Talk:Rohingya people

Copyright issues?

This looks like a simple copy and paste from somewhere else, so there may be copyright issues involved.--TheParanoidOne 05:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from here, it seems. --TheParanoidOne 19:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rohingyas are the people of Arakan.

Rohingya are known as Bengalis Immigrants in Rakhine State of Myanmar. The term Rohingya became popular only after the 2012 Rakhine State riots in Myanmar. These Bengalis Immigrants don't even recognize themselve as Rohingya, however, some Muslim people outside of Myanmar address them as Rohingya People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.130.140 (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two main groups of people, the Buddhist Rakhine(formerly known as Moug) and The Muslim Rohingyas in Arakan State. Of course there are many historical monuments that prove that Muslims has been in Arakan since thousands years ago. One mosque in Mrauk U is still there which was built in 1600 and also there are archeological stone on which Arabic were written many hundreds years ago. Even the recent mosque built in Akyab was more than 200 hundreds years ago. Muslim Coins of Arakan are not lying the truth. When Burma invaded Arakan many Muslims were taken as slaves into the Central Burma particularly Mandalay City. There are still two mosques awarded by Burmese Kings and which were still in the center of the Burma's capital city Rangoon(Yangon). In 1942 more than 100,000 Rohingya people who were half the Muslim population of that time were massacred by Buddhist Rakhine by the help of Burmese government. Many had fled the Arakan to neighboring countries such as Pakistan(Currently Bangladesh) and India.

To tell the truth it was Rakhine Maug who migrated into Arakan in thousands in 1972 and onwards from Bangladesh hill track and there is no doubt that there are many Rakhines who have one home in Chittagong hill track and another home in Arakan. Come and tell me if this is not true.

Burma's brutal government always make big propaganda that the Muslims are the migrant people simply because Rohingyas are Muslims. Today Rohingyas are everywhere spread all over the world because of systematic persecutions of Muslims people to drive away from the counry. Today there are more than 1.5 millions Rohingya people out Arakan and became stateless people. Today Rohingyas people are urging international community to come in rescue of Rohingya people who are nearing to yellow level in endangered people list though Rohingyas inside the country are more than 2 millions. Imagine Refugees in 1978 amounted to quarter millions which are only one eight of the total Rohingyas in Arakan. If any body want to know about the atrocities towards the Rohingyas read the UN reports on Rohingyas.

Rakhine are enemies to Rohingyas as the Israelis are to Palestinian. Rakhine will never tell the truth towards the Rohingyas as Fire never tells the truth of the water.

Ahhh, sorry, I think I've dropped by at the wrong moment, but I agree. Racism, ignorance and mutual animosity can go a long way to influence a person's writings which is clearly the case presented in the above node by a certain person who deems the Rohingyas as immigrants from neigbouring Bangladesh. You say "they look like Bangladeshis" simply because some of them do not belong to the mongoloid sphere which predominates the country? How simple-minded. I'm talking to that guy who created that ignorant "Rohingyas are migrants" node, by the way. -Eric 15:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Historical proof that Muslims have been in Arakan for thousands years ago? Er, last time I check, the Hijri is only 1428/9 - how can Muslims be there for thousands of years when they've been on Earth for only one and a half? I find many comments here deeply one sided. Please stop self-pitying yourselves and keep on pointing the finger at others. Rohingyas are fighting for an independent homeland - no matter what race or religion you are, the Burmese will squash them, including the Buddhist Arakanese. There is no denying that the Rohingya are immigrants - everybody is. The Burmese immigrated from the Tibetan plateau two thousand years ago. And, yes, they have similar looks to the Bangladeshis. They are given too much limelight - as if they are the only muslims in Myanmar. Most of the Muslims are descendants of immigrants - that is more precise. Most Muslims in Myanmar are either of the Bengalis stock or the Persian/Arabic stock. Very few Burmese and other ethnic groups embrace islam. So, is it wrong to classify early rohingyas as immigrants?

I find the tone and comments of many here very opinionated and one sided. We can co-exist - it is you people who keep on asking for independence, and well, that will attract the Burmese/Arakanese guns towards you people. And please stop bloating up facts. I do pity the plight of the Rohingyas, but keep one thing in fact - no offense, but it is true : when muslims are the minority, they will make the loudest complaints about their treatment. But, when they are the majority, they commit the same acts too - it is the small lump of coal calling the large lump of charcoal black in the case of Arakan.

I support the first commentor's note that they look like Bangladeshis - what? They do, and its a crime / not PC to say they look so? Rohingyas are not migrants - they are descendants of recent migrants. That is correct - no point denying that - so, why attack the truth? If you cannot accept the truth, then, well, good luck accepting reality.

And, in history, we didnt have the term Rohingya until very recently. Before independence, they were all termed as Bengalis - because they came from Bengla. Some came over in 1431 after the establishment of Mrauk U, and they lived a seperate life from the majority Arakanese ( another point which I find disstressing - some claim that the Rohingya are the dominant people of Arakan, and that Islam is actually the dominant religion of both Arakan and de facto Myanmar - wake up!). Well, if you make those ardious claims, that surely will ruffle feathers.

