Jump to content

Talk:Rohingya people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 222.165.9.81 (talk) at 17:53, 28 September 2017 (→AFP reports Massacre of Mayanmar Hindus by Rohingya Muslims: pls include in the article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rohingya people. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Rohingya people. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems heavily biased towards Myanamar government and seems to be somebody's blog

Fellow wikipedians, I just went through the article, this article seems completely junk to me. I have never ever read such a biased article on Wikipedia. It seems the writeup has been lifted from somebody's personal blog and that somebody belongs in the Myanamar government. I am reviewing this as an independent reader and I am shocked. Wikipedia's status as a reference manual is in question because of articles like this. Request veterans to join and please correct the flow. 203.99.204.135 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this statement. It is an objective article. It does not unconditional and immediately side with the Rohingya's which is a typical reaction of the many SJW bloggers and Islamic propaganda outlets. The current conflict is ongoing and without neutral observers so the its not wise to extend any information now as long as we have no clue what is happending down there. In the 2012 conflict the truth came out very late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:D514:CAA0:E9F6:F668:847C:B7F9 (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might not agree with the article in question because you quite obviously belong to the government side of the fence. If you barr media from reaching the rakhine state, do not allow UN observer inside the oppressed places you still have ways to figure out what is happening in the state by the thousands who have fled burma and reached Bangladesh. Their ordeals are testimony of what is really happening in Burma. Sattelite images show some 1200 villages destroyed by the Army within a single Week! Looks like you are referring to Islamic propoganda to hide beneath your own propoganda here. 203.99.204.134 (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

missing information on islamic terror against buddhists

Why is it so difficult to inform about this aspect of the conflict? Buddhist shrines have been destroyed, sharia was executed on non-muslims. Please more objectivity! 2003:DA:9BCD:9601:547B:E43F:B8ED:DB1F (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Formatting Error

Hello Wikipedians,

Brand new here, just want to raise a flag - the 'Infobox' element on this page is somehow mis-formatted, resulting in a marked-up first paragraph (which I'm sure is meant to populate a box on the right of the page). I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to fix it, but I wanted to make it known.

Best, J. Robison IV 173.164.50.74 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor messed it up earlier, and I caught his change and undid it just before you posted this. All fixed! Largoplazo (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning of statelessness

I agree that statelessness should be mentioned in the lead. My preference is along the lines, "In 1982, General Ne Win's government enacted the Burmese nationality law, which denied Rohingya citizenship, rendering a majority of Rohingya population stateless."

But one user keeps adding "As of December 2016, 1 in 7 stateless persons worldwide are Rohingya per United Nations figures on statelessness." in the lead. That sentence pops up out of context and not notable (one in seven? what's the point?) and I move it lower down. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the whole article and it is now large enough for the current article. SWH® talk 21:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Soewinhan. But I have also removed the line "while origin of that term with relation to the United Nations is still unclear." the line is referring to the phrase "most persecuted minority in the world". I have read the article and nowhere it has claimed that UN has made such comments, so there's no need to say the origin of the term is unclear with relation to UN which kills the neutrality of the article. If you really want to add the line, then I would suggest adding the line on the ratio of stateless persons worldwide as well, to make it neutral. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you that do not make massive POV changes without discussion. Every sentence in this article has been discussed and agreed over a period of several years. SWH® talk 13:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm requesting you to refrain from reverting all the edits without discussing here. All these information were there before being removed by some troll IPs. Please discuss your concerns and objections as to how and which edits are POV and shouldn't be there. We should also need to reflect recent developments with regards to the Rohingya community which may not be there at present (or before). Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits have replaced the long-standing, several years old to be exact, version with massive POV changes. You remove dozens of sources that are against the idea that Rohingya came to Myanmar for centuries. SWH® talk 13:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it already, these information were there before being removed by some vandal IPs. And "long-standing, several years old" version is not a proper argument. There have been some major developments in recent years which must be reflected in the article. Please point out your concerns with specific changes and I'll explain them or even revert myself. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Archive 2: " I have reverted both your edits and the other pro-Bangladeshi editor Za-ari-masen. Both of you are removing sourced content for no legitimate proven reason." As other users have noted, you have been removing sourced content, sometimes entire paragraphs, and replacing them with a lot of repititive information. SWH® talk 13:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have still not pointed out any concern with specific changes despite repeated attempts of asking you. Please specify where I've removed sources or sourced content. All you have done is labelling other editors and accusing them as POV pushers. This is a clear sign of ownership of article. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit. Everyone can see that you remove entire paragraphs and replace them with pro-Bangladesh and pro-ethnicity claims. You remove entirety of well-sourced post-independence immigration, the mujahideen rebellion, and the Kaiser phone call. Other than removing the consenus-supported version, your edits do not add any new information but keep repeating Hamilton's paper several times. SWH® talk 14:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed only one source which was bogus and doesn't lead too anything, the Kaiser phonecall. the Mujahideen rebel is there in the later part of the article, it was repetition to keep it in the lead as well. Now, if you want to add this part, then what's the problem to add the line about the 1799 article? And also why you don;t want to keep the recent events which has been described by the UN as ethnic cleansing? You are clearly pushing pro-Burmese POV. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you think it's "bogus" is not a reason to remove a source that is from the UK Archive and repetitively mentioned. The addition of a single reference to the 18th century out of context in the lead, not to mention as an entire paragraph, is WP:UNDUE. Moreover, the UN does not describe it as "ethnic cleansing". It's from a UN official in Bangladesh. UN official views come from the United Nations headquarter. In fact, several UN officals have said this and that about the conflict. They are entitled to their opinions. You can add it in human rights section as a view of a UN official. And lead is supposed to be a summary of entire article. The mujahideen rebellion is critical to understanding the conflict and has an entire section devoted to it. The lead should have a sentence. SWH® talk 15:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See, it's a clear POV. You are not inclined to put information that goes against the Burmese POV but only inclined to keep the information which strenghtens the official Burmese views. The reference of the Hamilton article is the most important source in this article which validates the Rohingya claim that they are living there since before British arrival but you are saying this is out of context. A UN official has called it an ethnic cleansing which has been the subject of widespread attention from the international media, yet you have removed them from the lead. In summary, you just want a lead that only portrays the pro-Burmese POV and keep all the other information away from the lead. As I said, this is a clear sign of ownership. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. You seem not to be interested in factual discussion based on Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines. SWH® talk 15:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I can agree to the addition of Humilton in the lead so long as it is in context and not WP:UNDUE. SWH® talk 15:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your recent edits except the view of a UN official in the lead. Too many oficicals from various multinational organizations have expressed their opinions. It is not notable enough to be in the lead. I already put it in the human rights section. SWH® talk 16:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some edits, please have a look on the edit summaries for explanations. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never read anything that says that the Burmese government's official stance is all are illegal immigrants. That's the stance of the Arakanese Nationalists. If the government's position is such, there is no reason for an ongoing citizenship verification process. Richard Adloff and Virginia Thompson write that "the post-war immigration into the area was on a vast scale." I do not want to argue whether that's true because, on Wikipedia, we only argue about sources. It's a reliable source from the Standford University.

I also disagree that the Buddhist officials were persecuting Rohingya in the 1950s. Moshe Yegar in Muslims of Burma clearly stated that the area was lawless when the rebellion began. In fact, the Buddhists were driven away from the area by jihadists. As well, Arakanese independence movement was not a "Buddhist" movement. It's their own nationalist movement and had nothing to do with Buddhism.

