Talk:Persecution of indigenous peoples in Bangladesh/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Image
Please stop removing the image, it is fine for illustrative purposes. Or at least give a reason within policy for removing it as WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE says it is fine to use it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- So is then an image of the Babri Masjid demolition "fine for illustrative purposes" in Northeast Indian conflicts like Assam and Manipur? Not much of a commitment to accuracy you see.--Bazaan (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- The is entirely irrelevant, the MOS says it is OK to use an image like this for illustrative purposes, what is your problem with it? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- My only problem with it is that this an image of a mainstream Bengali Hindu temple attacked by the Jamaat-e-Islami during the recent anti-war crimes trial protests. The temple was in the port city of Chittagong, not the Chittagong Hill Tracts. There's a huge difference, the temple attack was part of anti-government protests by radical Islamists, not state-sponsored attacks on indigenous people. I have no problems if you bring up far more graphic images of Jumma persecution. But if this is "fine for illustrative purposes", then so much for our commitment to accuracy.--Bazaan (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is for illustrative purposes, the MOS says it is fine to use an image for such. So it can stay. Perhaps Kmzayeem who has also removed it will have a better argument that you. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- DS, as mentioned in the edit summaries, the image is of a Bengali Hindu temple from Banshkhali Upazila of Chittagong District, the temple is not related to the indegenous people by any means, hence it should be removed per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE.--Zayeem (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- The relevance is obvious, an image a a destroyed Hindu temple in a section on human rights abuses is relevant, and have you even read the MOS link? "mages are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images" Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- DS, as mentioned in the edit summaries, the image is of a Bengali Hindu temple from Banshkhali Upazila of Chittagong District, the temple is not related to the indegenous people by any means, hence it should be removed per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE.--Zayeem (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is for illustrative purposes, the MOS says it is fine to use an image for such. So it can stay. Perhaps Kmzayeem who has also removed it will have a better argument that you. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- My only problem with it is that this an image of a mainstream Bengali Hindu temple attacked by the Jamaat-e-Islami during the recent anti-war crimes trial protests. The temple was in the port city of Chittagong, not the Chittagong Hill Tracts. There's a huge difference, the temple attack was part of anti-government protests by radical Islamists, not state-sponsored attacks on indigenous people. I have no problems if you bring up far more graphic images of Jumma persecution. But if this is "fine for illustrative purposes", then so much for our commitment to accuracy.--Bazaan (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this image suitable for illustrative purpose in this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE Darkness Shines (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Source misrepresentation
This edit is a deliberate misrepresentaion of the source which states that the state armed the settlers and the majority of attacks are carried out by the armed forces. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Bazaan Revert your misrepresentation of the source, the source states "The main perpetrators were the armed forces working in close cooperation with the sponsored settlers. To add to this tense situation the government decided to supply arms to the settlers" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Stop being so fuckin ruthless, if anything my edits emphasize the atrocities of state sponsored settlers. Here's a rephrased sentence, "the main perpetrators of these acts of mass violence were the Bangladeshi military and Bengali settlers backed up by the military". You said that settlers formed armed militias, but then you should insert more specific information regarding these militias, i.e. what were they called?--Bazaan (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am not being ruthless, I am being accurate to the source, as you should be, are you going to self revert or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- the issue is simple: does your edit accurately reflect the source, yes or no? If it does not, then provide your own source and we can discuss using that in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- My edit does reflect the source, but as someone very familiar with the conflict, I would stress the role of military and its sponsored settlers. Despite the attempts of many Bangladeshi governments to resolve issues in the region, the military continues to regard the area as its exclusive domain.
