Talk:Rohingya people/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ban Muslim edits in this article & talk page

This can't be allowed to go on. I've blocked the IP editor --regentspark (comment) 20:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not allowing terrorist organizations to misuse wikipedia for their misleading false propaganda to recruit more terrorists and to paint a fake picture is no tempering. Wikipedia has builtin community-watch mechanism to spot, report and weed out such terrorist propaganda accounts. Khudos, those editors and admins petrolling wikipedia to keep out such accounts. Everyone, who is Muslim or supports muslim or islamist causes, is violating wikipedia policies on "conflict of interest" and must be barred from editing on this article or commenting on this talk page. Admins, please take note, screen all the editors of this article. Strictly keep out terrorist-sympethisers, muslim-apologists and islamist-sockpuppets, often disguised as virtuous rule-abiding wikipedian editors. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Your brash statement that "Everyone, who is Muslim or supports muslim or islamist causes, is violating wikipedia policies on "conflict of interest" and must be barred from editing on this article or commenting on this talk page." is not supported by ANY Wikipedia policy (not suprirising that you don't cite one). Your anti-Muslim bias is blatant in this statement -- as it is not matched by any claim that any other faction related to the controversy is banned by virtue of "conflict-of-interest," such as: Buddhists, Hindus, Rakhine, Myanmar citizens, etc. Clearly the bias is yours. Please withdraw from editing on this topic until/unless you can be obedient to the WP:NPOV rule. Note that, in comparison to you, I have no attachment to any of the parties to this conflict, nor to their religions or ethnicities, nor a hatred of any of them. I do have a firm attachment to honest, accurate journalism and editing. ~ Penlite (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC) How can I be biased when as an unregistered user I can not even make the edits to this protected article. I have made zero edits to this article. Wikipedia guidelines are at risk of being broken by the editors who can edit the article, not at risk by people like me who can not edit this protected article. I am contributing by commenting on this talk page and my suggestions are then taken up by other editors unrelated to me, this filtering process puts me at arms-length from any bias. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (no editor owns wikipedia article), Furthermore, I did not assume and make any attack on you about you being biased. Do not attack me personally. Ask me for clarification before assuming. You made a comment up there somewhere with heading that shows you are worried about "muslim apologist editors" and terror sympethiser editors might be blocked out of wikipedia, here. If you are neutral then why were you worried about terror sympethiser accounts being blocked out by wikipedia? I just want to show you how easy it is, like you did it to me, to assume and judge, and then attack. I did not attack you on that, I used commonsense and non-confrontational approach and gave you benefit of doubt. You took even more banal comment from me, and made assumptions and attack me with blame that I am blatantly Anti-muslims while in reality I follow no religion. I am neither Muslim, nor Buddhist, I am not Bangla or Mayanmarese. Just avoid making such judgmental attacks. This will ruin mood of both and waste time of both. Just focus on collaborative edits, without assuming and making direct attacks. I will ignore your attack and end this here, provided you drop it and do not repeat it. I follow fact. I just want editors to remove current bias in this article, that is why I have highlighted only those aspects that are not covered. To an assumptive and/or biased editor this approach of mine (of highlighting "gaps in this heavily biased in favor of Rohingya" article) may come across as if I am as biased as they are. Assume good faith like i did to you, (and you can suggest to rephrase some of my headings/statements on talk page), without direct attack or judgment about me. "For controversial topics, on the other hand, self-selection may produce a strongly misaligned editorial group." (from Criticism of Wikipedia#Level of debate.2C edit wars and harassment) and "Wikipedia's reliance on consensus in forming its content was dubious" (from Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Consensus_and_the_.22hive_mind.22, this has led to "bleeding heart emotional pro-Rohingya" bias in this article). When I say block, I mean block those editors who are biased, who have conflict of interest (including Rohingya and/or Muslim advocacy ... and advocacy of other parties related to this topic, since article is currently POV biased in favor of Rohingya/Muslims, hence pointed out this as a problem at this stage). Do not attack the messenger/me, more the biased edits and block out the biased/COI editors, remember I am not an editor to this article yet. WP:NPOV Article is currently written in a manner that bleeds heart for Rohingya while whitewashing unfavorable aspects. I tried to highlight only those misisng parts, that does not make me anti-Rohingya or anti-muslim. if the article was written anti-Rohingyas POV then I would have taken a stance to highlight pro-Rohingya issues. Please list this article on WP:NPOVN and insert a POV tag on top of article. Biased threshold I saw this article being heavily biased, e.g. it shows Rhoingyas only as extremely persecuted pitiful plight while leaving out several onion like complex layers. This happens when Muslim sympathizer editors, including the ones pretending to be neutral, have very low threshold criteria for inclusion of favourably-biased content and have very high threshold for the inclusion of content that is not favorable.Q1: is the criteria consistently applied across this article for both favorable and unfavorable content? I did not see this, that is my main concern. You asked for the guideline reference. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#External roles and relationships states "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." More here: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#What is conflict of interest.3F, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, WP:COI is not simply bias, WP:ADVOCACY (of Muslim causes, may lad to bias and conflict of interest) and WP:DISCLOSE. Guideline says "The role of editors is to summarize, inform, and reference, not promote, whitewash, or sell". My concern about that is having lower criteria to include favorable content and higher criteria (stonewall) unfavorable content is violation of this rule (whitewash). Guidelines also say, "State facts and statistics; don't be vague or general." Article currently includes broad vague sourced statements "Rohingyas are one of the most persecuted" without providing statistics that prove that they are the most prosecuted. Article also clearly fails to mention in the lead they are the victims and perpetrators in this complex issue. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There is certainly a lot of outright propaganda in this article against the Burmese, however, suggesting that Muslims should be banned from editing the article is a non-starter. The tribalistic propaganda on this issue would be completely ineffectual if the Western press (especially the usual suspects, the British and the American press) wasn't backing them up and trying to force feed this dubious narrative, for whatever subversive reason. Wikipedia is only here to report what other people are saying and a lot of this anti-Burmese bias in the article is what is being spewed out in the Anglo press. Only real world events are likely to change this; if India's Modi threatened to pull out of trade deals with Brexitland, their press would soon wind their necks in. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

