Talk:Islam in Myanmar/Archive 2

Copy edit, August 2008
As you may have noticed from recent edits, the Guild of Copy Editors have taken on this article for cleanup. Considering the size and breadth of it, it may take a while, even considering multiple editors' involvement. Patience is appreciated. --Blehfu (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * TQ very much. --Darz kkg (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've copyedited up to (not including) the "Muslim prisoners of war" section. Will probably return later today to continue. --fraise (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start working from there. Please post on my talk if you return. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've returned and am starting from that same section as well, since there are still some things to correct (for example the first sentence: "Many Muslims prisoners of war were settled in Burma over the course of history."). Please update this talk so that any other copyeditors will know how things are progressing, and please give the section(s) you've worked on. (I'll update today with the sections I've finished once they're done. Of course, anything I may have missed is welcome to be corrected.) Cheers --fraise (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As promised: I've copyedited up to Muslims in Konbaung Dynasty: Muslims in Amarapura; copyediting can continue starting from Islam in Burma. This article is pretty difficult to copyedit as it needs a lot of fact-checking to ensure that edits for comprehension accurately reflect facts. It needs the attention of an expert and I've tagged it as such. --fraise (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll start at the beginning with reading, but start editing with care after the Islam in Burma/King Mindon section. I stopped at the section "Anti-Muslim riots in Mandalay," just before the inappropriate bolding in that paragraph.  I tried to point out problems not related to copyediting as well. Levalley (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I placed a cleanup tag in the last section; currently it mixes text and bullets awkwardly. A quick glance doesn't show other issues with the article, but I didn't do an indepth verification. --Sigma 7 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done a major rework of the history section. The section formerly was a word-for-word copy of History of arrival of Islam in Burma. I have summarized everything which was directly related to Islam in Burma, and cut or shortened many of the military histories in which Muslim soldiers participated. The rationale for this being that the presence of Muslims was only incidental to the military action in question. Additionally, I have regularized the usage of names in accordance with Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). I plan to do a copy edit (with much less cutting) on the Religion and Society section tonight. RevZoe (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Completed major rework on the religion and society section. Cut out many of the assertions which seemed to violate NPOV without strong evidence. Also changed place names in accordance with Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). RevZoe (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Critical thinking errors
The section on persecution lists all these deaths, and then systematically denies that any of them were persecution. If they were not persecutions, why the subject title? How can the editor who wrote those words be so sure they weren't religious persecutions? Secondary sources badly needed. In particular, the men who were summarily beheaded because they had beards...were beheaded precisely because they were Muslim (=wearing beards, according to the article) and therefore, this is clearly an example of religious persecution. The fact that they were easily identified as members of a religious minority led directly to their being beheaded! A beard is one feature, not features, btw. Attempting to muddle the issue by using "features" is just one example of the way the entire article needs reworking, from a critical thinking perspective. I have removed this sentence:

Therefore that massacre was targeted at Muslim refugees from India not because of their religion, Islam, but for economic or political reasons.

...as it seems absurd, since the reason the people were put into prison and starved (or beheaded) was because they were Muslim - and although there may have been further causes, the article itself so states.

All of this kind of thing needs fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As the article goes on, this worsens. Another glaring example of a critical thinking error occurs during the section where the 1000-1500 Buddhist monks attack Muslims. First, it is said they do so without any provocation (which is insane - and needs further discussion) but then it is said that the provocation was the attempted rape of a girl by Muslim men! Which is it? I've removed some of the ambiguity, but it is this kind of near-ranting that is making this page almost non-salvageable. Far from removing all the tags, one wants to add more tags!Levalley (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've attempted to clear up many of these contradictions in the course of my two copy-edits (the history and the religion and society sections). Many of the "persecution" examples were of course, nothing of the sort, and had no place in the section about that subject. These have been summarily removed. They are covered in the Persecution of Muslims in Burma article, which I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole, mostly since the religion and society section was almost a word-for-word copy of that article (fixing it once is enough for me).RevZoe (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Organizational problems
Official British white paper section appears to arise out of nowhere and refers to either itself or some other paragraph (unclear). It interrupts the flow of the article and seems to be a kind of footnote or editorial note inserted into the article. I think it needs to go, so here it is - if someone can find a way of putting it back in, so that it makes sense, fine:

