Talk:Myanmar Armed Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Myanmar Armed Forces is part of WikiProject Myanmar (Burma), a project to improve all Burma related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Burmese-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Myanmar (Burma) To-do:

Just copied, no source given .. hmmm I like military.

Contents

[edit] anonymous user 213.165.224.55

You need to discuss your proposed deletions on this talk page-the info you delete was on this article long before you got here, it is factual, and if you are so determined to make such sweeping changes, why don't you register and sign in? Else I will revert your deletions each and every time they appear. Chris 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And leave the flag smaller-as per Wikipedia Manual of Style. Chris 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Chirs, it maybe factual, but it doesnt belong in Military stub. Perhaps you would like to include this particular information in the main Myanmar article? it is more political then military. This article is purely military related information, please have some common sense? By adding your non-military related facts, you are effectively vandalising the article and stopping others from using it as reference point which is what it was intended for. Surely, if you have done any research on Myanmar Military, you would find very little or no specific information due to the fact that they have been overshadowed by purely political facts and events like the ones you have been posting. Please do not threaten to revert as this would constitute to vandalism and will have to report you to wikipedia admins accordingly.
No single user may determine what does not belong in an article without consensus. There is information in the main article, but where military overlaps with political, as it does here, inclusion is warranted in the article. Your comments are rude and unwelcome, and you have no idea of the meaning of vandalism, else you would not use that term. As the facilitator of the Burma/Myanmar project, I have certainly done my homework, and as a two year _registered_ editor of the Wikipedia, (and since you are an anonymous single-article user with a history starting today) I would like to see just how far your accusations of vandalism go against me. Go for it. Meanwhile as I say I will revert your deletions each and every time they appear. Additions are welcome, deletions without concensus are not. Chris 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Following Wikipedia protocol, I am leaving a warning about WP:3RR on your talk page. This has gone on long enough. At your next _unagreed upon_ deletion of material from Military of Myanmar, I will be reporting you for violation of the three revert rule. Chris 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • If you have done your home work, you would know that the information you added does not belong in this article. While, Myanmar military and politics are sensitive issues, we as contributors of Wikipedia must be neutral according to wikipedia policy WP:NPOV in the sense of providing correct and relevant information in the article. Your additions to the article are politically motivated and serves no purpose in a "purely military" related article. This article is about the organisation structure and order of battle for Myanmar Military, it is not about the wealth of a general or what type of villa or house he owns. If you have political scores to settles with Myanmar generals, perhaps you should start a different article. Having seniority and your long time affiliation with Wikipedia does not give you the right to bully or vendalise articles based upon your political orientation or affiliation, especially adding facts that are completely unrelated to the article. Okkar 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • If you keep reverting back, I will have to mark the article with nocompliant check against Wikipedia NPOV policy and will also have to request for POVCHECK. What is the point of contributing if you cannot stay neutral and follow wikipedia policy?Okkar 00:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Stating facts as they stand are not POV, and the facts are that the Tatmadaw holds more sway in Burma than does the French military in France or the Australian military in Australia, and for that reason it stands out. Nowhere in the guidelines for this article does it say this article is "about the organisation structure and order of battle for Myanmar Military", it is just as it says, about the Military of Myanmar, hence the name, and all facts are relevant. I have no score to settle, I just avidly dislike those who have no sense of wikietiquette, like yourself. You may even have valid points, but you don't move into someone's house uninvited and start tearing down the curtains while they're away. Thinking you know more than previous editors does not give you the right to remove what they've written without discussion. My political leanings or lack thereof have nothing to do with addition or removal of facts from this article. Your belief that you are the last word on the topic does, and since you have reverted, not even taking the advice of the third party you brought in, you have been reported for violating 3RR. Chris 01:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you please open your eyes and look up on top of this page? it clearly states that "This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Military History Project". No where in the scope and goals of Wikipedia Military History Project states that you should put the details of personal wealth of a general and the photo of his house. No other Military articles (see Brtish Armed Forces - does not contain the wealth of the Queen, nor does it contain the picture of Buckingham Palace) contains such information which are clearly inviolation of not only Wikipedia NPOV policy but also out of the scope from Wikipedia Military History Project. There is no excuse for using Wikipedia as a political tool and using 3RR complaints to get the upper hand in a dispute. You know what you were doing and you just cant accept the fact that you were caught with your hand in the cookies jar. Okkar 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Chris 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no personal attack here. comment on content, and content should be facts and within the scope of article, again neutrality is important here. we must not forget what wikipedia stands for. Thank you. Okkar 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Category

