This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Penlite (talk | contribs) at 10:19, 5 September 2018 (→Rohingya reference sources: fix my grammar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:19, 5 September 2018 by Penlite (talk | contribs) (→Rohingya reference sources: fix my grammar)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rohingya people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rohingya people article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
the so called permanent peoples tribunal
The "permanent peoples tribunal" ass referenced in the article is a self-declared court that is without ANY legal standing. It is run by an NGO, it is NOT "UN-backed" as the article claims, and its "proceedings" are shames by any legal standard. Among other absurdities it delivers "verdicts" without even once hearing the accused.
It is a bunch of NGO busybodies making themselves sound important. The single secondary sources given does not even support the claims attributed to it. I also doubt it qualifies as a reliable under Misplaced Pages policies.
I will therefore remove the assorted paragraph. Wefa (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
A good reference is the CIA report that estimates that between 1971 to 1983 no less than 600,000 Bangladeshi nationals from that country entered Assam, while 300,000 entered Meghalaya and about 200,000 entered Tripura. And we are supposed to believe that non entered Burma! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.93.225 (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- that may or may not be a good reference - if you had actually provided it. So we just have to take your word for it. And we don't. Wefa (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Rohingya reference sources
A possible reference for news and background articles -- from most major English-language media throughout the U.S., U.K, Australia, Canada, and the conflict zone -- the Rohingya Crisis News appears to post links to (and some abstracts of, or excerpts from) almost all the major English-language news stories on the Rohingya, since the current crisis began in August 2017 -- as well as numerous older stories. It claims to be "updated at least weekly."
The articles listed, and linked to, are from such basic reference sources -- across the political spectrum -- as the Associated Press, Reuters News Service, Agence France-Presse, New York Times, Wall Street Journal The Guardian, the broadcast networks BBC, CBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox News, Sky News, and the leading newspapers in the conflict region (Bangladesh, India, Thailand, Australia), and in the U.S. and Canada (it generally avoids the more partisan, inflammatory or censored sources such as Myanmar or Arab media, though they're cited occasionally).
It also contains some background references on the Rohingya, from major media, academic, institutional, organizational and government sources (particularly the United Nations), as well as numerous official government and NGO statements and reports (e.g.: U.S. State Dept., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.).
Although it appears to be very Rohingya-sensitive (it is apparently edited by a U.S. civil rights activist and former journalist/scholar), it also lists numerous articles reporting the denials, arguments and statements by the Myanmar government, and others largely hostile to the Rohingya. Seems fairly objective, and consistent with most current scholarship on the Rohingya. Online at: Rohingya Crisis News
Categories:- 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