Best, SWH® talk 18:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, apart from Richard Adloff and Virginia Thompson, Jacques Leider and David Dapice did state about the existence of post-war immigration. Dapice writes, "During the violent separation of East Pakistan from West Pakistan in 1971, there was a reverse exodus of refugees into Rakhine. When they stayed in spite of requests to the UN to repatriate them, there was a large military operation." Leider writes, "Having said that, one cannot fail to see illegal Bangladeshi immigration exists and persists. In Assam for example, illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are numerous." As usual, I have no idea about the facts. We only argue about sources. Leider, served as an advisor to the UN, is recognized by many to be 'the foremost authority on Arakan" and Dapice is from the Harvard University. SWH® talk 19:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that, I think that sentence can be reworded better. I now put it as, "According to the Rohingyas and some scholars, they are indigenous to Rakhine State, while other historians claim that the group represents a mixture of precolonial, colonial, and to a lesser extent, post-independence immigrations." SWH® talk 19:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soewinhan, you should take a look at those sources carefully. When talking about post-independence migration, they mainly refer to official Burmese sources. For example, the source from Crisis Group says, after independence, when the displaced Rohingyas returned to Arakan, they were labeled as illegal migrants. The source also says during the Bangladesh Liberation War refugees entered Rakhine but most of them have returned. None of the sources explictly said Rohingyas include migrants after independence. It will be original research if you imply their statements over the refugees as inclusion into Rohingya community. And take a look at any source regarding Rohingya, the official Burmese government stance is they are illegal immigrants.

Over the issue of Mujahideen rebel, it was clearly as a result of discrimination by the Buddhist dominated administration who replaced the colonial rulers after independence, refer to the Crisis Group. Za-ari-masen (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I even gave you direct quotations from Jacques Leider, Richard Adloff, Virginia Thompson and David Dapice. Your refusal to believe is astonishing. I tried to compromise but you keep pushing pro-Bangladesh agenda and strenuously refuse any source that says about post-independence immigration while dare not to provide any quotation. SWH® talk 22:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished too see your blind eyes towards others opinions. Did you take a look at what I have posted here? Did the the authors explicitly said Rohingyas include post indeendence-migrants? They mainly refer to official government stance. And you want direct quotations, there you go,

"After the Second World War, just as the country gained independence, a Rakhine Muslim mujahidin rebellion erupted. The rebels initially explored the possibility of annexing northern Rakhine State to East Pakistan (Bangladesh), but this was rejected by Pakistan.9 

They then sought the right of the population to live as

full citizens in an autonomous Muslim area in the north of the state, and an end to what they saw as discrimination from the Buddhist officials that replaced the colonial administrators.10 The immigration authorities placed restrictions on the movement of Muslims from northern Rakhine to Sittwe. Some 13,000 Muslims who had fled during the war and who were living in refugee camps in India and Pakistan (now Bangladesh) were not permitted to return, and those who did were considered illegal Pakistani immigrants.11"

"There was further turmoil on the frontier in 1971, as a result of the war of independence in East Pakistan that led to the creation of Bangladesh. Thousands of refugees fled to Rakhine in that year, with most – some 17,000 – subsequently returning home;"

Check the Crisis Group reference for these quotations. And you check any news article, book or journal to know about the official Burmese stance. Did you ever looked at the sources? In every news article you will find them saying Myanmar consider Rohingyas as illegal immigrants. Za-ari-masen (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the 1982 citizenship law is extremely misleading and'restrict from citizenship' is poor English. I suggest significant rewording which makes clear that not all Rohingya are descended from British Indians and that it is any Rohingya who cannot prove pre-1823 presence in Burma whose citizenship is restricted. Copperknickers (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we remove the word "stateless". Even though it is linked to an article it is not clear what is implied by the term. If it is about having their own state, well, most nations of the world don't have a state. Most articles on nations on the wikipedia don't mention whether the nation is stateless. If it is about them not having citizenship, majority of the world recognizes them as citizens of Burma even if burmese government doesn't. Their situation is already elaborated in the introduction.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016

The additional sources links are broken for these sources: Leider, Jacques (2013). Rohingya: the name, the movement and the quest for identity (PDF). Myanmar Egress and the Myanmar Peace Center. pp. 204–255. "Myanmar, The Rohingya Minority: Fundamental Rights Denied". Amnesty International. Retrieved 13 August 2005. KraigR (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--The links were repaired.Thanks for your vigilance.Light❯❯❯ Saber 06:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sections and paragraphs specific to insurgent groups and the insurgency are not directly related with the Rohingya people in general. It's like having specific sections dealing exclusively with the Peshmerga on the Kurds page. GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 05:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are not Rohingya. You can call Bengalis.They want to become Myanmar citizen so they defined themselves Rohingya. All of Myanmar people knew they are coming from Bangladesh. They killed a lot of Rakhine people and also attacked Rakhine's building,economy,etc..They made a lot of population and they want to get Rakhine area.Rakine state is very peaceful before they reach.After they reached a lot of crime cases are still happening. If you want to interest this case you can go and check at Myanmar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Zaw (talk • contribs) 04:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
False. The previous statement is strongly contradicted by most parties outside Myanmar (Burma). The Rohingya people are generally regarded as a complex ethnic/racial group, with roots in Rakhine State going back several centuries, with some ethnographic reports indicating Arab trader origins -- not Bengali.
The attempts by ethnic Burmese nationalists and Bhuddists to falsely classify the Rohingya as Bengali -- and thus associate them with Bangladesh -- is their thin pretext for denying them citizenship in Myanmar, and forcing them out of Myanmar (primarily into neighboring Bangladesh), and killing, raping, robbing and otherwise brutalizing those who remain.
Reports of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), the U.S. Department of State, and countless independent journalists, have documented this ongoing atrocity -- and sharply criticized the associated fraudulent claims of anti-Rohingya factions, as attempts to deny the Rohingya citizenship and continued residence in Myanmar -- the nation where they have apparently lived for centuries.
It is inappropriate for Wikipedia to be used as a vehicle for racist propaganda, and the previous editor's statement is a conspicuous case-in-point.
~ Penlite (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also - Wikilinks

The Rohingya topic has grown rapidly in recent years, on Wikipedia -- in part, no doubt, to the rapidly escalating violence against, and international concern about, these people.

I have greatly expanded the See also section to include the most significant of the 50-plus Wikipedia articles which have extensive information on the Rohingya.

The list was broken out into logical sections for clarity and quick reference. Note that in some cases, alphabetic order was replaced with logical order (e.g.: topics in descending order of signficance or derivation, or sequence-of-events).

For instance, in the subsection ===Places with Rohingya===, I placed the sub-subsections in the order of magnitude of Rohingya people in, or transiting, those places. Bangladesh and Thailand, bordering Burma, are the principal locations to which the Rohingya initially flee. Pakistan is much later on their route, and less in the news on this issue. Thus, the countries are listed in the order: Bangladesh, Thailand, Pakistan.

Within the "Pakistan" sub-subsection, the order is:

...because each item is a subsidiary topic of the one before, except Burmee Colony, which is a separate, topic.

I urge editors to retain this structure for clarity and quick reference. Attempts to reduce this organization, or switch to plain alphabetical order, will reduce this reference to a crude, and largely impractical reference, of little coherence or use.

~ Penlite (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

I ask someone to urgently correct numbers of Rohingya people in Myanmar. The sources are from 2015. They are fleeing by hunderds of thousands in last years. 1.0 mil. is much more proper estimate. Check out: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38168917 --89.177.238.52 (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 04:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

propose fixing refs using {sfnm} and {sfn}

Sorry, I can hardly decipher the refs. We've got long chains of them like "or after the Bangladesh liberation war in 1971.[22][23][24][25][26][27][5][28]" and named references that are just numbers, such as ":3" and ":7" etc.

I'd like to fix them with {{sfnm}} and {{sfn}} etc. This would be a complete overhaul of the way the references are presented, though I would only very rarely replace the content of the refs with a different source (obvious case would be a dead link, perhaps).

I'll wait two weeks for objections/discussion.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

User:Soewinhan - can you please utilize the talk page and try to get consensus for your edits rather than edit warring against multiple users?

As to the POV issues, there are several. For example, why are you replacing the word "stateless" by the word "Muslim" in the first sentence? Why are you removing the fact that some of them are Hindu? Why are you removing the sentence "The Rohingyas are also restricted from freedom of movement, state education and civil service jobs in Myanmar."?

