Talk:Rohingya conflict/Archive 1

"Insurgency" implies value judgement
The heavily politicized nature of the word 'insurgency' carries connotations of a value judgement.

The word 'rebellion' is strongly suggested as a reasonably neutral replacement in order to avoid the appearance of bias.

Zen Technica (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am going to move the word 'insurgency' to 'conflict' which sounds more neutral and is in line with the naming of several other articles on Wikipedia on ethnic conflicts. If there are any objections, they may be discussed here.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Of the source material here, roughly half originates from the state-censored media of Myanmar and Bangladesh.

Zen Technica (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be great if you could mention specific books which you think are subject to censorship. I can't find any, at least from Burma. Note that there was no censorship in Burma before 1991. Moreover, most of the Burmese citations from this articles are published by expatriates. 203.81.175.247 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"no Rohynga in Myanmar" section
the section "no Rohynga in Myanmar" is currently chock-full of non-NPOV statements, perhaps due to the rising attention to this issue in the press. needs attention NOW & maybe some oversight/locking. the section is cut-and-pasted from what appears to be a machine translation of lecture (http://elevenmyanmar.com/politics/2801-no-rohingya-in-myanmar-professor-aye-chan-of-kanda-university) by a single professor whose credibility I can't judge, but the cut-and-paste makes it too often appear to be the Wikipedia POV rather than that professor's. I don't know enough about the situation to know how fully this claim should be included here, but right now it does not fit with the rest of the page. Wichitalineman (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The user of this IP 58.11.233.74 put "no Rohingya in Myanmar" section by copying and pasting from a website which is utterly not-at-all relevant to this wiki entry. This is a non-ethical act and the user can be assumed as a person doing a vandalism on this entry. Then, the act of another user: "97.96.3.33" who deleted most of those phrases of hundreds of words by saying "inflammatory language and racial slurs without citation" is totally acceptable. However, his/her deletion of thousand words of many sections of this entry, Section 3: Rohingya Militant Movements 3.1 Radicalist Movements (1971-1988) 3.2 Military Expansions and Connections with Taliban and Al-Qaeda (1988-2011) 4 Background conditions of the Rohingya Movements 4.1 Cycles of Migration and Repression 4.2 Perception on the possible causes 4.3 Rohingya rebels in media during Arakan State riots (2012) is utterly a VANDALISM... These sections already re-stored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevejaw (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The article has a biased epitome
It appears to me that the article is biased heavily towards Burmese Junta's official position against the Rohingyas. For the sake of neutrality the article must incorporate the other views of this issue. Regards Al-minar (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

-Not to be confused with Plight of the Rohingyas-

It is found that most of the facts used in this article come from the western sources such as research works of Moshe Yegar, Andrew Selth and media reports of journalists such as Bertil Lintner, William Gomes, etc, various Bangladeshi News Agencies, reports of the Amnesty International, and Wikileaks Cables sources. How could these sources be pro-military junta of Burma? Most parts of the article are facts on "the Rohingya insurgency" as provided by western writers and bangladeshi journalists. "Rohingya Militant Movements", which is different from "the plight of the Rohingyas", is a portion of "the History of Rohingyas" in Burma. -

Horribly written
This article is horribly written. It seems to in many ways be pushing a pro-Buddhist POV. Beyond that it is barely good English, with the use of articles often not working well. Its statements about Jinnah and his interaction with the people who wanted to join Pakistan are also very poorly worded.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia to fool the world
I have serious observations about this article. The community of world - 'United Nations' has accepted that Rohingyas are the most persecuted minority in the world. Press and other media is seriously censored in Burma. In this particular page, except one odd sentence, Burmese monks, government and courts have been supported with baseless stories of minority's links to Al-Qaida - The best and hot selling excuse for all the tyrants. I request Wikipedia to do the requisite moderation till the world knows - the other side of the story too. Dilazak1 15:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilazak1 (talk • contribs)

I restored the original title of this entry
On 14 December 2012, Mar4d changed the title from "Rohingya insurgency" to "Rohingya conflict". However, it is learned that most of the readers are confused between the armed movements of the Rohingya militants (who represented only less than 0.25% of the entire Rohingya population) and the Communal Conflict between the Rohingyas (the most persecuted people in the world) and the Rakhine people in Western Burma. Having an intention not to be confused, I restored the original title of this entry. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackxrays (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The amended title "Conflict" made readers confused
This article is about the insurgency waged by the militants. It is not about the Rohingyas. The change of the title from "insurgency" to "conflict" made readers confused. Some think, the conflict is still ongoing. That's correct. But, it is the communal conflict between the Rohingyas and the Rakhaing people. This article is about the armed struggle of some Rohingya armed groups who want to get the fundamental rights/ freedom in Burma. There are historical evidences for the armed struggle of the Rohingyas.

1. Mujahideen insurgency is well documented by Moshe Yegar, an authoritative work on separatist movements of Muslim minorities in Southeast Asia

2. Bertil Lintner and CNN video footage recorded about the movements of the Rohingya Solidarity Organization and Arakan National Rohingya Oraganization 3. Bangladeshi news agencies reported about some conspiracy of the remaining factions of Rohingya armed groups Above facts are main points quoted in this article. There is nothing to do with Burmese military government's censored publications.

