This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation 1027 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Operation 1027 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 November 2023. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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 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)
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)
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)
Given that the ceasefire has held for 3 or 4 months now, and that the only fighting that has taken place in Rakhine state now has its own designated article ( Rakhine offensive), is it time to mark the operation as ended? The Arakan Army never really referred to their operations in Rakhine as being under the scope of 1027, and most publications regard the operation as an event that took place in the past and that has now completed.
CrazyMagicPickle ( talk) 02:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation 1027 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Operation 1027 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 November 2023. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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 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)
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)
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)
Given that the ceasefire has held for 3 or 4 months now, and that the only fighting that has taken place in Rakhine state now has its own designated article ( Rakhine offensive), is it time to mark the operation as ended? The Arakan Army never really referred to their operations in Rakhine as being under the scope of 1027, and most publications regard the operation as an event that took place in the past and that has now completed.
CrazyMagicPickle ( talk) 02:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)