Talk:2016 Rohingya persecution

Neutrality?

@AsceticRose: says that this article doesn't violate WP:NPOV and that my comments are irrational about it are irrational, so here is my concern. This article has far less to do with current events and is more aimed at criticism of the Myanmarese government. Only two editors have substantially contributed to this article. The tone is also not neutral, the term "persecution" is used up to 4 times in the first section alone. The article also makes no use of stats. The last time I checked there were only 89 deaths attributed to the crackdown in Rakhine state (the actual number is certainly much higher, I'm not disputing that) but even if it were to say 1,000 or 2,000 far more people have been killed in a crackdown on Kachin State recently. Lastly no effort has been made to have more editors edit this article, in my opinion is reflects the point of view of two editors. I don't believe these editors are ill-willed or mean wrong but it needs a more diverse group of contributors in my view. Inter&anthro (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Another user had also expressed that this article was unbalanced, but you also undid their edit and claimed that it was not an issue. Inter&anthro (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Many of your comments and edits indeed appear bizarre and irrational. You added a pov because ‘only two’ editors have participated. Remember that that Wikipedia is a voluntary project. You can’t compel or demand others to participate in any specific article, nor can you blame them if they do not participate. You can’t add a pov tag without pointing out which part of the article is pov and how it is pov. And one should first raise his concern at the talk, and if he can prove that there is pov element, only then s/he can place a tag. These are maintenance tags and can be used only when needed.

As you said ‘This article has far less to do with current events and is more aimed at criticism of the Myanmarese government’, I should remind you that Wikipedia is not censored. Over the crackdown issue, the government of Myanmar was widely criticized as is evident in almost all the sources, and this has been reflected in the article. If you think any current event should get a place permitted by source, you are free to add, without complaining.

You said The tone is also not neutral, the term "persecution" is used up to 4 times in the first section alone. The term is in fact used 2 times. Even if it were 4 or more, it would not be a problem. Do you mean to say that using the term “persecution" four times makes an article non-neutral? Which policy says this? How can you prove this? In an article which is about persecution on a people, it is very natural that the term may appear frequently. If needed, it can be used more than 4 times. It depends on the need.

You deleted the airstrike attack information saying In one of the sources this is not mentioned at all, in the other it is "alleged" and only briefly mentioned. But you were wrong clearly. The Guardian source indeed mentions it: The army has deployed infantry and helicopters to fight what it says is an armed insurgency, but Rohingya say soldiers have raped and killed civilians. About 90 people have died. And the Al Jazeera source rather clearly mentioned it, and the mentioning is not ‘alleged’, but conclusive:

In one incident on November 12, following an alleged skirmish between the army and villagers armed mostly with swords and other simple weapons, helicopter gunships descended on a village and sprayed bullets indiscriminately, killing civilians fleeing in a panic, Amnesty said. This was corroborated to an extent by Myanmar army officials, who said helicopters opened fire that day and killed six people, who officials said were "insurgents".

'briefly mentioned' is not an excuse. When at least one reliable source is saying something, you can’t delete it. If you think any correction is needed, you should do it instead of deletion. -AsceticRosé 05:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@AsceticRose: calling people "irrational" just because they disagree with you seems pretty irrational itself. In the source you provided for the gunship attack there was no mention what so ever in one of the sources and only briefly mentioned in the Al Jazeera article. You are indeed correct about the guardian article put it was until a recent edit that it was used as a reference. I never blamed no compulsed anyone to edit any article so I don't see your argument there. Another editor had also raised this issue but you again brushed it off. The tone of this article again is unbalanced, until a recent edit you mentioned multiple times that Aung San Su Kyi was a Noble Peace Prize winner as if to mock her. This only needs to be mentioned once. I give you credit for your recent edits to the article fixing some of these issues but you need to realize that your tone is unbalanced and shouldn't be hostile to other editors being skeptical of some of your edits. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong again; I called your comments and edits irrational, not people. You must differentiate between things. And it is pathetic to see that you continue to use ambiguous comments like In the source you provided for the gunship attack there was no mention what so ever in one of the sources and only briefly mentioned in the Al Jazeera article. It is not clear what you mean by this. Every source I provided mention gunship attack. In this edit, another editor shifted the text the State Counsellor of Myanmar (de facto head of government) and a Nobel laureate to a new place which I did not notice, so in my fix edit, I added this to its previous place thinking that the editor had mistakenly deleted it. And I corrected it when I got the case. But I don't see how it mocks her. -AsceticRosé 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Validity of subject and statements, and Inadequate attention by Wikipedia editors

This article, as of the present, clearly reflects the findings of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the U.S. Department of State, both of which have officially catalogued nearly all of the asserted claims in this article, and published them in official reports.