AFP reports Massacre of Mayanmar Hindus by Rohingya Muslims: pls include in the article

The independent third-party non-Muslim non-Buddhist non-Hindu Christian-majority french-owned Agence France-Presse, using its own onsite reporters, has reported on Massacre of Mayanmar Hindus by Rohingya Muslims in a series of investigative newsreports based on the Hindu victim eyewitnesses, see here, here, here and here. Similar stories have been reported by Reuters also, here. I am not a registered user, hence unable to edit the article. Those registered users please include these facts in the article and also create the separate Massacre of Mayanmar Hindus by Rohingya Muslims article. Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The topic is mentioned in the "Violence towards civilians" section of the article Northern Rakhine State clashes. Please note that:

• 1. There has apparently been no substantial independent verification of the Army's claim -- and the Army refuses to allow independent observers or reporters and photographers to access the area freely, to find out for themselves. I read the source articles you listed, and they apparently all say that. Hence, those articles do not meet the key WP:VERIFIABILITY rule. (I do think the Army's claim should be noted -- but as their claim -- not as verified fact.)
• 2. The Myanmar military has an interest in blaming ARSA, to drum up support for itself, as the defender against the "terrorists."
• 3. ARSA claims that it has strictly refrained from attacks on civilian (though, in conflicts of this kind, it's not unrealistic to suspect some).

Until reputable, independent investigators or reporters can enter the area and interview eyewitnesses themselves, all that we have to go on is the unverfied claim of the Myanmar military -- a key party to the conflict -- a source that, in your terminology (in the previous section), is invalid becaue of a "conflict-of-interest."

Consequently, it's probably too soon to do a piece on "Hindus Massacred" When/if such a piece is produced, it should bear a title that only states what has been independently and reliably verified (e.g.: "Killing of Hindus at Ye Baw Kya" or (if the scale of the killing is very substantial, and with no apparent or suspected military justification, "Massacre of Hindus at Ye Baw Kya." Blame (e.g.: "Killing of Hindus by ARSA at Ye Baw Kya" should not be placed in the title unless/until multiple, substantial, reputable independent sources can be cited, with links, concurring on who that "guilty" party is. I would hope that both Muslim and anti-Muslim sources would be cited - or neither.

~ Penlite (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

There is more on this. Eyewitness reports, reported by the reputed sources, from Mayanmarese Hindus refugees in Bangladesh who escaped Rohingya Muslim violence. Mayanmar Hindus eyewitness narrate how Rohingyas massacred Hindus and how beautiful women were separated. How 2 mass graves of Hindus have been found, out of 100 Hindus missing 45 bodies in 2 mass graves were found. Rohingya took surviving Hindu women to camps, to force them to convert or be killed.

• source1, Hindu eyewitness account of massacre and force conversion by Rohingya muslims;
• source2, Puja and Rica forced to convert from Hinduism to Islam;
• source3;
• source4, 45 bodies in Hindu mass graves;
• source5, after finding 28 bodies, 17 more bodies found in Hindu mass graves;
• source6, 45 Hindus masscared, this report corraborates with what eyewitness said in source1 and source2 earlier;
• source7, Bangladesh says Rohingyas are security threat will not be given official refugee status or sim cards.

I have provided latest updates and eyewitness accounts from independent sources in Bengladesh (source1 and source2) corroborate the Mayanmarse government account (source6 and other sources). Sufficient to include this in this article and to create new article on massacre and Persecution of Hindus (create separate article if there are sourced content on Persecution of Christians and Buddhists by Rohingyas). Thanks. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Have summarized this news, in this article, in the section "August 2017 crisis" ~ Penlite (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. There is more on this. India TV reporter visited a camp of Rohingya/Mayanmarese Hindus in refugee camps in Bangladesh where several eyewitness and rape victims provided independently verified accounts of massacre and gang rapes of Mayanmaresse Hindus citizens by Rohingya Muslims. This deserves inclusion here as well as a separate article as suggested above in my first post.
India TV Source8: India Tv Exclusive, Mayanmar Hindus refugees corroborate massacre and rape by Rohingya Muslims,
Kuwait Times Source9: Mayanmar Hindus cries near the mass graves of relatives killed by Rohingya Muslims,
The Wire Source10: Massacre of Hindus in Rakhine a Testament to Brutality Independent journalists flown to site of mass killing in Rakhine that survivors and the Myanmar army say was carried out by Rohingya militants.
Source11: Hindu American Foundation expresses concern over massacre of Hindus in Myanmar
Source12: 8 Hindu women raped and forcibly converted by Rohingya Muslims lead Mayanmar army to the mass graves of Hindu victims
Source13: Rohingyas are law and security threats to other nations they illegaly arrive at, Bangladesh arrests three Rohingya men for smuggling 800,000 meth pills
Source13: Rhingya are unwelcome, Rohingya who've fled Myanmar face resentment in Bangladesh 222.165.9.81 (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this why "‘Hindus join Muslim Rohingyas in seeking refuge in Bangladesh’"? There has been multitude of fake news as paid media placement in India. Fake News Being Used to Incite Anger Against Rohingyas in India since PM's visit to Myanmmar. One has to be careful to maintain NPOV because Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.104.151.241.34 (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please state clearly what your point is. The Quint article said nothing about the Hindustan Times article, or about any other articles that we consider WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

My point is clear. Most of these articles discuss about the claims by the Burmese Army and ARSA's denial, press statements. The Burmese Govt. has not allowed any UN representatives or International press till date to verify any of these claims by either sides. Articles like [1] making contentious statements like Hindu Rohingyas have citizenship certificates! Myanmmar Govt. don't consider Rohyangas as citizens irrespective of religion as per their 1982 nationality law. If the Hindu Rohingyas have citizenship certificates and being persecuted by the Muslim rohingyas then why would they flee to Bangladesh, another Muslim majority country unlike the Buddhists who aren't fleeing to Bangladesh. --104.151.241.34 (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2017

The link cited for figure of Rohingyas in Saudi Arabia (https://www.ethnologue.com/country/SA) doesn't provide the figure mentioned in the article. Please flag it as "not in the source given". Diwakar20112 (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 19:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hindu Rohingyans?