I believe that the Buddhists Arakanese and Muslim Rohingyas can co-exist - provided that both sides act within reason - that is, the Arakanese treat the Rohingya with equal respect, and that the Rohingya stop voicing those fraudulent claims (over estimating their numbers, the religious demographics of Arakan, of being there for thousands of years) and for independence. We should tolerate the Rohingyas as a minority, correct - but also, the Rohingya should tolerate us as the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.6 (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

While a discussion of this ethnic group is a valid topic for an encyclopedia, please do not cut and paste information from other sources into Wikipedia. The old page has been deleted as a copyright violation, please feel free to start again, but use your own words. --nixie 04:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The current content has been taken from Rohingyatimes article (The Land and the People section). The topic is important, considering the plight of the Rohingya people, so please start the article with your own words. --Ragib 23:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring

I restructured the article, because it was a huge mess. Also, most of the content seem to be taken off other websites, even the HTML tags were left behind. Anyway, I also removed some parts which were either bad english or irrelevant. Thanks . --Ragib 20:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Naming the "External links" section to "Rohingya Website directory" is not a standard practice. In an encyclopedia, you cannot really create a portal or link collection claiming it as a directory. Also since this is an encyclopedia and not a website or blog, having a detailed list of Yahoo groups is not really very encyclopedic material. So, I renamed the section back to "External links" and removed the Yahoo Groups part. --Ragib 04:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

can't able to read the claim article. website not available. website is young website and created in 2010. not reliable resources.

Visit AboutUs.org for more information about rohingyatimes.com AboutUs: rohingyatimes.com

Domain name: rohingyatimes.com

Registrant Contact: VALUE-DOMAIN COM VALUE DOMAIN ()

Fax: Honmachi TS Bld. 6F Bakurou-machi 4-7-5, Chuo-ku Osaka-shi, Osaka-fu 541-0059 JP

Administrative Contact: VALUE-DOMAIN COM VALUE DOMAIN ()

           +81.662416585      

Fax: +81.662416586 Honmachi TS Bld. 6F Bakurou-machi 4-7-5, Chuo-ku Osaka-shi, Osaka-fu 541-0059 JP

Technical Contact: VALUE-DOMAIN COM VALUE DOMAIN ()

           +81.662416585      

Fax: +81.662416586 Honmachi TS Bld. 6F Bakurou-machi 4-7-5, Chuo-ku Osaka-shi, Osaka-fu 541-0059 JP

Status: Locked

Name Servers: sns17.websitewelcome.com sns18.websitewelcome.com

Creation date: 19 Sep 2010 06:26:00 Expiration date: 19 Sep 2012 01:26:00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyawkwin (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing comments

It seems that some users are removing comments from the talk page. While the comments were definitely quite hostile, removing them make the other comments in reply to the removed comments, look out of context. So, for keeping the talk page consistent, the comments should not be blanked. Thanks. --Ragib 08:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Systematic Ethnic Cleansing of Rohingyas

It has been so much heart breaking to listen and hear the tragedic histories of Rohingyas who fled Burma even far before its independent. Not only they lost their mother land and the properties therein but also they lost their daughters, children and loved ones in the hand of non-Burmese strangers on the way to finding a peaceful place to live. Many families have spent uncountable hours walking in the darkness to find slip roads to other countries. Many have ended up their lives in jails of other countries. For some, it took many years to reach countries such as Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, UAE, and finally for many to Saudi Arabia. Many families have died in the desert land of Arabia while trying to cross on foot. One family said they were saved by a crowed of birds who guided them to a safer place while they all were about to die in the middle of the desert.

Why Rohingyas have been leaving their own mother land since then? It is because of systemetic removal of Rohingyas by the brutal milatary goverment simply because they are Muslims and live together forming a large number of Muslim-only villages in some major cities in the Northern part of Arakan. There are no such other cities in Burma having concentrated Muslims in one area.

1942 was one of the largest of its kind of ethnic cleansing where nearly a hundred thousands Rohingyas were massacred including babies, children and the elders. It is said rivers were red in color for months due to man killed in crowed in the banks of the rivers as they could not swim and cross the rivers. All the houses were burnt down and children were thrown up to be cutted into pieces as they fell. Imagine it was just a few years before Burma got its independent from British.

In 1960s Rohingyas suffered a number of atrocities that causes refugee influx to then Pakistan. Due to a strong warning from Pakistani Army, atrocities were stopped but shaped into another form. Issuing National Registration Card(NRC) were suspended for Muslims people but not for the sister ethnic Rakhine community. Military rulers have waited for more than 25 years to create enough Rohingya Muslim young generations to become without NRC cards. It was the 1978 when a well prepared Dragon Operation Team(DOT) was sent to target the Muslim community in Arakan to fully eradicate those young Muslims and children with the allegation that those who have no NRC cards were migrants people from Bangladesh. The DOT started pulling young girls and children from their fathers and mothers and sent into inhuman captivity jails where they were raped and treated so inhumanly that many families had died without food and fresh air. The bad-news spreaded so rapidly and calamity became so distress that people in large quantities started to fled leaving their live-stock in the field, the land un-harvested, the home with full of stock, the wealth without any care. More than 250,000 Rohingyas crossed the border to Bangladesh.