And that's just the first few lines of your edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved, I don't know what this is about, but @Soewinhan, it seems your name was invoked. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you, I don't have time to be on Wikipedia all the time. I also do not have the temerity to tell blatant lies without being backed by diffs. I neither added nor selectively removed anything. I reverted massive non-consensus edits back to consensus versions so that we can slowly discuss. Other than that, you win. Wikipedia's motto is, "the more time you have, the more you can force your POV." Good luck and good bye.SWH® talk 21:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

august news that might add to the article

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/02/burma-satellite-images-show-massive-fire-destruction Agathoclea (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aye Chan

Who is Aye Chan when it is at home? The cited PDF was published in SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research, please add the missing wikilink in the reference. As far as scholar.google.com goes it's not plain nonsense, but claims that a term used in 1799 was created in the 1950s. Something is wrong, maybe the statement in the #nomenclature section should be removed or at least fixed. –2.247.246.142 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

old
publisher=SOAS | year=2005 | accessdate=1 November 2011 | author=Aye Chan
new
publisher=[[SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research]] | work=SBBR 3.2 | pages=396–420 | year=2005 | accessdate=11 September 2017| author=Aye Chan
89.15.238.179 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC) (same as 2.247.246.142 above)[reply]
Done SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 03:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Something in the update didn't work, apparently you forgot the publisher = [[ at the begin, I've reset the edit request to no. –2.247.246.3 (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


See also the section, below:

"Dr. Aye Chan -- questionable source."
~ Penlite (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

By Fez Cap 12. Some of these are don't adhere to WP:NPOV. Here are the issues

  1. Reliable sources don't refer to Rohingya as "Arakan Indians", mostly because they're not. Neither the first source provided nor the second uses the term - either at all or to refer to Rohingya. At best *some* portion of the Rohingya are referred to a such.
  2. Likewise, while there may be Hindus among them, they are a minority.
  3. The phrase "Most Persecuted Minority in the World" - it's not just the UN, it's other independent scholars as well. Second, it's not a "community" it's a minority

Otherwise there was some good content and edits made. Volunteer Marek  15:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: To your first point, here is another source which calls them Indian, simply for descriptive purposes. This is because prior to 1948 Burmese independence, Rohingyas were known as Indians in British Burma. Of course they aren't modern Indian citizens, but all people with cultural links to the Indian subcontinent (i.e. language) were termed Indians, especially prior to 1947 and 1937, when India and Burma were part of one territory. It's important to distinguish that Rohinygas are not ethnically similar to most Burmese, but they do claim Burma as their homeland given the long history of settlements (claimed from the 8th century).
Reports are stating there are "Hindu Rohingya", like here in the The Guardian. You may note that Rohingyas are often called a "largely Muslim minority", hence the small remaining proportion are Hindus. On your third point, I added the UN because one editor wrote the statement was invented by "one journalist". Lastly, I can find a plethora of sources which describe the Rohingya as a community. And the Rohingyas themselves claim to be a community. A minority is a community.
I appreciate your work in this article. Hope I can clear these issues to you.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fez Cap 12, Volunteer Marek: There is actually another source, dated December 1952, British Foreign Office (pg.3), that refer to "Arakanese Indians" [1] and uses the synonym "Rwangya", in a report of the late-1940s tensions in the country. One should also note that, even with the assertion from some sides that Rohingya are Bengalis, that 'Bengalis' are itself an "Indian" ethnic group. So interchangeable use of the term Indian to refer to the people should not come as surprising. Its a term which was used to refer to any peoples from the Indian subcontinent pre-partition. DA1 (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox citation which states the Saudi Arabia Rohingya population to be 400,000, also listed Bengali as being only 15,000—which is ridiculously low compared to the estimated 1-2 million Bengalis actually there according to other sources. Some of the other figures are dubious as well. The source does not appear to be reliable least not in this case. I'm removing it for now, until a different source for Saudi Arabia is available by someone. DA1 (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable sources don't refer to Rohingya as "Arakan Indians", mostly because they're not. Neither the first source provided nor the second uses the term - either at all or to refer to Rohingya. At best *some* portion of the Rohingya are referred to a such" - yes, this is correct. It is ridiculous that the first sentence of the article states that Rohingya are "Arakan Indians". There is an effort to make Bengali settlers in Myanmar seem much more venerable than they actually are. This edit should be reverted. Sheepish4810 (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You just copy pasted Volunter Marek's comment which was addressed earlier. The term is also used in reliable publications, like here page 151. Perhaps it's not necessary to rehash this, bur the term Arakanese Indian was an official identification of the British government. Just as the terms "Burma" and "Burmese" have now changed to "Myanmar" and "Bamar" respectively; the "Arakanese" and "Arakanese Indians" have adopted the terms "Rakhine" and "Rohingya" respectively. Lastly, the heritage of the Indo-Aryan community in Arakan dates back centuries.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abridging the lead

@Fez Cap 12, HamCSy, GeneralAdmiralAladeen, Penlite: I think it is important to abridge the lead section, however, removing paragraphs in haste is not the best way to go about it. It is a work in progress, and I urge the other members to rewrite the lead in a more compact manner which it can certainly be done. However, there are some points that are integral to the topic and cannot simply be removed from the lead:

1. The identity of the people and their reported persecution under the military (per UN, HRW)
2. Why they are being persecuted, i.e., their status of denied citizenship and considered illegal migrants
3. Why they are considered illegal, i.e, their ethnic origins from the Indian subcontinent
4. A brief history of the peoples prior and lead up to said conflict (i.e., WW2 division, 1962 coup)

Rather then removing the above @Penlite, I believe it is the last paragraph that can be shortened. The refugees in each country, their fleeing abroad, these can be made more concise. Plus some redundancies. Nonetheless, it is a multi-faceted topic so its hard to make it too short, without it also becoming MOS:DONTTEASE ("bury the lead"). It should also be noted, per WP:LEADLENGTH, it is "a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs". – DA1 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with DA1. The last paragraph should be trimmed, but I believe the first sentence about apartheid must be kept.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the last paragraph, the middle sentences about Rohingya-majority townships and the countries hosting refugees is also important. The topics of the last sentences are actually covered in the first paragraph.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for including the details about the countries where the Rohingya are is to simply report a key, basic demographic fact, appropriate for the lede on any ethnic group concentrated in a few countries. (For examples, see the lede in Uyghurs, Eskimo, Druze, Pygmy peoples, etc.). Since their recent international mass relocations have become a fundamental topic of global concern about them (including at the United Nations), and thus a significant factor in their WP:NOTABILITY, those details are even more essential to the lede.
~ Penlite (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DA1, @Fez Cap 12, @HamCSy, @GeneralAdmiralAladeen:
My edits of the lede -- which, for the most part, I took great pains to neither delete, add nor change any of the text (just moved it) -- met all the parameters you declared above, except #4 -- "A brief history of the peoples prior and lead up to said conflict (WW2 division, 1962 coup)" And that exceedingly detailed text was simply moved to the History section, without changes.
Moving the early and intermediate history details to the "History" section is fundamentally appropriate, given that those very specific details are NOT the principal focus or basis of widespread research or debate on this issue at this point in time, nor in the forseeable future (read the prevailing current references!).
Further, declaring these specific details essential to an basic understanding of the article's subject -- "Rohingya people" -- is utterly unrealistic. because similar histories of other civilizations, throughout Asia, and throughout modern history, have seldom resulted in any such drastic and dramatic events as have happened recently -- events drawing the "Rohingya people" topic into public focus, and thus Wikipedia importance.
The contemporary events, which primarily bring WP:NOTABILITY to this subject, are simply not defined, in summary, by anything more than the basic background points already stated previously, summarily, elsewhere in the lede. I preserved that essential summary information, as the Manual of Style dictates. MOS:LEAD states this clearly:
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." (My italics and underline)
Incorporating all the complexities of the legal and political history of Burma/Rohingya majority/minority politics -- which are blatantly beyond the normal content of ANY lede in Wikipedia -- is simply drowning the reader in details at the outset, and deterring any further reading of the article... and violating MOS:LEAD which states:
"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." (My boldfacing)
MOS:LEAD adds:
Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.
So I moved out the two MASSIVE paragraphs on early and intermediate Burma/Rohingya history to the "History" section, where their details belong. While I concurr that some very succinct (one- to two-sentence) summary of their content may be appropriate for the lede, anything more is simply abusing the lead, and violating the guidelines set forth in the WP Manual of Style:
WP:LEAD:
As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs.
(A paragraph that fills a screen, awash in minute details -- ambling around in largely indiscriminate or chaotic chronological and topical order -- is not "well-composed." Let alone two of them.)
I agree that the final paragraph (which contains the primary elements of the contemporary WP:NOTABILITY of this article) does deserve some condensing. But I cannot get to everything at once. I have other responsibilities. It was on my list of things to do this week, before all my setup was undone (see next comment).
~ Penlite (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DA1: Your blunt, wholesale reverts of others' edits are not as helpful as you may think.
For instance, when I broke the massive, multi-topic, run-on paragraphs of the lede, down into several smaller, more-digestible paragraphs (without changing ANY of the words) -- and then noted in my summary explanations of the edits that it was to facilitate future reorganization -- I was setting up the lede so that I, or you, or any other editor, could (this week) more easily and readily do the necessary reorganizing of the lede, and relocation of the lede's minute details to appropriate subsections -- (consistent with MOS:LEAD) and the dictates of the flag at the top warning that the lede was way too big. (The lede was a hopelessly chaotic, jumbled mess, and abusively over-sized.)
When I finished the many careful breakouts, the lede was much easier for anyone (including you) to edit and condense, properly. But, without regard for the clearly stated purpose, you simply swooped in and threw out all my hard work, and reverted the bloated lede right back into one big mess. Not constructive.
While I realize that you may see your fussing as beneficial, I urge you to reflect upon the actual, long-term, net effect, and restrain yourself in the future. It would be sad to make this an issue of WP:EW debate.
Trusting your ability to correct your mistakes, I will sit back and not restore my edits, for now, but let you make those corrections yourself, in your way. But, in the future, please restrain any further wholesale destructive impulses when reviewing others' careful edits.
Respectfully~
~ Penlite (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the lead is quite massive for this article, and that a lot of details could be cut out from the lead and saved for more specific sections. However, I personally do not have the time or intention to submit a draft for the lead myself; I will be happy with whatever the rest of you [editors] end up agreeing on. Kêfa we ji we re. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Rohingyans?