The references given for the statement "The majority are Muslim while a minority are Hindu" does not seem valid. None of the article in the references states any evidence to prove that there are Hindus among Rohingyan communities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.249.251 (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Which references did you read, because there are multiple citations noting Hindu Rohingya refugees entering Bangladesh. [2] and [3]. DA1 (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your second reference [4] does not use the term Hindu Rohingya. It uses the term Hindu community twice. BengaliHindu (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian used the term Hindu Rohingya, but they earlier mentioned Rohingyas as Muslim people. BengaliHindu (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The refugees speak the Rohingya language. Unless you can prove they have a separate ethnic identity, your position does not appear to be valid.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fez Cap 12:The Hindus of Arakan were provided ID Card for National Verification (ICNV) in 2009. In the ID card the ethnicity is mentioned as 'Indian' as evident from this report. The Hindus accepted the ICNV card (aka green cards) with ethnicity as 'Indian'. They didn't object for not being identified as Rohingyas. On the other hand, the ICNV distributed to Rohingya mention them as 'Bengali' ethnicity. The Rohingyas objected to it to being called 'Bengali', they wanted them to be called 'Rohingya'. This proves that Hindus and Rohingya are different ethnicity. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@BengaliHindu: Myanmar's ethnic identification is extremely controversial, as you may understand by now. The Rohingyas are not provided the chance of being Indian either (despite being Indian pre-1947). In Myanmar, Indians can only be Hindus. But my point about their language still stands. The refugees who arrived in Bangladesh speak the Rohingya language and all credible sources have identified them as Hindu Rohingya.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fez Cap 12: My point is not how Myanmar identifies people. My point is Hindus never objected to being identified as Indian, neither protested for not being identified as Rohingya. If a group doesn't want to be identified as Rohingya, how can you call them Rohingya? BengaliHindu (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fez Cap 12: Speaking Rohingya language, doesn't prove that Hindus are Rohingyas. Rohingya language is phonetically similar to Chittgongian and other south eastern Bengali dialects, so its not unnatural the Hindus being minority will speak that language. Hindus also speak Arakanese or Burmese. Does that make them Rakhine or Bamar? BengaliHindu (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@BengaliHindu: All credible sources describe the Hindu refugees as Hindu Rohingya. The controversial ethnic labels imposed by Myanmar cannot stand as solid evidence.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fez Cap 12: I'm not sure how can you claim 'all credible' sources describe so. 15:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@BengaliHindu: Here is an additional citation [5] that notes "Hindu Rohingya", this time from TheWire. DA1 (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@DA1: The Wire hasn't written on its own. It has simply quoted the [The Guardian article] which you mentioned earlier. So it is not an original reference. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This news report -- "26 dead after boats carrying fleeing Rohingya sink in Bangladesh" August 31, 2017, Chicago Tribune -- like some others I've seen in the current crisis -- while talking about Rohingya refugees, also mentions "Hindu" refugees, but not "Hindu Rohingya." The article notes:

"More than 400 Hindu residents of Rakhine state crossed into Bangladesh after being attacked by armed men... about 86 Hindus had been killed by armed groups in three villages since last Friday."

In the current crisis, news articles that also mention "Hindu" refugees, while reporting stories of "Rohingya" refugees, may be creating the illusion that the two groups are one. Thoughts?

~ Penlite (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Penlite: Yes. Looks like the media are confused. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@BengaliHindu: As this source points out clearly, "There were at least a million members of the Rohingya ethnic group living in Myanmar, most of them Muslim, though some are Hindu.".--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fez Cap 12: Yes this source says so, but then there are other sources which say Rohingyas are Muslims only. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a single source says they are "Muslims only". The term Muslim minority is used given that the predominant majority are Muslims. Other sources say "largely Muslim". But credible sources point out the minority Hindu as well.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fez Cap 12: Look here. A Hindu victim of ARSA speaking in Hindi. Your reasoning based on language doesn't hold ground. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Your source is the mouthpiece of the Tatmadaw. And Hindi is not a native language in Arakan. Now please, WP:NOTAFORUM--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

First, most so-called reputed media sources have provided dubious definition of Rohingya Hindus, because there is no verifiable source that says Hindus of Mayanmar have accepted that description for themselves (even if some of those might be multilingual who understood Rohingya language along with other language, being able to understand Rohingya language does not mean Hindus consider it as their primary language or mother tongue or even sacred language, they could have been forced to learn to get along with majority speakers, we must keep an open mind and not make assumptions that Hindus speak Rohingya hence they are are Rohingya by ethnicity, language is different from ethnicity, not everyone who speaks english is english (England-origin) by ethnicity). Moreover, a dubious unverified statement in reputed source does not meet the wiki criteria. Wiki guidelines are clear that such content must be rejected.
Second, who is to decide that so-called reputed media classification is correct but the classification of the regime that administer the region is to be totally disregarded, at least this classification by Mayanmar administration is based on verifiable sources i.e. editors can verify how that classification is done. Accepting one dubious unverifiable classification while rejecting a verifiable and partially-disputed classification is mere POV. Include all classifications that are verifiable.
Third, partially-disputed classification means at least Buddhists and Hindus of that area have accepted Mayanmar government's classification, Only Muslims have not accepted, if 2 religions out of 3 have accepted the classification then it should be included, we can not have an article to appease Muslims or Muslims-apologist, please keep the article neutral, Muslim-apologist editors should be booted out of this article for violating wikipedia guidelines on 'conflict of interest'.
Fourth, it is not for some more assertive and vocal editors to decide on classifications based on their POV, if the Hindus have accepted the classification and they have "self-identification" given by the Mayanmar government then this is good enough that classification is self-identified and also recognized by the government then who are the third parties to raise unnecessary questions on it.
Fifth, also investigate why Muslims refused to be identified as Bengali. Are all Muslims in Mayanmar who claim to be Rohingya really Rohingya? Are some of those doing it to be not booted out for being illegal immigrants even though they might have been there for a while? So-called Rohingyas are "real Rohingyas" mixed with earlier Bengali migrants and remixed again with successive waves of Bengali migrants, united in religion and matrimony, accepting Bengali status would mean being acceptance of reality of being illegal economic migrants, their interest is best served by pretending to be Rohingya and blurring and resisting any attempt to segregating those Bengali illegal economic migrants mixed with Rohingya. This is not a black and white simplistic issue. 222.165.9.81 (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Penlite:, @Fez Cap 12:, @DA1: Please take a look at this post and this post. As you can see two prominent Hindu organizations have strongly objected to the use of the term "Rohingya Hindu". In another report a Bengali Hindu community leader from Yangon has clearly stated that the violence-hit Hindus of Rakhine State are his own race i.e. Bengali Hindus. Hence I'm removing Hinduism from the religion in the infobox. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2017

