Talk:Myanmar conflict/Archive 1

Flag of Free Burma
I think that the "anti-junta factions" should have this flag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Burma_(1948-1974).svg) next to them in the infobox. --88.195.101.216 (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * verifiable? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

End date of conflict
What event happened in March 2006 that ended the conflict? No evidence is cited nor details provided. RDavi404 (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese participation?
Since Vietnam and Burma have established strong ties, I wonder if Vietnam has in any sort of way participated in this conflicts. Can anyone confirm my suspicions? With regards, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Quality
To whoever reads, I am not disputing the facts or stance - but this article really needs a thorough rewrite. I shall try to do so once I have free time. The external links provided do not seem to support the facts, rather, they just lead to news agencies (I do not think putting those 'award winning / unbiased, etc are in the scope of this article). Another fact is, I do not think Singapore would back anything of those involved in the internal conflict - far from it, Singapore is usually trashed by many in exile for its stance. Plus, France joining Thailand to provide incentives - no info, no support, no citation. I will try to find external and credible sources, but if I can't find, I shall delete those claims too. I'd appreciate it if anybody can dig up actual credible articles to support most of the wording in the article. Uthantofburma (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Karen Buddhist Army
Democratic Karen Buddhist Army become uproarious ceasefire with the government and re-entered the fight with the junta on 7 November. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.62.98 (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's right. In the box listing participants, they need to be moved to opposition. Also there is no Border Guard Force listed, which is the group that made an agreement with the SPDC government in 2010. --182.53.14.245 (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Steve

The 2010 Burma border clashes continues in 2011
The 2010_Burma_border_clashes grow and grow and now are Army dropped to around 150 000 and rebel numbers have grown to around 100 000.

in 2011 KIO junta fighting breaks out http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=20650 http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=20620 http://democracyforburma.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/ka-and-knla-joints-forces-cut-burmese-army%E2%80%99s-accomodations-ktimes/ http://burmadigest.info/2011/02/17/burma-army-mortars-captures-villagers-in-the-midst-of-continued-attacks-in-northern-karen-state/
 * Ethnic armies agree ‘ring of resistance’

Scope
This article should focus on the Burmese Civil War, not the democracy movements. These two conflicts should be separated. Democratic parties like NLD have no relations with the armed insurgents. And the armed insurgents do not fight for democracy. Most of them fight for autonomy. The fact that they both have fought against the government doesn't necessarily mean they are on the same side. Thus, I have removed democratic organizations like NLD from the belligerent list. S WH  talk  18:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Conflict Over?
The article treats the conflict as being over, but doesn't make it clear why. It seems to suggest that the ceasefire with the Karen National Army ended the conflict, but then what about all the other factions fighting against the junta? Also, a days-old ceasefire is hardly grounds for declaring a long-term conflict over. Evzob (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Early reports say the 651 or so released political prisoners and prisoners of conscience are supporters of the NLD, while another 1,000 or so remain in prison. Their release may follow, if or when this internal conflict is truly resolved.Fconaway (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Beginning date of conflict?
The article implies that this conflict began with Independence in 1948. However, plenty of conflict was in evidence before Independence. For openers: the assassination of Burma's national hero Aung San and other independence leaders in July 1947, only months before Burma gained independence from Britain in January 1948.Fconaway (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

End of Conflict
The conflict has not ended, the Shan state Army and Kachin Independence army still actively fight the government. I have changed the campaign box accordingly.74.105.134.233 (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I know next to nothing about the conflict
Besides stuff like seeing it on Rambo and in a few articles that I don't remember. But one thing is clear to me: this whole article needs to be rewritten. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also someone might to check the article's quoted sources. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

how many exactly? "4,3000 (1951)"
Is that 4,300 or 43,000? Someone with access to the original publication [Richard 2011] Ultinate (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Saffron Revolution and Cyclone Nargis
A section should be added on the Saffron Revolution that happened in 2007 and on Cyclone Nargis which hit in 2009. Christina Fink, Living Silence: Burma Under Military Rule is an excellent source to bulk up the article. For more recent events The Irrawaddy is an online magazine for news on Burma. 138.78.110.102 (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Lauren 2012

