# Talk:Burmese Indians

(Archived 5/13/2008)

This page was getting a bit large, so I archived it.  Use the link above if you want to refer to it again.   Thanks! --Kraftlos (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I came accross this page on the accuracy dispute list and it caught my eye because I know a Burmese Indian.  I looked over the article and while the organization of the page is a bit off, I don't see any glaring errors.  What specifically is being disputed?  (Note: I can't read Burmese)  I'd vote to take the factual accuracy tag off unless someone can challenge something specifically wrong.  --Kraftlos (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Just look at the following expulsion of NOTABLE or LIST OF BURMESE INDIANS, even from Wikipedia.

06:04, May 30, 2008 MastCell (Talk | contribs) deleted "List of Burmese Indians" ‎ (WP:PROD, reason was 'Poorly written, POV and notability issues'.)
IN ENCYCLOPEDIA, facts (correct with references are more important.)
It is a SHAME that Wiki editors are not interested to improve the poorly written articles. They just know how to delete quickly. They just seperated out the sections or combined (merged) into another, i.e. reshuffle and later delete.
Come on POV is the excuse of some Burmese who wish to coverup their misdeeds only. I put in the truths with references.
Notability issue? You just change to "LISTS" And Indian president's wife, famous actress, Burma Communist Party veteran founder, Prime Minister of Burma and Ministers under Military Juntas are not notable? Then delete all the biographies in WIKI.
Because of the bias and inefficient (but efficient in giving wrong judgements and punishments)  Wiki editors, I stayed away from Wiki without contributing any more. I am disgusted with most of the hostile editors.
TQ Kraftlos and some of the Wiki editors who help improve my articles. But I am sad there is no Islam Wiki editors to come in and improve or support my articles.
Goodbye Wiki. Darz kkg (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I attempted a degree of cleanup on the history section. I tried to retain almost everything that was in the section, but attempted to make it flow better and have a better tone. There were several items related to history that were scattered throughout the article and in some cases I tried to consolidate them. I also removed some things that seemed redundant. 70.234.210.89 (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Religion Cleanup
The sentence "The government doesnot allow to construct religious buildings more than necessary." was removed from the ending of this section as it is vague, not supported by citations or sources and appears to be propaganda as it contradicts the previous statement. An insert was added calling for citations to a statement purporting that the Myanmar government allows minority religious groups to "freely" construct their places of worship.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.155.116 (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Burmese Indians/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
First of all, this article has a cleanup tag present from October 2008 that needs to be taken care of. The presence of cleanup banners is one of the things that allows reviewers to quick-fail articles, but I'm willing to give this one a chance.
This article is broken up into many small sections and subsections, which make it choppy and harder to read. I would suggest either combining or expanding many of the sections that are just one paragraph long.
The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, two paragraphs are generally sufficient. The lead should give a summation of the article, without introducing major new information.
In-line citations need to be placed consistently either before or after punctuation. It doesn't matter which (although most editors tend to go with after), but it needs to be consistent.
It is generally better to use the {{see also}} and {{main}} templates, rather than just having text linking main and see also articles. Also, these links should be placed at the top of sections, not the bottom.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Web references need to have more information included. Web references should always have a publisher and last access date, and should have an author and publication date if possible.
What is reference #6 (Yangon Summary Review and Analysis) supposed to lead to? Right now it could be one of many sources.
What is the use of the list of works in the References section? If these are actually used as references, that's great. However, if they're more of a "Further Reading" list, the section should probably be retitled.
In the Anti-Indian sentiments section, the last paragraph should probably be turned into an in-line reference.
There are many paragraphs and even entire sections that are missing citations. While not everything has to be cited, specific facts and statistics, and anything likely to be controversial, need to be.
In the Language section, the article says "Most can only communicate in Burmese, due to years of assimilation and lack of education in languages other than English." Can this be referenced to a reliable source, or is it the author's conjecture?
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
What is the criteria for inclusion in the "Notable Burmese Indians" section? Most of these people don't seem to have their own articles, although this is not a hard-and-fast guide for inclusion. Also, the list seems to be made up mainly of political leaders, with a sprinkling of religious leaders, academics and one sportsperson. Were there no other sportspersons? No one famous for acting? Famous for military service (other than revolutionary leaders)? Although I'm not suggesting this list be expanded 10-fold, I am interested in what the selection criteria for these people was.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Although the images check out for appropriate use and tagging, I am surprised that no images are included of actual Burmese Indians, rather than just their temples.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

This article has quite a few major issues, and so I am placing it on hold for now. This is not a complete review - I will be waiting for someone to address the above points before I complete a full prose and reference review of the article. I will be watchlisting this page, so if you have any questions, please let me know here. Dana boomer (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This article has been on hold for a week now, with no edits, despite notifications to the nominator's talk page. The editor has indicated a willingness to work on the article, however, and so I will leave it on hold for an extra two days. If, at that time, no work has taken place, I will have to fail the article's GA nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK so I have started working on the article.

