Talk:2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence

Scope

Rather than anti-Hindu, can we remake the article to look at all post-resignation violence? Many Awami League leaders were attacked, and some of the Hindu people attacked were Awami League leaders. Limiting the article narrows down the scope of the article significantly.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 DisagreeThe protests resulted in anti-Hindu violence regardless of whether they were Awami leaders or not. Targeting of Hindu population is a reality in Bangladesh and one should not white-wash it. SpunkyGeek (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hell no. This is about anti-hindu violence, Hindus are having to protest (this wanton violence) in the streets of Bangladesh. Mohammad Yunus also had discussions with Hindu leaders about it. This is a communal riot against the Hindus. Any attempts to whitewash this is a complete manifestation of bias against Hindus. 103.52.220.222 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Whatever that is, if you want to use pictures or news, please do not use it from Indian media, at least make sure to verify them through Bangladeshi or other countries' media because there are so many pictures belong to muslims but claimed as hindus BlackRider90 (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Vinegarymass911. As much as the Hindus/minority groups were attacked most of them were AL leaders and members of fraction entities such as JL & BCL of the party. There's more than enough independent international source (other than Indian & Bangladeshi) to prove that it wasn’t necessarily a "communal violence". Source: German, UK/British, Turkish, Qatari. Bruno pnm ars (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

 Disagree I am sure an other article could be created on that topic, remaking the article in that manner makes things way to general. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, with your logic this article shouldn’t exist in the first place. Wikipedias WP:NPOV policy clearly states we need reliable sources and neutral point of view. Which both is missing in this article. And IP's from South Asia (especially India) are vandalising this article and bringing false/unreliable sources aswell as making it more biased. I'll once again vouch for the changing of the title. Bruno pnm ars (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean multiple people seem to disagree with you on that, and i agree with you that IP's from South Asia are to present on this page but that includes both India and Bangladesh. Both seem to only want to present their point of view here and changing it would honestly only present the view of Bangladesh and also whitewash it which in itself isn't WP:NPOV, which is probably why editors from there are now bringing this up not only on this page, but pages with similar subjects which is kind of a Conflict of interest. Going to leave it at that. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Vinegarymass911, because the observers are not sure about whether this violence is communal or politically motivated, while most of them are tilting towards the latter. The title "anti-Hindi violence" doesn't conform to the WP:NPOV standards. Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Disagree: There are separate articles which go in detail about the violence that followed post resignation of Sheikh Hasina, this article goes into detail about the attack on minorites, in my opinion, both of them are valid and should be treated separately and equally by the wiki standards.

Xoocit (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreewith @Vinegarymass911. As much as the Hindus/minority groups were attacked most of them were AL leaders and members of fraction entities such as JL & BCL of the party. There's more than enough independent international source (other than Indian & Bangladeshi) to prove that it wasn’t necessarily a "communal violence". Source: German, UK/British, Turkish, Qatari. AAShemul (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree 27.123.253.78 (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Indian citation

I've seen so many international media such as DW & BBC Verify to refute the claims made by the Indian media outlets. Also, the Ground News posted most of the citation given in this articles, such as The Hindu, Hindustan Times etc. as biased which clearly violates WP:NPOV & WP:CS. Should we still use them as reliable source? Thoughts? @Wiki N Islam@Mehedi Abedin@ApurboWiki2024@Vinegarymass911@Ltbdl Bruno pnm ars (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

N No, I will not support them to be used as a reliable source, at least for this article. Wiki N Islam (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

N No, Most news identified as fake.

ApurboWiki2024 (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion South Asian sources in general shouldn't be used here there is to much Recency bias and WP:COI going on here. THe sources from India will obviously exaggerate while those from Bangladesh will do evertything to make it sound as good as possible. Not including religious sources that favour to either Hindus or Muslims would also help keeping it Neutral ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Refer to WP:RSPS for the list of reliable sources which have been reliable for many years now, the list was created for instances such as these when is an expectation of bias of local or regional sources.

An example to cite here is Al Jazeera English is used as WP:RS even in articles which relate to the Middle East or Qatar conflicts because it is mentioned in the RSPS list. Xoocit (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

N No, most of the news is identified as fake. News sources must be a Bangladeshi or an international portal (like DW, BBC, etc.). Indian news portals have no Bangladeshi correspondents for those news items. Also, a Bangladeshi fact-checker Rumor Scanner Bangladesh showed that most of the minority violence news is fake. AAShemul (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Jesuspaul502, don't remove the maintenance templates if you are going to use Indian sources which are involved in a disinformation campaign against Bangladesh with factual inaccuracies in their reports. Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your input. However, the claim that all Indian sources are part of a disinformation campaign requires specific evidence and thorough evaluation according to Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. Wikipedia encourages a neutral approach, and dismissing entire categories of sources without proper discussion and context is not in line with Wikipedia's principles.

  If certain sources are problematic, we should discuss them individually on the talk page with specific evidence of their unreliability, rather than applying blanket dismissals. Maintenance templates should not be used as a way to block content that complies with verifiability and neutrality without clear justification.

