Talk:Bangladeshis in India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Legal Bangladeshis in India[edit]

I believe that there are a sizeable number of Bangladeshi people, who are living legally in India. Don't you think that we should have a section on them also? Shovon (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assam agitation[edit]

Assam agitation was triggered, not in 1983, but in 1979. Refer to Bongal kheda; EPW; AASU; ToI etc. Shovon (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tag[edit]

The people were from Bangladesh, as the source clearly states, so why the undue weight tag? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were Indian citizens, and only tagged as Bangladeshis because their forefathers had migrated from a place which later on became Bangladesh. Hope I make myself clear. Shovon (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say they were Bangladeshi, unless you have sources saying otherwise go away. I have asked you several times to not follow my edits and you persist in doing so, best stop now. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that comprehending something logical is beyond your capacity! Your bloody sources also say that Assam Agitation started in 1983, which is grossly incorrect. Most importantly, this article is about Bangladeshis in India and NOT ABOUT Agitations against suspected Bangladeshis in India. For the last time, STOP your habit of ordering others. I shall edit what I choose to and NOT what YOU like me to. Get that inside your head. Shovon (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you have no sources, what a surprise. Now go away and stop being disruptive. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you have obviously not even looked at the sources, they do not say the AM started in '83. What the article says was a minor error on my part. Now seriously go away and stop stalking my edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh! So you claim that this version of yours, which stated that "In 1983, the discovery on the electoral rolls, of an estimated forty-five thousand Bengali illegal immigrants led to the creation of the Assam Movement." staes something else? What does that mean in English, if you can understand that language? Huh!? I seriously believe that you are unfit to work in a collaborative effort like Wikipedia. Shovon (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, for 4 days, you didn't care to look at the bloody FACTS? Isn't it? Shovon (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you having a tantrum over a single mistake I made? And have now corrected? Again, go away. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more insinuation Darkness Shines, and I am reporting you again, this time to WP:AN/I. Shovon (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insinuations? What insinuations? I have insinuated nothing, now really just leave me alone. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tacit state approval[edit]

According to Agnihotri & Ray in 1983 ahead of Assam Assembly election Indira Gandhi visited Assam with her visit particularly confined to old Cachar which is predominantly inhabited by illegal immigrants to secure the Muslim votes. Reference:

  • S. K. Agnihotri; B. Datta Ray (2002). Perspective Of Security And Development In North East India. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 106–. ISBN 978-81-8069-165-2. Retrieved 28 June 2013.

This should be added to the article to make it clear there was tacit state approval behind the illegal immigration. The Legend of Zorro 14:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source says no such thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit, August 2013[edit]

This article was copy edited by User:Quadell in response to a GOCE request by User:Darkness Shines. The following discussion is copied from the GOCE/REQ page prior to archiving the request. --Stfg (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed this request for copy editing. Note the following points.

  • Grammar and style: I made significant changes to the article to improve the grammar and style.
  • Neutrality: I toned down a bit of the language regarding the Nellie Massacre (e.g. "The massacre stands as a testament...") in order to use more neutral, encyclopedic language. I also added a {{by whom}} note to one claim made.
  • Lead: According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, a lead section should summarize the most important aspects of the article, and "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview". This lead contains a lot of important information, but it not effective as a lead. Instead, most of the material in the lead should be moved to a section within the body of the article, and a new lead section should be written that summarizes the material in the article body.
  • Organization: The material in the article is good, but a reorganization would be useful. I would suggest a "demographics" section that describes estimates of the number of Bangladeshis in India, a "history" section, and a "cultural conflict" section.
  • Completeness: This article covers numerical estimates, history, and the Assam movement. But it does not give any information about the culture of Bangladeshis in India (e.g. cuisine, religion, music, language), nor does it mention whether there are any notable or famous Bangladeshis in India, influence on Indian culture, information on employment or education, or even information on the prevalence of Bangladeshis in various Indian states. "Economic benefits" are mentioned, but not explained. These are all topics that readers may want to know about.

 Done – Quadell (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source misrepresentation[edit]

The source used does not state that the "Police would demand" anything, that is source misrepresentation, the source also does not say that Roy is "a pro-Indian state scholar" That is a BLP vio and also source misrepresentation. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - please see the left column last para in page 304, "usually police demanded rupees 2000 to 2500". (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the source says, at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - are you blind? see the para starting from "Speaking on the issue of deportation" in page 304. A.Musketeer (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This and other similar bad behavior has been evident in all the pages edited by A.Musketeer. I have already reported him for vandalism and breaking the 3RR on the page 2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict. I strongly suspect that he is a Sock Puppet and am in the process of gathering evidence to report this as well. Pvpoodle (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You are vandalising the articles and accusing others, I have provided many sources to back my statements. A.Musketeer (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need a clarification for a revert[edit]

DBigXray, you have reverted an edit stating "Strong Claims need Strong reliable sources". Could you please clarify how is it a strong claim that needs a stronger source? The source is an article written by Bonojit Hussain, the same author who made that particular comment, which is also mentioned here. --Zayeem (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Counter currents is not a reliable source by any stretch. if you disagree kindly get it clarified by opening a thread at WP:RSN--DBigXrayᗙ 11:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's more about Bonojit Hussain who is a established author on this issue and his content could be sourced because of his own academic value and not the reputation of the publisher. In any case, I've also added the same article's publication in the The Telegraph Calcutta which shouldn't leave any doubt over the source.--Zayeem (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are completely mistaken about the source you should read WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY to understand your mistake about source and the speaker.
This reporter is not a notable author or journalist.
This author did not say that this is a racist comment.
Unless these reasons are settled, the content cannot be restored into the article. you have already reverted 2 times now. Refrain from making further edits and work to generate a talk page WP:CONSENSUS--DBigXrayᗙ 12:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are now simply gaming the system, you think every author needs to have his own wikipedia article to be sourced? As for the credibility of the author, he has enough publications on this issue in different major major media outlets. [1], [2]. --Zayeem (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It will serve the discussion well if you keep the discussion WP:CIVIL without WP:NPA and ad hominems. Unfortunately your understanding of a notable Journalist/Author is far inferior than our established thresholds of WP:NAUTHOR. Please click on these links and understand them. regards --DBigXrayᗙ 12:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is definitely going nowhere since there's definitely a confusion over certain WP policies here. An author doesn't have to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR to be cited in an article rather should only have the necessary expertise on the particular topic which I've already proved in Bonojit's case by providing links to his different publications from credible media outlets on this issue. Also, please state where I've indulged in personal attacks.--Zayeem (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have mentioned several points, why I have reverted, and each needs to be clarified.
  • By your logic every Journo existing in the world who has 2 articles published is a reliable person ? Sadly this is not the case.
  • You are accusing me of gaming the system, which is a personal attack, I would suggest you better Strike off that line. repeated violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF is a blockable offence. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have some confusions over different WP policies. If an author has more than one publication over an issue by reputed publishers, they could be deemed as an expert on that particular issue and thus, could be cited, even if self-published, see WP:EXPERTSOURCE. And 'accusing' you of gaming the system is not a personal attack rather pointing to a misconduct on your part. Going with your argument, your pointless warning on my talkpage would be considered a bigger personal attack on your part. (Not sure you understand what constitutes a 'vandalism'). As I said, this discussion is going nowhere since I believe you lack clear understanding of certain wp policies, which makes this discussion quite a waste of time.--Zayeem (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to clarify why this person is an expert. Journos are known to publish opinion pieces in newspapers, thats their day job. it does not automatically make this person an expert. secondly, you are misquoting him in your content. Thirdly regarding the reliable sources, if this statement is indeed an WP:MAINSTREAM fact then you should not face problem finding multiple reliable sources saying the same thing, the fact that you aren't able to find anything else to back that up itself shows your claims are based on weak ground here. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biharis[edit]

Why aren't there any mentions of Biharis here? Biharis, aka Stranded Pakistanis are also Indian immigrants of Bangladesh. 2A02:C7C:B459:F500:8C4E:67E1:2438:B005 (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangladeshis_in_India&oldid=1221247022"