Please insert the following short paragraph between the second and third paragraphs of the "Nomenclature" section:

In 1936, when Burma was still under British rule, the "Rohingya Jam’iyyat al Ulama" was founded in Arakan.

edit summary: Added evidence for use of the term "Rohingya" during the British colonial period

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 00:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Res Mundi (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Facebook being use to incite violence against the Rohingya

See [6] [7] [8] [9][10] Doug Weller talk 10:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Language.

If I understand correctly, those millions speak different Bengali dialects, not the dialect described on the Rohingya language page. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Erasing Falsehoods

The first sentence on the Rohingypa people is couched in a false statement that is based in false understanding of anthropology, history, nationality, and religion. As a Muslim majority people that is persecuted by the Buddhists of Myanmar, the first sentence is false. Despite not having a state, this does not mean that Rohingya people should be deprived of probable aboriginal status. Dravidian descent does not exclusively mean Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or Arab. It is very insulting to the Rohingya people to make false accusations against them if they are persecuted for Dravidian ancestry or ethnicity, which is very much native to the populations of the nations cited. The ideas presented are completely false. This is why Wikipedia does a severe disservice with its fraudulent assertions. This is not encyclopedic content, only political gibberish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.4.193.9 (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Dravidian race is not native to the territory of Myanmar, and Muslims only made 5% in Rakhine 150 years ago. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If Britsh & U.S. sources OK, why not French & Indian sources?

If we can use British sources (BBC, The Guardian (newspaper), The Independent (newspaper), Amnesty International), American sources (New York Times, The Huffington Post, Human Rights Watch) and even the Qatari propaganda mill known as Al-Jazeera, all of which have their own agendas, as we have done in this very article and pretend that they are reliable, then I don't see why we cannot use sources from the Indian media and the French media as anon has suggested. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to trust New York Times, BBC and the human-rights org's -- and somewhat inclined to trust the other British newspapers -- but absolutely NOT the Huffington Post (while I often agree with their correspondents and commentators, they simply are too political and unprofessional in their journalism, and many 'non-journalists are treated as serious journalists by the Huff Post). Huff Post is an opinion news outlet -- the liberal's answer to conservative Fox News, but without any real gestures towards solid, professional journalism -- often with little or no appearance of serious fact-checking by supervising editors, let alone their "reporters."

As for the French and Indian media, I'd note these observations:

Agence France-Presse (AFP) is the world's 3rd-largest news network -- after the Associated Press (AP) and Reuters, both very reputable. AFP seems to have better connections in developing nations than the AP & Reuters, and their reporting seems professinal -- honestly reporting claims that they cannot independently verify, as just that: "we cannot verify...", but getting important stories that others miss, for some time, until long after AFP has run them.

As for Indian media -- I'm more wary. They are not driven by quite the same Western "free press" and accountability measures, and are very often blatantly bigoted against Muslims (recall that independent India was formed largely by Hindus driving out most of India's Muslims to former sections of India that became Pakistan and today's Bangladesh -- and the anti-Muslim sentiment in India is at a high point, fueled by a nationalist-Hindu government.) Consequently, expect anti-Rohingya-Muslim bias in many, perhaps most, Indian media.

That said, I do have a generally favorable impression of the journalistic quality of the Times of India, the Economic Times, Indian Express, and NDTV -- but would want any statement based on a reference to them to also be accompanied by a supportive reference to a matching article in the Western media -- or at least a fairly reputable major media source in Bangladesh (e.g.: Dhaka Tribune) or the Muslim world (if any can be found).

I have a similar opinion of "the Qatari propaganda mill known as Al-Jazeera" -- that is, it is very bigoted (towards Muslims, and against all others), and should only be cited as a source on an item when a matching citation from a matching article in Western media -- or perhaps media from a contrary culture, such as Hindu India or, in this Rohingya article case, Buddhist Myanmar or Thailand (e.g.: Bangkok Post), or another Southeast/East Asian major media source (though with extreme reluctance and care).

In the Rohingya-related articles, Australian media is a good counterpoint to pro-Rohingya media in the Muslim world, I think -- Australia, closest of the "Western" nations to Myanmar, has a "we don't want any more Rohingya refugees" attitude. But it is also a substantial counterpoint to often-clueless other "Western" media outlets (e.g.: New York Times, Washington Post, U.S. TV networks) who have come very late to the Rohingya story, and usually with only the most superficial second-hand knowledge. By comparison, the Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Broadcasting Corporation and some other Australian media seem to be on top of this story.

~ Penlite (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The best Indian newspaper is The Hindu and the best Indian television news channel is NDTV. Let us not talk about "Indian newspapers". It is just as meaningless as talking about "American newspapers". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Surely you can understand my instinctive skepticism about the objectivity of an Indian newspaper titled "The Hindu." In an ethnic conflict with conspicuous religious overtones, would you be inclined to trust a Pakistani newspaper entitled "The Muslim"? Seriously? That said, I am reviewing some articles in The Hindu and may use them as supplemental references.