British Official White Paper

This paragraph's basic facts are taken from Maurice Collis' "Trials in Burma". He was the judge in Rangoon, who eyewitnessed the riots and wrote his book based on the British Official White Paper given by, '''The Simon Commission. (The Royal Statutory Commission, appointed according to the Law of the Government of India in 1919, The Montague-Chelmsford Law.)'''  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * British official white paper section no longer exists. All references to the Inquiry Committee and Simon Committee have been combined and pared down to only the sections which are directly relevant to Muslims in Burma.RevZoe (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, this attempt at a topic sentence:

During the time of hajj in 1997 between Buddhists and Muslims created the attack from the Military Junta Government.

...in the section about riots in Yangon makes no sense, and no sense can be made of it. Until it is fixed, it needs to stay out. The paragraph still makes sense, even without it, although fixing the sentence and putting it back in, so that the date is known, would be good. Hajj...between Buddhists and Muslims makes no sense (unless that one time, somehow, Buddhists are participating in hajj, which if true, deserves separate comment - but that's what is implied by the sentence as it stands). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote in the Supreme Court Section
Since it is a quote, I didn't try to fix it via copyediting - but it really makes no sense. If this was what was said, it needs some explanation.Levalley (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This quote has been placed in context (somewhat), and the junk inside somewhat makes sense there. Won't attempt to copy-edit the quote itself.RevZoe (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Proof of Nga Ramankan in The Glass Palace Chronicle of the Kings of Burma
Today I got the copy of _ The Glass Palace Chronicle of the Kings of Burma, translated by Pe Maung Tin and G.H.Luce, Burma Research Society, Rangoon University press, Rangoon, Burma, 1960.(Second printing by Willium Paw). First printing at the Oxford University press, London, England by Frederick Hall in 1923. Starting from page 100 last line,to page 103 there is the story of Nga Ramankan. Nga is placed infront of all the nonroyal commoners. So Ramankan was his name. This was definitely the different form of spelling for Raman Kan, Rahman Khan only. We could even see his name written as Nga Raman repeatedly in this Glass Palace Chronicle. So he is more likely to be an intelligent person as his tactics could even trap the mighty famous Bagan army in their homeland. And referring Kan (blind)as one eyed man was to just disgrace this great man.Darz kkg 11:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So what's your point Ko Darz kkg? He was a Muslim and he was a great honorable man? And Buddhists (Kings, Laymen and Historians) tried to discriminate and disgrace a great intelligent tactful Muslim named Rhaman Khan? Muslims were victims of religious abuse since the Bagan period? Is that what you are trying to prove in your articles? If that's the point how could he become a governor of Bago in the first place? There was no historical evident that Nga Ramankan conquered Bago. Looking at the good relationship between his father, himself and King Sawlu before the insurrection, it is clear that he was appointed as a governor by the King. If Buddhist kings were racists, would they have kept Muslims in the high places and let them served the royal courts? Until (and even after) the time of the writing of Glass Palace Chronicle, there were many Muslims in the Burmese palace serving the Burmese kings in various respectful positions. There were old Mosques unharmed even during the war periods. Until now, Burmese people regards a great Muslim, U Abdul Razak, as a martyr and national hero. You may argue there were racist abuses from the governments, after 1960s. But I doubt earlier Burmese kings or historians or Burmeses in general have discriminated ancient Burmese Muslims, as you are trying to prove by using Wikipedia as a tool, is just and correct. And there are some debatable speculations in your articles which is adhered to a particular point of view. That is my original point I wished to make. One can argue the whole day (or days) regarding race and religious affairs and I have no will to go that far. But I would suggest using Wiki for one's own purpose is not a good idea.


