sources I could put it as contested too. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That wikilink above, links to the Op1111 section on this siege. With sources ofc. Irrawaddy is amongst them. I was simply too lazy to go copy paste them via my tiny phone screen late at night. :D Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my bad I didn't click on it and thought it was just a link to the town. I think that's good I'll push out an update soon. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myanmar_civil_war_(2021–present)&oldid=1304244218"