  I encourage constructive discussion and a review of each source on its own merits, as this will help us ensure that the article remains balanced and well-sourced.

  Best regards, JESUS (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Wiki N Islam@Mehedi Abedin@ApurboWiki2024@Ltbdl@Bruno pnm ars@Ahammed Saad@AAShemul@Nomian Can you guys please take a look at this article? This article uses a lot of Indian sources which are involved in the disinformation campaign against Bangladesh with misleading reports on the violence against Hindus. I have added maintenance templates but two users User:Jesuspaul502 and User:TheNeutrality are continuously removing them and continue to use dubious sources with exaggerated claims about violence against Hindus. This article quite visibly struggles with factual accuracy, POV and sourcing issues. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hello @Za-ari-masen,

  Thank you for your input. I want to clarify that my edits, as well as those of User:TheNeutrality, are in line with Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. We are not attempting to promote any particular narrative but are simply aiming to present the facts as supported by reliable sources.

  Regarding the claim that certain Indian sources are involved in a disinformation campaign, I would appreciate it if you could provide clear and verifiable evidence for this claim in line with Wikipedia's WP:RS standards. Broad dismissals of entire categories of sources without specific evidence create the risk of bias in the article, which goes against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.

  I have already opened a discussion to address these concerns, and I encourage all editors to contribute in good faith to achieve a consensus. If necessary, I would be open to bringing this matter to a Request for Comment (RfC) or a relevant noticeboard to ensure neutrality and sourcing accuracy.

  Best regards, JESUS (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Jesuspaul502, TheNeutrality There is already a discussion ongoing here and multiple editors have raised concerns about the issues. Do not remove the maintenance templates without addressing the concerns. Za-ari-masen (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued engagement in this discussion. I understand the need to address concerns, and I agree that any issues related to sources or content should be discussed thoroughly. However, it’s important that we don’t preemptively tag the article with maintenance templates without reaching a consensus on specific issues.

As stated by myself and others, we are open to discussing the reliability of individual sources and addressing concerns point by point. I kindly ask that we keep the article free of such templates until we've properly examined the concerns raised and whether the sources meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability and neutrality.

Let’s focus on constructive dialogue to improve the article collaboratively. I look forward to hearing more input on specific concerns so we can address them thoroughly.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

why did you ping me. i don't care about this article. ltbdl☃ (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me in this discussion. I agree, to some extent, with the addition of maintenance tags. This also suggests that we should avoid using sources that may violate WP:NPOV and remove the existing ones from the article. Additionally, if any disruptive behavior or edit wars continue further by @Jesuspaul502 and @TheNeutrality , we should consider reporting the involved users to the administrators, as such actions are a violation of the guidelines. Bruno pnm ars (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. While I understand the concerns about maintaining neutrality and reliable sourcing, I believe that the sources in question do meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:RS and provide important context for the article. As for the maintenance tags, they should be used based on consensus, and thus we should discuss any specific concerns about the sources before tagging the article preemptively.

I also want to reiterate that it’s important to address this through proper discussions rather than resorting to edit wars or threats of administrative action. I encourage everyone to engage constructively so we can reach a consensus and improve the article. JESUS (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Jesuspaul502 when there is a documented evidence of misinformation by the Indian media, it is very natural that people will object to using Indian sources. This page was in a better shape before you and few others began to edit and add content indiscriminately without paying heed to these concerns. From what I see, you have not only resisted others from improving the article but are also removing the maintenance tags. This is quite disruptive and I urge you to change your behavior as soon as you can. Nomian (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your perspective, @Nomian . I understand the concerns about misinformation, but I believe it’s important that we discuss each source on a case-by-case basis rather than dismissing entire categories, such as Indian media, without concrete evidence of bias or unreliability. Wikipedia’s policy on WP:RS (Reliable Sources) encourages nuanced discussions about individual sources, not blanket dismissals.

I would also like to clarify that my intention is to ensure the article remains balanced and that we include all significant viewpoints while adhering to Wikipedia's core principles like WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View). I believe removing valid content without thorough discussion risks skewing the article’s neutrality.

As for the maintenance tags, I understand their purpose, but they should not be used preemptively or without reaching consensus. I encourage us all to focus on improving the article through meaningful discussion rather than reverting changes without proper dialogue.

If there are specific sources you believe violate Wikipedia's guidelines, I welcome a detailed discussion on those so we can address them constructively.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Jesuspaul502, I'm now sensing competence issues here. You have failed to address the concerns raised by the editors here. Instead, you are just repeating the same thing that only indicates either you don't understand or you have not even read what others have commented here so far. This is not only disruptive but also making the discussion quite futile. Nomian (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nomian, your repeated claims about my supposed incompetence seem more like a deflection than a constructive critique. It's evident that several other editors recognize the validity of my contributions, which suggests that your perspective is not the only one worth considering.

Rather than engaging in personal attacks and attempting to undermine my efforts, I encourage you to reflect on the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Dismissing my edits as disruptive while ignoring the support I've garnered only highlights your unwillingness to foster genuine dialogue.