 * Islam in Myanmar is a great topic. But keeping it free from bias and unfounded speculations which would suggest inaccurate historical occurring is imperative. --Kyaw 2003 13:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry and thank you very much Ko Kyaw. Once we are accepted as just a fellow Myanmar/Burmese citizens, as you had written, most of us, including me, are happy and contended. We just want to be treated as a fellow normal citizen, brother and sister of all the Myanmar/Burmese Buddhists and Christians.


 * God forbidden, even if there is a conflict between our adopted mother land and those foreign countries of our ancestors, most of us will defend our country (Myanmar/Burma) together with our brother Myanmar/Burmese Buddhists and Christians. I am even willing to sacrifice for Myanmar/Burma. I hope other Muslim citizens of Myanmar would agree and join together with me to defend Myanmar/Burma.


 * I do not want any thing more. Just accept us as real brothers, fellow citizens.


 * Sorry for my POV as I had admitted earlier that I am writing from my point of view and I hope if you could edit these articles and tone down my aggressive style, it may be a great service to Wiki. Actually I have a lot of biographies of notable Muslims from Burma. I am just waiting to see what will happen to my contributions. I do not want to waste my time searching, writing and later just deleted.


 * Once again, thank you very much Ko Kyaw. As a practicing doctor, more than 99% of my patients are non Muslims and amongst my friends, more than 80% are non Muslims and my breast friends are Buddhists and although I could not see them for a dozen of years, I still dream them frequently at night and I have a daydream to see them again. I hereby wish to tender a sincere apology to other non Muslim Myanmar/Burmese Wiki readers if I have insulted them in my articles. Darz kkg 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for understanding my point Ko Darz kkg. I just wish to have these sensitive articles bias-free. There are already enough hatred among our countrymen and some arguable speculations in the Wiki articles shall not increase the tensions; that's my point of view. You have done a massive and great job researching on Myanmar (Burmese) Muslims/Islam in Myanmar. I am just concerned that some choice of words/sentences/speculations in the articles would contaminate your hard works. Thank you and best regards. --Kyaw 2003 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Commenting on the Glass Palace Chronicle, since it appears to be a collection of both verifiable history and Myanmar myths, it may be used as a valid source for some topics, but with others, it is important to remember that not all of the Glass Palace Chronicle is factually true. With this in mind, it is quite possible that the story of Nga Ramankan was highly embellished. RevZoe (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment: What can be done to further improve copy-editing issues and reduce NPOV?
This article has recently gone through a major reworking for copy-edit issues and NPOV removal. What areas of the article still need work as regards these two issues?


 * I went to some trouble to outline critical thinking and organizational problems, above.Levalley (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I went to some trouble to remove those critical thinking and organizational problem outlined above ^_^ Note that over the course of my edits, the raw size of the article has been reduced by a third. RevZoe (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Attempted revival of merge discussion
So, should this article be merged? I believe it should. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (posting so that we can try to empty the February copyediting backlog): Personally, I think that the articles should be kept separate and the material on history can be merged to the history article... this is already pretty long, so I'm not sure if merging would be the right course of action. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's also what I thought. I just wanted to bring it back up. Could we possibly remove the template? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep separate Both articles are already quite long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladeofgrass (talk • contribs)
 * I'd say that the history merge from here to the "history of arrival" article can be done, and then a copyedit can be effected. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The consensus of the two merge discussions on this page appear to be to merge the articles; I will make an effort to do so tonight. I realize this article is already pretty long so I will try to remove redundant material after the merger. Jminthorne (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I performed the merge and cleaned it up as well as I could but it still needs a lot of work. Jminthorne (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
I suggest that, in order to keep this page a somewhat manageable size, we archive all sections up to and including Ibid. What are the other editor's thoughts on this? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree I would go a bit farther, as the discussion of the Glass Palace Chronicle and admin tags are both very old subjects, with single new comments. Simply because the persons involved with this article have altered significantly, and the issues under discussion have changed so much, those older subjects have no relevance, take up a lot of space, and create a fairly negative impression of the article. While the article may contain some POV still, for instance, it is difficult to not view it as completely biased after reading some of the discussion. RevZoe (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree POV and verbal diarrhoea characterize the creator of this and many other related articles that together, not least the Talk pages, look like the work of a one man Burmese Islamic lobby. Unfortunately all too transparent and long-winded to help his cause. Wagaung (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Smiley.svg|left|62px]]

