Jump to content

Talk:2012 Rakhine State riots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2012 Rohingya riots)

Neutrality

[edit]

The whole article extremely bias against Rohingya. The first sentence "2012 Rohingya riots are a series of ongoing riots, arson and murders perpetrated by groups of Rohingya in northern Rakhine State, Myanmar". It sound like only Muslim Rohingya are committing the the violence. The truth is both Muslime Rohingya and Buddhist Rakhines are committing the violence.

"Reuters saw residents of a mainly Rakhine village near Sittwe on Sunday set ablaze houses they said were Muslim-owned. "We are burning Rohingya houses because they live near our village and they gather at night and try to attack us," said an unidentified ethnic Rakhine man." http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/11/uk-myanmar-violence-idUSLNE85A01C20120611

The title is wrong. It is not Rohingya riots (maybe, it was started by Rohingya) but now it turned into full sectarian violence. The correct title should be "Myanmar 2012 sectarian violence".

Many of the source that used in this article are unreliable and extremely bias against Rohingya. Tarikur (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The riots are apparently started by Rohingya. I have no bias against them. There are a few incidences that Rakhine people also retaliated as stated in Reuters. It is mentioned in retaliatory actions section. Since all the deaths are Rakhine and most acts of arson are committed by Rohingya, it's reasonable to say "riots, arson and murders perpetrated by groups of Rohingya". It is apparently not sectarian violence as it is not riot between Muslim and Buddhist. Many Burmese Muslims condemned the riots although they protested against the killing of 10 Muslims. (Note that Rohingya are "majority" in Northernmost Rakhine, Maungdaw and Buthidaung, where most riots are occurring, although they are quite few in Southern Rakhine.)
For what reason you say all local sources are unreliable. Any policy? They do mention retaliations by Rakhine, for example, an article from Eleven stated "Rakhine in Bohmu village burned down Rohingya houses in retaliation". We should also add all the retaliations. Of course, local media's wordings are not neutral sometimes, they use Bengali Rohingya. Foreign sources are repetitive and so far, less detailed. No account would be complete without consulting local media.SWH® talk 02:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging without solving the problem won't help. Many retaliatory actions are mentioned. The article even says Rohingya are one of the most persecuted minority in the past. Also, please don't use "warning" too easily. SWH® talk 03:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article to a more neutral title (location rather than group of people) and modified the first sentence. I agree that the title and lead sentence in isolation could be viewed as biased. However, I think the body of the article is fairly balanced. If the OP doesn't point any further specifics instances of alleged bias in the article, I feel the tag should be removed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also think ThaddeusB's bold edits solve the problem. SWH® talk 04:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article looks balanced now. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty balance now. I will remove the tag. Tarikur (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, this is still pretty bad. The Eleven article is extremely biased against Rohinga, describing one of their villages as a "Nazi village," and referring to them as Bengalis. (http://eversion.news-eleven.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=575:curfew-imposed-in-rakhine-township-amidst-rohingya-terrorist-attacks&catid=42:weekly-eleven-news&Itemid=109). This is not a reference we should be using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.121.16 (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Nazi" is the actual name of the village. It has no relation to National Socialism (Nazi). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.245.7 (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Nazi is the actual name of the village. Also agree that Eleven is biased. But I think the facts cited to Eleven are general and innocuous. Sometimes, they can be suitably cited to other sources. According to latest official figures, over 2528 houses (1336 Rohingya's and 1192 Rakhine's), 9 monasteries, 7 mosques, one school have been destroyed with a casualty figure of 29 (16 Rohingya and 13 Rakhine). That means in the past few days, Rakhine have retaliated much more than what Rohingya have done to them. SWH® talk 13:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