Why was this article removed from Myanmar Category? If you said this project is politically neutral, why were you removing this article from the main Myanmar category? Are you trying deseperately to appease the opposition groups again? so much being politically unbias, you are going a great length have this article hidden from general public. Please control yourself, Wikipedia is not a PR site for NCGUB! Okkar 14:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't aggressively accuse others of being biased without prior knowledge. If you actually took a look at Category:Myanmar, you would find that there are very few articles that exist in that category, because more specific categories have been created, which in the case of "Military of Myanmar" is the category of that same name. For this same reason, articles like "Economy of Myanmar", "Culture of Myanmar", "History of Myanmar", "Politics of Myanmar", "Communication in Myanmar", "Education in Myanmar", just to name a few, appear only in those specific categories and not the general "Myanmar" category, which is mainly for uncategorised articles and the "Myanmar" article. Next time, before you accuse me of trying to "paddle articles that [have been] sanctioned and blessed by NCGUB [National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma]", you should see how Wikipedia categories work and check out other country cats (e.g. Category:Singapore, Category:Australia) just to name a few). And don't warn me for vandalism without providing a more reasonable explanation. (This is a response to the following 3 posts: 1, 2, 3) --Hintha 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Airforce-flag.jpg

Image:Airforce-flag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tatmadaw-flag.jpg

Image:Tatmadaw-flag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] strange article

I came here mainly expecting to see information on the Myanmar's military's role within the country, both past and present, yet there is nearly none of that. Instead there are only a bunch of minutiae about command structure. Contrast with the much more complete treatment of the article on the Turkish Armed Forces, which discusses both the structure of the military and the wider issues of its role within the country. --Delirium 07:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Army-flag.svg

Image:Army-flag.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious Bias

This article is clearly biased. It makes little to no mention of the Military's effective control of the entire country, nor does it mention anything of the endemic corruption, inefficiency and brutality of the Myanmar Army. The Burmese Army is NOT the most powerful in SE Asia, far from it. They rely on press-gangs for recruiting, their equipment is either decrepit or non-existant, and their inability to defeat poorly armed and largely unorganized rebels gives a clear indication of their combat effectiveness. If you want a good picture of their effectiveness do a little research on their performance and against the Thai Armed Forces in their various border clashes.

This article needs an immediate and complete re-write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.205.216 (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't u do it then? Find some reliable sources on the net and edit the article. You have to be neutral tho, and not let ur own personal thoughts effect the article. I will say tho, your statement;
"their inability to defeat poorly armed and largely unorganized rebels gives a clear indication of their combat effectiveness."
is flawed, the United States has one of the biggest militarys in the world with top notch technology, and they have been unsuccessful in defeating rebels in Iraq, Afghanistan & Vietnam. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for deleting non-informative passages

The article seems overloaded with propaganda-like material that has little content and almost no informational value. The title is "Myanmar Armed Forces", but it seems that a more appropriate title, the way this article is written now, would be "Doctrine and Organizational Structure of Myanmar Military". To fix this, I propose cutting, or greatly simplifying the following passages:

  • "Threats to the national unity, territorial integrity and sovereign independence of the Union of Myanmar are the most important security objectives and considered as threats to the security of state." - how about "... to deal with internal and external threats".
  • "In the process of formulating Defence Policy and Military Doctrine from a strategic perspective, Tatmadaw has undergone three phases." - how about "The development of Myanmar Military can be divided into three phases".
  • "At the 1958 Tatmadaw's annual Commanding Officers (COs) conference, Colonel Kyi Win submitted a report outlining the requirement for new military doctrine and strategy. He stated that 'Tatmadaw did not have a clear strategy to cope with insurgents', even though most of Tatmadaw's commanders were guerrilla fighters during the anti-British and Japanese campaigns during the Second World War, they had very little knowledge of anti-guerrilla or counterinsurgency warfare. Based upon Colonel Kyi Win's report, Tatmadaw begin developing an appropriate military doctrine and strategy to meet the requirements of counterinsurgency warfare." - how about dropping the mention of the report, and just stating the facts?
  • "During this phase, external linkage of internal problems and direct external threats were minimised by the foreign policy based on isolation." - What linkage? What "problems"? Is the purpose of this article to paint a picture that the great army strategists are using sophisticated analytical tools to prevent "external elements" from causing "internal problems"? Where is the info (I mean, numbers) about troops, armaments, battles and operations?

