Talk:Noakhali riots

One sided partisan tone

The article narrates only onesided information from partisan sources.Please improve the tone with accuracy & objectivity.Al-minar (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the article is deliberately twisted to propagate communal hatred. The style is also propaganda oriented. It seriously requires improvement.Murad67 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The article apparently has one intention-to spread communalism. For doing that it is belittling the Bengali muslims in an unacceptable manner.Naved77 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously because there is nothing positive about Bangladeshi Muslims .(talk)

Ravigtm is a fine example of an Indian Hindu 38.125.102.89 (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Noakhali genocide

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Noakhali genocide's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Das":

• From Muhammad Ali Jinnah: Suranjan Das (2000). "The 1992 Calcutta Riot in Historical Continuum: A Relapse into 'Communal Fury'?". Modern Asian Studies. 34 (2). Cambridge University Press: 281–306. doi:10.1017/S0026749X0000336X. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• From Direct Action Day: Das, Suranjan (2000). "The 1992 Calcutta Riot in Historical Continuum: A Relapse into 'Communal Fury'?". Modern Asian Studies. 34 (2). Cambridge University Press: 281–306. doi:10.1017/S0026749X0000336X. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysource=, |laysummary=, |quotes=, and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Unclear disputes

It is not clear what exactly is the dispute in the section 'The onslaught'. The section has been tagged as POV, but it hasn't been clearly mentioned what exactly is the POV. Therefore is there is no point in tagging the section as POV. I am removing the POV tag. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the 'unbalanced' tag, as it hasn't been clearly specified how exactly the article has an unbalanced viewpoint. Proper citations have been provided in most of the places. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Brother ! A citation from a heavily biased source definitely curtails the objectivity and balance of any write-ups. So please don't quote the references of the dubious citations.Thank youAl-minar (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Brother, once again it is not clear what exactly are those 'heavily biased' sources and what exactly are the parameters of determining biasness. One Kamrul Ahsan Khosru deleted all references from Time Magazine, Yasmin Khan's book and Dinesh Chandra Sinha's book. Do you call them biased? BengaliHindu (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article is suffering from heavy POV issues, presenting only a single side as victims while actually both sides were rioting and inflicting similar kind of damage to each other. All views should be included in the article and it should strictly follow WP:NPOV. Please leave me a talk page when you fix the issues or discuss here (do not simply remove the tags). --lTopGunl (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC) This is one sided view of hindus while the fact is that mostly muslims were killed by heavily armed hindus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.148.88.173 (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Report on Gandhi's statement should be removed

The facts from the report should be included in the article, mentioning the report itself in citation. BengaliHindu (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Text insertions etc.

Hello All, Apologies but not too familiar with correcting text or reverting to earlier edits and too little free time to learn... Intro seems to have various scraps of text inserted which need cleaning up. Regards Muleiolenimi (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, maintain neutrality

Greetings! The fact of Noakhali genocide is regretted but the tone of the article is one sided and expressed views are towards a particular religion. Bengali Muslims are portrayed in an unusual matter. I request to all the editors to maintain neutrality of the article according to WP:NPOV. Thanks, NickAang 04:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickaang (talk • contribs)

There is no need for explicit citation within the infobox template because it is covered in the article itself. Private armies like Miyar Fauz' (literally meaning Miya's i.e. Ghulam Sarwar's army), Kasemer Fauz (literally meaning Kasem's army) and Akbarer Fauz (literally meaning Akbar's army) took active part in the genocide. You should at least read the article thoroughly before putting 'citation needed' tags. Wikipedia articles consists of facts and not one's own opinion. This incident of genocide has been described, citing proper references. There is no bias towards any specific religion. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Debabar (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Why is there a talk of a need for neutrality? All the facts mentioned in the article are supported by references.Debabar (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Forced conversion and rape claims are only myths which need to be cited or else removed

A lot of claims were put on forced conversions and rapes without any citation . Please remove the uncited material. Even the cited references are from highly biased partisan sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliabbas aa (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There were a lot of citations which you chose to ignore. Behave yourself. BengaliHindu (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Apteva (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Noakhali genocide → Noakhali riots – Per WP:UCN GBooks for the current title only has 53 hits The common name appears to be the suggested title which has 731 hits Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Historian Dinesh Chandra Sinha, who has done extensive research on the subject has termed in Noakhali genocide. Apart from that, as per the Genocide Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group, conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. According to this definition the incidents in Noakhali constitute a genocide. So there is no need to move. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as per proposal. Imc (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unsourced removed