Out of over 50 quotations, only four publications of Thit Maung, Khit Yay, Pho Kan Kaung and Kyaw Zan Tha's works are found to be published in Burma under the censorship. Therefore, only 8% of the quotations represent the Burmese censorship. The rest 92% are the academic works of foreign scholars, foreign media reports and the reports of Burmese expatriate News Agencies who were opposing the Burmese military government at that time.

Again, it is true that the Rohingyas are the most persecuted people around the world. But, this article is about the armed struggle of the Rohingya patriots (according to the Rohingyas) or militants (according to the Burmese government) and the elimination of the struggle by the Burmese military.

It is sad because the change of the title into "conflict" made the readers confused and got a certain impression from them that the article is pro-Burmese gov POV, etc. The article is not about the "communal conflict" and the "persecution of the Rohingyas" (There are separate entries about these issues - also referred them in this article) or about the history about the Rohingya people. You do not need to confuse between these topics.

For example, there are Wikipedia entries about Aung San Suu Kyi (Burmese lady), about her party National League for Democracy (NLD)(a Burmese political party) and about her country "Burma" (the country where Burmese people live). These three are different topics. The entry about "Aung San Suu Kyi" cannot be similar to "NLD", the entry about NLD cannot be similar to the Wiki entry about "Burma" although the entries are related to Burma.

Similarly, "Rohingya insurgency" cannot be similar to the "persecution of the Rohingyas" or "history of the Rohingya people" although it is related to the Rohingyas. We need to bear in our mind that "Rohingya insurgency" and "persecution of the Rohingyas" are part of the history of Rohingyas which are opposite (black and white) situations. Rohingya insurgency appeared to get their fundamental rights due to persecutions of the Burmese military government.

We need to understand it clearly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevejaw (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

understanding of the content
This ip 92.17.245.111 is editing without understanding the content of this entry. This entry was introduced in 2012 to discuss about the "insurgency/rebellion" of the Rohingya armed groups. Some one changed the title into "Rohingya conflict". The content is about the rebellion, not about the communal conflict between the Rohingyas and the Buddhist Rakhaing people/security forces of the state of Burma. Currently, no media reports show about the appearance of Rohingya miliants after 2012. This entry is not about the current conflict in Arakan State which is still ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevejaw (talk • contribs) 11:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

current ongoing conflict
if some body wanna discuss about current ongoing conflict, he/she should edit the entry "2012 rakhine state riots". that entry could be expanded by discussing the ongoing communal violence in rakhine state by using the title such as "rakhine state conflicts", etc. or, can discuss under "persecution of the burmese muslims". Any way, some paragraphs about the killing/persecution of the Rohingyas during the 2012 communal conflict/ and aftermath of this communal violence which is still ongoing- is inserted. Stevejaw (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

try to know the content of this entry (92.17.245.111)
hi user 92.17.245.111, you are editing this entry again and agian/ and repeatedly reverting it according to what you wants - without really realizing the content of this wiki entry which is about the "rebellion/insurgency of the rohingya armed groups". You are repeatedly editing this entry as the conflict between rohingyas (ordinary people) and the state of burma, sometimes involved by the buddhist rakhines. it is really out of content. please try to understand the content of this entry. if you want to edit/insert your words like this, you can go to the persecution of the muslims page and rakhine state riots page. the problem is- you never try to understand the content and you never seemed to visit this talk page to understand about the content. thank you! Stevejaw (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not only Content Dispute but a Disturbance Made by IP 92.17.245.111
Dear Admins,

I would like to present you a report about this entry. This page was created by me on 21 October 2012. The content is about the Rebellion of some Rohingya armed groups from Western Burma. The original title was "Rohingya insurgency in Western Burma" following the title of another wiki entry: "Insurgency in Aceh". However, due to some disputes on the use of "insurgency", the title was changed to "Rohingya conflict in Western Burma" on 14 December 2012 by another editor. Currently, more than 90% of this entry is still representing my work.

The entry is about the armed movements of certain Rohingya militants who merely represent less than 0.25% of the entire Rohingya population. However, because of the title "Rohingya conflict" some readers confused about the content. They started thinking the communal conflict between the Rohingya minorities and the majority Rakhine people/ and persecution of the Rohingyas, in Western Burma. Then, some complaints were received that the entry is pro-Rakhine/pro-Burmese government, etc. This is the impact of the change of the title into "conflict". Knowing this situation and with an intention not to happen "content dispute", an editor has recently changed the title into "Rohingya rebellion".

This entry has been suffering many disturbances from both Rohingyas and Rakhines; for example, by putting paragraphs such as "there is no Rohingya in Burma" section by certain users, supposedly the Rakhine people, (or) by deleting many portions of the entry supposedly by the Rohingyas. But, they did not disturb repeatedly, like this user, IP 92.17.245.111.