~ Penlite (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

While the name may lead to instinctive suspicions, the fact is that The Hindu is one of the few (only?) reliable newspapers in India. The name, in this case, is misleading. --regentspark (comment) 20:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's not dismiss Al Jazeera lightly. I recall that during the early days of the Iraq War (2003 and onward), Al Jazeera was the go-to network if you wanted reliable news about the war -- rather than the fawning American press and TV. [[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchcief|talk]] (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That was then -- this is now. Al Jazeera was never an objective medium, and has arguably grown far less so in very recent years, for reasons not yet clear to me. I'd like to be more trusting of more diverse sources, but the systems of accountability and traditions of media practice in the Arab world are simply inconsistent with ethical journalism, and Al Jazeera has exemplified the problem, in my humble opinion (and the opinions of many, many others, from many nations and perspectives).

~ Penlite (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rohingya people. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518085846/http://www.networkmyanmar.org/images/stories/PDF13/aye%20chan%20bwb.pdf to http://www.networkmyanmar.org/images/stories/PDF13/aye%20chan%20bwb.pdf

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) 21:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Rohingya are Bengali

Wikipedia isn't Reddit and original research is prohibited.Winged BladesGodric 10:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This page should be merged with Bengali people or Bangladeshi people. Rohingya term didn't exist before 1900. Please don't spread lies. This should be removed, per WP:NOTAFORUM, because this is not a forum for debating the substance of the article, and you offer no evidence (no links to sources that meet the WP:VERIFIABILITY rules) for this statement. I will leave it for you to fix, or others to comment, but if there's no fix, this should be deleted soon. Meanwhile, you might review the many cited substantial sources, in this article, that contradict your claim. Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Here is a history of how they illegally came to Myanmar [11]. Educate yourself and don't spread lies. Facebook isn't a reliable source, as you well know. I am tempted to remove this post as a violation of WP:NOTFORUM, but am not going to do so, because I'd rather debunk people who depend on facebook as a source, rather than give them even a shred of evidence to cry "censorship". If you want to claim they are illegal immigrants, find a reliable source which says so. Vanamonde (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC) @Penlite:@Vanamonde93: If the term "Rohingya" existed earlier, it does in no way imply that it described the same people it describes today. There were only 5% Muslims in Rakhine 150 years ago. Do you want to say today's "Rohingya" are mostly descended from them or Burman Buddhists converted to Islam and Bengali language? No, they are recent migrants from Bengal. What dialects do they speak? For instance, 900 years ago the term "Russian" meant a completely different population than it means now (mostly the ancestors of Ukrainians). And 400 years ago "Ukrainians" meant Ukrainian Poles. And so on... --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC) That is a textbook example of original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. If you are serious about this suggestion you need to find reliable sources documenting this. Otherwise, it is likely you will simply be ignored here. Vanamonde (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC) @Vanamonde93:@Penlite: Just answer which dialect are they speaking. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC) @Vanamonde93:@Penlite: So, 24 637 turned into 2 000 000 in 148 years? Or what? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC) @Sidoroff-B: @Vanamonde93:: Do you mean something like the forced Russianization of the non-Russian "Socialist Republics" of the Soviet Union -- during the years when dictator Josef Stalin planted millions of Russians into the ethnic-minority Republics, to tighten control over them? (That's when a few thousand Russians, in each of the various republics, turned, overnight, into a few million, who became the privileged and governing minority in the republics where other ethnicities were the (repressed) native population.) No. I don't think it's quite like that. More like America's origins, when a few thousand white European-Americans multiplying into nearly 3 million in the space of a few generations in the "British Colonies" of the North America -- between the mid-1600s and late-1700s -- in less than 148 years. Yes, European immigration to the Colonies was a significant factor; but reproduction and longevity were arguably a much greater factor. Further, the 1.2 million Rohingya in Myanmar ("Bengalis" or simply "Muslims" as they were deliblerately mis-identified in Myanmar's census) -- at the start of this autumns' ethnic cleansing -- constituted (do the math) barely 2% (two percent) of the 52.9 million people in Myanmar (see the article for the references). Hardly an overwhelming horde. Perhaps such an "uninvited" minority -- no matter how far back, how many decades or centuries, they can trace their residence in a place, should be driven out... but -- looking at the millions of 20th-Century Russian immigrants to the Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, (e.g.: Abkhazia, etc.), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan -- I don't think Vladimir Putin would agree with that "ethnic cleansing" philosophy, do you? ~ Penlite (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC) @Sidoroff-B: @Vanamonde93:: Let's do some basic math to evaluate your numbers, Sidoroff: You say that: "24 637 turned into 2 000 000 in 148 years" Well, then, let's figure out what the realistic Rohingya population should be, from an original 24,000 or so, at the end of 140 years or so. Out of 24,000 people 148 years ago, probably about a third or more would have been of child-bearing age. A third of 24,000 is 8,000. This would have yielded approximately 4,000 reproductive couples. The 4,000 reproductive couples would have, by the age of 35, produced about an average of at least 5 children (surviving to reproductive age) (typical of poor, agrarian cultures, and especially Muslim cultures, for centuries, if I'm not mistaken). This would have resulted in a 5-fold increase of the population every 35 years (a bit more if you consider the survival of the parents long after their 35th years). In 140 years, then -- four reproductive generations of 35 years each -- the population should have grown thus: 1st generation (Year 0 to year 35): 4,000 couples x 5 children: 20,000 children, who grow up to be 10,000 couples 2nd generation (Year 36 to year 70): 10,000 couples x 5 children: 50,000 children. who grow up to be 25,000 couples 3rd generation (Year 71 to year 105): 25,000 couples x 5 children: 125,000 children. who grow up to be 62,500 couples 4th generation (Year 105 to year 140): 62,500 couples x 5 children: 312,500 children. 312,500 children. + 62,500 parents + 25,000 post-reproductive adults (estim.) ------------------ =400,000 people by the 4th generation. Note: There are a LOT of factors NOT counted here, which would reduce or increase these numbers (mostly increase -- as with higher percentages of fertililty and reproductivity in the original and subsequent adult populations, as well as inter-marriage with other ethnicities, and subsequent generations -- which could easily push these numbers well over 2,000,000). Add in even a modest amount of Muslim immigration during these years, and the numbers could be higher, too -- since population growth has an exponential characteristic). Note, too, that the Muslim populations of the Koran Belt (Muslim world), for generations, have exhibited a much higher natural increase rate than the world average for humanity (a factor rather obviously playing into conflict across the Koran Belt, including in Myanmar, where Rohingya reproductive rates have long been a complaint of non-Rohingya Myanmarese). Those complaints, ironically, lend credibility to Rohingya claims that a very high percentage of the Myanmarese Rohingya, for the last century, have been of native-Myanmar origin. ~ Penlite (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Many Rohingya maybe not indigenous in origin