The references given for the statement "The majority are Muslim while a minority are Hindu" does not seem valid. None of the article in the references states any evidence to prove that there are Hindus among Rohingyan communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.249.251 (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which references did you read, because there are multiple citations noting Hindu Rohingya refugees entering Bangladesh. [2] and [3]. DA1 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your second reference [4] does not use the term Hindu Rohingya. It uses the term Hindu community twice. BengaliHindu (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian used the term Hindu Rohingya, but they earlier mentioned Rohingyas as Muslim people. BengaliHindu (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The refugees speak the Rohingya language. Unless you can prove they have a separate ethnic identity, your position does not appear to be valid.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fez Cap 12:The Hindus of Arakan were provided ID Card for National Verification (ICNV) in 2009. In the ID card the ethnicity is mentioned as 'Indian' as evident from this report. The Hindus accepted the ICNV card (aka green cards) with ethnicity as 'Indian'. They didn't object for not being identified as Rohingyas. On the other hand, the ICNV distributed to Rohingya mention them as 'Bengali' ethnicity. The Rohingyas objected to it to being called 'Bengali', they wanted them to be called 'Rohingya'. This proves that Hindus and Rohingya are different ethnicity. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BengaliHindu: Myanmar's ethnic identification is extremely controversial, as you may understand by now. The Rohingyas are not provided the chance of being Indian either (despite being Indian pre-1947). In Myanmar, Indians can only be Hindus. But my point about their language still stands. The refugees who arrived in Bangladesh speak the Rohingya language and all credible sources have identified them as Hindu Rohingya.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fez Cap 12: My point is not how Myanmar identifies people. My point is Hindus never objected to being identified as Indian, neither protested for not being identified as Rohingya. If a group doesn't want to be identified as Rohingya, how can you call them Rohingya? BengaliHindu (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fez Cap 12: Speaking Rohingya language, doesn't prove that Hindus are Rohingyas. Rohingya language is phonetically similar to Chittgongian and other south eastern Bengali dialects, so its not unnatural the Hindus being minority will speak that language. Hindus also speak Arakanese or Burmese. Does that make them Rakhine or Bamar? BengaliHindu (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BengaliHindu: All credible sources describe the Hindu refugees as Hindu Rohingya. The controversial ethnic labels imposed by Myanmar cannot stand as solid evidence.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fez Cap 12: I'm not sure how can you claim 'all credible' sources describe so. 15:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BengaliHindu: Here is an additional citation [5] that notes "Hindu Rohingya", this time from TheWire. DA1 (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DA1: The Wire hasn't written on its own. It has simply quoted the [The Guardian article] which you mentioned earlier. So it is not an original reference. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This news report -- "26 dead after boats carrying fleeing Rohingya sink in Bangladesh" August 31, 2017, Chicago Tribune -- like some others I've seen in the current crisis -- while talking about Rohingya refugees, also mentions "Hindu" refugees, but not "Hindu Rohingya." The article notes:
"More than 400 Hindu residents of Rakhine state crossed into Bangladesh after being attacked by armed men... about 86 Hindus had been killed by armed groups in three villages since last Friday."
In the current crisis, news articles that also mention "Hindu" refugees, while reporting stories of "Rohingya" refugees, may be creating the illusion that the two groups are one. Thoughts?
~ Penlite (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Penlite: Yes. Looks like the media are confused. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BengaliHindu: As this source points out clearly, "There were at least a million members of the Rohingya ethnic group living in Myanmar, most of them Muslim, though some are Hindu.".--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fez Cap 12: Yes this source says so, but then there are other sources which say Rohingyas are Muslims only. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source says they are "Muslims only". The term Muslim minority is used given that the predominant majority are Muslims. Other sources say "largely Muslim". But credible sources point out the minority Hindu as well.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fez Cap 12: Look here. A Hindu victim of ARSA speaking in Hindi. Your reasoning based on language doesn't hold ground. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your source is the mouthpiece of the Tatmadaw. And Hindi is not a native language in Arakan. Now please, WP:NOTAFORUM--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, most so-called reputed media sources have provided dubious definition of Rohingya Hindus, because there is no verifiable source that says Hindus of Mayanmar have accepted that description for themselves (even if some of those might be multilingual who understood Rohingya language along with other language, being able to understand Rohingya language does not mean Hindus consider it as their primary language or mother tongue or even sacred language, they could have been forced to learn to get along with majority speakers, we must keep an open mind and not make assumptions that Hindus speak Rohingya hence they are are Rohingya by ethnicity, language is different from ethnicity, not everyone who speaks english is english (England-origin) by ethnicity). Moreover, a dubious unverified statement in reputed source does not meet the wiki criteria. Wiki guidelines are clear that such content must be rejected.
Second, who is to decide that so-called reputed media classification is correct but the classification of the regime that administer the region is to be totally disregarded, at least this classification by Mayanmar administration is based on verifiable sources i.e. editors can verify how that classification is done. Accepting one dubious unverifiable classification while rejecting a verifiable and partially-disputed classification is mere POV. Include all classifications that are verifiable.
Third, partially-disputed classification means at least Buddhists and Hindus of that area have accepted Mayanmar government's classification, Only Muslims have not accepted, if 2 religions out of 3 have accepted the classification then it should be included, we can not have an article to appease Muslims or Muslims-apologist, please keep the article neutral, Muslim-apologist editors should be booted out of this article for violating wikipedia guidelines on 'conflict of interest'.
Fourth, it is not for some more assertive and vocal editors to decide on classifications based on their POV, if the Hindus have accepted the classification and they have "self-identification" given by the Mayanmar government then this is good enough that classification is self-identified and also recognized by the government then who are the third parties to raise unnecessary questions on it.
Fifth, also investigate why Muslims refused to be identified as Bengali. Are all Muslims in Mayanmar who claim to be Rohingya really Rohingya? Are some of those doing it to be not booted out for being illegal immigrants even though they might have been there for a while? So-called Rohingyas are "real Rohingyas" mixed with earlier Bengali migrants and remixed again with successive waves of Bengali migrants, united in religion and matrimony, accepting Bengali status would mean being acceptance of reality of being illegal economic migrants, their interest is best served by pretending to be Rohingya and blurring and resisting any attempt to segregating those Bengali illegal economic migrants mixed with Rohingya. This is not a black and white simplistic issue. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biased