This user's edits are found mostly in the introduction part. And, discussing about the communal conflict between the two communities, namely Rohingya and Rakhines, and the oppression of the Rohingyas by the state of Burma. He/She argued "the conflict is still ongoing"- it is utterly this user's confusion between the armed struggle and the communal conflict. First, I reverted the edit but this user restored it again and again. In this situation, I integrated all the writings of this user in my edit. I also included persecutions of the Rohingyas. Also included the user's figures of the death toll of Rohingyas in the recent "communal conflict" (2012) even though it is not the content of this entry - which is "armed movement". Almost all the words of this user have been included to convey the neutral point- by also mentioning this user's words "the conflict is still ongoing" after citing his link on the "communal conflict". The modified edit also discuss that it is about the armed movements of certain Rohingya armed groups who only represent only less than 0.25% of the Rohingya population. Persecution of the Rohingyas was also discussed and links for "Persecution of the Muslims in Burma" and "2012 Rakhine State Riots" were also given. I have tried my best to "please" this user.

The problem is this user, IP 92.17.245.111. The user restored the old version of his/her own edits again and again. This is really a disturbance. The user even did not accept the new edit which tried to include his/her editing/discussions. So, it is utterly this user's arrogance. Finally, I would like to point out that it is not a content dispute. It is more than that. The user, IP 92.17.245.11, is arrogant and repeatedly restoring his/her own words- old version of his/her edits - without trying to accept the modification even though the modification utilized almost all of his/her edits or words in the modified version. Therefore, it is a disturbance although it cannot be considered as a "vandalism". But, I felt that it is a small vandalism. Stevejaw (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected page edit request: Removal of File:Nuru.jpg
Please remove the image File:Nuru.jpg in the June riots section. The file was deleted from Wikimedia Commons on 19 February 2014 by commons:user:Fastily(see commons:commons:Deletion requests/File:Nuru.jpg). -   t  u coxn \ talk 02:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't the best place to request an edit for that page... Fixing template call. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the best place. A page move on 18 February 2014 of to  did not move the corresponding talk page, i.e. this one. A subsequent move on 22 February 2014 of  to  did move the talk page - but the wrong one. I've regularised the situation - not perfectly - by moving this talk page to the proper place, but that has lost some history from the previous occupier of this position. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The existence of this file File:Nuru.jpg as seen in above request is somewhat showing the disturbing activities of (92.17.245.111). The file has been already deleted from Wikimedia Commons on 19 Feb 2014. But(92.17.245.111) restored the order version (old edits before February)on 20,21,22 and 23 February 2014, without accepting the modification of this article. The appearance of the dead-link of File:Nuru.jpg even after the protection of this page proved that (92.17.245.111) was restoring the old version without accepting the modification of the article by other editors. However, no body tried to stop the disturbing activity of this ip(92.17.245.111.) Blackxrays (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Protecting an article does not protect any of the images used by that article. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved by Nyttend as a procedural matter so the talk page matched the article. No prejudice against a future RM to discuss the actual title of the article and whether "insurgency" should be used. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Rohingya rebellion in Western Myanmar → Talk:Rohingya insurgency in Western Myanmar – I moved this to the wrong place by mistake, and now it wont let me fix it, please move this to the proper location. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC) — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose both English words "rebellion" and "insurgency" carry a lot of baggage. See the discussion above at "Insurgency" implies value judgement. In the 21st century "Insurgency" seems to be slightly more perjorative implying terrorism. --Bejnar (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article seems to have been moved to the insurgency title prior to this discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Excellent article
I find much to criticise at Wikipedia, but I do want to commend whoever has written this article for telling the truth about the so-called "Rohingyas," and for not blindly accepting the Muslim-victimhood narrative that most of the world's media has uncritically swallowed. Never mentioned in the media's usual narrative is the plight of the once-independent Rakhine people - conquered by Burma, annexed by the British, dispossessed in their own homeland by Bengali immigrants, killed, raped and terrorised by Islamist insurgents ever since independence. The correct solution to this problem is repatriating the Bengalis to Bangladesh, where the majority of them have already gone. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Rohingya insurgency in Western Myanmar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131004225635/http://www.narinjara.com/details.asp?id=2902 to http://www.narinjara.com/details.asp?id=2902
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131004231851/http://www.narinjara.com/details.asp?id=2918 to http://www.narinjara.com/details.asp?id=2918
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131004215916/http://www.narinjara.com/details.asp?id=3086 to http://www.narinjara.com/details.asp?id=3086

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fault in Image - representing india as chin state
Map representing Rohingya in Myanmar is not correct. How could you miss a small logic that Bangladesh doesn't share border with china? You mentioned INDIA as Chin State. This is not a small issue you have to face serious consequences. Please correct it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:618A:E9F4:B11:1746:D7FD:5562 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not know who "you" is, and I am not the person who created the map, but the map looks correct to me. Chin State is a state of Myanmar/Burma, and is not a misspelled version of the Chinese state (People's Republic of China). India is not (and should not be) in the map at all, it is a bit higher up and out of the section shown.
 * – GeneralAdmiralAladeen ( Têkilî min ) 03:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Extremely sorry for inconvenience please remove this comment completely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.48.51.218 (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)