If you truly believe in improving this article, I urge you to focus on the content and the broader context rather than resorting to baseless characterizations. Let's prioritize a balanced discussion that includes all voices rather than perpetuating a narrow viewpoint. JESUS (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with Nomian, there is an obvious WP:CIR. I had asked Jesuspaul502 earlier to listen to what other editors are saying but he has simply continued to be disruptive. Za-ari-masen (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen @Wiki N Islam@Mehedi Abedin @ @Bruno pnm ars@ @AAShemul@Nomian

Some rumors were spread from some Indian social media accounts after the change of government in Bangladesh. BBC, The Indian Express "A fusion of real and fake narratives do the rounds on attack on minorities in Bangladesh". The Indian Express., and several fact-checking websites have identified those rumors. The Bangladeshi media outlets are controlled by fundamentalist Muslims and international media do not station enough journalists in Bangladesh. International media, therefore, cannot cover all the events. But India is a neighboring country to Bangladesh, and it can report the most news and its authenticity. India gives the most coverage to the issues affecting Hindus. Excluding Indian news would make the article lose neutrality. TheNeutrality (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen, it's concerning to see baseless accusations like WP:CIR thrown around without any real substance. I have listened to other editors and engaged in constructive discussion, but it seems like every time valid points are raised, they're dismissed without proper dialogue. Simply labeling my contributions as 'disruptive' without engaging in a meaningful discussion of the content itself does not help the situation.

If there are genuine content issues, let's address them based on facts and evidence, not assumptions or broad accusations. It’s critical that we focus on maintaining a neutral, well-sourced article rather than resorting to personal attacks." JESUS (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

TheNeutrality It's not just social media accounts, Indian media as a whole are engaged in the disinformation campaign against Bangladesh according to the reports. ([1], [2]). A lot of Indian media outlets are in fact basing their reports on social media posts. Many non-communal events are being portrayed as "anti-Hindu". They are just not reliable for this topic. And can you provide a reliable source to support your claim that "Bangladeshi media outlets are controlled by fundamentalist Muslims"? I can see Bangladeshi media adequately covering the events, Prothom Alo even ran a comprehensive investigation on the violence against minorities which you have even cited in this article. Za-ari-masen (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen The website of Prothom Alo was hacked by Bangladeshis, and a warning was given not to publish such news anymore."Hacker breaches Prothom Alo website, offers to help fix security flaws". Dhaka Tribune. 9 September 2024. Retrieved 22 September 2024.

More than 1000 attacks have been carried out on Hindus. Are the descriptions of these attacks mentioned under the 'Attacks' heading? TheNeutrality (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

TheNeutrality That is irrelevant. North Korean hackers also hacked Sony Pictures Studios that doesn't make it a North Korean propaganda agency. You have to show a reliable source that points out your alleged bias in Prothom Alo or any other Bangladeshi media outlets before making such claims. We have enough sources detailing the anti-Bangladeshi and Islamophobic bias present in Indian media. Za-ari-masen (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen The discussion about the rumors published on X by DW includes topics like "Hindu cricketer's house 'set on fire'" and "Claims about rape, sexual harassment of Hindu women." However, you have claimed that Indian news outlets (not just social media) have spread these rumors. In this case, your claim is false. TheNeutrality (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Indian media outlets are critical to maintaining balance in this article, especially given their proximity and focus on issues affecting Hindus in Bangladesh. While some may argue that disinformation exists, dismissing all Indian news sources is not a neutral approach. Indian outlets offer detailed reports that other international and local media might miss due to limited presence or restrictions. It’s important to evaluate sources individually for credibility rather than making blanket exclusions based on geography. By disregarding Indian media, we risk undermining the article’s neutrality and failing to present a comprehensive view of the events. JESUS (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV tag

@Bruno pnm ars@Wiki N Islam@Mehedi Abedin@ApurboWiki2024@Vinegarymass911@Nomian I tried to add the NPOV tag to the article based on the discussion we have here. The title itself violates WP:NPOV since a lot of the observers are calling this politically motivated violence and not communal. However, ThatBritishAsianDude keeps removing the tag. Do you guys agree that there are POV concerns with this article? Za-ari-masen (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I reverted it cause you only now discussed it, how are ther Pov concerns when only few of the multitude of sources used are Indian while majority of the sources here are either international or from Bangladesh. I also told you before how adding tags often lead to nothing and it and up being forgotten. Making the articlr better yourself is a better way to go ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The NPOV tag should be removed. Isn't there already a section addressing misinformation/ disinformation, with sources and sentences that are, admittedly, highly questionable and biased? That section should provide the necessary balance. What more do people expect from NPOV? How much more forced neutrality do people want? complete whitewash is NPOV? At this point, it feels like plain denial. It's a classic case of stubbornness and a united mob mentality to revert edits — nothing to do with logic. DangalOh (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• They don't understand what these tags mean and when to remove, [3]. Nomian (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that the title violates WP:NPOV since there exists articles of similar incidents in 2013 and 2014. They started as political violence but escalated into communal/racially targetted violence.