When most of the Rohingya refugees were returned to Burma by international agreement, atrocities changed to another new form. First, free movement to Rangoon(the capital city) and other states and divisions inside Burma, was heavily restricted thus blocking all major trading business for Rohingyas. Anybody, found in other states by imagration department, was depoted to his home place Arakan after giving a month or more jail punishment. Then it was slowly tighten so much so that Rohingyas can not even move from one village to another village without a paper signed by an authority department to move. Rohingya students who got admission for professinal education such as medical and engineering were totally banned to move to Rangoon to continue their education saying Rohingyas have no rights for movement as well as a higher education. Worst, heavy taxes were enforced to farm products such as rice even when farms were destroyed by natural calamity. Forced labour were enforced without even food allowance, Muslims land were confiscated in large for Buddhist village settlements, and also distress killing, raping and jail punishment without any apparent reasons have been seen in large scale. All these systemetic deliberate actions cause the Rohingyas unbearable situations without any justist which lead to leaving their own motherland every day.

Is it enough to eradicate all Rohingya Muslims?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.64.173 (talk • contribs) 27 July 19:20 UTC

Would you mind clearing up what you have in mind? See WP:NOT, talk pages are not blogs or discussion forums. Stick to the article, please. I don't see the objective of your huge monologue (interestingly added to by several anon IPs). If you want to include any information, add them *with appropriate references*, and don't make it sound like a blog. Thanks. --Ragib 01:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Ragib, I am writing the unchallengeable truth. Please do not try to attack in favour of hiding the truth. Let Rohingyas write their own undeniably true self experience and the true witness of intellectual Rohingya fathers, mothers and elders. I have not yet finished my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.64.171 (talk • contribs)

Dear Anon, I failed to understand the meaning of writing such a monologue in the talk page. This is NOT a blog. There is nothing that prevents you from writing properly referenced information into the article ("unchallengeable truth" needs references too). But making up delusions about others "hiding the truth" doesn't help in anything. For the last 2/3 months, I've been seeing similar messages from your IP block and many from there have vandalized my user page and some other pages. I am quite disappointed in the attitude. If you are really acting in good faith, you should work on making the article better rather than vandalizing my page or writing monologue/blogs. Thanks. --Ragib 17:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ragib, target an IP block but simply blaming one for others is the work of illitrate. Congratulation for your valuable contrubution to wekipedia but do not let others feel you are against the cause of Rohingyas but discuss if you are truthful. Thanks. [Arohang]

Dear Arohang,you are right! he seems that simply blaming and accused others without getting any prove, it is so funny that this guy is involving other's affair and wrote a lot of baseless. So,we arakan people must show clear vision. This kind of unwanted action is really poor and illitrate. Anyway, let us try to understand him.

Thanks, --Arakan 13:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice way of creating sockpuppets and talking to yourself. I really am yet to see any constructive edits from you. I came to the article to clean it up and organize it, without references to content. But without any valid reason or arguments, you are consistently vandalizing my user page and talk pages, and leaving curses and abusive language. You don't own an article in wikipedia. If you don't want your article to be edited, you should write your own blog. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and it doesn't help trashing other users without a single bit of reason. I hope you'd return to senses and edit constructively to wikipedia. You are always welcome to contact me regarding anything. But please stop vandalism. --Ragib 15:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Rajib, you are again accusing me and others. if you want to advice be nice way. but your message look so urgly . think twice writing before, be constructive way.you behaviour won't be accepted by anyone. so better do your project in your page and bengla wikipedia. i don't have enough time to contribute an article in wiki. may be soon.thanks,--Arakan 19:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody "owns" wikipedia. Articles are open to all to edit, not to vandalize. Anyone is free to go on and edit an article, as long as it is done in good faith. I have edited articles regarding south and south east asia, and would continue to do so, no matter whether you like it or not. I think you should take a look into Wikipedia's basic policies (Wikipedia:Five pillars. Also, take a look at Wikipedia policy on No Personal Attacks. For reasons I can't understand, you are consistently attacking anyone trying to clean up the disorganized status of this article. I have had my talk page and user page vandalized by severl IPs from the IP block I mentioned, also some one set up an account just to vandalize my pages (See Antirajib (talk · contribs)). Try to be more constructive please. Add, enhance and elevate articles. If you do your work in good faith, and follow the wikipedia's established conventions and etiquette, this article can become a lot better. Cursing others and vandalizing pages do not yield any good results. Thanks. --Ragib 19:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I know nobody owns wiki but only you .. that's why that guys started anti on you. please don't mention here your personal affairs in this talk page See WP:NOT, please!

thanks.--Arakan 10:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Attention"

I've just copy-edited the article; the "attention" template seemed to be unjustified — at the very least it's much too vague. I've removed it; if editors think that there are specific problems with the article, could they explain them here?