To make that clear, I've added reference citations to these official documents and reports at appropriate places throughout the text, validating nearly every claim of atrocity.

I've also added more thorough background information, putting the situation in the context of the overall Myanmar/Burma situation, and adding important demographic statistics, to improve factual context and reader grasp of the issue, and provide a clearer sense of proportion to the issues.

The inadequate attention given this issue on Wikipedia -- despite the dramatic documents from the U.N. and U.S. government, and scathing reports from nearly every major international media outlet -- raise seroius questions about the level of performance of Wikipedia.

This may be partly due to the fact that English-language Wikipedia pages are dominated by Americans, British and Australians -- all from countries exhausted, in recent years, by their nation's involvement with issues of war and refugees.

As politicians in all those countries have noted -- and as their recent national elections have all reflected -- the voters of these nations have lost interest in solving the rest of the world's problems, or accepting any responsibility for them.

That attitude is likely reflected in the attitudes of English-language Wikipedians from those countries, as well -- hence the dearth of attention to this issue from Wikipedians.

Right or wrong, the shortage of coverage of this article by other editors does NOT constitute a lack of validity, significance, relevance or urgency of this topic.

Remember, we English-speakers, once exhausted from World War I, turned our eyes away from Hitler, as he rose to power, and began his march.

Indifference of the many doesn't invalidate the concerns of the few.

~ Penlite (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

'Background' section: Why so long

I see that now attempts are being made to unnecessarily expand the background section. The article is on 2016–17 persecution on Rohingya people. Too much details on past incidents in not only irrelevant but also a distraction to the topic of the article. When I created the article, I briefly mentioned the background information and cited the police camp attacks in the same background section because this police camp attacks were the background of the issue. I see that this has been forked into two sections unnecessarily.

I don't have much opportunity to work on them now as I'm about to semi-retire from Wikipedia. Please try to keep things RELEVANT. -AsceticRosé 02:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

'Background' section & official/major references

@Rosé While I understand your position, and a review of the wiki article Rohingya people shows links to other topics that cover the prior events, this article, nevertheless, cannot stand on its own without a much more robust background section, which gives real context to the events of 2016-2017.

This was, at the time, of particular importance because Google was responding to searches for the word "Rohingya" by posting a link to this article (on the critical first page of Google search findings). It was very eye-catching, and a normal reader would have likely picked this as their first choice (at least from Wikipedia) to review on the subject of the Rohingya issue. To have them arrive at this article, with little or no context "background" to review before diving into the immediate affair, would leave them with no substantial reference for understanding these issues, or their gravity. Period.

The article previously gave little evidence that could have indicated any clear rationale for the alleged Rohingya attack on the police station -- the allegation that became the Myanmar government's official excuse for the "crackdown" that followed.

In fact, the "crackdown" background paragraph cited only one source for that pivotal alleged event -- the Myanmar Times, arguably a very biased publication in a nation that has a long history of majority discrimination against its various ethnic and religious minorities (according to U.N. and U.S. official documents that I itemized in source reference citations in my edits of 12-14 February 2017).

Which brings me to my next concern: The unilateral eradication of nearly all my edits, (-6,188 characters), which I had produced cautiously and conscientiousy -- with much development, examination and citation of sources -- over three days. That unilateral mass-deletion of 15 February 2017 by User:GeneralAdmiralAladeen, with no explanation on the Talk page, let alone any effort at discussion or the development of consensus before that drastic act, verges on outright vandalism.

While his explanation in the Edit page -- "Wikipedia is not a blog and must retain neutral wording and language. Removing/changing some content due to WP:POV and WP:VER.)" makes some sense, it does not fully justify such a large, unilateral act.

I agree that the text (when I found it, and began editing it), was troubled by excessive use of subjective langague -- and, in fact, the term "persecution" (though arguably valid) is quite arguably a subjective term inappropriate for Wikipedia, in the body text, not to mention in the title. But in my edits, I did not want to presume to reword it, leaving that discretionary call to other, more senior Wikipedians.

