Talk:Arakan massacres in 1942

Rohingya massacre or Rohingya Massacre?

Hiya to all. A question on the titling, as this article came up in a discussion about use of capitals in article naming on Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide#Requested move; specifically and NARROWLY PLEASE, about the capitalization of titles of events like these. Is Rohingya massacre a proper noun, and if so, shouldn't it be Rohingya Massacre? Here's my sense of it, copied from over there at the RfM, [where the proposal (not mine, I had questions that led to you) was to move the page from Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Armenian Genocide denial]: This was my first question, because I thought, "Well, this would conform better to the Manual of Style (which does not cover this specific point...YET):

• "However, should it not be Armenian genocide denial, unless there is some legitimate reason why in this case genocide should be capitalized? Further, why should not (for examples) the articles Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Srebrenica Genocide, Rwandan Genocide follow the same naming conventions as do Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, and Burundi genocide? I have the same question concerning titles containing the word massacre: Why Parsley Massacre but Rohingya massacre? Perhaps if such topics are considered events and as such are considered proper nouns...but I'd like to see all such titles conform across the board, to a coherently stated convention, whichever convention is supported by either clear policy or robust consensus. I haven't looked hard for it at all, but maybe someone else has: Is there any established WP policy, guideline, or village pump decision on precisely this?"

The response was:

• "I'll explain my vision. In the titles it is a name of an event ("Greek Genocide"), a term and not word-combination (adjective + noun) to mark the belonging of the event. The same way the terms for Cuban Missile Crisis or Caribbean Crisis and not Caribbean crisis with Caribbean as an adjective and crisis as a noun. Or the Berlin Blockade, for another example."

to which I queried further:

• "Is your vision... supported by a WP policy, and if so, please point me to that policy. I studied WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions#Capitalization to no avail. Where is this 'an event, or series of events, is a proper noun whose terms shall be capitalized' policy, if there is one? Declaring that something is an Event (not to opine in any way that this E/event isn't one) and thus is a proper noun that should be capitalized, could be controversial to some, and might encompass different scopes for different folks, so please explain also, if you can, why (as examples--there are a vast number of 'E/events' that might have this issue) the E/events currently titled (and capitalized like this-->) Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, Burundi genocide, and Rohingya massacre should not be capitalized as you propose for the move to Armenian Genocide denial, if there is a good reason to handle each differently. Staying arbitrarily within the narrow category of death and dying-themed events only, why Moors murders and Soham murders, but Parker-Hulme Murder? (the current examples suggest, somewhat irregularly, that single death is an Event, but multiple death is an event, unless it's a whole lot of death, in which case it's an Event??) What is the WP policy, if there is one, that sets these sorts of boundaries (or not) for E/events of all flavors?"

and got this answer:

• "I do think that massacres or genocides you noted above should be capitallised. Those are events. A murder is an event, a pogrom is an event, a mass murder (massacre) is an event, a genocide is an event, but an article "Mass murders" is not an event, an article "The genocides of Europe" is not AN event or Sexual disorder is a collective word-combination and a collective article but Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is a name of one disorder. the same way Greek, Assyrian or Armenian Genocides are separate events and not some variety of genocides or something. I don't even thing this was ever discussed. Just all the WP:RSs write it with a capital letter so no doubts."

Please share your thoughts on the idea of changing the name of this page to Rohingya Massacre, a proper noun. I'm going to try to edit the Manual of Style to address this question, and before I do, I'd like to find out what community consensus is on the matter.

Sorry so long-winded. =) Duff (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Fact Check

The number of Rohingya killed is listed at 100,000. Many Rohingya groups state 20,000. Even then, the numbers are not verified. References given do not give the number of Rohingyas killed. Article also does not include the Communal violence between the V Force Bengalis and the Arakanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.22 (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio, but source is reliable

The text inserted in this edit [1] is from a reliable source. Unfortunately, the person who was adding it in, did not bother properly paraphrasing it, and just copy pasted it in. However, the info from the source certainly should be in the article.

Also, currently the article tries to really strongly suggest that the violence was committed by Japanese troops. Of course, some of the violence WAS committed by Japanese troops. But my understanding is that most of it was done by the Rakhines.VolunteerMarek 17:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Name change

Why is it called Rohingya massacre when the page also refers to people massacre by the Rohingya? It really needs to be changed.88.104.219.139 (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Inflated numbers of Rohingya aka Bengalis killed

While Bengali attackers (of V force) were well-equipped with weapons which were supplied by the withdrawing British forces, the victims were mostly Arakanese population. "40,000 Rohingya killed" is an inflated number. There is no record to support this number, except from a sentence from the (current) source, which reads, "some conservative estimates put the figure of Rohingya death over 40 thousand." The actual number could be way much less than this. Say, probably, less than 10,000. But all these numbers are estimations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalle Divins (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)