Ragib has been subjected to childish vandalism and attack because he tried to improve the article; if that continues, accounts will be blocked. I hope that that's clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

hey mel,

is that your attention to us ??? firstly you gotta ask --Ragib to stop unwanted actions. remember , every has their owns POV. please do not mention personal stuffs .study WP:NOT, --Eddiewiki 16:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What I don't like is the creation of sockpuppets. User arakan or whatever, please don't go on creating new and newer sockpuppets to advance your reason-less campaign against me. I'd really like to know about my unwanted actions. So far, Arakan/Antirajib/Eddiewiki, all three (two of which are sockpuppets of the other) have failed to show any. Thanks --Ragib 17:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm didn't might be wrong. We don't have any Rohingya people in our country people chart. Some more our government never annouce Rohingya Language as well. Be ware to edit this article. When I see that article got shock. I suggested to make deep investigation this article. Hopefully seize this article at all.

Regards, Whoami77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoami77 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Arakan Coins

Dear All,

Coins Struck by the Kings of Arakan has been added in artcle page. cheers,--Arakan 16:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It would have been more correct if it's stated as local coin minted by Shams al-din Muhammad Ghazi, sultan of Bengal which was under Mrauk U Kingdom. The coin minted in Mrauk U had ruling king's royal name. @=={Lionslayer>^☎ 09:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR violations

hello --Ragib --Mel Etitis Please do not revert articles more than 3 times per 24 hours. Also using sockpuppets to do that counts. Thanks. --Eddiewiki 17:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, this is the comment I left at User talk:Eddiewiki. Should I leave comments in your pages from now on so you can repost them? You have reverted the article 6 times so far. Reverting simple vandalism is allowed, FYI. Thanks. --Ragib 17:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ragib, Regretfully , we know who you are now. Please improve the article and talk page not distroyed it .As a admin , you should be balance and fair . DO NOT bark all the time. Just comment!bye --Yonglee 07:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The coin is movable object. Who knows British solider who love to collect coin left it in Burma when they are retreating in World War 2? This is not strong evidence that Muslin landed that place first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyawkwin (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent disruptive edits and childish messages

Either one person using multiple accounts or more than one person with the same standard and style of English and making the same edits, has been disrupting this article, its Talk page, and the Talk pages of Ragib and myself. If this doesn't stop, some or all of the accounts will be blocked from editing.

If anyone has a genuine and specific complaint about the article, would they explain it here, clearly, simply, and factually, without emotional ranting and bluster? Only then can we start the process of collaboration. Simply reverting the article without explanation, especially when that involves no more than revrtign improvements in line with the Wikipedia:Manual of style, is not acceptable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

mel, the explainations are more than enough for you,look at the messages above. so,you may not need to repeat again and again for blocking user.we knows you can do it as admin. beside, all the reader can be justify whether you are right or wrong.--Bobjack 10:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm tired of this parade of sockpuppets. I am listing the following users, whose edits clearly indicate sockpuppets from the ip block 212.138.47.*

• Arakan (talk · contribs)
• Eddiewiki (talk · contribs)
• Yonglee (talk · contribs)
• Bobjack (talk · contribs)
• Antirajib (talk · contribs)

This is really not funny any more. Any more vandalism will be dealt with proper wikipedia procedure. Thanks. --Ragib 12:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I am really disturbed by those reckless editors who want to destroy the true facts of Rohingyas such as reducing the number of populations (estimated 3.5 millions in Arakan and outside) and the townships that they have been living in. The actual fact is Rohingya have been leaving Arakan, Burma since 1942 of Rakhines' brutal massacre of 100,000 Rohingyas in communal hatred. It is estimated that more than 1.5 millions Rohingyas are already outside the country in Saudi Arabia (600,000), Paskistan (250,000), Bangladesh (200,000), Thailand (50,000), Malaysia (50,000), UAE, and many other countries. Sidqm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

POV strategy

The best way to handly different points of view is described at [[Wikipedia:POV]. I personally suggest writing an article about the Free Rohingya Campaign (FRC), rather than fighting over the Rohingya article.

I have banned two of the accounts above as sockpuppets, but that's all I have time for today.

And all users, remember to Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks to one another. Just focus on improving the articles. Thanks. Uncle Ed 15:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ed, Thanks for your info.--Arakan 17:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ed, since I have voluntarily agreed not to revert it more than once a day, would you handle the emergence of yet another sockpuppet, Rohingya (talk · contribs)? I'm really surprised at the tenacity, only if it were directed towards enhancing the article, this article could benefit a lot. Thanks. --Ragib 17:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Mel blocked it as a sockpuppet already. Wikibofh 17:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Language

Rohingya language is significantly similar to the Chittagonian dialect spoken in neighboring Chittagong region of Bangladesh. I'm not sure what part of this statement is so offending to the editor(s) from the familiar group of 212.138.47.* ips. Would you care to show some counter example/proof of Rohingya language having a distinct linguistic root? Because current evidence proves otherwise. Thanks. --Ragib 15:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: I have added the reference back, with citations. The language is very close to the Chittagonian dialect of Bengali language. If there is a question about that, please come up with references to the contrary. Thanks. --Ragib 20:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ragib,