Multiple WP:RS have also reported that the student groups have pleaded and in some instances, fought[1] to stop attack on minorites which for the moment conclusively defines that there are attacks were targetted towards minority groups and not politcally motivated. Xoocit (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Focusing at the real situation

It is true that there are numerous attacks on hindus, but where can we get the real pictures? because most of the pictures were from Indian media and social networks later proved to be related to other incidents nothing to do with those attacks. And another thing is that would it be better to classify the attacks into two parts Awami and Non-awami? So that people can research about them later and also there is a high chance of changing the causes behind them as investigation is going on BlackRider90 (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Improving article clarity

Welcome everyone. Some media outlets in India have shared misleading information about the violence. However, since India is a neighbor of Bangladesh, many Indian journalists are in Bangladesh and have reported on this incident. But renowned Indian news outlets cannot share false information because they operate at an international level. Therefore, not using any Indian news reports in the article is nothing but foolish. Renowned and popular media outlets in India and other countries have reported on the incidents of violence against Hindus in Bangladesh. Mentioning the affected districts as subheadings and including the incidents of violence in those districts will help readers understand the articles better. This will make the article more comfortable to read. What do you think? ZeetBaralWiki 💬 talk ZeetBaralWiki (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion after merging

This article has no significance or reliability. International media are talking about creating a fake minority (Hindu) violence incident. Here are some sources: German, UK/British, UK/British, Turkish, and Qatari. The violence was based on political affiliation (violence against Awami League members), not communal affiliation. Most of the victims are from a majority Muslim group. It is very obvious that some of them will be from a minority Hindu group.

Besides, most of the news is identified as fake. News sources must be a Bangladeshi or an international portal (like DW, BBC, etc.). Indian news portals have no Bangladeshi correspondents for those news items. Also, a Bangladeshi fact-checker Rumor Scanner Bangladesh showed that most of the minority violence news is fake.

Also, It has been suggested that this article be merged into 2024 Bangladesh post-resignation violence. So, this article should be deleted and redirected to 2024 Bangladesh post-resignation violence ASAP. You can share your thoughts. AAShemul (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@AAShemul You have shared links to reports from several foreign newspapers. Those say about some rumors from social media, particularly from X'. These include claims like a Hindu cricketer's house being 'set on fire, allegations of rape and sexual harassment of Hindu women, and an incident where a Hindu woman was sexually assaulted and gang-raped by a group of Muslim men at the University of Dhaka. However, information from X is not used on Wikipedia. Global and local newspapers verify the truth of incidents such as attacks on temples and individuals in different districts, assaults at their workplaces, and the rape of women. ZeetBaralWiki 13:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, it should be understood that if attacks on temples occur because someone is a supporter of the Awami League, and not because they are Hindu, then there are Muslim supporters of the Awami League as well. In that case, no one has attacked a mosque. Attacks were only on Hindu temples. ZeetBaralWiki 13:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation!

@Za-ari-masen You have made several edits to this article, and to the subheading Coerced resignations, ‘because of rampant politicization during her premiership’ means that the government is forcing resignations. It makes misconception. The claim that teachers are involved in politics is made by a little section of the students, not all. Additionally, according to this report from Prothom Alo, the Chatra Dal of BNP illegally entered the institution and forced the resignation.

Your added text 'because of rampant politicization during her premiership' has no reference and your given reason is a misinformation and makes misconceptions in readers mind.

How do you think this incident should be included in Wikipedia? ZeetBaralWiki 20:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the politicisation statement has one reference (https://web.archive.org/web/20240901105324/https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/vacuum-looms-teachers-being-coerced-quit-3691301). From my understanding of policy, you can't cite one person's opinion as fact.

Also, @Za-ari-masen can you clarify why you feel these references are unreliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_violence&diff=next&oldid=1243829166?

My intent was to copy-edit the section, and I rewrote it to be concise. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

India Today, Hindustan Times and other Indian sources are unreliable in this topic because of their involvement in the disinformation campaign against Bangladesh. @ZeetBaralWiki these forced resignations are clearly politically motivated and most of the resignations affected Muslim teachers and officials. I don't see anti-Hindu or communal motivations here. The reliable sources also never mentioned any communal motivation behind these resignations. Za-ari-masen (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If you're dismissing the reports from Indian news media on anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh as fake, are you going to say the same to Al Jazeera or other global media outlets covering conflicts like the Israel-Hamas war? Selective skepticism only undermines the real issues that need to be addressed. Denying that Hindu teachers and government officials are being forced to resign, while simultaneously replacing them with Muslim individuals, is a clear attempt to cover up discrimination. If there's nothing to hide, why are these changes happening? Suppressing such injustices will inevitably draw global attention to the ongoing marginalization of minorities. By trying to conceal the situation, you're ignoring the real victims of this bias, and it’s irresponsible to distort the facts to suit a particular narrative. JESUS (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English and other global media outlets haven't been found involved in any disinformation campaign against any entity but Indian media has been. You cannot just add a dubious and unreliable source with factual inaccuracies just because it aligns with your POV. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Claiming that global media outlets like Al Jazeera haven't been involved in disinformation while dismissing Indian media entirely overlooks the fact that no media is infallible. Every platform can have biases or misreport incidents, but that doesn’t mean every report is false. If you're going to discredit Indian media entirely, it raises the question of selective trust. Just because a report doesn’t fit your narrative doesn’t mean it's unreliable. Instead of deflecting, why not address the actual issues of anti-Hindu violence and systemic discrimination that are being reported? Dismissing them only harms those who are genuinely suffering. JESUS (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen You have been trying to completely avoid Indian media. Some international media have mentioned rumors published on social media platform X, not Indian news media. We have previously witnessed many incidents of violence against Hindus, which were carried out by Muslim groups. See: 2014 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence, 2013 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence, 2016 Nasirnagar Violence, 2012 Hathazari violence, 2012 Fatehpur violence, 2012 Chirirbandar violence, 1990 violence, 1992 violence, 1971 Riots and 15 more.

