Talk:Rohingya conflict

Proposal to remove or change the "Commentary on the conflict" section

Much of what is written in the "Commentary on the conflict" section are personal opinions from editors, made after reading from cited "academic sources". The policies and statements made by the government mentioned in the seciton are also outdated. I propose either removing the section entirely, or rewriting it so we only include statements from experts on the topic and from government officials. CentreLeftRight ✉ 01:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Move proposal

Keeping in line with the existing articles for the ethnic Kachin conflict and Karen conflict. It would be appropriate to merge the article to 'Rohingya conflict'. The current topic severely limits the scope of the article, and may not be in line with the principles of WP:NPOV.

Some in the past have already debated the "insurgency" vs "rebellion" question. While judging by these discussions, the titling has been used to exclude any extensive background on the conflict as a whole, or any activities by the opposing side (military junta), et al. DA1 (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Support. Rohingya conflict is the more standard NPOV title. The militants aren't even as well-organized as the Kachin and Karen rebels.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Support I agree, the title is too oddly specific and most likely had some POV intentions at the time of its original change many years ago. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Support — Per above. CentreLeftRight ✉ 01:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Support The article also falls under WP:NPOVFACT, which I recommend other users to read. DA1 (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Support but wonder if there is a better title than "Rohingya conflict",is there not a way to include the role of the central government forces into the title too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for other editors

May another editor add information on the human rights violations and sectarian violence in Rakhine State? I believe the consensus was that this page should not focus only on insurgent activity as it removes context from the page. If anyone does accept my request, remember not to copy and paste information from Northern Rakhine State clashes#Human rights violations as that would defeat the purpose. A summary of these two important subjects should at least be included on this page in my opinion. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 21:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Conflict since WWII

The conflict between the Arakanese Muslims and Rakhine Buddhists has been going on since the start of Japanese invasion. I think 1942 should be the start year. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@MonsterHunter32: The issue is that nobody in the community really agrees on what they want this page to be.

• This could be a page about violence between the Buddhist and Muslim communities, and so the start year would begin or predate 1942, as early as the 17th century. However, if this page DID focus on the sectarian violence, it would be repetitive and pointless since we already have three pages dedicated to it that everyone seems to ignore. (i.e. Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar, 2016 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar, 2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar) It wouldn't make sense to merge the pages either, since one bunch talks about communal violence specifically and another one talks about insurgencies.
• This could stay as a page about the insurgency with background and context on the persecution of Muslims, similar to the Internal conflict in Myanmar, but it seems that nobody wants it to stay like that, as it could potentially have issues with POV and what not. If this page was dedicated to the insurgency, the start year would begin at 1947 or 1948, when the mujahideen first attacked, even though nobody is sure when they first did because of how poorly cited some of the content is.

The community has no agreement on where they want this page to go. There are probably less than five dedicated editors regarding the sectarian violence and attacks on Muslims in Myanmar, so it is difficult to reach a fair consensus on behalf of the community. However, it seems that a decision to move the page was already made under the agreement of five people (including myself), which I did not intend without more people having a say. Discussion on what content this page should be dedicated to has been done in the past in 2012 and 2013 (when the anti-Muslim riots happened), and there was no agreement and discussion afterwards for several years, until the 2016 clashes happened.

In my opinion, we should just leave the start date until the community responds to the page move, and whether or not we want this to be a page about the insurgency (which I support) or the violence against Muslims (which again, we have three pages dedicated to, all talking about the same thing). CentreLeftRight ✉ 20:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about persecution where one side is attacked and doesn't fight. I'm talking of actual conflict between both sides. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I added 1942 as the starting date for modern-era communal violence and distinguished it from the starting date of the modern-era insurgency. Hopefully this is a good compromise. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 03:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Start this 'conflict' in it's historical setting in the 1700s then list Post-WWII as the modern-era. We have enough pages focused on the present conflict but little that tells the historical context these current events are placed, including how the British occupation of the region set the stage for later flareups of conflicts and violence. My opinion: C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

related article

see List of war crimes, where some of the alleged war crimes should be included. i put in a link there.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight

Question for CentreLeftRight about your revert of my edit.
According to your edit summary "The intro/lead is already too big", yet you have separate paragraphs for insurgent attacks less than a year apart (October/November 2016 and August 2017). Mention of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights report criticizing the Myanmar military is limited to one sanitized sentence in the same paragraph about the 2017 insurgent attack.