Rohingya dialect may be close to Chittagonian dialect which is completely different from that of Bengali-Indian city Culcutta is the origin of Bengali population. Look the histrorical facts of old Arakan which was an independent country that begins from Feni (currently within southern Bangladesh) upto Gwah (the most southern city of current Arakan in Burma). When British gave independent to Burma and India (Bangladesh and Pakistan was not in existance at that time), they divided the Arakan into two, separated by Naf River which is currently border line of Burma and Bangladesh. So there is no doubt that Cittagonian and Rohingyas dialects have similarities. Old Arakan was inhabited mainly by three major groups: Cha-Rdi(Chañçi), Mough and Rohingyas. Northen part of Arakan was inhabited mostly by Cha-rdi, Central part by Rohingyas and Southern part by Mough. The Official language of old Arakan was Farsi and Islamic coins were used as the currency. So please do not relate Rohingya Language to Bengali Langauge. Rohang 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Political issues are hardly related to lingusitics here. Chittagonian is not "completely different" from Bengali. You must have been joking when you wrote Indian city Culcutta is the origin of Bengali population., right? Please read History of Bengal to get more information about the region. The comment on Independence of Burma is also factually incorrect. Chittagong and other nearby regions were already under Mughal rule (see Islam Khan in the 1600s-1700s. Finally, instead of hand-waving, please look into scholarly opinions about linguistics. Thanks. --Ragib 19:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To Mr. Ragib,

Will you stop doing mis-propaganda against Rohingya People. All Rohingyas were born in Arakan and do not make war against them or least your magh people will suffer as today's Rohingyas.

Rohang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.102.0.108 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"your magh people" ??? LOL .... ROFL .... --Ragib (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

comment

I removed the sentences on "Bangladeshi refugees/migrants" going to Arakan. The situation is other way around. There are refugee camps in *Bangladesh*, where at least a million Rohingya refugees came in 1991 [1]. Thanks. --Ragib 18:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

comment

It's apparently Bagladesh imigrants to Arakan State. It's absolutely not the other way round. Wikipedia must put such neutral words not to make the readers with less knowledge assume wrong history of Burma. You can not give the reference only from Bengali people's supporters' products. Wikipedia must be neutral by any means. -- mydaydream 16:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.248 (talk)

Bagaldesh people are trying to occupy Arakan state with their growing population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyawkwin (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. after i reading this topic, i found all reference are one sided and no Myanmar Scholar opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyawkwin (talk • contribs) 17:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bengalis

I have cleared the word "Bengali" after Rohingya. It seems like someone is trying to mess around the entire article . please visit [www.rohingya.org] and read the true histories of Rohingyas. I think wiki admins need some attention on this issue since the article has frequently providing misinformation.--Nykoko (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said so? Rohingya is the term created very lately. And not a single Arakanese nor true Myanmar ethnic will acknowledge the term Rohingya. Bengali is Bengali. And the link you provided is the site built by those Bengalis claimed themselves as Rohingyas. So it's invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.248 (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

user 203.81.72.200

Please be noted that user ip address 203.81.72.200 from SPDC spy who want to mislead all the wiki articles . Please be careful. thanks, --Nykoko (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Townships where Rohingya are living

It is true that the two northern most cities of Arakan, namely Maungdaw and Buthidaung, are cities of Rohingyas in Arakan. But there are also other major cities where many other Rohingyas are living such as Akyab, Kyauktaw, Rathidaung, Myebun, Sandaway, KyaukPru and others. Once Akyab was having population of 50% Rohingya Muslims and 50% Rakhine Buddhists. Similarly Kyauktaw was also almost the same in number of Rohingyas and Rakhines. Rohang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidqm (talk • contribs) 07:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

New Rohingya Incident in Thailand

'Hundreds of Myanmese and Bangladeshi refugees are dead after being towed out to sea by the Thai military and deliberately cast adrift in unpowered boats last month, investigations by the South China Morning Post have revealed. A total of 538 people are missing or dead' -South China Morning Post, Jan 18 2009

Ldude 893 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of these people were Bengalis from Bangladesh. --Ragib (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found a source that says that most were Bengali; where is this information from? The Andaman Chronicle says they were all from Bangladesh without speculating on their ethnicity, but the SCMP [2] and Time [3] say that the majority of the refugees were Rohingya. 173.9.23.94 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a Muslim from Burma but not a Rohingya. Although I am disgusted with the aggressive behaviour of some of the Wiki editors and stay away from Wiki, because of the recent news and Ragib (talk's relentless anti-Rohingya stand I decided to write this. Most of the Rohingyas are originated from Burma. But there may be a few Bengalis trying their luck.

