Talk:Rohingya genocide

Two phases

Does anybody have a citation for this idea that the genocide occurred in two phases? If so, we should add the citation, and then possibly add headings for each phase, for increased organization. That would also solve issues with things like the article having two criticism sections as a level 1 heading. I imagine having two different criticism sections is left over from merges/moves? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

LibrarianForUnity, thanks for your help with the phase citations. Much appreciated. I've organized the article into one heading for each of the two phases. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight on international opinions

I haven't decided exactly how to handle it yet, but I have my eye on the two criticism sections and the large "Reactions" section. These sections are all related, and are basically the international opinion of the genocide. These sections combined are bigger than the actual content of the article, which to me is way too much weight. I thought about spinning out the "Reactions" section, but to my chagrin somebody already spun it out, and the spun out version is even bigger. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, the two criticism sections are actually a pretty good summary of all the international reactions. At this point I am thinking of moving all the country reactions to the International reactions to the Rohingya genocide article and then deleting them from this article. In my opinion, the criticism sections in this article adequately summarize the country reactions. Let me know if anybody objects, else I'll proceed in a day or two. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I support such a transfer of that material. This article is already way too bloated. Haffaz (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright. All the country reactions are moved to the other article. This article still has 3 sections titled "International reaction", which isn't ideal, but I don't think merging them would be an improvement. I am also thinking about moving the "Supranational organization" section into the "International reactions" article, but I am holding off for now because the UN ICJ investigations and similar investigations are fairly relevant to the genocide. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it over?

There is no content whatsoever on events past October 2020, and no content on the main topic past May 2020. Is the event over then? If so, why does the lead still act like it is ongoing? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Poor coverage in this article doesn't mean it's over. You'd have to find a reliable source saying that the genocide ended, but, rather, the fact of the matter is that the Myanmar government is still actively trying to keep the Rohingya out of the country. Haffaz (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

ICJ verdict is ongoing

There's an official investigation going on. No country uses the term in an official capacity. You can cite as many NGO sources as you wish.

1. https://www.state.gov/marking-the-fourth-anniversary-of-the-ethnic-cleansing-in-rakhine-state/ ('marking the fourth anniversary of ethnic cleansing in Rakhine State').
2. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/13/asia/myanmar-rohingya-uk/index.html ('UK says Rakhine situation looks like ethnic cleansing').

No photos of dead bodies or remains have ever surfaced. Many huts that belonged to both sides were burned. Today, there are daily photos of shootings, burnings, and dyings. Back then, the only real photos were of 200 Hindus massacred by the ARSA. Pak Thais (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There were also hundreds of thousands of Buddhists that fled the region too. But the difference was that they ran toward the Buddhist side (which is Myanmar's interior). Pak Thais (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pak Thais: This has been addressed before multiple times. If the majority of reliable sources call it a genocide, that is the terminology that will be used on Wikipedia. See #Article title: "genocide" definition vs. Rohingya persecution above. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andrewk1998 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The word genocide and WP:WikiVoice

Let me preface that I am in no way trying to downplay the atrocities committed against the Rohingya. It is rather obvious that the Burmese military has committed systemic mass killings/rapes/etc. against Rohingya people and it is already as bad as a genocide in terms of severity and heinousness - not to mention there is a credible case for a genocide determination and hence there is a current Rohingya genocide case at the ICC. However, I am wondering if it is appropriate according to Wikipedia's guidelines to describe these gross atrocities as "genocide" in wikivoice.

According to both the Genocide article on Wikipedia and the UN, genocide is a specific charge of intent which specifically applies when the acts are taken with the specific aim of destroying a group in part or whole. Contrary to popular belief, mass killings do not automatically qualify as genocide no matter the death toll and genocide can actually be committed without any killing (ex. via birth prevention, family separations). The Holodomor and the ongoing invasion of Ukraine for instance both involved mass murders that have been described as genocide (and a significant amount of scholarship agrees), but this is a controversial topic owing to the topic of genocidal intent. In contrast, cases such as the persecution of Uyghurs in China (which was also the subject of an RfC based on this topic) and the Sixties Scoop in Canada have both been labelled genocide despite scant evidence of mass killing.

Now obviously with the case of the Rohingya there is indeed a credible case that the events were genocide - a UN Fact Finding Mission did conclude that the state of Myanmar should be investigated for genocidal intent and the case is still ongoing at the ICC. In addition, there are WP:RS sources that use the term "genocide" in an unqualified manner (such as this OHCHR press release and Human Rights Watch). However, other WP:RS quality sources tend to avoid using the word "genocide" in an unqualified manner, as was the case with most of the news reports cited here in favour of including the word genocide in the title. Other sources tend to label it as "ethnic cleansing" or "crimes against humanity" (which by the way are not euphemisms for genocide and can be just as heinous). With that in mind, I am wondering if it is appropriate to label the situation a genocide in wikivoice as this article does. Again I stress that this is about the specific label and its meaning, and is not intended to imply that the plight of the Rohingya isn't as bad as if it were a genocide. Dankmemes2 (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much discussion here. I am not informed enough to have a strong opinion either way, but some thoughts.

To your comment "applies when the acts are taken with the specific aim of destroying a group in part or whole":

Let's say for the sake of argument (not sure if this is true) that those doing the killing are OK with the existence of Rohingya people and culture in the world, but not in Myanmar - thinking that the culture belongs in Bangladesh and in Myanmar these people should either not be present or assimilate into another culture. How do we define "destroying a group"? Is it the group in a specific geographic location, or the group in any location? If intent is to eliminate a group from Myanmar, is that enough for the genocide label?

"In contrast, cases such as the persecution of Uyghurs in China (which was also the subject of an RfC based on this topic) and the Sixties Scoop in Canada have both been labelled genocide despite scant evidence of mass killing."

As a hypothetical example, if China mass exported, peacefully, all Uyghurs into Kazakhstan or something, and was not trying to destroy the culture overall *in the world* but only trying to export it out of China, would that qualify as genocide?

I feel like this question has implications on how "ethnic cleansing" vs. "genocide" are used, more broadly.

-KaJunl (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

There is enough reason to delete genocide word from Wikileaks Talk discussion board The word genocide and WP:WikiVoice

The Holodomor and the ongoing invasion of Ukraine for instance both involved mass murders that have been described as genocide (and a significant amount of scholarship agrees), but this is a controversial topic owing to the topic of genocidal intent. In contrast, cases such as the persecution of Uyghurs in China (which was also the subject of an RfC based on this topic) and the Sixties Scoop in Canada have both been labelled genocide despite scant evidence of mass killing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:FB1:18D:7075:D5D0:6431:7918:6880 (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Facebook's role

https://erinkissane.com/meta-in-myanmar-part-ii-the-crisis?fbclid=IwAR3AxIdJO3w8f2C-HRwBn9GAS-KOwovsecGwnwUAbf4FbcLO0FguuUIXD-c Izmirlig (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the current situation?

The current article is extremely light on information about post-2017 events and has nothing on post-2020 events. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This topic in Myanmar article

Just to gather some relevant opinions from people with knowledge on this topic - if you get a chance, curious on your thoughts on how this topic is handled in the Myanmar article, if anyone wants to have a look at my comments on the talk page there. -KaJunl (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)