I find this article extremely biased. It refers to Mughal invasions as Arab Islamic missionaries. Really? And yet the Burmese are always painted as violent. It also makes the Burmese look like collaborators with the Japanese invasion forces. The truth is these Muslim Bengals were brought into Burma as indentured labour by the British and were never native to the territory. The cowardly British turned tail back towards India leaving the Muslim Bengals to cover their rear flank. The first thing the Muslim Bengals did was massacre over fifty thousand Buddhists native to the region. Their incursions have never ceased and to this day produce the region's only conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.21.70 (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@198.161.21.70: The ethnic Kachin conflict, the Karen conflict, the Kokang conflict, Shan conflict, the Communist insurgency in Myanmar are all a part of the conflicts in Myanmar. So Rohingya is not the "region's only conflict", there are also ethnic Rakhine separatists as well such as the Arakan Army factions.
The Moghuls did not take power until the 16th century, not the 8/9th century as missionaries supposedly first arrived. DA1 (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latest refugee figures

The latest reports suggest there are now 670,000 total refugees in Bangladesh, with 370,000 entering since October 2016. I'm not sure where Psychonot got the figure of 800,000, can't find any sources for that.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before I changed, the figure was 500000 in bangladesh. This very new CNN source says at least 270,000 Rohingya flee Myanmar to Bangladesh in 2 weeks, + thousands more still coming[6], so its 800000 approxiamately.--Psychonot (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the figure to 670,000+--Psychonot (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are two identical references for 670,000 (infobox and lede), please join these references, e.g., <ref name="dailystar">{{cite web| … |publisher=[[The Daily Star (Bangladesh)|]]| … }}</ref> as the 1st reference followed by <ref name="dailystar" /> for the 2nd reference. 89.15.238.179 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

Who on Earth has written the lead section? It's nearly as long as the whole article. The lead section is a brief and short summarize of the whole article. And it shouldn't have any references in it - the guideline is clear: references are "allowed" but not well seen.--Albin Schmitt (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Population and user Fez Cap 12

@Fez Cap 12: Paid Op-eds like the one you added ([7]), written in any newspaper, including NYTimes or Forbes, are not reliable per Wiki policy, as they can written by anyone, not the editors of the publication. The Washington Post article and many other sources which you removed are reliable sources.[8] Also, don't remove clarifications from infobox, the sources there say they are new refugees in 2016 or 2017.--Psychonot (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: Looking through the very recent edit history of this article, I found you as the only experienced editor/admin, that's why I'm pinging you here. Fez Cap 12 seems to be not very familiar with Wiki policies, and is making many changes to this article. Could you please review it. As I am not an expert, plus I don't also have the time. Thank you.--Psychonot (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. My only contribution here was to warn against edit warring, two years ago. This subject is not one I feel competent to review, but I will ask around and see if I can get someone to put the page on their watchlist. I see that there has been a great deal of back-and-forth recently but I don't see anything calling for admin action at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: It should be noted User:Psychonot has him/herself been reverted of vandalism and disruptive editing on multiple instances. See in particular the discussion here and here. DA1 (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DA1, I am not going to be monitoring this page or discussion. I have asked another administrator, who is more familiar with the topic area, to add it to their watchlist in case of problems. With regard to your complaint: I see that you tried to get Ymblanter to take some kind of action against Psychonot, and I concur with Ymblanter's reply: this is not a simple or obvious situation, and one administrator alone is probably not going to take action. If you feel you can make a solid case for disruption to the level of needing admin action, ANI is the place to do it. But be aware that your case needs to be laid out clearly, showing specific instances of violating WP policy, with diffs - and that filing an ANI case can sometimes backfire on the person who files it. If there is NOT disruption to the point of needing admin action, then I suggest you focus on the issues in the article, rather than on the behavior of other editors. Also, taking a complaint about someone to one administrator after another (hoping to get a result you like) is called WP:Forum shopping and is not encouraged. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: Actually those were two other users (Eperoton, LouisAragon) conversating about said user. I joined in at the end, to add my part to it. Only one of the posts were mine.
You're making false accusations against me without reading the signatures, neither of the two conversations were started by me. If you paid attention, you would see they were linking completely different articles/reverts, nothing to do with this one we are in. I simply added this one to their list. Never thought I'd get accused of "forum shopping" for posts that weren't even mine. I have yet to contact a single admin on my own. DA1 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychonot: The sources do not support your brackets for India, Nepal and the US. I'll be removing them.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sreejiththulaseedharan: Hi, your edits on September 10, produced a number of red links such as "Cite error: The named reference BBC2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Please fix your citations, make sure your reference tags are well-defined. DA1 (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have been referring to "ROHINGYA CRISIS NEWS"--a continually updated articles list on the Rohingya crisis -- which provides direct links to articles by the the major media sources (major TV networks (BBC, CBS, NBC, ABC News, Fox News, etc), principal newspapers, news magazines and news services) in most major English-speaking countries (U.S., U.K., India, Australia, Canada) about the Autumn 2017 crisis.

Sorted chronologically, and apparently published online by a civil rights activist, it lists (and links to) articles that report the statements of both sides to the conflict. Though the selection of articles may reflect a pro-Rohingya bias, the articles listed there DO seem to be consistent with the prevailing media coverage, internationally, on this topic -- and cite several of the sources most-accepted by Wikipedia. (e.g.: BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters, etc.)

It also provides links to United Nations and U.S. State Department reports, and aritcles from Human Rights Watch and the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as a Central Intelligence Agency encyclopedic overview article about Burma/Myanmar.

Might be a useful resource for Wikipedia editors seeking reputable references on this topic during the current, rapidly-changing events. See: "ROHINGYA CRISIS NEWS"

~ Penlite (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list of sources is all well and good but there is one problem. The Bengali-Burmese mess was caused by the British Empire and is part of their blood soaked legacy of moving people about here and there as part of a divide and conquer strategy. All of the sources which you mention above are in some way British Imperialist connected (including the Anglophile network nestled on the East Coast of the United Kingdom of America) and the British Imperialists are explicitly on the side of the Bengalis against the Burmese. Not just to due to legacy reasons but also ongoing geopolitical aspects. Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a notable point, I think. There is a definite cultural difference between Asian-language and English-language publications in their general orientation and bias, I think -- and English-language publications. globally, do tend to reflect Western values and perspectives more than the native-language publications in the same places. Raises WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issues, for sure.
However..." --
  • This is English-language Wikipedia, and is written by and for English-speaking people. That tends to make the use of English-language sources necessary.
  • There is arguably a much stronger tradition of disciplined, honest journalism and scholarship in Western media, (and in their post-colonial derivatives globally), than in most other publications, globally.
Honestly, domestic Asian publications often seem written specifically for local popularity, or to gratify a political faction, or to appease or serve a nation's government, rather than to objectively report the news.
Honest, solid reporting is a value that seems all-too-often confined to Western culture, enforced by Western democracy which usually mandates freedom of the press (free from governmental control), along with a judicial system that punishes objective falsehoods, but does not retaliate against politically sensitive or unpopular subjective statements.
I'll admit, those Western traditions are under attack, lately -- exemplified by two politically-charged, and opposite, American TV news networks: CNN and FoxNews -- and as exemplified by aggressive tendencies by some Western public leaders (the current U.S. pressident comes to mind) to find ways to intimidate or punish journalists for their unwelcome revelations and independent, un-cooperative conduct.
But those problems are still less-pervasive in Western media -- especially English-language media -- it seems to me, than in other media, globally.
In world news, generally, for instance, are there really any more-reliable or more-comprehsnsive sources than the Associated Press and the BBC?
In a world of imperfection, lets make the most of what we've got. (By the way, that news-reference list I noted -- "ROHINGYA CRISIS NEWS"-- contains numerous links to articles by non-British sources (American, Canadian, Irish, Indian, Bangladeshi, Australian, etc.) -- even non-Commonwealth sources (Thailand, Philippines, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, and the United Nations in particular).
While most of its listed articles tell the Western perspective -- most also note the statements of opposing sides in the conflict.
I don't doubt that that news-link list has a pro-Rohingya bias -- but has seemingly not been out-of-step with the currently prevailing pro-Rohingya world perspective (as indicated by the unanimous press release, Sept. 12/13, from the 15-member U.N. Security Council, and by virtually all U.N. officials' statements on this issue, to date, whatever their nationality or native language.)
Very resepctfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice post! I might also add that the "international" news organisations such as BBC, CNN etc. also employ reporters of a variety of nationalities. So they are the best we have of international news organisations. Secondly, it is not the job of the newspapers to analyse the historical causes of the conflicts. Even if they did, we wouldn't accept it. As per WP:NEWSORG, newspapers are only reliable for news, i.e., current events observed by reporters. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violent acts towards Buddhist monks and people of Myanmar

