Talk:Rohingya genocide

Changed important rating

I believe this topic is of high importance to both the Myanmar and Human Rights WikiProjects. This is because it is an ongoing and rapidly unfolding situation that is being reported worldwide. It is one of the most pressing human rights crises in the world right now. I know quite a bit about this particular topic so I will begin adding more recent information in the next few weeks. Apriljennifer (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree, especially since this has become a major debating issue at the United Nations, and is the subject of rare genocide charges before the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice. For a sense of the global interest in this issue, see the various links to articles, worldwide, about thie issue, in the following carefully-documented section, below: "Article title: "genocide" definition vs. Rohingya persecution.

~ Penlite (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

1942 and tone

I can't research this at the moment, but I heard a source say that there was also persecution/genocide in 1942 but it appears the background of the article only goes back to the 1970s. I wonder if sources exist for this and if the article should be updated. Also, I thought the tone of this article was off. It seems to say very reliable sources say X instead of just citing X as fact. Just because an unreliable source exists and denies X doesn't mean we have to stoop down to the level of he said/she said phrasings. Biosthmors (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army

The lede should describe the role of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army in the conflict. It is perplexing that the infobox mentions it in the causes list and no more context is given. --MarioGom (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

2 Criticism sections

Copyeditor passing through. I noticed that there were two sections titled identically as "Criticism". Strongly suggest those two be merged together. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a genocide going on

Why does the name of the article uses a false reality as the title?? 62.226.82.47 (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that can claim that it is not a genocide, please provide them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No need to argue over their always-shifting terminologies. Just let them call whatever they want. We'll do whatever we want. Sherwilliam (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The loaded term "genocide" may or may not be appropriate for the title, but there's clearly a wide global consensus that, at least, "acts of genocide" or "genocidal acts" -- or acts that fit common or legal definitions of "acts of genocide" -- have happened to the Rohingya, in Myanmar, repeatedly, in recent years.

See the following carefully-documented section "Article title: "genocide" definition vs. Rohingya persecution.

~ Penlite (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Article title: "genocide" definition vs. Rohingya persecution

The title of this Wikipedia article contains the politically loaded term: "genocide." "Genocide" has a fairly well understood broad meaning: eradication of a people. However, there are nuances in the various specific interpretations of the term. For instance:

1.) Some contend that "genocide" means simply killing all (or a large percentage of) the people of a particular demographic identity (e.g.: race, ethnicity, religion, etc.), at least within a certain area.[1]

2.) Others contend that "genocide" can include extreme violence, exploitation, captivity, deprivation or discrimination against people of a particular demographic identity.(see: Lemkin, Raphael (2008). Axis rule in occupied Europe : laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposals for redress. Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange. ISBN 978-1-58477-901-8.; Lemkin's legal theory provided the basis for the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal)

3.) Some also include broad efforts to prevent that group's reproduction and propagation (such as by marriage restrictions, coerced sterilization or abortions, infanticide or promoting infant mortality, or confiscating the children of the group).[2][3][4]

4.) Others assert, more broadly, that "genocide" can include attempts to wipe out a people's identity, culture, religion, language or whatever it is that makes them a unique and cohesive demographic group. (An example is the recent efforts by China to forcibly purge the practice of Islam from its Uyghur Muslims, or its long practice of fighting Buddhism amongst its Tibetans).[5][https://www.thenews.mx/world/yangon-protesters-force-closure-of-muslim-schools-in-myanmar/

The general global consensus -- at least in major Wikipedia-grade English-language media sources, it seems -- throughout most of the world -- is that the Rohingya of Myanmar are recent victims of nearly all those categories of "genocidal" abuse cited above.[6] For example articles, click on the names of the sources listed below:

• North America: (e.g.: USA Today,New York Times,CNN,Fox News,Toronto Globe & Mail,CBC)THe News (Meixco)];
• Europe: (e.g.: BBC,The Guardian,France24,Deutsche Welle (Germany)[7]);
• Asia: (e.g.: Jerusalem Postand Ha'aretz (Israel),Arab News (Saudi Arabia),Al Jazeera (Qatar),The Hindu (India),Daily Star (Bangladesh),The Irrawaddy (Myanmar),The Star (Malaysia),Channel NewsAsia (Singapore),Japan Timesand The Diplomat (Japan)); and
• Australasia: (e.g.: Sydney Morning Heraldand Australian Broadcasting, New Zealand Herald.)

Similar observations have come from U.S. State Dept legal counsel, U.S. House of Representatives,[8] Canada's Parliament, a U.N. fact-finding mission to Myanmar, [9] [10] the special envoy on human rights in Myanmar, major human-rights groups (the Asian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Genocide Watch, [Fortify Rights,] and others.