- As Bazaan has again edited the article and dropped the fact the state armed the sellers I~ am left with no option but to revert, this article is at DYK and we cannot have such misrepresentation on the front page. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please allow User:Bazaan the opportunity to answer my question before you restart the edit war. Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, my edits do reflect the source, my intent all along has been to stress the role of the military and the settlers.--Bazaan (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- misrepresentation continues, reverting in a minute. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please allow User:Bazaan the opportunity to answer my question before you restart the edit war. Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Stop being so fuckin ruthless, if anything my edits emphasize the atrocities of state sponsored settlers. Here's a rephrased sentence, "the main perpetrators of these acts of mass violence were the Bangladeshi military and Bengali settlers backed up by the military". You said that settlers formed armed militias, but then you should insert more specific information regarding these militias, i.e. what were they called?--Bazaan (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I have listed this dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- @Gamaliel: Why? I am correct as is obvious from the quote and the edits made by Bazaan, all I want to know is will you block me for reverting the source misrepresentation? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I listed it because I thought you were going to restart the edit war and not continue to discuss this here. I hope I'm wrong and we can solve this here. If User:Bazaan does not address the discrepancy I will revert it myself tomorrow. Gamaliel (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- The settlers were, and still are, backed by the military. However, most of these massacres took place during the 1980s, when Bangladesh was under military rule. Even after democracy was restored, the military still retained virtual control of the CHT through special powers. Now I leave it to both of you to judge which edit is more appropriate. I will be fine with Darkness Shines's edits, although I didn't expect him to be so aggressively opposed to any alteration of his version. I attempted to cooperate with the guy, but there's no stopping his stubbornness.--Bazaan (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- I listed it because I thought you were going to restart the edit war and not continue to discuss this here. I hope I'm wrong and we can solve this here. If User:Bazaan does not address the discrepancy I will revert it myself tomorrow. Gamaliel (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 Response to third opinion request:
|
| First off, the level of hostility over a minor disagreement here is an indication that all involved could use a good step or two back and read WP:CIVILITY. The directness of both editors; Darkness Shines and Bazaan, is not bad in and of itself, but the hostility applied from the outset of the "discussion" here is highly contrasted in regards to what is expected of civil editors who should AGF. Bazaan's point seems to relate directly to his mention of the military being the primary controlling factor of the government at the time of the source, therefore defacto government would be the military. The source only mentions the government, therefore the sourced content in the article should reflect only that which is verifiable, and on page 123 of the source mentioned I do not see that the military is shown as the government. "-the government decided to provide arms to the settlers."
If User:Bazaan or another editor can provide sourcing that states the military was the government at the time, then it would be valid to state the military provided 'x' to 'y'. As it stands you could provide information about the control of the military over the government at that time to provide the reader with an overall knowledge of the circumstances, that is of course if you have the ability to reliably source your information. As a sidenote to Darkness Shines, I would recommend that you take note of other editors right's to edit, and that discussion and the resulting consensus from 'conflict' is what brings breadth and value to the project as a whole. Assume good faith and try to understand the reasoning behind other editor actions, do not assume automatically that your edit and opinion is the right one...even if it appears apparently to be so. As for Bazaan, I assume you understand what you need to considering my prior statements. Judicatus | Talk 21:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC) |
- Yes of course, Bangladesh was under military rule at the time, during the 1980s, when most of these massacre took place (especially during the early-80s, when Bangladesh was under martial law). You can see in reports such as this that the CHT still remains under de-facto military control, with special laws designed to give the military powers to "assist" the civilian administration in the area. In fact many of Darkness Shines's own sources speak volumes of the issue of militarization. The CHT is actually one of the most heavily militarized areas in the world, in terms of an excessively disproportionate military presence for the local population.--Bazaan (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, however there is the issue of the direct source used for the statement. The source used does not mention the military as the government, just that the government provided the arms. So here is the next logical issue with the dispute as I see it: you have to determine what is acceptable in this case for the overall weight of this currently small snippet of information. If able, can you find enough merit or notability to bring the content concisely into the section to demonstrate why the military was the defacto government. That's fine if you and Darkness Shines can agree to it as a compromise. I see a much easier solution in simply leaving the statement at targetting the government as the primary and leaving the military out of this topical sentence. Perhaps a modification such as "There have been several massacres of indigenous peoples in the CHT, the provisionist of these acts of mass violence was the Bangladeshi government. At the time of these acts, the Bangladeshi government was under defacto rule of the military due to (1, 2, 3, etc). (citations)". Judicatus | Talk 00:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have reverted the source misrepresentation, and the sentence stays as it is obviously important for readers to know who are the main perpetrators of these atrocities. I have no issue at all with a statement which says the state was run by the military between whatever dates they ran the country. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, however there is the issue of the direct source used for the statement. The source used does not mention the military as the government, just that the government provided the arms. So here is the next logical issue with the dispute as I see it: you have to determine what is acceptable in this case for the overall weight of this currently small snippet of information. If able, can you find enough merit or notability to bring the content concisely into the section to demonstrate why the military was the defacto government. That's fine if you and Darkness Shines can agree to it as a compromise. I see a much easier solution in simply leaving the statement at targetting the government as the primary and leaving the military out of this topical sentence. Perhaps a modification such as "There have been several massacres of indigenous peoples in the CHT, the provisionist of these acts of mass violence was the Bangladeshi government. At the time of these acts, the Bangladeshi government was under defacto rule of the military due to (1, 2, 3, etc). (citations)". Judicatus | Talk 00:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes of course, Bangladesh was under military rule at the time, during the 1980s, when most of these massacre took place (especially during the early-80s, when Bangladesh was under martial law). You can see in reports such as this that the CHT still remains under de-facto military control, with special laws designed to give the military powers to "assist" the civilian administration in the area. In fact many of Darkness Shines's own sources speak volumes of the issue of militarization. The CHT is actually one of the most heavily militarized areas in the world, in terms of an excessively disproportionate military presence for the local population.--Bazaan (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- RFC Opinion I was randomly selected to comment on the RFC, and a quick evaluation of the contention among editors is this question:
- ...and dropped the fact the state armed the sellers..."