Hello Islam in Burma, Darz kkg has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * I am proud because of your comment Mr Wagaung. Thank you for helping in editing my articles and for contributing some photos including the photos of Mosques in Burma. I even take your remarks against me as indirectly praising me. I am sad that although there are a lot of great and capable Burmese Muslim intellectuals, no one is willing to help us to improve the Wikipedia Muslim articles. May be this is also a blessing in disguise from Allah to give me a prominent place as a lone ranger Burmese Islamic lobbyist at least in cyberspace of the Burmese Muslim history.--Darz kkg (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree I will start an archival bot on the talk page tonight. Jminthorne (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, added. It should do its first archival tonight. Jminthorne (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Islam in Burma
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islam in Burma's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceB": From Islam in Iran: یافته های طرح آمارگیری جامع فرهنگی کشور، فضاهای فرهنگی ایران، آمارنامه اماکن مذهبی، 2003، وزارت فرهنگ و ارشاد اسلامی، ص 263 From Islam in South Africa: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-05-30-80-chance-of-world-cup-terrorist-attack 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read this article only recently, and was very surprised. I do not doubt the effort put in by the original author, he gives a wealth of details, but his presentation appears quite loop-sided in favour of Muslim contributions to Burma during the times of the Burmese kings.

The Mon kingdom (Razadarit), the kings of the Toungoo dynasty, and the Konbaung dynasty used foreign soldiers, often as mercenaries. But not all were Muslims (from India or elsewhere), they also employed Portughese. The prisoners of war settled in Shwebo district were Roman Catholic Portughese, not Muslims. Their descendants still live there: Christians, not Muslims. Portughese were also involved in medieval ARAKAN (and Chittagong, under Arakanese rule in the Mrauk-U period), many but not ALL foreigners in Arakan were Moslems. The description of the contribution to Burma by immigrants from British India during the British rule (1826-1948)is also loop-sided: Hindu Indians also came to Burma in large numbers. The Burmese gave the name "Kalar" to all Indians whether Hindus or Muslims The name is derived from "kula"(= family, caste), so it was first applied to Hindus.

Source: Aya Chan: "The Development of a Muslim Enclave in Arakan (Rakhine) State of Burma (Myanmar), c 2005, SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research  The Rohingya came to Arakan chiefly under British rule. The British encouraged the 'Zamindar' system - big landholders, employing poor landless workers, - not local villagers working their own land. The country was easier to rule in this way: the landlords were grateful to the British, and the workers were so downtrodden, they only did what the landlords told them. After the Burmese conquest in 1784 a lot of agricultural land in Arakan had become deserted, even irrigated rice fields. The Arakanese had been killed, fled to Chittagong, or been taken as prisoners of war to Upper Burma. The British administration sold most of this land to Muslims from neighbouring Chittagong. These Bengali landlords imported landless workers from their own home districts to work the fields. That is the reason why northern Arakan has so many uneducated Muslim farmers, quite different from other parts of Burma, where Muslims are descended from merchants, soldiers or skilled professionals. There was no border between Arakan and Chittagong. In the British days Arakanese farmers returning to claim their ancestral farms had few chances against the Bengali landlords, they became landless in their own old home. This situation lasted over a hundred years. It is the background for the present hatred between Buddhist Arakanese Muslim Bengalis in Arakan.

But during World War II the enmity increased. The British fled Burma before the Japanese, most Indians left with them. The Burmese and other indigenous people like the Arakanese stayed. The British gave weapons to the Muslims in Arakan to fight the Japanese. But they started killing the defenceless Arakanese farmers in the neighboring villages; 20.000 Buddhist Rakhine died including the Deputy Commissioner of Akhyab (= Sit-twe). There was retaliation by the Burmese Independence Army (Rohingya Massacre March 1942, 5.000 dead),later cruel persecution by the Japanese army. 40.000 Rohingya fled to Chittagong. (see articles on "History of Rakhine", "Rohingya Massacre", "Battle of Kohima").