Number of dead in Rakhine 'conflict'
10,000 civilians are listed as being killed in the 2012 Rakhine state riots - sources stated in article for the riot put at most 200 killed for both the June and October phases. The 10,000 number is wildly inaccurate and at best reflects propaganda sympathetic to the Rohingya cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.156.85.187 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Internal conflict in Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110615203913/http://irrawaddy.org:80/article.php?art_id=21101 to http://irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=21101
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150219173501/http://www.kachinwomen.com/publications/reports/105-state-terror-in-the-kachin-hills-.html to http://www.kachinwomen.com/publications/reports/105-state-terror-in-the-kachin-hills-.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140912212226/https://www.dvb.no/news/burmese-army-releases-91-child-soldiers-unicef-burma-myanmar/42936 to http://dvb.no/news/burmese-army-releases-91-child-soldiers-unicef-burma-myanmar/42936

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Internal conflict in Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110117091017/http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3402:mongla-base-shelled-by-burma-army-artillery&catid=86:war&Itemid=284 to http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3402:mongla-base-shelled-by-burma-army-artillery&catid=86:war&Itemid=284
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110128051424/http://www.shanland.org:80/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3432:land-confiscation-emerges-in-area-under-new-command&catid=86:war&Itemid=284 to http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3432:land-confiscation-emerges-in-area-under-new-command&catid=86:war&Itemid=284
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930053529/http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3484:-all-roads-to-shan-rebel-base-closed&catid=86:war&Itemid=284 to http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3484:-all-roads-to-shan-rebel-base-closed&catid=86:war&Itemid=284
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930053633/http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3509:burma-army-occupies-ssa-core-base&catid=86:war&Itemid=284 to http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3509:burma-army-occupies-ssa-core-base&catid=86:war&Itemid=284
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930053645/http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3511:ssa-north-given-ultimatum-to-surrender&catid=86:war&Itemid=284 to http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3511:ssa-north-given-ultimatum-to-surrender&catid=86:war&Itemid=284
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110923173234/http://www.drugtext.org/library/books/McCoy/book/62.htm to http://www.drugtext.org/library/books/McCoy/book/62.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internal conflict in Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723214739/http://www.janes.com/article/53155/wa-army-fielding-new-chinese-artillery-atgms to http://www.janes.com/article/53155/wa-army-fielding-new-chinese-artillery-atgms
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612193343/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012 to http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012
 * Added tag to http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/myanmar-burma/page.do?id=1011205

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Internal conflict in Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720091321/http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/dpe/modern_conflicts/death_tolls.pdf to http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/dpe/modern_conflicts/death_tolls.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.economist.com/node/9867036
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2015/10/07/myanmars-cease-fire-deal-comes-up-short/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3402%3Amongla-base-shelled-by-burma-army-artillery&catid=86%3Awar&Itemid=284
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3432%3Aland-confiscation-emerges-in-area-under-new-command&catid=86%3Awar&Itemid=284
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3484%3A-all-roads-to-shan-rebel-base-closed&catid=86%3Awar&Itemid=284
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3509%3Aburma-army-occupies-ssa-core-base&catid=86%3Awar&Itemid=284
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shanland.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3511%3Assa-north-given-ultimatum-to-surrender&catid=86%3Awar&Itemid=284
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kachinwomen.com/publications/reports/105-state-terror-in-the-kachin-hills-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Insurgent/rebel groups in the infobox
Only active combatants should be included in the infobox. Many of the groups shown are not actively fighting the Myanmar government; in fact, some are working together with them. Ceasefire groups should be removed and replaced with a Wikilink to List of insurgent groups in Myanmar. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen ( Têkilî min ) 23:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, insurgent groups such as the Karen National Union and the Karen National Liberation Army still play too significant of a role in the conflict to be not clearly shown in the infobox's combatant section. I understand that the problem that may arise is some readers will mistakenly think that no ceasefire exists between the KNU/KNLA and Myanmar's military even though the opposite is true, but the conflict is still technically ongoing between them as there has been no disarmament and/or permanent peace agreement. Alternatively, if the KNU/KNLA was moved to former combatants, it may be misinterpreted as them no longer being active and/or having disarmed and made peace. The infobox combatants section could be split into "Active combatants" and "Ceasefire groups" but there really isn't any reason to do so. Centre Left Right  ✉ 23:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong translate
According to Myanmar Dictionary Conflict should be translate as ပဋိပက္ခ. Internal Conflict in Myanmar should be translate as ပြည်တွင်းပ​ဋိပက္ခသမိုင်း. သောင်းကြမ်းသူ is terrorist. Ethnic freedom fighters are not terrorist. Cin Khat Mung (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest bringing this issue to the talk page for this article's entry on the Burmese Wikipedia. To my knowledge, there aren't any translations of the title from English to Burmese in the English article. Centre Left Right  ✉ 04:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

