Talk:Operation 1027

Hsenwi vs Theinni

There are uses of both terms in sourcing and in the page itself. They all probably be changed to one name for clarity and consistency to avoid confusing readers. @JAMB2023 and @EmeraldRange I'd appreciate your input on this as native citizens. CrazyMagicPickle (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Prefer Hsenwi personally as even the GAD acknowledges the Shan language by using the a haphazard combination of "Hseni". Essentially, Hsenwi is Shan language while Theinni is Burmanized. I went and changed for consistency.EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2

I think information in the November 2 section should be moved to other relevant ones. The section does not describes any event happened on Nov 2, instead it outlines news reports on that day. @EmeraldRange. JAMB2023 (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, seems like something to put in an section about the overall. Go be WP:BOLD and do it! EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sagaing-Magway

@JAMB2023 @Minntheking Do you guys think the Sagaing-Magway offensives recently are part of 1027? Would be good to have articles that say they are part of 1027. If not those might just be part of Myanmar civil war (2021-present) page. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Resistance or rebel?

@Vif12vf and EmeraldRange: I have noted a dispute in the edit history regarding whether to use "rebel" or "resistance" for Three Brotherhood Alliance and other anti-junta forces. I am leaning on reverting to "resistance" but would like to discuss before doing so. NasssaNser_talk 07:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I selected three random sources, and two of them [1], [2] use the word "resistance" more than "rebel" while a third [3] used "rebel" more. Seems like some sources use both words, and I don't see a problem with using both words as a compromise for more varied prose. I don't see either term as more "subjective" than the other. Ironic (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't particularly have a strong opinion; but rebel is not any less POV than resistance. Not sure if consistency is an issue. My intuition is that the EAOs, especially those formed before the NUG, are more likely to be called rebel over resistance. But there are sources that don't follow this: EAO as resistance, EAO as rebel, non-EAO as rebel, non-EAO as resistance EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Disputed territory shading on the map is confusing

I think the stripes for the "disputed territory" regions on the map might make ascertaining the true extent of the regions somewhat confusing. For example, it could go unnoticed that Shwebo falls under disputed territory because a massive stripe cuts off that from where the large green line looks like it ends south of Kanbalu. I would recommend making the stripes smaller, and making both the green and the red lighter within disputed territory, so they have a clearer outline from the then darker red and green used for fully claimed territory. If this issue is also on the source map, it may be a good idea to do the same with that, too. 98.252.78.138 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Clyde H. Mapping EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done: I have edited the pattern and also outlined areas of resistance presence. For future inquiries I recommend using the file's talk page. Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Chinese Support

I have removed the part claiming China explicitly supported the rebels with arms. The citations given in the sentence are unreliable, merely speculative and push the China-centric narrative without providing any concrete evidence. The most reliable speculation of China's tacit approval could be seen in this interview by the Diplomat. Even in that interview, she could not provide any concrete evidence of China's tacit approval apart from China's desire to get rid of cyber scams and the military achievement of 3BHA. More importantly, tacit approval does not equate to as primary divers of the event. TheoValor (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoValor (talk • contribs) 19:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Using the dubious claim that "tacit acceptance" by China of the offensive constitutes its support, and support on a scale comparable to the NUG is quite a stretch to me. I'd personally say that China being listed as supporting the offensive be removed unless there is concrete evidence for direct material or diplomatic aid to the operation. Thoughs? CrazyMagicPickle (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

China supports United Wa State Army, which supplies materials to insurgent fighters and rebel alliance. According to this Indian media: https://www.firstpost.com/world/pitting-rebels-against-military-junta-how-china-is-playing-dirty-in-myanmar-13407312.html/amp Loned (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

People should have objective criteria for the inclusion of countries as supporters in wars' infoboxes and this is being completely thrown away as people use them to expose their personal grievances or support against a specific country. There is well documented material in the media about China providing support the rebels such as the link provided below me. The issue here is that people who have a negative opinion of China don't want to see it allied with a movement that is viewed positively.

But when the shoe is in the other foot: China was listed as a supporter of Myanmar in the infobox merely for issuing neutral statements and keeping diplomatic relationships with Myanmar as usual. It seems to have been removed by now, but it stayed there for a long period without any "dubious" "discuss" link under it. As the Myanmar junta is viewed very negatively and there is good evidence of them committing ethnic cleansing, it is a "good" thing to list China as associated with them.

