Talk:Chittagong Hill Tracts
|WikiProject Bangladesh||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
We solicit NPOV in the article in acordance with wikipedia neutrality policy. A clear anti bengali epitome is taking aparent viability of this article into jeoperdy.Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Blanket allegation of genocide against Bengali community is unfounded and hence should not be used in wikipedia.Yes this article requires rewriting for attaining NPOV.Unmesh Bangali (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- NPOV does not support removing cited information. I came to this article seeking information when citations pertaining to the Chittagong Hill Tracts were deleted from an article I track called the Radcliffe Line. For background, the Radcliffe Award gave control of the Chittagong Hill Tracts to Pakistan (which later split into Bangladesh). Unmesh Bangali and an anonymous user were responsible for these deletions. I have no direct knowledge of the truth of these details and citations, and so came here to seek further information in order to decide how to respond to the deletions. Now, I see that the same attempt to remove information is being made here. The facts which were removed from the Radcliffe Line article and the facts which have been contested here have citations and are not original research, so there is no reason to remove them. NPOV states that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ states: "The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V. Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed." So, rather than removing other's information, just add information supporting your own point of view if it is lacking. Ajobin (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Non reliable sources
I have removed the following ext link:
- External Website Dossier about 1980-1997 violence against the Jummas
There are several reasons for this:
- Angelfire.com is a free web host for personal websites. Sites hosted there are not reliable source by any means. Anyone can put a site up there and claim that the moon is made of green cheese ... that won't make it a valid citation.
- Who si the author of the report? Which journal/newspaper/book was it published in? We don't see such info. The report is also self published via a web host.
Such websites are not reliable sources, and can't be used in Wikipedia as references.
I'd like to clarify that I have no opinion about the correctness or incorrectness of the information contained in the source. I have removed the link as a non-reliable source, according to wikipedia policy on sources/references, WP:V etc. I request the editors of this page to add information and citations from reliable sources only, and not random self-published, free-web-hosted websites. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining the logic for the deletion of this source. I also have no opinion about the correctness of the information at that website. I have explained above how I came to track this article. I did not add this source originally, but I don't understand why this point of view needs to be removed entirely from the article. I understand that as a self published source it may not be "reliable" or "verifiable" for citation. However, self-published sources are commonly included in External Links. The linked site includes not only text, but references, and pictures. Could you please quote for me where the rules say free webhosts cannot be included in the list of External Websites? Thanks. Ajobin (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Update: I have found another source for this text:http://www.jpnuk.org.uk/massacare.html This site contains the same claims and is a human rights organization in the UK. Obviously, this is not an impartial group, but surely their point of view is worthy of inclusion, so long as their views are noted as their point of view and not fact. Any reason not to include this source? Ajobin (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Flag of Chittagong Hill Tracts
The Flag of Chittagong Hill-Tracts seems to be an unauthorized work. Chittagong Hill Tracts is a part of Bangladesh. As per my knowledge it does not have any flag.If you have any argue please write me. --Anwarul Islam (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, is there any proof (other than the fotw site) that this was ever used by the Shanti Bahini or other groups? I don't see any proof about that anywhere. The photo is just an OR. --Ragib (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- As per the talk and the information attached with the image, I'm changing the caption of the Flag to "Flag of Shanti Bahini, a guerilla force, declares war against the Bangladesh Government for the rights of the tribal people of Chittagong Hill Tracts." Thanks. —Mayeenul Islam (TALK) 05:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
History of CHT gurkhas
In 1871 2nd gurkha Rifle deployed in CHT for controlling the Lusai(Kuki) Expedition under the command of Col.Mac.pherson.According to the history of CHT gurkhas written by capt.T.H.Lewin the then first Deputy Commissioner of CHT in his book "A Fly on the wheel" gurkha soldiers controlled the expedition in a very short time.Thus the British authority highly satisfied with the gurkhas.They understood though the Lusai tribe had controlled for that time but they might be start action against the British again.For this reason they introduced a settlement program in mainy valley.They brought the gurkha families from Nepal and settled them. The Mainy valley is a middle point in between the Lusai hill and british teritory.The British settled the gurkhas in mainy vally as buffer state.
Now a day the CHT gurkhas are the next generation of that gurkha soldiers and the settled gurkhas of that buffer state.The British had used the gurkhas as they had need but it is very unfortunate that they did nothing for the next generations.CHT gurkhas are now passing their time very badly.They have no recognition,they have no representation in the local govt.bodies ie.Regional Council.Dist Council.They have no quota facility as the other ethnic groups availing.
But they are at least not Jumma,CHT indigenous peoples . Therefore I removed Gurkha name with Santal and Assamese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murata Chakma (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The Chittagong Hill Tracts is one of the most ethnically diverse regions of South Asia and constitutes a distinct cultural identity. It is indeed one of the last remaining abodes of Buddhism in the subcontinent. This article should be written more on the lines of Ladakh and the Tibet Autonomous Region, and focus more on the general historical (pre-british and post-partition), cultural (ethnic groups, religion, cultures), economic (tourism, agriculture, gas deposits) and geographical (hills, mountains, valleys and lakes) aspects of the region, not the conflict or something as out of the blue as tobacco.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)