"Civil war"
From Wikipedia: "A civil war, also known as an intrastate war in polemology, is a war between organised groups within the same state or country."


 * 1) The Chinese Civil War (1927–1936; 1946–1950) is no longer ongoing.
 * 2) Cross-Strait hostilities between China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) are not considered a "civil war", because Taiwan is de facto independent of China.
 * 3) The Korean conflict and the Korean War are not considered civil wars because North Korea and South Korea are not the same state/country and are independent of each other.

Sovereignty claims by opposing do not constitute legitimacy or validity; e.g. Even though China (PRC) considers Taiwan (ROC) to be a rogue part of its territory, it is recognised almost universally that this is not the same as a civil war, where active combatants from the same country engage each other. It does not matter what is de jure claimed by a country's government, but what is de facto the situation. This is not my opinion, it's the agreed upon consensus on Wikipedia.

The ethnic and political conflicts in Myanmar constitute the world's longest-running and ongoing civil war, civil war meaning active combat between groups within the same country. This is a fact and has been stated several times by various sources, cited on the main page. It is not a standalone claim written by one person.

If anyone claims contrary to the above points, do so here and cite your sources. Centre Left Right ✉ 04:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Whether a combat is active and within the same country can only be defined in the internation law. Your claim cites no source on the state of the Korean and Chinese civil war under internation law and may be applied to Novorossiya-Ukraine war and the Syria-ISIS war because both were de facto independent.
 * Let's first check within the same country:
 * For the Korean case, the two Koreas used to be one country for the sake of the international law until September 17, 1991 (or maybe a little bit before. I have not checked the first country in the world that officially ends the One-Korea policy and considered both as countries). Although the Korean Civil War has now become an international war, it is a continuation of a civil war. Apparently, there's no military incident in Korea in 1991 so that we can divide the Korean War into two by 1991. So the entire war can only be considered one civil war or one international war.
 * For the Chinese case, it is similar to the pre-1991 Korean case, as no country or international body in the world consider mainland China or Taiwan senso territory a country, and they can only choose either China senso PRC or Taiwan senso ROC as China senso sovereign state. --146.96.41.127 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Now check active:
 * Whether or not a war is active can also only be defined in the domestic and internation law. There used to be time when Burma has no de facto combat happening (all group ceasefired), but the war is still active by law as it can happen anytime with no warning. The Chinese case is similar, with the only difference that China do not has a ceasefire while Burma has a lot. Korea has an armistice, so it's a bit different. --146.96.41.127 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree with equating the de facto sovereignty of Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea with that of Novorossiya/DNR/LNR and ISIL. The main distinguishing factor is that Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea are nationstates that all held (or still have) membership in the United Nations at some point. That is what makes them different from a rebel force that establishes a quasi-state like Novorossiya and ISIL with little to no legitimacy.


 * The Chinese Civil War officially ended with the declaration of the People's Republic of China. This is an agreed upon fact by almost every contemporary historian, I have never heard otherwise. If you insist this is not the case, please provide a source for your assertion. Of course this is not the same as saying that the contituation of hostilties between the PRC and ROC have ended, the Cross-strait conflict is still ongoing. However, I have yet to see a credible source claiming it is a civil war and not a dispute between two states, one whose indepednence is internationally recognised and one whose is partially.