The International Courts of Justice have yet to rule on Gambia's charges (on behalf of the 53-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation) as to whether or not Myanmar is "guilty" of genocide against the Rohingya -- a court case that will likely drag on for years -- but even they have already seen sufficient evidence to order Myanmar to "prevent" future genocide against the Rohingya, and preserve evidence of any genocidal acts that have happened there.

Grudgingly, even Myanmar has begun prosecuting some of its own soldiers for some of those "war crimes."

So it is appearing that there is a widespread and growing consensus that the Rohingya are, indeed, victims of atrocities commonly identified as "acts of genocide."

Not surprisingly, in spite of that, Myanmar, and its apologists (chiefly Asian and European Buddhists biased in the Buddhist/Muslim conflict underlying the Rohingya persecution)[11][12], and key trading-and-development partners (e.g.: China[13], Japan[14]), and countries with their own notoriety for "acts of genocide" against their own Muslims (e.g.: China[15][16], Russia[17][18]), continue to assert that, although atrocities against the Rohingya have happened, they do not amount exactly, to "genocide".

Whether "genocide" is the appropriate term to put in the current title of this article may be debatable, but it's becoming less and less so, it seems, as the legal actions proceed, evidence mounts, testimony accumulates, and global opinion (increasingly favoring the term "Rohingya genocide") is expressed. And Wikipedia is a consensus-driven encyclopedia (WP:CONSENSUS).

~ Penlite (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional major media & official sources on the "genocide"

"Rohingya Crisis News" appears to be a moderately pro-Rohingya news website, providing links to thousands of major media news and feature articles on the subject, as well as some official and NGO sources (United Nations, U.S. government, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Fortify Rights, etc.).

While that site, itself, may not be a valid "WP:RS" source, the news articles it links to are in typical Wikipedia sources: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Associated Press, Reuters, BBC News, The Guardian, U.S. News and World Report, CBS News, National Public Radio, PBS. ABC News, even Fox News -- as well as a bunch of English-language media in "the conflict region." It also posts links to the summary "Rohingya crisis" article-list pages of many of the cited major and regional media.

So, "Rohingya Crisis News" is probably a good place to look for links to articles from usable sources, and relevant updates.

~ Penlite (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Two phases

Does anybody have a citation for this idea that the genocide occurred in two phases? If so, we should add the citation, and then possibly add headings for each phase, for increased organization. That would also solve issues with things like the article having two criticism sections as a level 1 heading. I imagine having two different criticism sections is left over from merges/moves? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

LibrarianForUnity, thanks for your help with the phase citations. Much appreciated. I've organized the article into one heading for each of the two phases. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight on international opinions

I haven't decided exactly how to handle it yet, but I have my eye on the two criticism sections and the large "Reactions" section. These sections are all related, and are basically the international opinion of the genocide. These sections combined are bigger than the actual content of the article, which to me is way too much weight. I thought about spinning out the "Reactions" section, but to my chagrin somebody already spun it out, and the spun out version is even bigger. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, the two criticism sections are actually a pretty good summary of all the international reactions. At this point I am thinking of moving all the country reactions to the International reactions to the Rohingya genocide article and then deleting them from this article. In my opinion, the criticism sections in this article adequately summarize the country reactions. Let me know if anybody objects, else I'll proceed in a day or two. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I support such a transfer of that material. This article is already way too bloated. Haffaz (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright. All the country reactions are moved to the other article. This article still has 3 sections titled "International reaction", which isn't ideal, but I don't think merging them would be an improvement. I am also thinking about moving the "Supranational organization" section into the "International reactions" article, but I am holding off for now because the UN ICJ investigations and similar investigations are fairly relevant to the genocide. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it over?

There is no content whatsoever on events past October 2020, and no content on the main topic past May 2020. Is the event over then? If so, why does the lead still act like it is ongoing? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Poor coverage in this article doesn't mean it's over. You'd have to find a reliable source saying that the genocide ended, but, rather, the fact of the matter is that the Myanmar government is still actively trying to keep the Rohingya out of the country. Haffaz (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

ICJ verdict is ongoing

There's an official investigation going on. No country uses the term in an official capacity. You can cite as many NGO sources as you wish.

1. https://www.state.gov/marking-the-fourth-anniversary-of-the-ethnic-cleansing-in-rakhine-state/ ('marking the fourth anniversary of ethnic cleansing in Rakhine State').
2. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/13/asia/myanmar-rohingya-uk/index.html ('UK says Rakhine situation looks like ethnic cleansing').

No photos of dead bodies or remains have ever surfaced. Many huts that belonged to both sides were burned. Today, there are daily photos of shootings, burnings, and dyings. Back then, the only real photos were of 200 Hindus massacred by the ARSA. Pak Thais (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There were also hundreds of thousands of Buddhists that fled the region too. But the difference was that they ran toward the Buddhist side (which is Myanmar's interior). Pak Thais (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)