While there has been constant toxic debate especially in Myanmar over their origin, many Rohingya may not actually be natives. However, the important point is many, not most or all as the 1931 census is quite strange in its data. From what I've pieced together from the 1931 census, the Muslims of Burma are divided into two parts by the British - the migrant Indians and the native Indo-Burmans who in case of Arakan consisted mostly of the indigenous Arakanese Muslims.

Akyab - Modern Northern Arakan/Rakhine had a small population of 50,000 native Arakanese Muslims. There were over 210,990 Indians, most of whom were overwhelmingly Muslims from other sources I have seen so far, but I haven't able to find the exact number yet in the census itself. Many of these were from neighboring Chittagong.

But here's the tricky part - the census quite blatantly says 10,000-15,000 Arakanese Muslims said their language was Indian in origin in 1921. The Rohingya language is part of the Bengali-Assamese family branch. Many Bengali kingdoms are known to have ruled over parts of Arakan.

Most Indians in Akyab were actually born in Burma by 1931 and weren't immigarnts. This may also indicate that the figure of Indians is actually inflated due to the similarities between Rohingya and Indian languages. The 1931 census represents a huge jump over the native Muslim figure of over 20,000 Arakanese Muslims in 1921.

However, it's also known that many Indians had fled during the Japanese invasion as well as the subsequent years. Then again it's also known that the birth rate among Rohingyas is much higher. This may partially explain a large increase since 1931 in their population over other races. But not completely. Of course, much of this is just my inference from what I read in the census, the figures are real. We need a solid study of this subject of their origin, sadly there doesn't seem to be any. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What we do know is that there has been an indigenous Muslim presence in Rahkine State since the 1500s and that before the last half of the 20th century, populations moved more easily across the Burma/Bangladeshi boarder. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This article and news reporting is so disgustingly biased in favour of muslims that it isn't funny.

I would like to begin by stating that I am not Burmese nor do I have any love for the Burmese government. In fact I myself am a desi indian guy. But I know bias when I see it.

The Rohingya crisis has been only focused on in one side of the issue by international media. Violence against Rohingyas by the Burmese military is well documented, but where is the documentation of the fact that Rohingya had no writing or history on them in Rakhine state prior to the late 20th/21st century, speak a "language" that is completely mutually intelligible with the Bengali of Chittagong, have birth rates that go from 4 up to 9 CHILDREN per mother, up to QUADRUPLE that of the indigenous Rakhine and well into the range of population replacement level and substantial gene-shift as seen in historical populations according to historical anthropology, and practice an extremely orthodox and intolerant strain of islam, which involves the practice of jihad through increasing the ummah and taking power from Non-Muslims? Also, where is the reporting of the Rohingya/Bengali jihads on Rakhine villages, which served as the impetus for the violent military backlash?

What about nearby states in North East india? What about the illegal mass migrations over the Bengali border into NE-India (I guess they need their own special ethnic name like the Rohingyas, right? Want to give them one? Since they can't call themselves Bengali anymore, huh?), and subsequent attacks by muslim bengali migrants on indigenous asian looking Indian tribes and villages in Tripura, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya etc, to the point where local civil protection militias have been set up to protect the indigenous people from Bengali muslim interlopers?? And literally EVERY educated person in India, and EVERY PERSON in N-East India knows about this? Where are the op-ed interviews for these people, mm? Where are the news reports about these? BIAS.

Hell, what about Bengali muslim jamaat and salafi migrations WITHIN Bangladesh, in the Chittagong Hills where many people are of more asian appearance than your average Bengali, and don't practice islam, instead practicing buddhism, Hinduism and traditional religions? Bengali Jihadist raiders run onto their farms with guns and chase them out at gunpoint, raping and killing, and then steal their lands!! And they justify it by saying they are waging jihad against the kuffar, and it doesn't matter about the specifics, if you're an asian-looking muslim, KUFFAR, if you're an asian-looking non-muslim, KUFFAR, if you're a non-asian non-muslim, KUFFAR, hell even if you're a non-asian looking muslim, nobody will know we stole your land up here in the hills so KUFFAR!!!! Indigenous rights groups and writers in the Chittagong hill tracts have gone underground and had to censor themselves because Jihadis actively HUNT and MURDER them in the STREET for reporting on this shit (google murder of bloggers bangladesh), but nooo none of this gets the attention of the international press quite like the poor oppressed Bengali invaders Rohingyas, who are cut of the same cloth as these bastards! BIAS.