Writer is unable to upload any of the images which proves the violent acts towards Buddhist monks and people. However the current version of wiki reveals only the side of Rohingyas', however this is just a biased story of previous writer. The main reason for Burmese government to shun off Rohingyas is the violent acts of this nation towards the ethnic people of Burma. Everyone sympathizes with Rohingyas', who depicts themselves as desperate refugees for the international media. However the situation of Rakhine State if far worse for the Buddhist monks and people which is not shown in media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisharadh (talk • contribs) 05:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, why doesn't the Bhuddist-dominated Myanmar government allow the world's media to come and see for themselves? They don't. In fact, they're forbidding journalists to enter northern Rakhine unless under the control of government "handlers." (and have blocked UN investigators).
I am sure there are hardships and wrongs on both sides -- but clearly the Bhuddist-dominated Myanmar government is hiding something in Rakhine, and certainly not for the benefit of the Muslim Rohingya.
Further, though you say "Everyone sympathizes with Rohingyas', who depicts themselves as desperate refugees for the international media," you surely can't expect us to believe that 300,000 Rohingya set fire to their homes, then maybe kill their own men, and severely wound their own children, and then carry them, walking 50 miles or more into a starving Bangladesh refugee camp, with nothing, just to get sympathy. Not thousands. Not if you are realistic. (UPDATE: U.N. estimates 389,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled into Bangladesh, in the last three weeks -- 40% of the original Rohingya population in Burma). Regardless, reputable journalists usually get this right, and they're all chiefly critical of the Bhuddists in this disaster.
~ Penlite (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, folks, keep WP:NOTFORUM in mind, please. This place is for discussing improvements to the article. If you feel some information is left out, provide evidence for that, in the form of reliable sources that support the content you wish to add. No generic discussions should take place here, however upsetting the situation may be. Vanamonde (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde I agree; would you like to just delete my remarks (and this entire section?). It's getting too abstract (though I've added some reference links to my original text, linking to supporting major media articles).
~ Penlite (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not worth the trouble: but just keep it in mind. Vanamonde (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a registered editor, hence unable to edit this article. Article is biased showing Rohingya as victim. the root of the problem is usual muslim tendency "unable to coexist with others with equal rights wherever they are in majority (none of 57 muslim majority nations allow equal rights to muslims) or a sizable minority (they always create war of succession to create exclusively-islamic ghetto). Rohingyas mixed with Bengali migrants did not want to co-exist with non-muslim Burmese and thence the problem. Muslim-apologist editors are too assertive in keeping anything that exposes this and their humanist view is biased and selective to serve the purpose of tonign down all the evil that exists in islam, selectively championing the cause of islam by trying to portray it in singular light of "victimhood" even in complex issues like Rohingya where bad things have done by all sides (which neutral editors should highlight), and conveniently leaving out bad stuff done by islamists (according to several multi year studies upto 90% of all terrorists attacks over 10 years across the world are done by muslims, though upto 80% victims are muslims, i.e. 'these muslims' (the ones engaged in violence) can not live with each other (sectarian intra-muslim violence) and with other 9muslim war against non-muslims)). Those who are registered editors, please include the respected media sources that show Rhoingya being redicalized by islamist terrorists groups, Rohingya being security risk in multiple nations where they have spread out too, Rohingya attacking Hindus and Buddhists. See the following sources: Al quaeda operative arrested in india who ran terrorist training for Rohingya in Bangladesh, 9 Chakma Buddhist and Hindus killed by Rohingya Salvation army terrorists, {http://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/attacks-09062017155520.html Hindus flee Rohingya terrorist attacks], Dozens of HIndus killed in Mongdaw by Rohingya. Please stop making "Islamic attempts" to keep out any editor or source that exposes "evilness of islam". Allow all good source edits with due weight. Apply same criteria to anti-muslim view that you have applied to pro-muslim view in edits on this articles. If the article includes poorly sourced pro-muslim views that show Rohingya as vicitm only while applying a much higher criteria to keep out edits that show rohingya are being radicalised, rootcause is intolerance of islam to co-exist, etc, then this article is biased already and islamic editors are drowning voice of others. Please those neutral and experienced editors, can you start prohibiting those "assertive islamic apologist" editors from editing on this article. I suspect those pretending to be 'custodians" of this article and "champion of wiki policies might be "biased islamic apoloogists", please rule yourself out of this article. NOTE: So far, I have not made any edits to this article. I am not Muslim or Buddhist and I am not Bengali or Mayanmarese. I randomly chanced upon here, article is one-sided and from the talk page I can see why so, because Islamic-apologist editors are assertive enough to keep other editors out. Mayanmarese Buddhist people are not good with English and that could be another reason their views are not represented here and global "islamic-apologist gang of editos" is having fun here. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excessively ugly layout

Apart from {{lede too long}} discussed above the page is now uglier than a week ago. If the huge {{Rohingya people}} really stays get rid of the older {{Islam_by_country}}, one spammy navbar below the infobox is bad enough. Ideally {{Rohingya people}} could be a navbox at the bottom. –2.247.246.3 (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature

The section on Nomenclature seems to be mostly based on Leider's views, not giving any coverage to the numerous other scholars who have commented. It also misrepresents the views Professor Andrew Selth. I'm going to be adding the views of other scholars. Please let me know if anyone disagrees.VR talk 20:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the following:

Aye Chan, a historian at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan, states that though Muslims have lived long in Arakan, the term Rohingya was created by descendants of Bengalis in the 1950s who had migrated into Arakan during colonial times. He also says the term cannot be found in any historical source in any language before the 1950s.