Even in Malaysia, at my clinic, I have seen a lot of Indian ?Mezos disguised as Burmese Chins to be able to get asylum in the west. They could not understand Burmese but could speak English and Hindi.Because of them and you could find Chins in India, you could not claim that all the Chins are not from Burma.

I am not a Rohingya but I could see your attacks on them frequently. After all the origin of Burmese people are China and India. And there are wars across the border and even Chittagong is the Burmese name given by Burmese there is no need to fight for their origin. Now they are Burmese citizens discriminated because of their religion. In Malaysia, I met a lot of Buddhist Bangladeshis who claim that they are not discriminated by their government but even got favours as a minority.

Now the Buddhist country, Burma, effectively kicked them out and another Buddhist country, Thailand is pushing them into the ocean.Thailand could tolerate nearly millions of non-Muslim illegal Burmese migrants including the arms rebels but the Muslim Rohingyas. Various ethnic minority rebels at the border are not only tolerated but supported and encouraged by various Thai authorities as the OFFICIAL secret policy for 200 years. Now I know that Ragib (talk and friends or other Wiki editors will accuse me and try to punish me. I DON"T CARE WIKI EDITORS. I haven't enter the Rohingya fight before, now it is too much Mr Ragib. I am not attacking you but your fights your edits against Rohingyas are too much. I am not going to care about your reply or other Wiki editors against me. You all can take any action. Darz kkg (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Before making such a personal attack, you should actually look into the article's history. I have reverted many vandalisms from the article. So, if you are looking for Burmese editors or Anti-Rohingya editors, please look elsewhere and find another target. You say you think my "Edits are anti-Rohingya", I challenge you to show an example, or otherwise apologize for lying. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of these people were Bengalis from Bangladesh. --Ragib (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if you cook various delicious dishes but add one drop of S***T like this is good/bad enough to ruin all you have done. This one fact is the basic accusation by the Myanmar military rulers to commit all the atrocities on them. By the way, why don't you mobilize the public opinion to accept back the so called Bengalis as Bangladesh citizens. Under the British we all were living in one country. When giving independence, the British need to define a border and some Burmese and Bengalis were caught on the wrong border. The Buddhist Burmese in Bangladesh side were even persuaded by former Myanmar PM General Khin Nyunt. But after tasting the lack of economic activities on this side they decided to go back or migrate to other countries. But Myanmar government has no right to say that they want the land only but could not accept the people staying on their side of the border. This is the basic fact and I hope you should not support them even if there are recent migrants. It is their duty to guard their border or take action but Myanmar military government has no right to go around with the army, surrounded the villages and towns and collect all the relevant documents, burnt them and collectively punish ALL the people.

You may be a good Wiki editor, good intensions and may have done a lot for them but supporting the SPDC with that WRONG statement is bad enough to further damage not only their reputation, legal standing and survival. Just look at BBC and Alj. Eng TV. If you care to read my blog with the title San Oo Aung, you can see that I am campaigning for the support of Muslim countries not only for them but for all the Burmese democracy.

So just look at one fact or one sentence, it may be a truth from your side. Most of the Wiki editors are also grasping their side of view which they claimed to be NPOV, used the Wiki rules that most of the people have no time to learn by heart and attack back aggressively. For the suffering persons, we could not accept the NPOV in every thing. Our is not a black and white world. There are different grades of greys. Even NPOV of one side may be different if you see from different angles. As there is Islamophobia in Burma and around the world we are hardened to aggressively defend our POV. TQ, if you want, I am ready to say sorry for hurting you but you owe a sorry not to me but to Rohingyas for calling them Bengalis.Darz kkg (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are simply being paranoid about the comment. The comment was placed when, in the initial reports published in news media, the boat people were identified as Bangladeshis, without any specific notes about their ethnicities. Considering the fact that 98% of Bangladeshis are Bengalis, I made the comment. However, you go on and start personal attacks based on that comment, and launch the above rant?? Wow!! I see that making personal attacks is not something new for you ... you've done it before and in this case you did it again. I again urge you to lose the personal attacking attitude, and behave. I would also challenge you to prove your earlier comment and above rant against my edits, or otherwise you should apologize. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

SCMP source

I think that much of the investigative journalism was done by the SCMP. Certainly there have been a slew of front page stories, available on their website.

Photographs obtained exclusively by the South China Morning Post show a Thai army colonel processing Rohingya refugees on Koh Sai Daeng - the island used to secretly hold migrants before abandoning them to their deaths on the high seas. The photos were obtained after the Post yesterday revealed that 538 Rohingya are dead or missing after the army cast adrift nearly 1,000 aboard unpowered boats in December. Survivors on India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands told authorities there of starvation, brutality and summary executions.