All that can be seen here is the nonsense words like the ones above.

  • "Beginning in 1961, the Directorate of Military Training took charge the research for national defence planning, military doctrine and strategy for both internal and external threats. This included reviews of international and domestic political situations, studies of the potential sources of conflicts, collection of information for strategic planning and defining the possible routes of foreign invasion.[5]." - all we learn from this passage is that in 1961 a bunch of high-ranking army bureaucrats had a bunch of meetings. What we want to know, is: how much money or other assets they were starting to spend, where the assistance (if any) came from, what weapons were aquired, how many people got enlisted, what military operations were conducted.
  • "The new doctrine laid out three potential enemies and they are internal insurgents, historical enemies with roughly an equal strength (i.e. Thailand), and enemies with greater strength." - another example of verbal nonsense: all enemies are divided into small, large, and roughly the same size... Duh! Without naming a single group or country (apart from Thailand to illustrate the point) -- I propose to cut!
  • "winning the hearts and minds of people are important parts of anti-guerrilla warfare." - Oh really? Especially after a cyclon like this year's. Note that this clause is not different from the current official US strategy in Iraq.
  • "The new doctrine of total people's war, and the strategy of anti-guerrilla warfare for counterinsurgency and guerrilla warfare for foreign invasion, were designed to be appropriate for Myanmar. The doctrine flowed from the country's independent and active foreign policy, total people's defence policy, the nature of perceived threats, its geography and the regional environment, the size of its population in comparison with those of its neighbours, the relatively underdeveloped nature of its economy and its historical and political experiences. The doctrine was based upon 'three totalities': population, time and space (du-thone-du) and 'four strengths': manpower, material, time and morale (panama-lay-yat)." - cut. Ask yourself, - this can be said about any country! There is no specifics here at all!
  • "BSPP laid down directives for "complete annihilation of the insurgents as one of the tasks for national defence and state security" and called for "liquidation of insurgents through the strength of the working people as the immediate objective". This doctrine ensures the role of Tatmadaw at the heart of national policy making." - wishful thinking, and no concrete info! Who are the insurgents? how many? where?
  • "The third phase was to face the lower level external threats with a strategy of strategic denial under total people's defence concept. Current military leadership has successfully dealt with 17 major insurgent groups, whose 'return to legal fold' in the past decade has remarkably decreased the internal threats to state security, at least for the short and medium terms, even though threat perception of the possibility of external linkage to internal problems, perceived as being motivated by the continuing human rights violations, religious suppression and ethnic cleansing, remains high." - What 17 major groups? "Successfully"? What success are we talking about here, exactly?
  • "Within the policy, the role of the Tatmadaw was defined as a `modern, strong and highly capable fighting force'. Since the day of independence, the Tatmadaw has been involved in restoring and maintaining internal security and suppressing insurgency. It was with this background that Tatmadaw's "multifaceted" defence policy was formulated and its military doctrine and strategy could be interpreted as defence-in-depth. It was influenced by a number of factors such as history, geography, culture, economy and sense of threats. Tatmadaw has developed an 'active defence' strategy based on guerrilla warfare with limited conventional military capabilities, designed to cope with low intensity conflicts from external and internal foes, which threatens the security of the state. This strategy, revealed in joint services exercises, is built on a system of total people's defence, where the armed forces provide the first line of defence and the training and leadership of the nation in the matter of national defence. It is designed to deter potential aggressors by the knowledge that defeat of Tatmadaw's regular forces in conventional warfare would be followed by persistent guerrilla warfare in the occupied areas by people militias and dispersed regular troops which would eventually wear down the invading forces, both physically and psychologically, and leave it vulnerable to a counter-offensive. If the conventional strategy of strategic denial fails, then the Tatmadaw and its auxiliary forces will follow Mao's strategic concepts of 'strategic defensive', 'strategic stalemate' and 'strategic offensive'. Over the past decade, through a series of modernisation programs, Tatmadaw has developed and invested in better Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence system; real-time intelligence; formidable air defence system; and early warning systems for its 'strategic denial' and 'total people's defence' doctrine." - Cut! This can be said about any military! There are no facts here! Every military in the world invests in better command, control, and every other branch.

Please give your opinion on these proposed cuts. Any discussion is welcome!Xenonice (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)