The cleanup article is so dated that no one seems to know why exactly it is here.Since a GA Review is underway, I am removing it believing that all cleanup will happen .
Applied  templates as suggested.
In-line citations are now placed consistently after the punctuation
Added pictures of some Burmese Indians.
As the article and some of the references state, Burmese Indians post 1962 have been trying to "keep their head down" and get by life . Hence, most of the famous people seem to be be "very old" and political.
Changed the reference in the Anti-Indian sentiments section
Will work on the lead now. Anything else?
Vinay84 (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There are still a few things that need to be done before I can start reviewing the prose:
The Religion and Language sections are still missing references. This is especially important for the second paragraph of the Religion section and the middle sentence of the Language section, as I pointed out above.
I was apparently not clear in what needed to be done with the References section. If some of these are Further reading, they should be moved into a seperate section entitled "Further reading". The references should be either general references that were used to reference the article as a whole, or references with specific in-line cites.
Reference #3 (bookrags) should instead be referenced to the book from which this article came (see the bottom of the webpage) with a link through the title to the bookrags site.
The web references still need to be expanded with publishers and access dates at the very least.
Please give more information for Reference #17. Dates and the title of the interview/article, as well as a link to a web version, if available, would be appreciated.
A few of the references and external links are dead or time out, see here.
What is Reference #9? Maybe a book, but I can't find more information for it anywhere in the notes or references sections.
What would you think of integrating the Racial Relations section into the History section? There seems to be quite a bit of duplicated information, and the information in the History section is presented in a much more neutral manner than that in the Racial Relations section.
These need to be corrected, and then I will be able to do a full prose review of the article. Thank you for your work so far on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Integrated Racial relations and History sections
Links have now been repaired. Thanks Dana for the toolserver link
Vinay84 (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is work still progressing on this article? There is still quite a bit of work needed on references (mostly adding needed information), and the first paragraph of the Religion section still needs to be referenced. This is all still basic stuff that needs to be attended to, even before I do a prose review. However, the work you've done so far is good, and please keep it up :) Dana boomer (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There are still quite a few tweaks that need to be made to references, giving more information and formatting. If this isn't done within the next couple of days, I will be forced to fail the review. Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
All internet references now have Access Date and publisher. Except Economic roles , other sections are bigger than a paragraph.There is a scarcity of Neutral information regarding this topic due to the geopolitical nature .Can you please be more specific what further needs to be done?
--Vinay84 (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


### Further Comments
Sorry it's taken me so long to get these last comments to you. Here are my remaining comments on prose and references, which is all that needs to be done to bring this article to GA status.