I have seen your edits. You have repeatedly tried to prove that the attacks on Hindus were not due to religious reasons, but rather political ones. Please read the previous incidents. You have tried to express your own opinion.

If attacks on temples and Hindus occur because someone is a supporter of another political party specially Awami League, and not because they are Hindu, then there are Muslim supporters of the Awami League as well. In that case, no one has attacked a mosque. Attacks were only on Hindu temples and their homes and workplaces. 😬CsmLrner 11:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong, it's not just social media, India's mainstream media has also been circulating fake news and are engaged in a disinformation campaign against Bangladesh. There is a already a thread above and there was another discussion at the Non-cooperation movement article on this issue.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just stating what the reliable sources are saying. Just because there is a history of communal violence doesn't mean any violence committed against a Hindu victim is communally motivated. Case in point, Utsav Mandal was attacked because of his remarks on Islam, not because he's a Hindu. Since you have titled this page "anti-Hindu violence", the scope is very specific. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand your position, but labeling reports from Indian media as part of a 'disinformation campaign' without addressing the documented instances of anti-Hindu violence raises concerns about selective dismissal. While specific cases like Utsav Mandal’s may have unique motives, the broader pattern of violence against Hindu communities in Bangladesh reflects systemic discrimination and religious persecution. Denying this by focusing on isolated examples or discrediting media sources diverts attention from the core issue. Moreover, why are these attacks suddenly increasing? This raises serious concerns about the current environment for minorities in Bangladesh. Instead of dismissing sources, let’s address the facts on the ground and discuss the motivations behind these incidents rather than deflecting or avoiding the issue entirely. JESUS (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems I missed a lot of activity. After reviewing the edits, I believe we need to follow policy here. I disagree that this particular removal was grounded in policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2024_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_violence&diff=1243829166&oldid=1243824196). See WP: VOICE. The source clearly states that the claim of rampant politicisation was the opinion of one professor, not a fact (https://web.archive.org/web/20240901105324/https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/vacuum-looms-teachers-being-coerced-quit-3691301). I clarified in the section alongside what the professor actually said. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen I forgot to tag you in my response above. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the section, there is evidently no suggestion that the coerced resignations were anti-Hindu in nature. Nomian (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Concerns About Coordinated Reversions and Focus on Anti-Hindu Violence

I would like to bring attention to a concerning pattern I've observed. Whenever I attempt to add fresh, well-sourced reports regarding recent violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, multiple users seem to quickly revert the edits. It often appears as though there is a coordinated effort, where one user reverts the information, and then another steps in later. This repeated behavior is making it difficult to maintain a neutral, fact-based discussion on the actual issue at hand.

While I fully support the need for accuracy and neutrality, it seems the focus has shifted from addressing the documented violence and discrimination against Hindus to questioning media credibility or other peripheral matters. This pattern of reversions undermines efforts to present a balanced narrative and raises concerns about whether the content is being selectively suppressed.

I urge admins and fellow editors to ensure that this page remains a space for constructive, unbiased discussion that reflects the reality of the situation. It’s important that we allow well-sourced information to be included, especially when it pertains to serious issues affecting minority communities. Consensus is crucial, but it should not come at the cost of silencing important facts. JESUS (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree It feels like an attempt to silence the amount of violence faced, especially the addition of all these tags which only seems to be supported by a small group of editors, the same with the attempt at trying to get this page merged and the constant need to say that the violence faced is "political" and not "religious". ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

While I understand that everyone has their perspective, it’s crucial for the integrity of our discussions and the accuracy of the page that we base our contributions on reliable sources and focus on the facts. It’s important to ensure that our edits reflect a balanced and accurate account of the situation, free from any bias.

I encourage all editors to collaborate in presenting well-sourced, neutral information. If there are disagreements, let’s address them constructively on the talk page, ensuring that the article remains informative and unbiased.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. JESUS (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Ensuring Fair Use of Reliable Sources: A Balanced Approach Needed

Hello everyone,

I’ve noticed that while certain reliable Indian news sources are being removed, other outlets like Al Jazeera, which can sometimes be seen as controversial, are being included. I fully support including multiple perspectives, but we need to apply the same standards of reliability and neutrality across all sources.