Muslim groups are very well connected, and are very machiavellian and natalistic. I have seen and met muslims from Jihadis to racial supremacists who stress the need in a world with organisations like the UN to "portray themselves as victims" in a bipartisan conflict to the international community, in order to win control of places over other peoples and cultures they hate and despise - perfect examples being Kosovo and Somalia. The Rohingya are absolutely not above this - and were known to have connections to jihadist groups in South Asia and the Middle East, and also in Bangladesh, and this international fetishism of them while ignoring the other side of the story, that they have attacked Rakhine villages, that they are NOT indigenous to Burma NOR it's cultures neither historically - culturally - religiously - genetically, that they present a REAL threat to the future of a Rakhine culture in Rakhine state because of their ridiculously high birth rates, their extreme dom-cultural (domination culture) islamic beliefs, their refusal to integrate into Rakhine society and in fact outright hatred of it, and the fact that Bengali migrants are doing the SAME THING to other similar locations throughout North-East India and WITHIN Bangladesh inside the Chittagong Hill tracts! - pushes a non NPOV claptrap.

PowerToTheWest (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Where are your sources for any of this? It's laughable that you're trying to portray this article as biased by going on a hateful & misinformed diatribe against the Rohingya. Also, keep Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOTOPINION, and WP:SHOUTING in mind.

Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@PowerToTheWest Wikipedia is not a forum for racist, religionist, or other bigoted diatribes. Your vulgarity and racial/religous slurs are a direct violation of numerous Wikipedia rules, as noted clearly by the previous poster. And it is inappropriate to produce such long socio-political harangues, here, ss well. I very strongly encourage you to withdraw this post, immediately, so that it does not become necessary to refer this for more substantial Wikipedia community action.

~ Penlite (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Rohingya reference sources

A possible reference for news and background articles -- from most major English-language media throughout the U.S., U.K, Australia, Canada, and the conflict zone -- the Rohingya Crisis News appears to post links to (and some abstracts of, or excerpts from) almost all the major English-language news stories on the Rohingya, since the current crisis began in August 2017 -- as well as numerous older stories. It claims to be "updated at least weekly."

The articles listed, and linked to, are from such basic reference sources -- across the political spectrum -- as the Associated Press, Reuters News Service, Agence France-Presse, New York Times, Wall Street Journal The Guardian, the broadcast networks BBC, CBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox News, Sky News, and the leading newspapers in the conflict region (Bangladesh, India, Thailand, Australia), and in the U.S. and Canada. (It generally avoids the more partisan, inflammatory or censored sources such as Myanmar or Arab media, though they're cited occasionally.)

It also contains some background references on the Rohingya, from major media, academic, institutional, organizational and government sources (particularly the United Nations), as well as numerous official government and NGO statements and reports (e.g.: U.S. State Dept., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.).

Although it appears to be very Rohingya-sensitive (it is apparently edited by a U.S. civil rights activist and former journalist/scholar), it also lists numerous articles reporting the denials, arguments and statements by the Myanmar government, and others largely hostile to the Rohingya. Seems fairly objective, and consistent with most current scholarship on the Rohingya. Online at: Rohingya Crisis News

~ Penlite (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

the so called permanent peoples tribunal

The "permanent peoples tribunal" ass referenced in the article is a self-declared court that is without ANY legal standing. It is run by an NGO, it is NOT "UN-backed" as the article claims, and its "proceedings" are shames by any legal standard. Among other absurdities it delivers "verdicts" without even once hearing the accused.

It is a bunch of NGO busybodies making themselves sound important. The single secondary sources given does not even support the claims attributed to it. I also doubt it qualifies as a reliable under Wikipedia policies.

I will therefore remove the assorted paragraph. Wefa (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

A good reference is the CIA report that estimates that between 1971 to 1983 no less than 600,000 Bangladeshi nationals from that country entered Assam, while 300,000 entered Meghalaya and about 200,000 entered Tripura. And we are supposed to believe that non entered Burma! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.93.225 (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

that may or may not be a good reference - if you had actually provided it. So we just have to take your word for it. And we don't. Wefa (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi's Defense

The article mentions the criticisms against Aung San Suu Kyi's response to the crisis, but could possibly do more to convey her stance that combating terrorism is a top concern. In a speech, Aung San Suu Kyi claims "The danger of terrorist activities which was the initial cause of events leading to the humanitarian crisis in Rakhine remains real and present today." Aung San Suu Kyi has also claimed that many of the reports regarding the crisis are based off of misinformation, and denies some of the more serious charges on the part of human rights groups especially. NeWiley (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of independent sources are critical of her response to the Rohingya crisis so that's what we focus on. If you can find independent reliable sources that support her terrorism claims, then, I suppose, we could include material on that. Otherwise, what she says is not germane. --regentspark (comment) 00:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Once the Darling of the Western Left:

"...She said terrorism (by Muslims), not social discrimination or inequality, triggered the crisis."

As soon as Aung San Suu Kyi started resisting the Muslim attempts of colonization of her country, became nothing more than a killer and not even "germane"--- Just the elected Leader of the country currently under Muslim colonization.

The so-called "...vast majority of independent sources..." (above; by regentspark)are simply the same Appeasers of Muslims of the Left and Right. Ron Blower (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Colonization?... The Burmese have colonized and brutalized the Shan, the Chin, the Mon Khmer, The Thai, and the Rakhine for the last thousand years. They have invaded their neighbors and sought to ethnically cleanse these territories and settle them with Bamars for 500 years. They invaded the independent Arakanese kingdom shortly before the British arrived and started forcibly removing indigenous Arakanese from their land and settling them in Burman dominated areas to displace them and take over the territory.

I'm so sick and tired of you propagandist liars repeatedly trying to cover up your crimes by repeatedly trying to say oh terrorism, oh Muslim invasion. Is that why the Burmese have also done the same thing to Buddhist and Christian Shan and Chin for the last 40 years?.... Oh don't like bringing that up because the only way you can even begin to cover up Burman ethnic cleansing of natives is by focusing on the one they do to Muslims to win sympathy from westerners. Well bud, we're not stupid.