Quotes are very prominent and give more weight than ordinary content. So we should use these quote neutrally. In this case we shouldn't use quotes to take the side of either Rohingya (Muslim) or Rakhine (Buddhist) but highlight the violence committed by both.VR talk 05:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the added quotes are biased against the security forces. These accounts are based on "interviews" (over the phone?) and are not what the journalists saw. On the other hand, the government response has been praised by the US and EU recently. I do rather defend the quote to the government official. It's what the official says and there is no bias in it. It explains the damage in the first day. Note that neutrality doesn't mean we need to blame both side equally for the instigation of the conflict.
Regarding the background section, I disagree with the added details about the attack on Muslim bus such as " set the bus on fire, and beat the passengers to death" The wording is not neutral. (Details can also be added to the murder case. Such as "stripped off jewels, raped four times, cut the throat and left the body in open field") Setting the bus on fire is not widely reported as well. The preexisting wording sufficiently explains the nature of the incident. Also, Burmese Muslims do not reside in Maung Daw. They are Rohingya (It is the protest in Yangon that the Burmese Muslims held). Rohingya were not protesting. That's the beginning of the riots according to most media including the Reuters. Only BBC stated the riots as "protests" and that the police opened fire "over demonstrators' heads" with so many vague terms such as "reportedly" "allegedly" "none of the reports could be independently confirmed". Also, I don't think there is a need to separate Muslim attacks and Buddhist attacks. Cutting few sentences into sections makes the article looks ugly in my opinion. SWH® talk 18:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from reliable sources that both the Rakhine and Rohingya are implicated in the violence. So why do you insist on blaming the Rohingya?
I don't see a difference between the reliability of the quotes. Both are cited by reliable sources. Both are not what journalists saw, but rather what witnesses told them. How can you justify one, but reject the other?VR talk 13:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of different news entries for this conflict. Whatever POV one might want to push, they can find "reliable sources" for this. Just because a sentence comes from BBC or Reuters doesn't mean it deserves a place in Wikipedia article, not to mention in quotes. "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount". Per WP:IRS, sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. The citations fail to support it because the controversial materials come from "interview" and not what their journalists saw (and not even verified by the news agencies which interviewed the locals: They use vague terms such as "allegedly" "reportedly"). We need to remember the agenda of both side is to discredit the other, and the security forces. Just because a casual passerby interviewed by Reuters said the security forces helped the burning of Rohingya houses doesn't make it verifiable statement. Most importantly, I removed both quotes. I didn't justify removing one while placing the other.
Did I insist on blaming the Rohingya? I agree both Rakhine and Rohingya are responsible for this conflict. (Or even more, according to the latest reports, I agree Rakhine have retaliated much more than what Rohingya have done to them) But the house burning incident or the riot is apparently started by Rohingya (Probable motives such as past maltreatment and denial of citizenship are already stated in background section). Also note that the previous version reflects consensus at talk page, see discussion above. Just because you think my argument is weak, doesn't mean you can put whatever you like.SWH® talk 07:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

[edit]

I'm splitting this off so we can discuss matters separately.

If you want to add more details, please go ahead and do so. Setting the bus on fire is widely reported, and there are reliable sources in the article to back that up.

The article looking "ugly" is not sufficient reason to remove sourced content.VR talk 13:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your justification for separating Muslim and Buddhist attack? To compare and contrast? They all belong to the background section. Did I say I remove your materials because this article looks ugly? I said this article looks ugly because you cut few sentences into sections.SWH® talk 07:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict is racial & ethnic - please add this fact to the article?

[edit]

This conflict is racial&ethnic conflict please add this fact to the article? Hi It is a conflict involving Indo-European speaking Caucasoid raced all-rights-deprived Indo-Aryan Rohingyas against the racial apartheid and irredentism of Sino-Burmese speaking Mongoloid raced Rakhines

Everyday and everywhere we are in front of apartheid and racism as well as economical irredentism of Sino-Burmese peoples (indirectly responsible of the Greece crisis) in Africa, Central Asia and even in Europe and Americas

Please add those perspectives to the article

Thanks Humanbyrace (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The category "Islam-related controversies" doesn't belong to this article because it doesn't have anything to do with Islam. Unlike radial Islamist terrorism, there is no evidence that those behind the violence are citing religion as a justification.VR talk 03:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

[edit]

This is removal of sourced content, seemingly based on the idea of WP:IDL. If you are removing the content, you need to source policy. Saying that the content portrays the security forces in a negative context is a terrible reason to remove content sourced to reliable sources.

You also can't remove content by saying "too much detail". The content is nto being added to the lede. There's no limit on how long the article can be, so long as everything is sourced reliably.VR talk 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I removed your content because you added "too much detail". I said because "the wording is not neutral" and the edits are largely redundant for the reasons stated in my above comment. Your edit doesn't reflect consensus at talk while the previous version reflects consensus. See the neutrality discussion above. See WP:BRD. SWH® talk 07:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

28000?

[edit]

28000+ people were murdered. Why do not i see some politicians screaming in TVs all day long ..humanity.. brutality? i guess it does not sound too bad for them when there are no big interests.. no oil? no diamonds? cool.. world has just became less.. More resources for the next generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.216.122 (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Where does the figure come from? SWH® talk 00:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty International

[edit]