Why nothing about 43,000 Rohingya parents "presumed dead in the six months since Myanmar’s military unleashed a crackdown last August"? http://time.com/5187292/rohingya-crisis-missing-parents-refugees-bangladesh/ --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to fix the problem with this edit. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie:

Firstly, the reason I removed it from the introduction was because the exact same list, which I originally wrote and recorded to note findings against and critical of the Burmese military, is already available in its own specific section on this page, titled "Report by the OHCHR". It has been copy and pasted before from this page to the ones on the persecution of Rohingyas specifically, and it is redundant to add it a second time on the same page of its origin.

Secondly, the introduction should be as brief as possible and summarize key events. Acknowledging there was indeed a report by a credible organisation should be in the introduction, but including every detail is not necessary; it deserves its own section as to not clutter the introduction. "Too big" is not referring to the number of paragraphs, but the size of the introduction in general. Unfinished edits should also not be left on live encyclopedic pages. Use a user sandbox and push it to live once your edit is ready.

Lastly, the last question is completely irrelevant, because the answer is simply that nobody added it yet. If it was added by one user and removed by another in the past, it would have been reverted by either me or someone else because the general understanding amongst editors is that content should not be removed unless it is redundant (repeated more than once with no distinction) or irrelevant (not focusing on the main subject or factors surrounding it).

Please remember to assume good faith and clearly review others' edit summaries. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, if the date of an event is known, do not make it less specific by removing the day it happened on. Articles must be concise and as clear as possible. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight: The lead is the most important part of the article, the part that most users of wikipedia read. If you added information from the report by the OHCHR by creating a section in the body of article below I thank you, but there needs to be something more in the lead about events in the last couple of years than how many police posts were attacked and people killed in the attacks, namely some specifics about the horrendous refugee crisis.
I stand by my suggestion that the separate paragraphs for insurgent attacks less than a year apart (October/November 2016 and August 2017) in the lead could be combined and trimmed if there is a problem with too much text (per the introduction should be as brief as possible and summarize key events). --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC); BoogaLouie (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancies between source material and article content

I recently read a few of the academic sources cited in this article (particularly when talking about the Rohingya before the 21st century) and noticed a few major discrepancies. Moshe Yegar does not state in his work that the Rohingya movements active from 1947 to the 1980s were "separatist", but rather that they wanted an autonomous zone. A compromise was made in 1961: the Mayu Frontier District. Nowhere in the sources given, does it state that Rohingyas wanted to create a separate state from Myanmar, or that it even considered the prospect of a Rohingya nation that early on. I suspect this is a modern revisionist interpretation of the events in this period, as "separatist" is a label that carries a lot of weight and should not be given to movements lightly. I have not found records that any Rohingya movement (again, during this period specifically) challenged the sovereignty of Myanmar, but rather that they largely wanted an autonomous zone to freely coexist within inside the country. I also do not think reports made by the Burmese military (i.e. SLORC's MoI) and articles from magazines with the title "The Danger of Rohingya" are reliable, non-POV sources. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It has been almost two years since I added the "disputed [factual accuracy]" maintenance tag. For anyone who cares, I will attempt to remedy these issues in April / May of this year (and it's about time!). CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The UN OHCHR Report's sources

The article gives ample space to quotations from that UN OHCHR report. That report is entirely based on 65 interviews conducted with Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, and input from unspecified local respondents from Organizations working there.

This should be mentioned as context in the article. Wefa (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition to that I was not able to locate the four quotes in the article attributed to that report in the linked report document. Could someone please point me to the pages where they can be found? Wefa (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

nobody? If we can not establish the source, I plan to remove those quotes from the article.. Wefa (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wefa: If it's the bullet points, I paraphrased them three years ago to avoid plagiarism issues. You can see the original wording here. If you can't find the original wording in the report either, then the editor who originally added them must have paraphrased it themselves prior to my paraphrasing (and I had bad judgement). CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)