The lead still needs to be longer. For an article of this length, it should be two paragraphs, each about the same length as the current one, that summarize the entire article without including new information.
Converted to two paras and expanded a bit.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The lead overuses parenthetical insertations, making the text choppy and hard to read. Please integrate at least some of these into prose.
rewritten removing parenthetical insertions.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The 1930 Anti-Indian Riots section needs to be cleaned up. There is repetition between the first and last paragraphs, as I think information was just copied and pasted in during the combining of the History and Race Tensions sections. Also, the numbered list could be easily turned into a paragraph of prose, which would make it read better. I think there is a duplicated reference just hanging out after the numbered section, as well. Third, the prose needs some tweaking, phrasings such as "reduced economic pie" are unencyclopedic.
rewritten. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the Expulsion of Indians from Burma in 1962 section needs a check for POV wording. Phrasing like "relentless persecution" should be removed and the overall tone of the paragraph checked.
rewritten. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The Economic roles section is largely duplicated in the The Second World War and after section, and I think there is a good argument for these two to be combined. Thoughts?
I agree. I think the way to go is to remove it from the expulsion section and keep it in the economic section. Will try to get to it later tonight. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I moved the economic aspects from expulsion to 'Economic role' and some community specific things to 'The community' under culture.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Reference #12 has an accessdate parameter issue
fixed--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Reference #16 is not working for some reason, probably due to a naming issue
fixed--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Reference #17 is not a reliable reference, since there is a notification on the bottom that some of the information on the page came from Wikipedia and you're just making a circular reference
removed. I doubt if this is true anyway but I'll look for a reference.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Reference #18 is what? A journal, a book?
Reference #21 needs further information - a date mainly.
Ref #8 now needs more info - I think it's a book, but I'm not sure.
fixed. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ref #10 needs a title, publisher and access date.
fixed. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC) 
What is Ref #17? A book?
A book. Found the author but unable to find a date.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ref #20 needs a publisher.
Replaced with the South China Morning Post article information. Unfortunately I can't get a url for it but still trying.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, these are pretty much my final comments on the article. Please let me know your thoughts and replies - feel free to make replies line by line underneath the above comments. Dana boomer (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is work still progressing on this article? A couple of tweaks have been made since I put up my final comments, but not much has been done. This article is really close to GA status, and it would be a shame to have to fail it due to lack of work on the part of the nominator. Please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll try and take a crack at it on Monday. Thanks for the very specific comments above - it does make the task manageable. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this work going to be completed? The final comments were made over a week ago, and nothing has been done. If work has not progressed on the article within two days, I will have to fail it. Dana boomer (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Corrected citation 18 to a proper website
Reference 20 redirected to a proper source
--Vinay84 (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Things are looking better. I've struck the issues above that have been resolved, and added a few more comments on references to the bottom of the list. Keep up the good work, and this article should be to GA status soon! Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking good. I think the only thing left to do is the fact tag in the Languages section, which was placed there after an unreliable reference was removed. Once this is taken care of, we should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
It's going to be impossible to get references for this so I've removed the two things that need citations (that Arabic is spoken in Burma and that ethnic Indians mostly speak only Burmese). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The article looks good. I've made a few more copyediting tweaks, and I'm now passing the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Dana, for your effort and Patience.--Vinay84 (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I echo the thanks for your patience and extremely constructive reviewing. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Are some of the editors simply playing shuffling games?
At first my Burmese Indian article is cut off and made into numerous sub articles. The person who done that dividing even never acknowledge about this and my contribution edit history was lost in action. People could think that the person who started the new article had contributed all but almost 100% of that article and others e.g. Indians in Burmese History and Origin of Burmese Indians are my contributions.
He had done in good intension but my contribution history is lost in the process.
Now want to merger again?
Be careful, Burmese Indian is already a good article and you could ruin in the process.
Darz kkg (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The word "Ku La" is not slang. It is a traditional Burmese word derived from Pali language. For example, centuries ago, "Foreign Minister" was offically called "Ku La Woon" where "Ku La" means "Foreign" and "Woon" means "Minister". Another example is that "United Nations" called "Ku-La-Thet-Mat-Ga(ကုလသမဂ္ဂ)" where "Ku La" means "Foreign or International" and "Thet-Mat-Ga" means "Association". Burmese refer all Indo-aryan people as "Ku La". Indian people are called "Hindu-Ku La", Arab and Bengali people are call "Muslim-Ku La" and Caucasians were called "Ku La Phyu" which means "White Foreigner". Today some scholars, especially Muslims, claim that the word "Ku La" is racist terms but actually not and it is a traditional Burmese word derived form Pali language which is considered as scared language for Burmese. There are hundreds of Burmese words which include "Ku La". I just corrected wrong description that "Ku La" is slang. 203.81.165.145 (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of the editors are simply playing the FUNNY shuffling games. 
Merger again after dividing and the two chapters below are lost in the process. SHAME TO YOU WIKI EDITORS. 
Just look at this in the article: 

History 

Both disappeared in the thin air. I hate to contribute to Wiki again because of this kind od silly editings.Darz kkg (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Daw Tint Tint" 
She was a Burmese Indian migrated to India and became Indian of Burmese origin, after marrying with the future Indian President. So please kindly stop deleting my posting about her in this article. Please stop SPLITTING the hairs. 
Darz kkg (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Burmese Indians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119160146/http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=5380 to http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=5380
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Burmese Indians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612220345/http://southasiaanalysis.org/papers36/paper3523.html to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers36%5Cpaper3523.html
Added archive https://archive.is/20130121001250/http://www.aseanfocus.com/publications/history_myanmar.html to http://www.aseanfocus.com/publications/history_myanmar.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)