After independence (in 1947/48)urban Indians, Hindus as well as Muslims frequently applied for Indian or Pakistani citizenship, but remained in Burma, uncertain whether it would be possible to make a new life in their ancestral home. But Indians from East Bengal were most reluctant to return, because this region became more and more troubled economically as well as politically. Soon after independence when all agricultural land owned by foreigners was nationalised, the poor uneducated Rohingya farmers had become freed from landlords, and become de-facto-owners of the land worked by them. On return to Chittagong, they would have nothing, because their ancestors had been landless workers there.

After 1962 the military government of Burma pushed out almost all foreigners. Many Indians, both Hindu and Muslims,left in 1964/65. Amongst those remaining (for mixed reasons) - mostly Indians and Chinese - arose a scramble for Burmese citizenship, until the Burmese government stopped citizenship applications completely between 1962-1970. When citizenship applications became possible again, the law of 1982 excluded the Rohingya, and other "Indian" minorities like the Gurkha and Nepali immigrated into the Shan States under British rule. Even Bengali Buddhists (Barua clan) received citizenship only by lottery system, i.e. in a family of twelve, father immigrated from East Bengal under British rule, mother born in Burma, but from Barua clan, only half the children received Burmese citizenship by drawing lots. [own personal observation] 26th August 2013 Daw Onmar (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You extensively rely on the NOTORIOUS, RACIST, Anti-Muslim and Anti-Rohingya Aye Chan who refused or even dare not debate with Muslim Professionals on his FAKE Rakhine and Rohingya history. So it is no wonder your whole comments became bias..we are writing about Muslims, you are welcome to contribute about other races and religions in other articles.Darz kkg (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove Byat wi Byat ta history from Islam
There is no creditable source that Byat wi and Byat ta were Islam.Moreover That two brothers story were mixed with myths rather than facts.Another point is even their history/biography ,their origin was unknown (that didn't mean they were islam) and they were seen in water at very young (found in the basket at sea by a monk and raised up by a monk).They could only be Islam if the monk is an islam(just joking).Here is the source.

https://books.google.com/books?id=pQuqAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=Byat+wi+Byat+ta+google+book&source=bl&ots=Ga3qPKei-F&sig=zNLZFKc6KKShJ9Up0Tw5qyzx5N4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiogKPMsIbKAhXGLSYKHVM5DScQ6AEINjAG#v=onepage&q=Byat%20wi%20Byat%20ta%20google%20book&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=MZwU0SNKchoC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=Byat+wi+Byat+ta+google+book&source=bl&ots=sEXvtqf1VF&sig=XIf3GJ12aqQi5u9xG5_mhM2fjVg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiogKPMsIbKAhXGLSYKHVM5DScQ6AEIQzAJ#v=onepage&q=Byat%20wi%20Byat%20ta%20google%20book&f=false

I know the source they are claiming as

https://books.google.com/books?id=BzfX3rveExYC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=Byat+wi+Byat+ta+google+book&source=bl&ots=FFyhRjfW7m&sig=ODkTXKBmKhGpG_N3PpvckELehuk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiogKPMsIbKAhXGLSYKHVM5DScQ6AEIMDAE#v=onepage&q=Byat%20wi%20Byat%20ta%20google%20book&f=false

But with any logic 2 unknown small child even fit in the Basket ,raised by a monk is very unlikely to be Islam.Even they are Islam they cannot be part of Nat (old folk religion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htunsanmyat (talk • contribs) 15:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove Na Ya Man Kan from History of Islam
Claiming kan and khan close in sound and same is a joke.Kan is blind in Burmese.Even in today Burmese Kan mean blind.Because Yaman is one eye Blind.He is clearly Ethnic Mon and Buddhist.That Battle are just context of Mon and Burmese culture in Early Bagan Era.Don't make fabricated story.He was documented in Burmese glass chronicle .That is correct.But read that chronicle.He is Mon.

Here is Yamankan true story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamankan

Nga means not royal ordinary man and equivalent of Mr in Western culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htunsanmyat (talk • contribs) 15:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)