Language like the following:
The dignity, the honour and the prestige of the Rakhine as a FREE NATION had terminated immediately after loss of independence
... lead me to want to dispute the neutrality of this article.
--Miwasatoshi, 12 Sep 2005, 2149 MST
I do not undersand why the second major community name is called as Bangali Musilm rather than calling the correct new name "Rohingya". Is not true that Rakhines were the "Magh" then why Rakhine never want to be called as "Magh".
Bangalis are those who speaks Bangali Language and are staying in Bangladesh. Remember that old Arakan was mainly dominated by three ethnic groups namely "Chañçi", "Ruáñí" and "Magh" and Bangali were not included.
- The Kalima were taken on by the Buddhist kings to help connect with their muslim Bengali subjects, not because they were muslims. If the Rakhine kings were indeed muslim, like the sultans of the Malay world, they should have used Arabic outright. It is like saying just because the Tsars of Russia had the title 'Caesar' - (tsar or czar is the Russian corruption of Caesar) that they worshipped Roman gods.
- Unfortunately, it seems Rakhine/Arakan's issue is where who gets the stronger backer and churn out as much literature, not place emphasis on coherence and just selectively quote it repeatedly until everybody thinks it is the truth (reminds me of a quotation of Joseph Goebbels). People tend to frame the past using their present perceptions of what they think is the truth - this is for every single society on Earth, not just the Rakhines or the Bengalis. But in doing so, we all alter history to conform to our current version of truth.
I think the history section should focus on the history of Rakhine State itself. Right now, it's more a poorly written "story" of Rakhine people with no citations. Hybernator (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)