Earthlyreason (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rohingyas & Bengalis

Rohingyas are Bengalis too.So why dont we invade myanmar and liberate our muslim brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.11.91 (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To me Rohingyas are, if not ethnically fully Bengalis, of course very close to Bengalis by ethnicity, by language and above all, by religion. But that assertion does not at all nullifies the eternal fact that they are Burmese, that they are citizen of Myanmar. Any attempt to discard this truth will be distortion of fact.Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Rohingya identity has been hijacked by many Bengali immigrants from Bangladesh and used to argue for greater political rights. Rhetoric from Rohingya groups are racially condescending and many openly distort history. They are victims of oppression, but this abuse of history by the Rohingya leadership must stop. Politicians of Bengali origin are distorting history for their own gain. These people create the lies and then label the others as liars. No nation whatsoever, even Muslim, will want that type of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.2.13 (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue (Origin of Rohingya, discuss here)

The position of the article is that Rohingyas are indigenous people of Rakhine (Arakan) state. However, it is a hotly debated issue. Most of the Burmese and the Arakanese people regard Rohingyas as the foreigners migrated from the areas of the present day Bangladesh during the 19th and early 20th century during the British colonial rule. Some of the British historical accounts also supported that fact. In my personal opinion, Rohingyas are in fact the migrated people, because they lack the hallmarks of the indigenous people, such as the old historical monuments, e.g. ancient mosques, etc. If they have resided in this area for hundreds of years, there should surely remain the archeological traces. For comparison, the indigenous Arakanese has a lot of historical monuments such as old temples. Again, although it can be inferred from that article that Rohingyas are the descendants of the Arab people, it is doubtful. Rohingyas in fact look like Bangladeshis, and may belong to the same ethnic group. We may need anthropological researches to confirm it. Although it may be true that a small group of Arabs settled in Arakan state hundreds of years ago, it is not very likely that their population now grows to millions. Also, the Rohingya culture (including their language) is more closely related to Bangladeshis than that of Arabs. However, I do not mean that the Rohingyas should be treated as the second-class citizens of Burma only because they are not indigenous. They should be granted their full citizenship rights as much as that of the Burmese and Arakanese people, because they are now residing in Burma for at least 3-4 generations. (The case may be comparable to that of the African-Americans and Asian-Americans in the USA.) Secondly, regarding the treatment of the present military regime on Rohingyas, although it is true that the junta has been maltreating and discriminating Rohingyas, they are not denied their outright citizenships. There are millions of Rohingyas holding Burmese citizenship certificates issued by the junta. (Z. Aung)

Wow, such unique new research! Why didn't you publish in a peer-reviewed journal, may be then we could put it into Wikipedia... 67.194.150.69 (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Spectacular Z.Aung. I concur with you if there is really no trace about Rohingya left behind since Islamic Golden Age. Sadly, we can't put original research into Wikipedia articles. But the junta officially denies citizenship to Rohingyas. Sill, what you said is also true because many Rohingyas get their NRIC by bribing the gov officials. This happens all the time in much corrupted Burma. SWH^talk 04:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr.SoeWinHan. You can't put not only the references made by those Rohingya supporters and you must give me reason why you deleted my references. Wikipedia must be neutral by any means. talk 05:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is not such thing like archeological stone with arabic .However the truth is still exit inside Rakhine state,we welcome any professional historians to investgate. There are bunches of evidences,books and thesis out as all the Myanmar citizens know the truth. I do pity for homeless migrants.But by cheating history cannot create any good results. To achieve the human rights for so-called Rohingya, they rather confess as Migrants. True story is they are totally different with Rakhines in Culture,Langugae,Religion and so on.Not only goverment but also all the citizens cannot accept them as ethnia group of Myanmar. talk 02:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.18.227 (talk)

Why it can't be editable anymore!? I call any of wiki admins here to make it more neutral. The article apparently is edited only by Muslims and Rohingya Supporters in Myanmar and noting is neutral. talk 04:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydaydream89 (talk • contribs)

Hello. Don't accuse me. I haven't even edited this article once. I am just reverting unsourced edits. Thank you. And most importantly, Wikipeida is not about truth, its about what reliable sources say. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. If you want to edit, you can use this template {{edit semi-protected}} to request an autoconfirmed user to edit on your behalf. Please note that you need to provide reliable sources. October 2011 SWH^talk 04:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 31 October 2011

Rohingya is not burmese. They come from Bangladesh.

Infoque (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And please be more specific about what needs to be changed. This article does not mention anything about their origin as well. Thanks. SWH^talk 11:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

U Tin Oo's interview about his experiences in mass immigration of Bengali. Dr. Aye Chan's Who are Rohingyas?. According to my account as a native Arakanese (though I know it can't be ref), many of Muslim Bengali people in Arakan State do not refer themselves as Rohingya nor ever heard of this name. @=={Lionslayer>^☎ 04:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