... is most certainly mentioned in this source [1].VolunteerMarek 03:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does appear in that source. But the citation that immediately follows the sentence is this source. I have changed it. You should not accuse me as you know that it mentions Amnesty International since I think you added the source since you do not give the right citation in the first place. I have never used Bengali Rohingya. Please cite with diffs.
The problem with 650 casualty figure is that only DVB and Press TV use it. Others simply just quote the official figure. It definitely doesn't merit a place in the lede. SWH® talk 23:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just give the official Burmese government figures, and omit figures given by NGOs. NPOV requires presentation of all view points.VolunteerMarek 23:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It requires all viewpoints. I am not insisting on using the official government figures. The figure given by the "group of NGOs in Britain" is rarely cited. That's why it doesn't merit a place in the lede. It also says like only Rohinga were killed. SWH® talk 00:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all viewpoints. Notice I'm not trying to remove the government figures. And why wouldn't it belong in the lede? VolunteerMarek 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NGO figure is rarely used by reputable organizations and news agencies. As far as I see, it is cited only by Press TV and DVB. Mentioning it in the lede gives too much weight on minority viewpoint. And the government figure hasn't been challenged as understated by reputable organizations. If the gov figure is seriously challenged, and the NGO's figure is cited by reputable organizations, I won't dispute that the latter should be mentioned in the lede. SWH® talk 00:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know DVB is a reputable organization. And even PressTV would be considered a reliable source for a lot of content. The point is that you can't just present "official government figures" without mentioning numbers that come from independent organizations. In the lede or elsewhere.VolunteerMarek 04:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lede is to provide accessible introduction. Dissent viewpoint requires significant coverage to make it worthy of mentioning in the lede. It's not about official government figure. It's about the figure that is cited by nearly every article about the conflict. Now, the NGO's figure appears in only 2 articles out of thousands. That's why mentioning it in the lede gives too much coverage to the minority viewpoint.
Per WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Given the relatively negligible coverage, it's debatable whether the NGO's figure deserves to mention in this article or not. SWH® talk 07:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no indication anywhere that the views of the NGOs are fringe or undue. Yes, lots of sources repeat the official government numbers, but so what? In fact these sources usually qualify these numbers by saying that these are "official government figures" (which is really a journalistic euphemism for "not to be trusted"). I see nothing that says that the NGOs are a 'tiny minority' or anything like that - you've invented that assertion. What matters is whether the sources where the NGOs are mentioned are reliable or not.VolunteerMarek 10:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Doesn't the coverage in only two articles out of thousands of entries about the conflict constitute tiny minority? SWH® talk 00:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if a figure is almost universally cited it should be given more importance. However, it can be reasonably asserted that Amnesty could be giving a reliable figure, or that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Hence shouldn't it get some representation, such as a tentative 'a minority opinion states that the casualty figure is much higher.'? I don't think that would be misleading anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.184.93 (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV and biased sources

[edit]

I really do think that all the text based on sources by the Eleven Media Group should be removed, or at the very least properly attributed. Eleven Media Group pretty much represents the "official Burmese government" point of view and obviously these organizations have an interest in "blaming the victim" here.VolunteerMarek 15:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather be carefull in following suggestions by some users here. Some people want to turn this article and make it a one side story. Isley Constantine (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite recent loosening of media freedom, many of the local medias are still monitored by government censorship. But there was agreement on many stories of Arakan riots between all the reputable local medias like Eleve Media Group, The Voice Weekly, 7-Days News. So we cannot completely discredit these sources. In fact, these are the only sources we can rely on most of the time.Arkaryh (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but if you actually read the stories, the bias is obvious and very over the top.VolunteerMarek 14:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this is extremely biased against Rohingya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithra26 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that 2012 Myanmar massacre be merged into 2012 Rakhine State riots. The 2012 Myanmar massacre article is lacking sources and its content can easily be explained in the context of 2012 Rakhine State riots. -- RDavi404 (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections, I merged the "massacre" article with this article.--RDavi404 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location: Ramree?

[edit]

An editor just changed the location of the riots to specifically Ramree Island in Rakhine State. While it's true that the image HRW provided of October's violence is located there, most sources appear to be talking about this as a state-wide conflict. Do we have any sources indicating that the fighting is limited to the island? If not, I suggest we simply shorten the location to "Rakhine State, Burma". -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is crashing my browser

[edit]

Not sure what the issue is, but since yesterday, every time I try to load the actual article, my browser hangs or crashes. The issue is specific to this article, as all other pages (including oversize pages) are loading fine. Anyone else having this issue too? Seems like there is a funky image or script on the page. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious

[edit]

That's what it says in the infobox as type of dispute. According to the article, the people involved identify themselves as religious, but the fighting has nothing to do with religion, so why don't somebody just change that in case lies make people angry? 83.71.73.133 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current Event

[edit]

This current event seems to be dragging on well into 2013. Perhaps the article should be renamed. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV edit?

[edit]

The edit here [2] by an Indian IP seems a bit biased. 220 of Borg 03:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2012 Rakhine State riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 2012 Rakhine State riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2012 Rakhine State riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Rakhine_State_riots&oldid=1208743367"