This is obviously false as it contradicts evidence that the term was present in English as early as 1799, and in German in 1815.VR talk 20:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some mixed feelings about this:
  • 1.) I'm very skeptical of Dr. Aye Chan as a source (see my discussion topic "Dr. Aye Chan -- questionable source" below)
  • 2.) Moshe Yegar, cited in this article from his paper Muslims of Burma, seems to also support this specific assertion of Chan's, and some other references seem to agree, also.
  • 3.) I believe the sources cited in this Wikipedia article, taken as a whole, basically support the idea that
  • a.) The Rohingya are partially descendants of immigrants from many centuries ago (as well as more-recent immigrants); and
  • b.) The term "Rohingya" or some variant of it (e.g.: "Rooinga", "Rowengya," etc.) were used centuries ago to describe their language,
  • 4.) I think the historic research sources cited in this Wikipedia article generally support the idea that the people did not go by the name "Rohingya" until the 1950s.
  • 5) Regardless of how or when the term "Rohingya" came into use, it is now, rather obviously, the internationally-recognized term for the ethnically-distinct Muslims of Rakhine state in Burma (and their global diaspora). Attempts to identify these people as "Bengali" is an obvious attempt to pretend they are exactly the same people, in all respects (including proper nationality), as the Bengali people of Bangladesh and India -- facilitating arguments for their forced removal from Myanmar. Regardless of the political arguments, English-language Wikipedia is not in the business of naming or re-naming people for the political convenience of anyone; it simply recognizes the prevailing accepted nomenclature throughout the English-speaking world. That term, for these people, is now "Rohingya," worldwide (except for opposing Burmese and Buddhist sources).
  • 6) I think that this obsession over the term "Rohingya" is a semantic political game, intended by parties on BOTH sides of the conflict to obscure the true origins and history of these people -- and obscure the more important and historic realities about them.
A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet"
~ William Shakespeare
~ Penlite (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodesians or Palestinians?

There is a narrative in this article which tries desperately to present this group of Bengalis as an "oppressed victim group" (stretching as far to yelp "apartheid", it won't be long till the Holocaust is brought up I imagine) but an extremely important dimension of the sociological history is missing, especially in the introduction. Most academic sources agree that these Bengali Muslims were brought into Buddhist Burma with the sponsorship of the British Empire to divide and rule the local Burmese. Since the British Empire was forced out of Burma, these people lost their prominent and unjust social position. They are not native inhabitants, but a collaborationist group which lost power. The "Rohingya" are more analogous to colonialist settler groups like the Rhodesians or the Ulster British than they are say Palestinians or any native group which has been displaced. We need to feature this dynamic more prominently. Claíomh Solais (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As always, we go by sources and not by opinions. If you have reliable sources, preferably academic sources on Burmese history from established academic publishers, please feel free to present them. [This is not a comment for or against any point of view, just of reminder of how things work here]. Jeppiz (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We can't just have opinions freely floated without credible source material to back these claims up. Particularly when you use politically loaded and non neutral terms like "collaborationist group". Contaldo80 (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Aye Chan -- questionable source

Dr. Aye Chan -- cited frequently thoughout this article -- is not simply an objective, independent academic in another country, as suggested by his identification, in the cited sources, which typically label him simply as "a professor from Kanda University in Japan". Seldom, if ever, do they mention his apparent personal ties to the anti-Rohingya community, and to their homeland.

According to hard-to-find but substantial and numerous sources online (including, apparently, his own abandoned 2008 blog) -- Dr. Chan is actually from Burma/Myanmar -- and not only that, but Chan is apparently "Arakanese"...identified by the admiring World Arakanese Organization as "Arakanese", from "Arakan" -- now called "Rakhine state" -- the area where the Rohingya have long been settled, and from which they are now being driven by the military and other "Arakanese" (or "Rakhine")

  • A page which appears to be Chan's own blog, "Awlarika", dated 2008, with a photo, contains this text in the "About me" section:
"Aye Chan MA (Rangoon University), PhD (Kyoto University), is a native of Arakan State in Burma. ... His field of study is Pre-modern history of Burma.During his twenty years of teaching at Rangoon University (Burma), Bard College (NY, USA) and Kanda University of International Studies, Japan... In 1989 he was arrested and sentenced to ten-year imprisonment for taking part in democracy uprising of 1988 in Burma. After serving seven years... he was released (and) resumed his academic career."
  • That 8-year-old abandoned blog also contains links to a number of articles -- nearly all of them blatantly anti-Muslim or anti-Rohingya -- including a 7-part series: "Just Liar Rohingya."

Obviously this conflict-of-interest raises serious questions about Dr. Chan's neutrality and objectivity -- regardless of academic titles -- and raises serious questions about his posing as simply some scholar at a Japanese university (rather than currently revealing his Arakan/Rakhine connection).

Ditto those editors who've been citing him, extensively, in this Wikipedia article.

From this evidence, and others I've found online, it seems clear (to me, at least), that Dr. Chan is a politically active Rakhine -- and NOT a Rohingya -- putting him squarely in the faction opposing the Rohingya (basically most of the Rakhine / Arakanese people).

People quoting Aye Chan -- and apparently Dr. Chan himself -- almost always fail to mention his personal connection to the conflict area and parties... but never fail to mention that he's from "Kanda University in Japan" -- almost as if to conceal that he has the basis for a very personal bias in this issue.

Since

  • (1.) Aye Chan has personal origins in the conflict zone, creating the potential for personal bias;
  • (2.) he seems to have a politically active history in Burmese/Arakanese affairs, with a conspicuous anti-Rohingya / anti-Muslim focus in earlier works;
  • (3.) his personal connections to the conflict region are routinely unreported in his current, or recently cited, publications;
  • (4.) his citations in this Wikipedia article almost always contradict all other academic sources on the topic.

...any text based on reference to Aye Chan, in my opinion, should either:

  • (A.) include clear identification of Dr. Chan's personal connection to Arakan (Rakhine) state,
OR
  • (B.) be deleted altogether.

Thoughts? ~ Penlite (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the argument is that we should avoid citing someone because of his nationality, then the answer is "no". If he really is holding a fringe view, then that's more relevant, but the argument as presented above, focusing on his nationality, is not convincing. Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeppiz: It's not simply Dr. Chan's nationality that raises questions -- but rather that...
  • His nationality is a key party to the conflict (and to the specific conflict community),
  • He is a significant political figure in the conflict (co-founder of a Rakhine nationalist group)
  • These connections are apparently now being systematically concealed in his currently published works, which have been cited by Wikpedians, -- and are also unreported in others' references to him, which misleadingly simply report him as being a "professor" in "Japan."
Further, while some of his published and cited works appear to have large amounts of genuine valid content, they are also interspersed with apparent fringe views, sometimes loosely supported, or not at all. The citations of him in this Wikipedia article are often to validate fringe views, referring to Chan's own fringe statements, seemingly well outside the truth, and prevailing global consensus.
I don't oppose citing him, altogether, but only if he is honestly and realistically identified -- as indicated in WP:BIASED and WP:INTEXT.
For instance...
  • In an article on gun regulation, you obviously wouldn't cite a statement by the National Rifle Association CEO, Wayne Lapierre, as simply coming from "a writer and TV documentary host" -- even though he is.
  • In an article on oil-import regulation, for instance, you wouldn't cite a statement by a Saudi Arabian diplomat as simply coming from "a government official in Washington." Right?
Nor would it be responsible, when editing a Wikipedia article, to let the author of a cited document go similiarly unidentified, in a Wikipedia article, in such a situation, just because the cited author didn't fully or realistically identify himself in the cited document. I'd accurately and realistically identify the source author as indicated in WP:BIASED and WP:INTEXT. )
~ Penlite (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I chanced upon this article and talk here. Thus far, I have never edited or participated in discussion on wiki on this article or related topics. I do not know about Dr. Chan or his/her work, hence unable to comment about him specifically. Please be reminded, as per wiki guidelines a source can not be discarded in whole if parts of its are "valid and supported", include those parts. Do not make blind and summary judgements to discard the whole source. Besides, any balanced and unbiased article includes "synthesis" from the multiple aspects. An article should not be "toned down" and specific sources should not be kept out of this purpose. Those editors who vehemently support excluding whole sources, including the well supported and valid parts, are themselves "biased editors" and they should refrain from editing this article. Take a break or leave it to other unbiased neutral editors to handle Dr. Chan related content. Hope this is not the case of whichever editor has loudest andmost assertive voice drowns (cuts out) other valid content form other editors. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite (with wikilinks) the Wikipedia policies you're speaking of. I've reviewed the key policy WP:VERIFIABILITY, and noted some of the areas where citations of Dr. Chan's are lacking:

  • WP:QS ("Questionable sources are those that have...apparent conflict of interest... views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist... Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves... They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.");
  • WP:SELFPUBLISH ("...Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") (One of Chan's two cited works is apparently self-published);
  • WP:EXCEPTIONAL ("...Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources...")