U Tin Oo video is considered unreliable. Because it is primary source. To be included in this article, we need reliable secondary source that mentions U Tin Oo's experiences. Dr. Aye Chan research is reliable to certain extent. Since you are already an autoconfirmed user, be bold and edit. Just take note that Wikipedia does not take part in disputes. Rather, it describes the nature of the disputes. To adhere with our NPOV principle, articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. Therefore, categorical statements like "Rohingyas are illegal immigrants form Bangladesh" should be avoided. Instead, one should write "Dr. Aye Chan stated that Rohingyas are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh". As well, we should also avoid relying only on Burmese historians since it might be considered as biased sourcing. SWH^talk 08:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that Arakan history is not as popular among foreign scholars. Here's is a collection of scholar's papers. But still, some facts can be accused as biased. I am not so eager to participate in edit war. Thanks for the knowledge about primary source which I was ignorant before. @=={Lionslayer>^☎ 02:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your sources. You are right. It's very difficult to find papers from international scholars. While there are some articles from human right groups, I don't think they are reliable historical facts. (Most of them are in favor of Rohingya's claims) However, many reliable sources do mention mass migrations of Bengalis during colonial era. (eg. Thant Myint-U, The River of Lost Footsteps, pp. 185–187.) I will be editing the history section. I also don't like to edit controversial articles. But I want to see that they are neutral. SWH^talk 06:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Several riots, burning of entire villages are going on right now in Rakhine. We should add when the situation becomes clearer. By the way, many Burmese Muslims also think Rohingyas are from Bangladesh. For eg.

"We're talking, to work together with the authorities and our national brethren to control the situation," said Soe Myint, a Muslim elder in Yangon, referring to the escalating tensions.

"We're worried that what these Bengalis are doing will make our brethren misunderstand us." SWH^{® talk} 19:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Should there be a Mujahideen section after independence of Burma? (The period before Rohingya name was started to used.) @=={Lionslayer>^☎ 18:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

should not mention as disputed origin in Arakan State Western Burma

The Rohingya (Burmese: ရိုဟင်ဂျာ) is a predominantly Muslim ethnic group of disputed origin who live in Arakan State, western Burma. The Rohingya population is mostly concentrated to the cities of Maungdaw, Buthidaung, Akyab, Rathedaung and Kyauktaw.

I am wondering whether the above sentence have proper reference or not. I don't see any good and strong reference so far on above statement. I would like to request to wikiadmin team to remove above sentence because it is very misleading to reader that Rohingya is originated from Burma. In fact, in this world, no one know and heard of Rohingya word until thai army send back muslin asylum seeker into the sea. They are much look like Bangladesh in terms of language, religion, physical appearance and culture. They might be some illegal migrant to Myanmar from Bangladesh. Even their flag are similar to Bangladesh flag. It is really unsound to accept they are originated from Burma. it might be more reasonable to write. They are Balderdash people migrated to Myanmar illegally long ago and seeking citizenship in Myanmar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyawkwin (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Gyan Books

I have removed Gyan Books as a citation. It is on the list of mirrors and forks. The front page of WP:MF specifically says "Mirrors and forks are not reliable sources and may not be listed as external links in articles." Please do not re-add the Gyan Books source. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was not readding (and the book was not added by me). I was editing this page by the time you removed that book. So there was an edit conflict. I simply copy pasted my version of history section back into this article. Sorry. SWH ^talk 02:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Mohinga/Rohingya

Why does the first sentence of this article refer to the Mohinga rather than the Rohingya?Redound (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's now been corrected, I don't know by whom.Redound (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 June 2012

180.188.237.216 (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Recently when Rohingys camped in Delhi outside UN office, It became a point of focus and even common citizen get to know about their problem. Many local activists, students and even common people visited them. After the recent ethnic violence in Myanmar (between Rakhine & Rohingyas), the became more severe and highlighted. We all should get a permanent solution with mutual consent of all about this problem.

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NGOs

With regard to this [4]. PressTV is unreliable for some stuff (basically Israel-related) but can be reliable for other topics. Even then we also have Democratic Voice of Burma which of course has a POV (though I don't see why they'd necessarily have a pro-Rohingya POV, rather than just a general pro-democratic POV) but that just means that the info should be attributed: "According to a report by the Democratic Voice of Burma..." VolunteerMarek 04:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion is the same as the one ongoing at Talk:2012 Rakhine State riots#Amnesty International. SWH^{® talk} 01:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing and edit warring

[5] and previous reverts, including the ones by the 218. IP [6] (which I'm assuming is the same person), violate both WP:NPOV and WP:3RR.

The whole idea that Rohingya are "illegal immigrants" is ridiculous, although variations on this theme have been pushed by some parts of the Burmese government in the past - basically they declared thousands of people who have been living in the area for at least two hundred years (if not much longer) "illegal immigrants" and persecuted them. Wikipedia most certainly should not push this nonsense.VolunteerMarek 14:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just irrelevant. A cat doesn't become a horse, just because it has been born in a horse stable. What the buddhists are dealing with is are a number of hostile Muslim Bangladeshis, who over the years has commited so many massacres and other violent crimes against the population of that country. I can't see why any western country could ever blame them for getting rid of them. It's not like they would want them in their countries, or is in any actual doubt about how they would interact with their populations. -- Eric M.

Edit request on 7 Sep 2012

As of 2012, 800,000 Rohingya live in Myanmar.

Any "reliable" source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.168 (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's sourced in the infobox. The second source doesn't quite jibe, listing a 2009 UN figure of 729,000. Are you asserting that the first source is unreliable? Rivertorch (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)