 * The Korean War did not officially end, but there was a ceasefire. When referring to the current situation in Korea, most historians and the consensus on Wikipedia is to refer to it as the Korean conflict, which is not the original war but a continuation of hostilities from the Korean War. Neither the Korean conflict nor the Korean War are considered civil wars, as Korea has not been a single state since its invasion by Japan.


 * These are not my opinions or "claims" but widely accepted facts among historians and editors on Wikipedia. If you try to change the content on Chinese Civil War or Korean War to reflect these views, I guarantee your edits will be reverted because you are lacking sources. The same can be said about this page—even if I do not revert any of your edits due to poor sourcing, someone else likely will, because Wikipedia has guidelines and policies on verifiable content.


 * This is the first time I have heard of the assertion that the Chinese Civil War is ongoing and that the Korean War/Korean conflict are civil wars. International law is not the sole definer of what a civil war is; in fact there is no international law that defines civil war. If you are certain that any of what I just said is wrong, please provide proof that this is not original research. Back up and cite your claims with credible sources. If you fail to do so your edits will be reverted for poor sourcing and violating Wikipedia's stance on original research.


 * i.e. Provide credible sources that state that the continuation of hostilities between the PRC and the ROC (or the Chinese Civil War, Cross-Strait relations/hostilities) and the continuation of hostilities from the Korean War (or the Korean War/Korean conflict) are [the two longest] ongoing civil wars.


 * I insist that you list your sources in this discussion, below my comment, for me and other editors to review. Centre Left Right  ✉ 01:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * International law is not the sole definer of what a civil war is, but key factors of a civil war - within the same country are all defined in international law, also activeness.


 * Glad to hear that you do care international recognition instead of keep insisting "de facto". For the Korean case, please note that by circa 1991 Korea was still one country for the sake of international recognition (and I have explicitly expressed that after 1991 the Koreas are two different countries im my previous comment so you don't need to mention how both Korea are recognized after 1991 - that was already a consensus and without any necessity to discuss). I have noticed that English-speaking world has depict the North Korean attack on South Korea on 1950 an "invasion". But this is twisting the truth and against the United Nations Security Council Resolution 84 which explicitly defined it as an "attack" against the Republic of Korea from itself (unfortunately the US overdose its right to "repel the armed attack" into launching a counterattack, leading to a Chinese intervention). Apparently, no country recognize either North Korea or South Korea until 1991, with part of the world recognize R.O. Korea and its North Korean region, and part of the world recognize D.P.R. Korea and its South Korean region. This is just common sense and I can list all sources for each recognition but that's way too long. Take China as an example, it was recognizing D.P.R. Korea and its world map in 1990 still shows one Korea. Whether English-speaking historians define it has no effect on the international law and makes no support. Korean historians always respect the nature of the Korean War as a civil war and even responsible historians from the English world admits "Fundamentally it was a civil war" (said Bruce Cumings).


 * The declaration of the People's Republic of China is not a legal statement of an end of the Second Chinese Civil War, otherwise the First Chinese Civil War (1927-1936) ended with the declaration of the Chinese Soviet Republic on November 7, 1931 by the same criteria. Without a legal ending declaration of the war, the war extends indefinitely from its beginning time. So the burden of proof to add an end of the war is on you - you need to find a ceasefire agreement, an armistice agreement or an end-of-war declaration to base your claim that the war has end. To be honest, your claim is even more astonishing to me because even English Wikipedia, which has a lot of anti-Chinese articles which I don't want to correct, lists Landing Operation on Hainan Island as a part of the Chinese Civil War.

P.S. ping actually doesn't generate a user message to an IP user due to our technical limitation. --146.96.41.43 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The point is not whether or not the wars are officially or "technically" over as that's a discussion suited for other pages; the main focus with this discussion is if they are considered civil wars. Wikipedia is all about verifiability, and implicit judgements made from a map on a Chinese website and a one-off comment by a historian are not considered reliable sources. Again I reiterate from my previous comments, provide credible sources that state that the continuation of hostilities between the PRC and the ROC (or the Chinese Civil War, Cross-Strait relations/hostilities) and the continuation of hostilities from the Korean War (or the Korean War/Korean conflict) are [the two longest] ongoing civil wars. Cite credible/reliable sources or your changes will be considered original research.