However, in my edits, I took great care to focus on clarifying, providing essential context for the issue, and much more robust and solid documentation from reputable online official sources -- including the actual official U.N. and U.S. reports quoted, directly or indirectly, by the other cited sources. While I recognized the value of supportive references from credible major media to underscore (even interpret or evaluate) the official documents, those official documents remain the most solid and direct evidence for the various allegations made throughout the article.

And we're not talking official statements from a flaky third-world country. We're talking about official statements from the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the U.S. State Department, in special reports they've issued, recently, on this specific article's subject. (I've also since located a similar report from the European Union).

In my edits of 12-14 February 2017 (which, by the way, were considerably more WP:NPV than the text I found from prior editors), I used those official source documents to document nearly every allegation of atrocity that had been inserted by previous editors, plus a few significant additional ones I noted from the source documents -- by carefully, meticulously putting the appropriate reference citations next to each item at issue. It was a LOT of work.

In gutting the article of nearly all my edits, and much of previous editors' text, in one massive deletion on 15 February 2017, User:GeneralAdmiralAladeen not only stripped out background material and subjective language, but these official references that are such significant evidence, and so fundamental to the remarks of the comparatively tertiary sources cited, instead.

I'd like to re-insert these citations of critical official references, in the appropriate places (without deleting the existing tertiary references that refer to them) -- but it's a lot of work, and senseless to do over again if there's just going to be another obliteration of my work.

Please advise, fellow editors, how I should proceed on this, and how I should deal with these kinds of situations in the future.

I have very limited time for this work, but this is not the first time that my hard work has been scrubbed, rather indiscriminately, and made me question whether Wikipedia is a sensible use of my time.

~ Penlite (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

A few comments. First, please avoid talk page posts this lengthy; it tends to drive down responses. Second, none of your work is actually lost, as it is retained in the page history, and can be retrieved with minimal effort. Third, and more importantly, I'm afraid Wikipedia does not give much weight to government documents, as these tend to be WP:PRIMARY sources with little to no editorial oversight; far better to cite scholarly sources, but when these are scant, reliable news sources are the next best thing. Finally, about article structure; Wikipedia tries to place a reasonable limit on article size; which means that in any given article, background needs to be a reasonable length as compared to the rest of the page; if more information is available, it should be in a separate article, that this one can link to. WP:SUMMARY might be helpful reading here. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate paragraph

The last paragraph under Crackdown which starts with "On 3 February, the Office" seems to be a duplicate of the last paragraph in Criticism but with different sources. S. Kazuma (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@S. Kazuma: One of the paragraphs have been removed. Thank you for bringing this to attention. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 18:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Disputed

Tags in the info box, yet not seeing anything on the talk page for them? Ethnic cleansing and genocide are pretty serious issues, so what are the disput over these descriptions? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

On ethnic cleansing, neither source supports the claim, so I will be removing that. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

On genocide, same as before so removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph on Aung San Suu Kyi does not mention that despite her position of 'chief of government', she has no control over Burmese army and she cannot stop whatever is happening in the province.Myanmar is not democratic country and her position is in fact rather weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.60.6.163 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed again per WP:V Darkness Shines (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

New article: Tula Toli Massacre

Interested editors are invited to review and edit the recently created article Tula Toli Massacre. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Map is a little weird...

The map inset shows a region much larger than the state in question. Hard to tell where it is on the region map. Is this intentional or...? Just trying to figure out where this is :) Mercster (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Info boxes

Three infobox's are a bit much, if nobody minds I'll remove two of them. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sections out of chronological order

I moved one section to its correct place in chronological order. This makes the article easier to read. 49.194.29.38 (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the change, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Quick index to articles & reports from major sources

For those exhausted with wading through Google, weeding out useless links, digging for the substantial and timely sources on this issue, a website called "ROHINGYA CRISIS NEWS" provides a fairly decent, frequently updated, list of hundreds of links to past and recent English-language major media articles on the Rohingya situation (e.g: Associated Press , Reuters , BBC , New York Times , Times of India, Dhaka Tribune etc.)

The articles are listed chronologically, and most of their titles are fairly descriptive. Some articles are also summarized. Apparently all the listings link directly to the original article and source.

The list also has sections for background articles from major sources (e.g.: Council on Foreign Relations, Human Rights Watch, etc.) and official reports and statements from the U.N., U.S. State Dept., and major human-rights organizations.

The site is produced by an American civic activist, apparently (identified on the site), and appears to have a pro-Rohingya bias (though many of the articles listed present "both sides" of the story, and Al Jazeera -- the most prolific and pro-Rohingya major media on this issue -- is only cited as a source twice, and only in conjunction with other corresponding major sources).

Generally, the indexed articles seem fairly representative of prevailing coverage of the topic in English-language major media, globally. "ROHINGYA CRISIS NEWS"

~ Penlite (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Article haphazard, case complicated

This article was created on the event of Rohingya persecution of 2016, and that’s why, it was named 2016 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar. As the persecution somehow continued during the early part of 2017, an editor renamed it 2016–17 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar. That renaming was technically correct but not necessary, I believe. Things got complicated when another event of persecution occurred in August-September period of 2017, and editors started incorporating this event into this very article, and ultimately again renamed this article Rohingya persecution in Myanmar. What is worse, a similar article, Northern Rakhine State clashes, was created.

Now, the problems are that (a) it is a grave mistake to call this article Rohingya persecution in Myanmar because it does not deal with the overall Rohingya persecution which the name wrongly suggests; rather it only deals with the 2016-17 event. Rohingya/Muslim persecution in Myanmar dates back to 1970s. And for the overall coverage of the events, we already have an article Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar that includes old events as well as events of 1997, 2001, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016 incidents. Thus it is the parent article. (b) The article Northern Rakhine State clashes is in fact, a duplicate article of Rohingya persecution in Myanmar. The scope of both the articles is the same, and they cover the same thing (Rohingya persecutions of 2016-17 in Myanmar) which is inconsistent with WP policies. See WP:CONTENTFORK. (c) Our present article (Rohingya persecution in Myanmar) is much haphazard, as I see it. The 2016 event (started in October 2016) and 2017 event (started in August 2017) of Rohingya persecutions were separate events. Their triggering event, crackdowns, criticisms, and results were separate. Unfortunately, by reading this article, an unfamiliar reader will not get a proper picture as to which event followed what, and which event resulted in what. This article accommodates the two persecution events disorderly, and I fear it will fail to serve its purpose.

Given that the 2016 and 2017 persecution incidents were separate events, I think it is much better to represent the two incidents in two separate articles which is the usual practice in Wikipedia. In this backdrop, the simplest way I see is (a) to devote the Rohingya persecution in Myanmar article to the 2016 event only and rename it 2016 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar; and (b) to devote the Northern Rakhine State clashes article to 2017 event only and rename it 2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar.

Is there any better idea than this?

(Involved editors already know that the 2017 persecution events are much more notable, widespread, and severe than those of 2016, and it has drawn a large-scale international attention and criticism.) -AsceticRosé 14:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Is no one interested here? -AsceticRosé 00:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge into Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar, leave redirect

• The degree of logical overlap between these two articles is very large. Roughly half of the Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar article (including half its lede) is about the topic of this article. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see the nominator's reasoning here, but the simply enormous amount of news coverage this persecution has received has tended to describe the phenomenon as Rohingya specific, and as a mixture of religious and ethnic persecution, rather than as purely a subset of the persecution of Muslims. As such, I see them as distinct topics with substantial overlap, and separate articles are appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Undiscussed split

AsceticRose It occurs to me that you should have obtained consensus for the split you just performed, because I for one am not very happy about it: the sources I've read, and there's a good many, tend to treat this as a single topic. If there's too many disparate incidents, that's grounds for creating a spinoff list (or spinoff stubs); not really for halving the article. Vanamonde (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mea culpa, I missed the post above as I was on break. Nonetheless, I agree that the coverage of the sheer number of isolated incidents need to be brought under control in some fashion, but I still believe an overview of "Rohingya persecution in Myanmar" is necessary. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I also disagree with the split, and will be reverting. There are no need if two articles, like V say am all we have to do is trim minor carp and the article size will be fine. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, the split was not Undiscussed as you first said. I started a discussion on this over one month ago. I was seeing that editors were editing this article but not participating in the discussion. When after my second notification no one participated, I had no other way but to do what I thought better for the article.

As for your concern, I mentioned in my first post above what the problems were with this article. Because of unplanned amalgamation of the two events (2016 and 2017), the article became haphazard. Think about a reader who is not familiar with these events. By reading this article, he will hardly get how the events unfolded. Again, my apprehension about the title “Rohingya persecution in Myanmar” came true. Lingzhi confused it with “Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar” and requested for a merge.

The title Undiscussed split gave DS a chance to revert my edit with an edit summary “Split without discussion”. He did not even wait for my reply. I could have reverted his edit, but given that his editing style is extremely bad-mannered, and he is a king of edit-warring, I halted for now. -AsceticRosé 16:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

AsceticRose I have already recognized that you started a discussion here. I am not disagreeing with you about the problem you point out, so let's set that aside, and try to find a solution. If the page is haphazard, then we should fix its organization; not break it in two! From my reading of the sources, this much is clear to me: 1) Muslims have faced persecution in Myanmar, and this has received attention in RS. 2) Rohingya Muslims have been persecuted in Myanmar, and this, too, has received attention in RS that is specific to the Rohingya. 3) The persecution of the Rohingya, and retaliatory violence against the government/other ethnicities, has intensified and received a lot of attention in the last couple of years, but is by no means limited to these years. Moreover, even when the sources refer to contemporary persecution, they do not refer to it in a year-specific manner: either they refer to all contemporary issues, or to individual incidents.

Given all of this, it seems fairly clear we need an article examining the persecution of Muslims, and a more detailed spinoff about the Rohingya: ie, this page. If this page is being overwhelmed by trivial detail, we have a few options: we could make yet another spinoff about contemporary persecution, we could make a list-type article to cover specific incidents and only provide an overview here, or we could create spinoffs for individual incidents and provide an overview here.

My personal preference is for the second option: to create a timeline or such (which needn't even be separate, it could be a section here) that would contain detail extraneous to a prose description of this phenomenon. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that you thought for some solutions for the present issue.

I see some problems here. First, if you want to make it an article which will summarize the recent Rohingya persecutions, then the question is we already have an article for this: Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar (pleas have a look here). It summarizes the old as well as recent 2012, 2013, 2016 incidents. It is somewhat a parent and a list-type article (which you proposed above). Second, if we name this article Rohingya persecution in Myanmar and then accommodate only 2016 and 2017 incidents, then the question is Rohingya persecution is not limited to 2016 and 2017 incidents. It has occurred in 2012, in 2013, in 2015. Third, if you want this article to represent the 2016 and 2017 incidents at separate 2 sections, then the question is what will happen to other sections, how the sections will be arranged, how the lead will start. Currently, the article is disorganized. If we have to wholly re-organize it, then who will do it? I’m already hard-pressed by time.

And Vanamonde93, one more thing. My 2016 and 2017 separation was not year-specific as you might have thought; it was event-specific. For example, we have the article 2012 Rakhine State riots. Now, the creator was NOT listing the events of 2012 under this article in a year-wise fashion; rather he named it 2012 Rakhine State riots because the incident occurred in the year 2012. This is what the usual practice is in Wikipedia; and I was trying to do the same with the 2016 and the 2017 incidents.

Another thing is that all the sources I have seen treat the 2017 persecution (which started on 25 August 2017) as a separate incident. They do not amalgamate it with 2016 incident (which started on 9 October 2016). For example, when sources mention the refugee numbers or death tolls which took place since 25 August 2017, then give the statistics of the 2017 incident only; they do not include the statistics of 2016 persecution incident which roughly took place in October-December period. -AsceticRosé 15:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

AsceticRose I think we're moving along parallel tracks here and somehow not meeting, so let me keep this brief. I am not opposed to subsidiary, incident-specific, articles being of the form "persecution [...] in YYYY". What I am opposed to is doing away with the overview, because the sources make it clear that Rohingya persecution is related to language and ethnicity in addition to religion, and therefore the "persecution of Muslims" article is inadequate as an overview, though a summary should naturally be included there too. A "Persecution of the Rohingya" overview would be an overview of all historical incidents, not just the contemporary ones. Vanamonde (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

So Vanamonde93, you are saying that there should be a new main article something like Rohingya persecution in Myanmar which will cover/summarize all the persecution events (past and present), and there will be event-specific two separate articles for 2016 and 2017 as we have 2012 Rakhine State riots, and 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis, right? If I'm missing something, point it out. And if I’m right, then a definite question is what will be our process for that purpose (e.g. will a new main article be created, what will be the fate of this current article, will this article be split into two as I did?)

Once we have concrete answers to these questions, I think we are close to a decision. (Our one advantage is that the detailed background section present in this very article can be used as a ‘Background’ section for the main article.) -AsceticRosé 06:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@AsceticRose: Yes, absolutely, that is what I mean. I am not too particular about whether the "new" article is the overview or the 2016 article or the 2017 article, but I suspect it will be easier to create a new "overview" page than it will be to prune this down. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that creating a new “overview” page will be easier and more pragmatic than reducing any existing page to it. What should the name be, Rohingya persecution in Myanmar or Persecution of Rohingya in Myanmar?

As for the 2016 and the 2017 articles, I can take care of them. But the question is, will we use the previous common names 2016 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar and 2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar or new more accurate names? If we use the previous common names, then Vanamonde93 first you need to move this very page to 2016 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar. I can’t do it because it involves first deleting the existing redirect page 2016 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar. Once it is done, anyone from us can restore the appropriate version to make this article ‘2016 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar’ as this is what the page originally was. About the 2017 article/event, we already have the article 2017 Rohingya persecution in Myanmar. We just need to restore the appropriate version.

Have I left anything, or we can jump to action? -AsceticRosé 15:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy to move the page, but I'd like Darkness Shines to weigh in, since they had issues with the previous page move. I think the overview should be located at Persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar, or even "Persecution of the Rohingya"; I don't think the country label is necessarily required, and there is a little outside-Myanmar material that could be included too. If DS doesn't respond in a day I'll go ahead and make the move, as an admin I can always revert myself with no associated cost. Vanamonde (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead with the move, this article is coming off my watch list as I have no intention of falling foul of the IBAN. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: Well, it seems fairly clear to me that Gilmore is in violation of the IBAN here, not you: [1], [2]. I'm not going to block them as I'm involved on this page, but I'd be happy to warn them off. If you'd still rather stay out of it, that's entirely up to you. Vanamonde (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are not IBAN violations mate, I've brought up what is obviously hounding at ANI, of course the usual solutions discussed are ever more sanctions on me, typical really. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, as I said, your call. Cheers. AsceticRose I've made the move: but it occurs to me now that the structure of the title is odd, grammatically, and that it really should read "2016 persecution of the Rohingya" or "Persecution of the Rohingya in 2016" or something like that: I'm really doubting now whether the "in Myanmar" is required. Vanamonde (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, it is nice that you initiated the improvement process. As for the title, it is not grammatically odd. Rather, I see that it is the usual style in Wikipedia. For example, examine the other similar titles: 2016 Nice attack (NOT 2016 attack of Nice or 2016 attack in Nice); November 2015 Paris attacks (NOT November 2015 attacks of Paris); 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting (NOT 2016 shooting of Orlando nightclub); 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (NOT 2014 conflict of Israel–Gaza). I'll add more comment soon... -AsceticRosé 16:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

(…Continuing with the above) The fact is that for event-specific articles, straightforward titles have usually been used rather than descriptive ones. Our one natural disadvantage here is that we have two items here: Rohingya and Myanmar unlike one item like Nice (as in 2016 Nice attack) or Israel-Gaza (as in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict). But that is not a problem, of course.

For overview-article titles, I see that somewhat descriptive titles are used like Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, Violence against Muslims in India, Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars, Torture during the Algerian War of Independence, Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. So you see that country label is usual. For the overview article, I will advocate for either Persecution of Rohingya in Myanmar or Persecution of Rohingya people in Myanmar, dropping the the as per title norm and adding country-label because Rohingya persecution exclusively occurs within the Myanmar territory. You can add outside-Myanmar material, but that is not persecution-material. I'll be happy if Darkness Shines also presents their preference about the title.

Ive already split the article. And Vanamonde93, you have not yet moved the talk-page which seems awkward and inconsistent with the article page! -AsceticRosé 02:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the absence. RL has become busy again for me, I'll see when I have the time to look over the articles again (I've been on Wikipedia, but I think I need a good long section of time to deal with these pages). I'm okay with the title for this, and I would be okay with "Persecution of Rohingya" (the "the" seems needed to me somehow, but not a big deal); but I do think there's material about the persecution they have faced outside (such as the planned relocation to some dreadful island, by the Bangladeshi government) which is not substantive enough for a standalone; conversely, there's no reason to geographically limit the overview when that is not going to introduce size constraints. Vanamonde (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Images added

I just went through and added relevant images to this page. It should paint a clear visual idea of what is happening, at least that is the hope. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)