Furthermore, even the Myanmar regime at this point is explicitly saying China took the rebels' side

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20231122_41/ 109.228.177.243 (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a good thing the Supported by portions are being deprecated because this isn't just limited to Wikipedia- RS (esp. those that arent focused on foreign policy analysis) keep mentioning China as a junta key ally without explanation and many are wary of suggesting the opposite explicitly. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 11:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, when I saw it originally I was confused because I thought the support field had been deprecated. Turns out that it had been and the Supported by section was just shoved in there manually. Go figure. But yes, elaborating on the nature of the support in the article is much less misleading than putting them under that section in the infobox. CrazyMagicPickle (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. It just seems weird to me to put the explicit and direct support of the NUG in the same category as the under-the-table, covert Chinese support. CrazyMagicPickle (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

In Context of the War

I believe it's crucial to include the provided narrative about Operation 1027 in the article. Currently, there's a predominant China-centric perspective surrounding this operation, which may overshadow other significant aspects of the event. It's important to contextualize Operation 1027 within the broader scope of the revolution in Myanmar. I have added the October 9 bombing incident and also other aspects that provide better context of the Operation 1027. If Chinese scam operation is deemed to be relevant, I don't see why these other aspects shoud not be equally highlighted.TheoValor (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems like your edits took the relatively balanced WP:NPOV section and turned it into a very POV version pushing one narrative. On wikipedia we report based on what other sources are saying, and aren't editorializing what we believe is true. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources cited for Chinese-centric version of the events are not reliable. The VOA news cited was based on what is being said on Weibo. The other two sources are also speculative. Tell me which part of my citation/edit is speculative? It is only merely providing the neutral context. The fact that the military has been stretched thin is an objective fact and reported. The fact that the pro-military channels have been calling for bombing of KIA HQ is a fact and reported. The fact that the military bombed near Laiza is a fact and reported. The fact that Gun Maw said a military response is necessary is a fact and reported.

The fact that China is supporting the 3BHA is speculative and not properly sourced. The fact that it is the Chinese support that makes the difference for 3BHA military victory is speculative and dismisses all other important contexts. My edits are more neutral than the current Chinese centric version. TheoValor (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's also about WP:UNDUE weight. The parts of your edit were things like "This operation symbolizes the evolution of a national movement into a cohesive military coalition, marking the peak of years of resistance and reflecting the unyielding resolve of the people of Myanmar." that don't fit the WP:TONE of an encyclopedia.

If you notice, I removed the weibo VOA source in my re-edit and relied only on the other two. Just because it's a fact doesn't mean it should be in this section- and just because there are sources that talk about the military losing doesn't mean we need to add every source that talks about it. (that's why I removed the 3 sources all citing the same thing when one is reliable enough IMO). This section is about the speculations and perspectives- that's also why I moved the facts up to Background section. It's not like the text says "Chinese UWSA relations is why Operation 1027 is possible" directly. The language reflects the speculation. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your WP:UNDUE weight calculation is way-off. You are citing the biased article from India which would only tacitly suggest that UWSA tacitly approved the operation 1027, which therefore China did tacitly approve the operation. I agree my tone needs to be correct. But your edits made it way too biased towards Chinese driving the events.TheoValor (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much all the articles are biased. That's kind of the point of WP:NPOV in this specific section- Arnold is biased about NUG being very important, the KIA is obviously biased towards their own views, VOA is biased against China, etc. The point of the section is to detail/report on these different perspectives not to engage in WP:OR. And tbh the natural-evolution of the revolution perspective arguing against the chinese involvement perspective kind of begs the question to know what the chinese involvement perspective thinks. (i.e. We should present the argument to present the rebuttal to the argument).EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @EmeraldRange here. We don't have a perfect understanding of the situation, nor do we have entirely unbiased news sources to draw from, so we have to include opinions and speculation while also making it clear they are simply conjectures and also giving equal weight to opposing viewpoints. CrazyMagicPickle (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I am happy with the current state of the edits. Previously it was biased too heavily towards interpreting the events as Chinese pulling strings. There have been concerted push towards such narrative, hence the need to make sure the perspectives presented here are balanced.

@EmeraldRange thank you too. TheoValor (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think @CrazyMagicPickle did a good job of copyediting, especially with some of the things I was struggling to do myself (like that heading name). Better wording overall! Thanks everyone. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)