Draft talk:Three Main National Causes (Myanmar)

This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Myanmar Myanmar portal Draft Three Main National Causes (Myanmar) is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar 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 Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet, requested articles on Burmese subjects and articles on smaller towns and villages Expand : Top-importance and High-importance articles Photo : add photos of incumbent politicians Stubs : Category:Myanmar stubs Update : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet after 2015 election Other : If you know Burmese, go on the Myanmar Wikipedia and make sure each article on the English Wikipedia has one in Burmese also Politics Politics portal This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. History History portal This draft is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Southeast Asia This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Verifiability and Tone

@KhantWiki, this article also has significant verification and tone issues as follows. I've moved to draftspace primarily for the reason that I highly suspect this is a machine-generated text (see: WP:DRAFTIFY):

The lead paragraph cites a cartoon and discussion about a cartoon. Neither discusses "emphasising the unity and sovereignty of the state". Please provide in-line sources for that.

The sources in the second paragraph claims this is a core component and is frequently cited. The sources do not discuss how frequently it is cited. They do not support the claim that it is a "core component" and are about speeches from the 2020s. In fact the first source even says this was first created in the 1990s.

I looked through the rest as well, but it's clear from the pattern of your other articles to me that the other paragraphs will follow this format. Some of the sources here can establish notability, but you still have to adhere to Wikiepdia's content standards. Content has to be sourced and you cannot vaguely throw sources at the end of each paragraph the way that ChatGPT does when you ask it to provide sources. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 01:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything has to reply on ChatGPT if you have the ability to research online. Check here which says "Tatmadaw emphasizes the Our Three Main National Causes: Non-disintegration of the Union, Non-disintegration of national solidarity and Perpetuation of sovereignty." Another one, with the paragraph stating 'These principles are living artefacts of direct military rule. By emphasising that these are ‘Our’ causes, the Tatmadaw co-opts the people into its cause. The principles claim priority in terms of their status as the ‘Main’ or preeminent principles of the state. The principles claim an intimate connection to the state as ‘National Causes’, even though it was the Tatmadaw at the time running the apparatus of the state. These principles appear on nine separate occasions in the Constitution." This source which states "The military has three main goals, known as “Our Three National Causes”, which are: non-disintegration of the Union; non-disintegration of national solidarity; and perpetuation of national sovereignty." It also attributes to the content by its emphasizement of its unity and sovereignty. KhantWiki (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, perhaps if you actually used those source to support the statements- but there would be no issue. right now the sources used do not support these statement. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are just used to establish notability and if they don't support the content written in the article, we must do what we can to make sure the sources matches the content written and make sure it is reliable and verifiable. From those sources I've given to you, it's clear that these in-cline citations do frequently discusses and "emphasizes the unity and sovereignty of the state", which means I can use those to support the content written to make it verifiable and avoid such issues. LLMs like ChatGPT are trivial and obsolete to use in Wikipedia and that's why I have decided to stop using it in between October 2025 and November 2025 after editor Ko @Hteiktinhein advised me to not use it. It's only useful if you write content entirely yourself and then you provide that content and it will improve your paragraph, sentence, grammar etc. KhantWiki (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having sources that don't match or support the content for "notability" does not help verifiability. See: WP:REFBOMB.

Making a meta claim based on sources that don't say your claim is original research- see WP:SYNTH.

I'm not using policy to get you on a technicality. The way you use sources breaks the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. You are not supposed to write your own thoughts like "these sources make it clear they frequently discuss this" if no other source says "they frequently discuss this". EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will apply your tips especially they're helpful for verifying information. One key principles is sources in Wikipedia. The way we use it, impacts the article. I can understand that you're doing the right thing by embracing Wikipedia policies on sourcing, especially important when it comes to verifying the information written on the article. However you can see that I'm learning to use sources correctly, the way that my sources appears after I have done my own research is a good idea to make sure the content is verifiable. To avoid making original research, we have to research and find sources that matches the content. KhantWiki (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]