Wikipedia’s guidelines encourage us to use reliable and verifiable sources while maintaining balance. If one news outlet is being questioned, the same level of scrutiny should apply to all. Rather than dismissing sources outright, let’s evaluate them based on Wikipedia’s policies to ensure a fair and accurate representation.

By maintaining consistency, we can keep the article well-sourced and balanced.

Best regards. JESUS (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, it's also problematic when quotes made by individuals are used to reflect Wikipedia's voice—a blatant disregard for NPOV that has not been addressed on two occasions.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2024_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_violence&diff=1243996395&oldid=1243859222
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2024_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_violence&diff=1244555231&oldid=1244486794

LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding which references are accepted by Wikipedia, see this list which includes Al Jazeera (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). However, I agree we need to vet what is cited (see provided examples). LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Arabic might be unreliable in certain topics, but Al Jazeera English is considered reliable everywhere, see WP:ALJAZEERA. Za-ari-masen (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I note that Al Jazeera English is considered a reliable source. If we accept Al Jazeera as reliable, then by the same standard, reputable Indian media outlets should also be regarded as reliable, provided they meet Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability and neutrality.

The selective dismissal of Indian sources while accepting others, such as Al Jazeera, introduces bias into the article. To maintain Wikipedia’s commitment to impartiality, we must ensure that all sources are evaluated using the same rigorous standards.

I encourage a thorough review of the Indian sources in question, applying the same criteria used for sources like Al Jazeera, to ensure fair and balanced coverage.

Best regards. JESUS (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Jesuspaul502 Not really, Indian media outlets have been found to be involved in disinformation campaign against Bangladesh, they are not reliable on this topic as a lot of editors have raised concerns. There is already a thread here, there were also enough discussions on Talk: Non-cooperation movement (2024). So you are editing against consensus, see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Za-ari-masen (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that there have been discussions about the reliability of certain Indian media outlets, dismissing all Indian sources categorically is not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines on source evaluation. Wikipedia's standards are clear: each source must be assessed on its individual merits, not excluded wholesale based on nationality or past incidents of disinformation from select outlets.

If specific concerns about disinformation from a particular Indian source exist, they should be raised and evaluated with verifiable evidence, not assumed across the board. Otherwise, this creates an unjustified bias and violates Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality and verifiability.

Consensus cannot be used to impose blanket bans on sources without an evidence-based review. I would appreciate it if you could point me to the specific discussions and evidence showing that all Indian media are unreliable for this topic, rather than relying on a generalized assertion. If individual sources are problematic, they should be reviewed based on Wikipedia’s policies on reliable sources and due weight, not dismissed arbitrarily.

I urge that we apply the same scrutiny to sources from other regions and ensure that all information is verifiable and treated with neutrality, not excluded due to regional bias. JESUS (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Jesuspaul502 Your inability to listen to other editors despite explaining the issue multiple times and reverting multiple editors to restore your poorly sourced POV content is highly disruptive. Try to understand what other editors are saying instead of blindly reverting and recirculating the same responses on talk page. It also appears you are using AI to generate your responses. Za-ari-masen (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

JESUS (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

JESUS (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have been engaging in good faith and am genuinely trying to ensure that the article reflects a balanced, well-sourced, and neutral account of the events. I understand that concerns about the sources have been raised, but dismissing Indian media as a whole, without evaluating the reliability of individual sources, goes against Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable sources. My goal has been to ensure that all sources, regardless of origin, are treated fairly and consistently.

I am open to discussing specific sources and improving the content, but blanket rejections based on assumptions are not in line with WP:RS. Let’s address the sources on a case-by-case basis, as per Wikipedia’s policies, and avoid making generalizations.

As for your comment about AI-generated responses, I assure you that I have been drafting these messages myself to engage meaningfully in this discussion. My interest lies in maintaining the integrity and neutrality of the article, and I would appreciate a collaborative, policy-based approach going forward. JESUS (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see any problem with your edits or sources. If your edits and those of others are being repeatedly dismissed by citing that Indian media is not reliable compared to radical Bangladeshi media run by Islamists, you can always bring this to the attention of the admin noticeboard. Alternatively, you can raise the issue on various noticeboards and forums. However, beware of the wikipedia community in general. Its infested badly. DangalOh (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I agree that the dismissal of Indian sources without proper evaluation contradicts Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. My goal is to ensure that all sources—regardless of origin—are assessed fairly and that the article reflects a balanced view.

I will continue to engage in constructive discussion and seek consensus here, but if the issue persists, I will consider raising the matter at the relevant noticeboards, as you suggested, to ensure neutrality is maintained. It’s important that we follow Wikipedia’s guidelines and avoid any bias or selective removal of sources.

Let’s continue to work together to improve the article and maintain Wikipedia’s standards.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Ganesh Attack

@Jesuspaul502 I prefer to write concisely and may have omitted details, which are significant, as you pointed out. At the same time, what’s the significance of including the name of the committee and mosque? Also, how can we say the attack was directed at the idol when hot water was poured on both the devotees and the idol? LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

JESUS (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. While I understand the desire for concise writing, it's important not to lose essential details that provide necessary context for the reader. The name of the committee and the mosque are relevant because they help identify the specific groups and locations involved in the incident, which is critical for historical accuracy and verifiability. Wikipedia aims to provide detailed and accurate reporting, especially in sensitive cases like this.