May Burma collapse into it's various ethnic group's states. Because 60 years of Burmese military suppression of Christian Chin, Buddhist/animist Shan, Buddhist Thai is enough. And despite their attempts to lie, cover up, obfuscate, they underestimate western people. We're well aware of what's going on, we're collecting data. And we won't forget. It's not just Muslims you do this to, it's every ethnic group in Burma. The Burmese lived in the central valley, but they've always sought to expand into other peoples land through genocide. The Shan have always lived in the hills, you are the invader, Burma. The Arakan have always dominated the coast, you are the invader, Burma. The Chin have always inhabited the mountainous jungles. You are the invader Burma. Here's a map of the Ethnic groups Burma seeks to dominate and make powerless to take their territory passed down for generations for Burmese thieves https://www.bbc.com/news/special/glow_panel/img/burma/burma_map464x585.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7DE1:E300:903B:1F2:AB51:A78F (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Time for edit protection

Due to the daily unsourced and/or incredibly biased -- or even derrogatory -- edits made by IPs, isn't it time for this article be protected? 187.18.107.228 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Rants

This article reads like a pile of anti-Burmese rants... I'm not saying that the statements are true or not, but we can write articles better than rants... 2100s (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

Some users with a singular focus on Rohingya-related articles may want to read WP:NOTACTIVISM to make sure that their goals are in line with the project's goals. 2100s (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Rohingya Hindus

The wiki denotes Rohingyas are solely muslim which is false. Here are some links:

• https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/people/reference/rohingya-people/ - states "Myanmar is a majority-Buddhist state, but the Rohingya people are primarily Muslim, though a small number are Hindu and Christian"

• https://religionnews.com/2019/05/08/swept-up-in-muslim-genocide-crisis-hindu-rohingyas-are-stuck-in-bangladesh

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N1vjLUWXAM - Hindu Rohingya celebration on Durga puja in Bangladesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.63.27 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Where did you put 99% of the articles stating they are Mulsims? The only source you have is National Geographic, which is obviously confusing the Hindus fleeing mass massacres by the ARSA as "Rohingyas." Give me one reliable source from a reputable academic. 100% of the books and 100% of journal articles state they are Muslims. Keep your political agenda elsewhere. 2100s (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You say, "which is obviously confusing the Hindus fleeing mass massacres by the ARSA as "Rohingyas.".. do you have source to back up your claim that National Geographic is wrong? I also gave reference to youtube video. You are pushing your own agenda on this wikipedia article to revise the article continuously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.63.27 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

non-concrete inter-referencing

As to this sentence "The Rohingya population trace their history to this period.[112]", it is found out that sources after sources of references, all of them are not concrete in nature. This sentence should be deleted.--Kalle Divins (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Newcomers

They are newcomers. From Russian Wikipedia: " большинство историков полагают, что рохинджа переселились в Мьянму во времена британского владычества[13][14][15] и, в меньшей степени, после независимости Бирмы и войны за независимость Бангладеш в 1971 году[16][17]." --85.249.42.245 (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No Hindu Rohingyas

Hindu people in Rakhine state (Arakan) hates very much being called "Hindu Rohingyas", but they identify themselves as "Benglis" who profess Hinduism. As a consequence, Muslim Benglis(in Rakhine state) hate them back so much that they killed about 100 Hindus during Kha Maung Seik massacre.--Kalle Divins (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly the case. For them, it's an imposed identity. They would commit suicide if you call them as such. However, since they are calling themselves Hindu Bengalis, they have exposed a crack in the narrative for which they are much hated. SSH remoteserver (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

falsified 'early' arrival of Islam

The claim by Sayed Islam saying that, by 788 CE, locals in Arakan were being converted into Muslims clearly contradicts historian Yegar's findings which say, even in 1203, Bengal is the eastern most point of Islamic expansion, not to say further into Arakan. (please see page 23 of the book "Between Integration and Secession: The Muslim Communities of the Southern Philippines, Southern Thailand, and Western Burma/Myanmar". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalle Divins (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You should be bold and make the change if you can support it. If others disagree, they will revert it. SSH remoteserver (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The majority of the Rohingya people inside Rahkine State of Myanmar had arrived during the conflicts between India and Bangladesh's War of Liberation (1971) and the subsequent troubles in Assam State documented in that WIKI article on this displaced population. India had gradually fenced this 5th longest land boundary with Bangladesh, leaving only the remaining boundary with Myanmar the only way to leave the country easily in an extra-legal manner. When Myanmar border guards attempted to interdict this illegal immigration, they had been killed provoking the recent response of the Myanmar military who spares no border nationality from many human rights abuses all throughout Myanmar's borders since 1962. The Myanmar military has a penchant to galvanize public support through targeting muslims attempting to either enter or remain in the country. The Sunni Muslim Taliban destruction of the world's largest stone carved Buddhas in Afghanistan's Bactria Province did not impress the Buddhist world towards the concerns of muslims. Remember Bangladesh is a young and unstable country that has a much larger population than Myanmar, as does both India and China do. Myanmar enacts strong controls over whom a woman in their country is allowed to marry and is not like Thailand in trying to assimulate the larger nations into their own culture, for fear of losing their own culture over time. In the context of Indira Ghandi's last successful political campaign an outreach was made to gain muslim voters which eventually led to the Assam Agreement, made after her assissination (1984) that led to greater border controls. No one doubts that Bangladesh faces difficult practical choices due to sea level rise as a densely populated low-lying nation. 2601:603:4E80:AC30:B950:189A:C651:1E8F (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

POV image

War elephant painting is misleading. This painting is of Hada Chauhan Dynasty of Kota, not Mughal Shah Shuja. See source link. It should be removed and maybe replaced with Shah Shuja painting.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2022

Aryan is no race, the Aryan invasion or immigration to India is disproved unambiguously by recent excavations and DNA analysis at Rakhigadhi in This India. So it is incorrect to say that Rohingyas are indo-Aryan ethnically 49.185.206.181 (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It is not clear what change to the article you are requesting. Please make your request again and make sure to include reliable sources if you are proposing a contentious edit. Yue🌙 03:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

I’m a Rohingya the thing which is missing is that it didn’t mention about our Arab ancestry. This information was passed down to generations.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 12:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)