Misplaced Pages

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)

@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)

@Fez Cap 12, Volunteer Marek: There is actually another source, dated December 1952, British Foreign Office (pg.3), that refer to "Arakanese Indians" 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages -- 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)

@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)

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 end up agreeing on. Kêfa we ji we re. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

Which references did you read, because there are multiple citations noting Hindu Rohingya refugees entering Bangladesh. and . DA1 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your second reference does not use the term Hindu Rohingya. It uses the term Hindu community twice. BengaliHindu (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian used the term Hindu Rohingya, but they earlier mentioned Rohingyas as Muslim people. BengaliHindu (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@Fez Cap 12: I'm not sure how can you claim 'all credible' sources describe so. 15:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@BengaliHindu: Here is an additional citation that notes "Hindu Rohingya", this time from TheWire. DA1 (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@DA1: The Wire hasn't written on its own. It has simply quoted the which you mentioned earlier. So it is not an original reference. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

@Penlite: Yes. Looks like the media are confused. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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, so its 800000 approxiamately.--Psychonot (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I changed the figure to 670,000+--Psychonot (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There are two identical references for 670,000 (infobox and lede), please join these references, e.g., <ref name="dailystar">{{cite web| … |publisher=]| … }}</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)

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)

Population and user Fez Cap 12

@Fez Cap 12: Paid Op-eds like the one you added (), 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. 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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

Red link / Cite error

@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)

List of Links to Official Sources & Major Media articles

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 Misplaced Pages. (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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Violent acts towards Buddhist monks and people of Myanmar

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 opther name, would smell as sweet"

~ William Shakespeare

~ Penlite (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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. . Jeppiz (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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 Burmese/Myamari news outlet: Irriwady.com, in an article about a festival in Rakhine state, quoting Chan, describes him as "Dr. Aye Chan, an Arakanese professor at Japan’s Kanda University."

• The Buffalo News (Buffalo, New York), August 05, 2013, announcing Dr. Chan's arrival there, identified him as: "Aye Chan, an historian and former political prisoner in Burma, ... a history professor at Kanda University in Japan, and a founder of the World Arakanese Organization." (WAO)

• WAO-USA's Facebook page for "8-17-2013-- The 7th WAO-USA Conference" -- shows photos/videos of Aye Chan (and apparently nothing else).

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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; and
• (2.) he seems to have a politically active history in Burmese/Arakanese affairs, with a conspicuous anti-Rohingya / anti-Muslim focus in earlier works; and
• (3.) his personal connections to the conflict region are routinely unreported in his current, or recently cited, publications; and
• (4.) his citations in this Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

@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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article, to let the author of a cited document go similiarly unidentified, in a Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Please cite (with wikilinks) the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Here is a history of how they illegally came to Myanmar . 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)

Watch this video . It exposes the truth. Rohingyas are Bengali illegal immigrants that moved to Rakhine state illegally.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Aungkhant1996 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

Facebook blocking this issue - Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages articles. ~ Penlite (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

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. CBS527 18:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• C-Class Myanmar articles
• Mid-importance Myanmar articles
• WikiProject Myanmar articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class Bangladesh articles
• Mid-importance Bangladesh articles
• WikiProject Bangladesh articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics