A news item involving 2016 Rohingya persecution was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 February 2017. |
A news item involving 2016 Rohingya persecution was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 November 2017. |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Myanmar may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 9, 2018. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ 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)
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".
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.
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. - Ascetic Rosé 02:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@ 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.
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)
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)
Interested editors are invited to review and edit the recently created article Tula Toli Massacre. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.) - Ascetic Rosé 14:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A news item involving 2016 Rohingya persecution was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 February 2017. |
A news item involving 2016 Rohingya persecution was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 November 2017. |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Myanmar may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 9, 2018. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ 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)
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".
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.
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. - Ascetic Rosé 02:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@ 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.
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)
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)
Interested editors are invited to review and edit the recently created article Tula Toli Massacre. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.) - Ascetic Rosé 14:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)