As for your second point, the mention of the hot water being poured from the mosque and bricks being thrown indicates a targeted attack on the devotees during a religious procession. This detail is important as it highlights the intensity of the situation and the impact it had on those participating, not just on the idols but also on the people involved.

If there are concerns about the clarity of how the attack was directed, I am open to rewording this to avoid ambiguity while retaining the important facts. However, omitting these details entirely diminishes the comprehensiveness of the event.

I suggest we work together to revise the wording, ensuring both clarity and completeness, while adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and reliable sourcing.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Since I last edited, I notice there are two new references in this section (https://web.archive.org/web/20240913200305/https://bangla.hindustantimes.com/nation-and-world/allegations-of-stone-pelting-in-ganesh-chaturthi-procession-in-madhyapradesh-31725776464178.html) (https://web.archive.org/web/20240913200305/https://bangla.asianetnews.com/international/bangladesh/hindus-affected-of-ganesh-chaturthi-in-bangladesh-complains-sajeeb-wazed-bsm/articleshow-lodkutv), which do not fully corroborate the details from the original source (https://newsable.asianetnews.com/world/bangladesh-outrage-as-hot-water-bricks-hurled-during-ganesh-idol-procession-in-chittagong-watch-viral-video-snt-sjfh9s).

I’ve therefore reinserted the original reference for the time being. @Za-ari-masen can you clarify why this is "dubious"?

I believe it’s important for everyone involved to clearly explain their thoughts here to avoid any actions that could be seen as disruptive editing. Let's WP:NEGOTIATE. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Those 3

I have viewed the edits done by a few editirs. Editors (possibly from Bangladesh) are trying to degrade this article in various ways. Whenever an incident of attacks on Hindus is added, they try to remove that. Also, in the "See also" section, removed the links regarding incidents from previous years. Furthermore, those three editors keep trying to merge or delete this article. They do not want to see this article on Wikipedia. If you don't like this article, just leave it. Let others who care about the subject edit it for them. Why are you wasting their efforts with false excuses? If you have helpful, right, and valid points, please post it in the talk page. TheNeutrality (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

JESUS (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I understand the frustration when valid content is repeatedly removed, especially when it concerns sensitive topics like communal violence. It's crucial that we maintain Wikipedia's neutrality by allowing all significant perspectives, backed by reliable sources, to be included in the article.

That said, it's important we remain focused on improving the article based on Wikipedia’s core principles—neutrality, verifiability, and consensus. While there may be disagreements, I encourage all editors to engage in good faith on the talk page and discuss any concerns thoroughly before making major changes.

If the attempts to remove content or merge the article continue without proper justification, I agree that raising the matter at a relevant noticeboard may be necessary to ensure that the article remains fair and balanced. Let's all aim to follow the guidelines and work collaboratively to maintain the integrity of the article.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure which editors you are talking about. You cannot just add anything to the article, there are specific guidelines that you need to abide by. A lot of editors are misrepresenting the sources, adding POV from dubious sources and making original research. Many of the contents were out of scope of this article. This will be removed no matter you like them or not. Za-ari-masen (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I understand that content needs to adhere to Wikipedia’s guidelines, including reliable sources, neutrality, and verifiability. However, simply dismissing sources as "dubious" or accusing editors of "misrepresentation" without engaging in a detailed discussion about the specific issues is not a constructive approach.

If you believe there are specific violations of Wikipedia’s policies—whether it’s source reliability, undue weight, or original research—please provide concrete examples on the talk page and allow for a thorough review and discussion. Blanket statements about removing content "no matter you like them or not" do not contribute to reaching a consensus and risk alienating other editors.

Let's work towards resolving these disagreements through discussion and collaboration, per Wikipedia’s guidelines on consensus. If the content truly violates Wikipedia policies, it will be adjusted accordingly through proper processes.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2024

Hindu, Buddhist, Christian Okiya Parishad reported 2,010 sectarian attacks in Bangladesh between August 4 and August 20. According to the report, out of 2 thousand 10 communal violence, 9 people were killed, 4 people were raped/gang-raped, 69 places of worship were attacked, vandalized and arson; 915 houses were attacked, vandalized, looted and set on fire; Attacks, vandalism, looting and arson in 953 businesses; A homestead occupation; There were 38 cases of physical abuse and 21 cases of land/business encroachment.

Highlighting the details of the communal violence, Oikya Parishad Vice President Nirmal Rosario said, "1705 families have been directly affected by the 16 days of violence. Among them, 157 families' houses were attacked, looted, vandalized and set on fire as well as their businesses were looted, vandalized and set on fire. These families are now living a miserable life."