 * Furthermore your point on UN Security Council Resolution 84 is incorrect as it clearly distinguishes North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) and South Korea (Republic of Korea) as two different states. Taken from the UN's resource website for past resolutions: "Having determined that the armed attack upon the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea constitutes a breach of the peace..." "...United Nations have given to its resolutions 82 (1950) and 83 (1950) of 25 and 27 June 1950 to assist the Republic of Korea (i.e. South Korea) in defending itself..." Centre Left Right  ✉ 06:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Including alleged Chinese support to insurgents in infobox
I have no opinion on this matter, but if you do, please make note of it here. Do not revert an edit that opposes your position every time there is one. I attempted to compromise but those edits have been constantly reverted too, so please discuss your thoughts here. Centre Left Right ✉ 04:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To begin with, we limit our discussion to military support rather than humantarian support. If the scope includes humantarian support, then we can end the discussion because China definitely have a lot of such support to not just the Northern Alliance but also a lot of else.


 * When it come to the military support, one has to be very careful about it. Such kinds of serious allegation may have devastrating effect in internation laws and thus cannot come from an arbitrary people. It should be made if:
 * The Burmese government allege the Chinese government for supporting rebels;
 * A rebel group claims it received support from China;
 * The UN Security Council have looked into the case and concluded that China has support the Burmese rebels.
 * Apparently, none of the above is the case. On the contrary, for multiple times, the Burmese government expressed their gratitute to China for harboring and relieving refugees during the conflict and providing platform for the Burmese government to talk with the rebels.


 * Wikipedia should not meditate into Burmese internal affairs. When the Burmese government expressed their gratitute to China for its constructive works, it is inapproperate to say "No, you don't. You hate the Chinese government because I believe and allege that they are supporting your rebels."


 * China can be included in the list given mentioning that the allegation comes from a third party that have its own interest in Myanmar (VOA is supported by the US government who has an explicit interest in Burma). and that the Burmese government has no allegation against China. --146.96.41.127 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Your argument sounds reasonable to me. Another IP editor reverted some of your edits and added a different source, which in my opinion is not that reliable. I will close the discussion in seven days and if they do not reply, the alleged support from China will be removed from the infobox. Centre Left Right  ✉ 01:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Chinese involvement (September 2020)
Starting the discussion on this talk page as the issue wasn't made clear in the edit summaries. Also, please refer to the above discussions as something similar was discussed before. All the best, Centre Left Right  ✉ 21:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
If a source does not state that the Chinese government is directly supporting a rebel group(s), do not make the connection yourself. Original research is not credible, and neither are op-eds or blogs. Centre Left Right ✉ 05:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

February 2021
I removed the paragraph on Min Aung Hlaing's comment due to a reevaluation based on WP:CRYSTALBALL. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions." The interpretation of Min Aung Hlaing's by a political commentator is by nature unverifiable. Since the accusation was not explicitly made by Min Aung Hlaing, it cannot be stated in this article as having occurred. Centre Left Right ✉ 09:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Arakan State Army Flag.png

New Belligerents
Should we include the anti-coup National Unity Government and their People's Defence Force as part of the belligerents of the Internal Conflicts in Myanmar, given that they had already begun fighting against the State Administration Council of Myanmar? Hu753 (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly fine as long as you provide context in the body paragraphs (probably under the section "2021 coup and subsequent violence") and reliable sources to verify the information you add. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE for details. Centre Left Right  ✉ 06:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Arakan State Army Flag.png

Separate article for 2021 Conflict
I propose a separate article for the conflict which has emerged in Myanmar since the 2021 coup, which can act as a campaign of the general Myanmar Conflict. The premise would be forces of the State Administration Council acting against the National Unity Government and various ethnic armies. From various sources which I have read, hundreds of SAC soldiers and policemen have been killed in this campaign of the general conflict, so it would be worthy to have an independent article. We do already have an article on the 2021 Kalay clashes as an example. Kurt Hartman 13:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You can make the article yourself, there is no need to propose it. Afterwards, add a Wikilink to it in the section "2021 coup and resurgence of violence" with the Template:Main article. Centre Left Right  ✉ 16:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you. Kurt Hartman 09:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)