- Removal of the statement should not have been done, I must agree that the stress of the state-sanctioned activities is accurate and relevant inasmuch as the text must be supported by testable, falsifiable citations. If the statement is accurate and is supported by testable, falsifiable citations, the text should remain, the coverage of the state-sanctioned activities should be part of the Wikipedia entry.
- Obviously if there are no suitable references to support the text, it should be removed. So the RFC resolution is simple: retain information about the state supplying and arming the atrocities only if citations support the case, otherwise remove the text.
- Also I could add that personal feelings about the issue should be irrelevant, and the comment utilizing the word "fuckin" is, well, kind of uncivil. (LOL) But obviously emotions and personal feelings can be set aside and the testable fact of the issue be used to determine whether the text is accurate or not. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Edits While RFC / Third Party is Pending
By the way, it is often a good idea for all editors to hold off further edits while an RFC is pending resolution. I see that even as the RFC was in place, edit contention continued which kind of makes things more complicated and causes emotions to rise even further.
Someone else noted that it is good to see people passionate about Wikipedia editing which makes the project as a whole work, and while WP:CIVILITY is hoped-for, in contentious issues such as war crimes and atrocities, civility is difficult to maintain. So it helps to refrain from further editing until highly contentious issues are resolve, even if compromise is required.
Currently I see that there is no consensus about the two issues that appear to remain. If I may suggest, give the Third Party and RFC time to operate, see if others offer their opinions, then if there's resolution on the current issues, resume editing after the issues have been resolved. BiologistBabe (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)== More source misrepresentation ==
This time by Kmzayeem Absolutely none of what he added here per source(in his own words) are in the source. Kmzayeem self revert now before I do it for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- LOL, now I understand why you don't add the online views of the books when they are easily accessable. I won't revert as the edit just fixed your gross abuse of the source, rather I would suggest to check other sources as well to find if there are any other abuses or not.--Zayeem (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I have that page open right in front of me, it says nothing at all that you have added, self revert now. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed the opening of that chapter, it does mean there was a tactic, but it does not say Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict on that page at all it calls it a war. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- It says "CHT insurgency" in that chapter.--Zayeem (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- No it says, "During the first few decades of the war, conflict was confined to the CHT" So ya, it was a war. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Check it again.--Zayeem (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have, it starts off with the bit I missed, the states deliberate policies of extermination against the insurgents, it concludes in call it a war, BTW the article is already linked in the lede, so your addition of the internal is pointless. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Check it again.--Zayeem (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- No it says, "During the first few decades of the war, conflict was confined to the CHT" So ya, it was a war. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- It says "CHT insurgency" in that chapter.--Zayeem (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed the opening of that chapter, it does mean there was a tactic, but it does not say Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict on that page at all it calls it a war. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I have that page open right in front of me, it says nothing at all that you have added, self revert now. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
And this edit is wrong as the abuses are still actually ongoing, so that has to be fixed as well now. BTW Kmzayeem you are now on 3RR Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Kmzayeem I am going to revert every change you have made, this is an outright misrepresentation [1] it clearly says on p165 that it was a civial war. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see a single revert by me in past 24 hours. The edit is absolutely correct as the tactic was only persistent during that conflict. And the source never used the phrase "Bangladesh Civil War", so I changed it to "a war", nothing wrong in it.--Zayeem (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- It calls it a civil war, I just gave you the page number, and the range of page numbers are given in the ref, and the source is called Civil wars of the world So stop pulling fast ones and playing fast and lose with the sources. And every time you have changed content added by another editor is a revert, go read WP:3RR for gods sake. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, only changing the contents is not a revert, in that case, every edit we make would be termed as a revert. My point is that, the source never used the phrase "Bangladesh Civil War" collectively, it just called it a civil war in the description. Anyway, I'm changing it to "a civil war", more accurate it seems.--Zayeem (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Every time we change others content is a revert yes. And you just violated 3RR witht hat revert. Self revert please. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- And you didn't say anything on why "Bangladesh civil war" is more accurate than "a civil war".--Zayeem (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Because a civil war in Bangladesh is the Bangladesh Civil War. That is how it works. Just like the American Civil War or every other civil war. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, "American Civil War" is an established term, while "Bangladesh civil war" is not. The source only calls it "a civil war" in its description, doesn't use the term "Bangladesh civil war", the same source also calls it "an insurgency" and "a conflict". You need to prove that the phrase "Bangladesh civil war" has been used collectively to include it in the article.--Zayeem (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, lets compromise. Internal to CHTC and the wording is civil war per the sources, you OK with that? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, "conflict" sounds more appropriate as discussed in CHT Coflict page.--Zayeem (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sources call it civil war, so civil war is staying. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Source also calls it "an insurgency" and "a conflict"! --Zayeem (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Lets see them then, as nobody on the CHTC page actually have presented any. And we can then give due weight based on the quality of the sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, all the sources you added call it an insurgency, while in some cases referring as civil war.--Zayeem (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- All of them? Better start posting the links and quotes as I have done. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- There you go! Also, this source seems to be primary and showing exceptional claims. --Zayeem (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- All of them? Better start posting the links and quotes as I have done. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, all the sources you added call it an insurgency, while in some cases referring as civil war.--Zayeem (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Lets see them then, as nobody on the CHTC page actually have presented any. And we can then give due weight based on the quality of the sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Source also calls it "an insurgency" and "a conflict"! --Zayeem (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sources call it civil war, so civil war is staying. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, "conflict" sounds more appropriate as discussed in CHT Coflict page.--Zayeem (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, lets compromise. Internal to CHTC and the wording is civil war per the sources, you OK with that? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, "American Civil War" is an established term, while "Bangladesh civil war" is not. The source only calls it "a civil war" in its description, doesn't use the term "Bangladesh civil war", the same source also calls it "an insurgency" and "a conflict". You need to prove that the phrase "Bangladesh civil war" has been used collectively to include it in the article.--Zayeem (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Because a civil war in Bangladesh is the Bangladesh Civil War. That is how it works. Just like the American Civil War or every other civil war. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- And you didn't say anything on why "Bangladesh civil war" is more accurate than "a civil war".--Zayeem (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Every time we change others content is a revert yes. And you just violated 3RR witht hat revert. Self revert please. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, only changing the contents is not a revert, in that case, every edit we make would be termed as a revert. My point is that, the source never used the phrase "Bangladesh Civil War" collectively, it just called it a civil war in the description. Anyway, I'm changing it to "a civil war", more accurate it seems.--Zayeem (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- It calls it a civil war, I just gave you the page number, and the range of page numbers are given in the ref, and the source is called Civil wars of the world So stop pulling fast ones and playing fast and lose with the sources. And every time you have changed content added by another editor is a revert, go read WP:3RR for gods sake. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
(out)17 from that google search, how many meet RS? And do they call it a civil war also? Please provide full quotes and not just a google search, just like I had to do. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
And that is not a primary source, it is a guy who works with the indigenous for the Oblates, so you may as well remove your tags. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you are not getting the point, you showed some sources claiming it to be a civil war and so did I, claiming it to be an insurgency. The point is, the event can be termed as both a civil war and an insurgency and also a conflict. But "an armed conflict" seems to be more appropriate as discussed on that RM. And about the article from Oblates, the author is from the indegenous community and thus affected, it is a primary source. The page has also a tag titled, "Share Your Story", doesn't seem to be reliable at all.--Zayeem (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- The ethnic identity of the author has nothing to do with whether a source is primary or secondary. A source is primary if it is based on first hand experience of the author. That does not mean that Jumma people writing about Jumma history are necessarily primary sources any more than Americans writing about American history are.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)