I removed a great deal of uncited pap from the article which was for reasons unknown reverted back in, I have removed it again, please do not restore it until citations are found. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes there were some uncited text. You could have marked them as citation needed. Instead you chose to remove them unilaterally. In the process you have removed a some texts which had citations. Might I ask, why? BengaliHindu (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Already there is so much of communal thing going on and then on top of it this article which so full of myths and literally no authentic sources just some absurd things in many cases it doesn't even exist i don't know i ask the fellow members to please enlighten that how can this be taken to a dispute level . I.areeb (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@I.areeb: Thanks for posting to this talk page. Please specify what sources you object to instead of stripping things out of the article that do have references. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Great wall of Inaccuracies----If you try to change some moderates jump in to cover up the false made up stories from unknown or way too inauthentic sources.

what i fail to understand is that there is no book The Great Calcutta Killings and Noakhali Genocide. Kolkata: Himangshu Maity. give me one pdf or preserve document or any way I can purchase it or view it it doesn't exists and the page says jizya was imposed there using that book as the source source number 5 the very 1st source has a missing title any random source is just given for the sake of it then what makes me laugh is this just copy the next line, come to the main riots page do control f and do control v and hit enter He explained the rape and molestation of Hindu women as natural because they were more attractive than Muslim women this is extremely sensitive and then nonsense as this to be on such a website of high repute

just a page made of weak sources look at the source 13 and 14 no where in the world i guess you can find these books just any thing Jump up ^ Mukherjee, Kali Prasanna (2003). দেশ বিভাজনের অন্তরালে [Behind The Partition Of The Country] (in Bengali). Kolkata: Vivekananda Sahitya Kendra. p. 37. Jump up ^ Whitehead, Andrew (20 May 1997). "Noakhali's Darkest Hour". Indian Express. I.areeb (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@I.areeb and Oldnewland: 1946: The Great Calcutta Killings is listed here by a US-based library database service. Or click on the ISBN in the reference and that will give you a choice of places to look it up. The same is true of all the books with an ISBN listed - click on it. (This is why we are encouraged to give an ISBN, to give the reader the best possible chance of finding the book if they want to; I spent some time today adding ISBNs for just that reason.) I was unable to find the Mukherjee book; hopefully someone with access to library listings in Bengali can find it and add an ISBN. Here's the Indian Express article on HinduNet, which is not a good place to cite it from; however, the article clearly was published, it was cited in a 1998 book, and the author lists it and many other articles here. It should be easy to find it in a hard copy archive of the newspaper's articles, and it may even be online but not well indexed by Google. (I tried WikiProject India's custom search of English-language newspapers, but with no luck).

There are a number of things in the article marked as needing a citation. And there's rather a lot of listing of people's names, and some repetition. But I disagree with you both on the whole about the sources; there are a lot of them, and many are books. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In agreement

Thank you yngdavttr for helping me out

any ways dude this article is extremely weak on sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldnewland (talk • contribs) 12:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

reply

Fine if you agree that there are things which need citation of which i am sure it is nearly impossible to find with AUTHENTICITY then why are you not letting them to be removed anything which isn't reliable shouldn't be there on wiki

i checked on the book The Great Calcutta Killings is listed here which you quoted that exists is no doubt by no renowned historian or sociologist. then why to quote it

Well even you know deep down that how well sources from hindu based websites are em not insulting hindu sources but they should then be backed by scholarly research work, published in unbiased publications and articles that are reliable which certainly isn't the case

Anyways what is the benefit of having an encyclopedia like wikipedia which should be neutral

I think it has also fell victim to biases and cooked up stories which certain humans have been doing in the past

Internet actually exponentiates this problem and the laymen won't understand to an extent I.areeb (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The death toll

As per 18 November 1946, the government confirmed death toll was 131. The Governor of Bengal, Sir D Burrows, in his letter to Lord Pethick-Lawrence, wrote that : "Up to date the verified deaths by violence in the two districts combined for the period of the actual disturbances is 131 and I do not imagine that the figure will in any event exceed 200." Given that this was the head of State, and not an obviously partial figure, I think that this figure must be included. On the other hand, the '5000 dead' claim is fantastic and bizzare. It should be removed. 27.62.215.85 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

We give far more weight to scholarly sources than to government estimates. I don't have the Khan book to hand at this moment, but I seem to recall it does support that figure. I will check it later today. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Completely one sided and denying the fact

This article stated that the Kolkata riots was false news. Fact remains Kolkata riots were the biggest riot in Indian history. 107.77.230.220 (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)