He also said, "Most attacks have taken place in Khulna division." Four women have been raped there." Out of 1,705 affected families, 35 are tribal families. Their houses were looted, vandalized and set on fire The land of some families was expropriated Along with that, 69 places of worship were attacked, vandalized, looted and set on fire"

103.164.163.25 (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

The article is currently semi-protected, so editing is restricted. If you would like to add information, please either create an account or provide detailed information for review.

When submitting updates, please include the incident location (Division), the correct date (September 17, 2024), and reliable citations to support your changes. This will help ensure the accuracy and quality of the article.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. JESUS (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2024 (2)

A 15-year old hindu Schoolgirl abducted in Kurigram just over two weeks after posters saying that the "girl of the family" would be taken and converted to Islam were found pinned to trees near her home.

103.164.163.25 (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - Tools) 10:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for Consensus on Use of Sources and Disinformation Claims

Hello everyone,

I would like to open a discussion regarding the recent edits and use of tags such as

,

, and

. Additionally, the inclusion of claims about an “Indian disinformation campaign” requires careful consideration and sourcing in line with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

1. Use of Sources: While it’s important to ensure that all sources meet Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources standards, dismissing entire categories of sources (like Indian media) as unreliable without specific evidence risks biasing the article. If any sources are problematic, let’s discuss them individually and determine whether they meet the criteria for reliability and neutrality.

2. Disinformation Claim: The claim that Indian media is running a disinformation campaign should be backed by reliable, verifiable sources. Broad statements about disinformation without proper evidence could violate Neutral Point of View. Can we review the sources cited for this claim and ensure they meet verifiability?

3. Use of Maintenance Templates: Adding templates like

and

should be done based on a consensus, not to preemptively frame content as problematic. I suggest we come to a consensus before continuing to apply these tags.

Let’s work together to ensure that the article remains balanced, neutral, and well-sourced. I encourage everyone to provide input on how we can address these concerns, so we can achieve a stable, accurate version of the article.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nomian Turn off the edit war and calm down. If you feel the need to add the templates please comment on this discussion. TheNeutrality (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the templates. TheNeutrality (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and for removing the templates. This allows us to focus on discussing the content and sources without the distraction of maintenance tags.

I hope we can continue to work together to address the issues raised and ensure that the article remains neutral and well-sourced. Let’s keep the discussion constructive and focus on finding consensus on the specific sources and claims at hand.

Looking forward to everyone's input!

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed the templates again which are being added without any discussion about the specific issues or sources. DangalOh (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @DangalOh, for removing the templates. It’s important that we address any concerns with specific sources or content through discussion rather than repeatedly adding maintenance templates without proper dialogue.

I would like to encourage everyone to continue discussing specific issues related to the sources or content they believe to be problematic. It’s essential that we maintain a collaborative approach to improve the article and follow Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and verifiability.

If there are still concerns about certain sources, let’s address them one by one here in the talk page. That way, we can reach a consensus on how to best handle the content.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You do realize that 'those 3' aren't going to discuss anything. If they had anything of substance to discuss, it wouldn't have come to this. They will continue with a slow revert war. Other measures might be necessary. You probably know better what to do if this continues. DangalOh (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. While I understand that there are frustrations on both sides, I strongly believe that the best way forward is to continue discussing the specific issues on the talk page. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and resorting to a revert war won’t benefit the article or the community.

If anyone has concerns about certain sources or content, I urge them to raise these issues here on the talk page, where we can resolve them based on Wikipedia’s guidelines. If discussions fail to reach a resolution, I’m open to bringing this to a Request for Comment or an Administrator’s Noticeboard to seek broader input.

Let's focus on collaboration and ensuring the article remains neutral and well-sourced.

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Concerns About Neutrality and Sourcing in the "Disinformation" Section

Hello everyone,

I’d like to raise some concerns regarding the current "Disinformation" section in the article. While it’s important to address issues of misinformation, the way this section is written may violate Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and verifiability. Here are a few points to consider:

1. Neutrality: The language used in this section (e.g., "disseminating disinformation," "propaganda," "falsely claimed") appears biased and may not adequately represent all viewpoints. Wikipedia requires us to use neutral, fact-based language, without making judgments unless those claims are strongly supported by reliable sources.

2. Sourcing: Are the sources used in this section adhering to Wikipedia's reliable sources standards? Some claims, such as those accusing Indian media of Islamophobia and disinformation, are serious and should be backed by strong, independent evidence. If we’re referencing fact-checking organizations, it’s important to ensure that their conclusions are clearly and accurately presented.

3. Balance: The section focuses heavily on criticizing Indian media, without providing enough context or opposing viewpoints. For the sake of neutrality, we should aim to represent all significant perspectives fairly, as per Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

4. Potential POV: The section risks advancing a particular narrative rather than presenting the facts in an impartial manner. This could violate Wikipedia’s policy on original research and synthesis.

I suggest we revisit this section, assess the sources used, and work together to rewrite it in a more balanced and neutral way. What do others think about these concerns?

Best regards, JESUS (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended editing request

The events in this article are currently ongoing. I have already added several pieces of information. See: Revision History. But more information still needs to be added. Additional references should also be included in the article. So, I should be granted permission to edit the article. Thank you. TheNeutrality (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)