Again, as I noted above: "I don't oppose citing him, altogether, but only if he is honestly and realistically identified -- as indicated in WP:BIASED and WP:INTEXT."

Indeed, if he's properly identified, I think his perspective should be included, to ensure that all signifcant minority views are included, per WP:NPOV (though clearly in the global minority, his views are popular, right now, with the majority in Burma/Myanmar) -- but only if he is honestly, realistically and properly identified, per the noted Wikipedia standards.

Ditto all other such sources -- whatever side they are on -- in this currently extremely sensitive and contentious topic.

Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rohingya are Bengali

This page should be merged with Bengali people or Bangladeshi people. Rohingya term didn't exist before 1900. Please don't spread lies.

This should be removed, per WP:NOTAFORUM, because this is not a forum for debating the substance of the article, and you offer no evidence (no links to sources that meet the WP:VERIFIABILITY rules) for this statement. I will leave it for you to fix, or others to comment, but if there's no fix, this should be deleted soon. Meanwhile, you might review the many cited substantial sources, in this article, that contradict your claim. Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a history of how they illegally came to Myanmar [9]. Educate yourself and don't spread lies.
Facebook isn't a reliable source, as you well know. I am tempted to remove this post as a violation of WP:NOTFORUM, but am not going to do so, because I'd rather debunk people who depend on facebook as a source, rather than give them even a shred of evidence to cry "censorship". If you want to claim they are illegal immigrants, find a reliable source which says so. Vanamonde (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2017

Aungkhant1996 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook blocking this issue - Wikipedia might be targeted, too.

Wikipedians, beware: Apparently someone is blocking Rohingya refugee accounts from Facebook. This may be some political tampering -- so beware. Entities that tamper with Facebook also sometimes tamper with Wikipedia articles. ~ Penlite (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear anybody is "tampering" with Rohingya refugee's accounts. Facebook bans posts by or in support of The Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. Facebook's "community standards ban posts by or in support of such organizations, which it defines as groups engaged in terrorism, organized violence or crime, mass murder, or organized hate." The Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army is on it's “dangerous organization” list. CBS527Talk 18:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Muslim edits in this article & talk page

Not allowing terrorist organizations to misuse wikipedia for their misleading false propaganda to recruit more terrorists and to paint a fake picture is no tempering. Wikipedia has builtin community-watch mechanism to spot, report and weed out such terrorist propaganda accounts. Khudos, those editors and admins petrolling wikipedia to keep out such accounts. Everyone, who is Muslim or supports muslim or islamist causes, is violating wikipedia policies on "conflict of interest" and must be barred from editing on this article or commenting on this talk page. Admins, please take note, screen all the editors of this article. Strictly keep out terrorist-sympethisers, muslim-apologists and islamist-sockpuppets, often disguised as virtuous rule-abiding wikipedian editors. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your brash statement that "Everyone, who is Muslim or supports muslim or islamist causes, is violating wikipedia policies on "conflict of interest" and must be barred from editing on this article or commenting on this talk page." is not supported by ANY Wikipedia policy (not suprirising that you don't cite one). Your anti-Muslim bias is blatant in this statement -- as it is not matched by any claim that any other faction related to the controversy is banned by virtue of "conflict-of-interest," such as: Buddhists, Hindus, Rakhine, Myanmar citizens, etc. Clearly the bias is yours. Please withdraw from editing on this topic until/unless you can be obedient to the WP:NPOV rule.
Note that, in comparison to you, I have no attachment to any of the parties to this conflict, nor to their religions or ethnicities, nor a hatred of any of them. I do have a firm attachment to honest, accurate journalism and editing. ~ Penlite (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFP reports Massacre of Mayanmar Hindus by Rohingya Muslims: pls include in the article

The independent third-party non-Muslim non-Buddhist non-Hindu Christian-majority french-owned Agence France-Presse, using its own onsite reporters, has reported on Massacre of Mayanmar Hindus by Rohingya Muslims in a series of investigative newsreports based on the Hindu victim eyewitnesses, see here, here, here and here. Similar stories have been reported by Reuters also, here. I am not a registered user, hence unable to edit the article. Those registered users please include these facts in the article and also create the separate Massacre of Mayanmar Hindus by Rohingya Muslims article. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is mentioned in the "Violence towards civilians" section of the article Northern Rakhine State clashes. Please note that:
  • 1. There has apparently been no substantial independent verification of the Army's claim -- and the Army refuses to allow independent observers or reporters and photographers to access the area freely, to find out for themselves. I read the source articles you listed, and they apparently all say that. Hence, those articles do not meet the key WP:VERIFIABILITY rule. (I do think the Army's claim should be noted -- but as their claim -- not as verified fact.)
  • 2. The Myanmar military has an interest in blaming ARSA, to drum up support for itself, as the defender against the "terrorists."
  • 3. ARSA claims that it has strictly refrained from attacks on civilian (though, in conflicts of this kind, it's not unrealistic to suspect some).
Until reputable, independent investigators or reporters can enter the area and interview eyewitnesses themselves, all that we have to go on is the unverfied claim of the Myanmar military -- a key party to the conflict -- a source that, in your terminology (in the previous section), is invalid becaue of a "conflict-of-interest."
Consequently, it's probably too soon to do a piece on "Hindus Massacred" When/if such a piece is produced, it should bear a title that only states what has been independently and reliably verified (e.g.: "Killing of Hindus at Ye Baw Kya" or (if the scale of the killing is very substantial, and with no apparent or suspected military justification, "Massacre of Hindus at Ye Baw Kya." Blame (e.g.: "Killing of Hindus by ARSA at Ye Baw Kya" should not be placed in the title unless/until multiple, substantial, reputable independent sources can be cited, with links, concurring on who that "guilty" party is. I would hope that both Muslim and anti-Muslim sources would be cited - or neither.
~ Penlite (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


There is more on this. Eyewitness reports, reported by the reputed sources, from Mayanmarese Hindus refugees in Bangladesh who escaped Rohingya Muslim violence. Mayanmar Hindus eyewitness narrate how Rohingyas massacred Hindus and how beautiful women were separated. How 2 mass graves of Hindus have been found, out of 100 Hindus missing 45 bodies in 2 mass graves were found. Rohingya took surviving Hindu women to camps, to force them to convert or be killed.

I have provided latest updates and eyewitness accounts from independent sources in Bengladesh (source1 and source2) corroborate the Mayanmarse government account (source6 and other sources). Sufficient to include this in this article and to create new article on massacre and Persecution of Hindus (create separate article if there are sourced content on Persecution of Christians and Buddhists by Rohingyas). Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have summarized this news, in this article, in the section "August 2017 crisis" ~ Penlite (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. There is more on this. India TV reporter visited a camp of Rohingya/Mayanmarese Hindus in refugee camps in Bangladesh where several eyewitness and rape victims provided independently verified accounts of massacre and gang rapes of Mayanmaresse Hindus citizens by Rohingya Muslims. This deserves inclusion here as well as a separate article as suggested above in my first post.
India TV Source8: India Tv Exclusive, Mayanmar Hindus refugees corroborate massacre and rape by Rohingya Muslims,
Kuwait Times Source9: Mayanmar Hindus cries near the mass graves of relatives killed by Rohingya Muslims,
The Wire Source10: Massacre of Hindus in Rakhine a Testament to Brutality Independent journalists flown to site of mass killing in Rakhine that survivors and the Myanmar army say was carried out by Rohingya militants.
Source11: Hindu American Foundation expresses concern over massacre of Hindus in Myanmar
Source12: 8 Hindu women raped and forcibly converted by Rohingya Muslims lead Mayanmar army to the mass graves of Hindu victims
Source13: Rohingyas are law and security threats to other nations they illegaly arrive at, Bangladesh arrests three Rohingya men for smuggling 800,000 meth pills
Source13: Rhingya are unwelcome, Rohingya who've fled Myanmar face resentment in Bangladesh 222.165.9.81 (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rohingya_people&oldid=802820820"