Talk:Bangabhumi

Delete
I suggest to delete this page, as it has no seperate entity and activity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.22.194.43 (talk • contribs).
 * No, this movement is still powerful —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hikingdom (talk • contribs).


 * Someone claims the movement is still powerfull. Is there any activities of this movement at Indian/Bangladeshi newspaper. I think this is simply a fantasy page. No valid reference is made regarding this so called movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.144.12.233 (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No independent media reports in the last 5 years seem to support even the existence of this claim. In fact, last time I read about the movement in Bangladeshi media was in late 1980s. I'd like to see real claims backed by citations, rather than "he claims"-type of assertions. Thanks. --Ragib 07:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hope this helps. i m not sure how to put citations in wikipedia. i have used ieee format. in addition, there is something called censoring in the media...this movement is not that powerful in bangladesh but getting some momentum among the refugees in India, especially in Assam. The refugees are being kicked out of their lands by the Indian government due to the new Citizenship Law. In addition, the elite community in Assam are also helping the government officials. Therefore, there are some groups, who are claiming to give some lands to these reguees. Since the refugees are neither allowed in Bangladesh nor India, we might as well create a new country constituting some lands from bangladesh and some from India. In this way, everyone is happy.Hikingdom

Ok, I don't see how the given reference qualifies the statement "There are also claims that the suffering of Hindus were neglected by president Ziaur Rahman". To qualify this, a reference is needed that shows Zia neglected the sufferings of Hindus. The given reference has only 1 sentence on Zia, which states "By this the process of killing secularism and promotion of hard-line Islamic values began. This was done by the then President Ziaur Rahman". This hardly qualifies the sentence in the article. Thanks. --Ragib 05:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am gonna repeat myself here. As soon as u r unsecularizing the constitution, u r favouring one religion over others. Therefore, u r neglecting the minorities. in addition, most of the craps against the hindus were committed by jamatis, who follow hard-line Islamic values. Zia brought them into power and neglected the Hindus. These are common sense materials. Hikingdom 05:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your common sense eludes me. The citation can qualify statements like the unsecularization of the constitution from the 1972 one alienated Hindus", but that does not really qualify "neglected the sufferings of Hindus". You can't mislead with a citation, and expect readers to deduce things. So, please rephrase the sentence, or find a citation that properly qualifies the sentence. Thanks. --Ragib 05:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for rephrasing the sentence, and adding a concrete reference. Having verifiable things is one of the foundations of wikipedia. Thanks. --Ragib 05:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

npov
This article is POV. It is stuffed with arguments which are sometimes not even related to the subject of the article.

For example, it quotes a whole paragraph from an author without any clear relation to the section or the subject of the page. Also, it is not really clear what the Pakistan Army section has to do with the ideological arguments.

The group and the so called movement existed, definitely, in the mid 70s up to late 1980s. But since then, there has been no significant activities of the group, other than a few news conferences.

Wikipedia should not be used for propaganda (the Ideological arguments section sounds like one), nor a mouthpiece for an organization or movement with almost no activity, or material existence. I have looked into recent news items, and fail to see whether the movement exists at all.

So, I've tagged it with NPOV. Please fix the "arguments" section. Thanks. --Ragib 21:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, this article is supposed to be about a separatist movement, but cites no sources. True, there are several citations, but those are not sources/references to the subject of this article. Thus, it also falls under original research. --Ragib 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As above, I have removed the out-of-context sections in order to make the article coherent. --Ragib 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from Salam Azad
I have removed the lengthy quote from Salam Azad for the following reasons: A) it is irrelevant ... what Salam Azad says in his book is only tangentially related to the subject of *this* article. B) Even then, the author is of only minor notability himself ... so adding his "views" is of zero importance here.

I request other editors not to keep adding the quote unless they can refute the above two points. --Ragib (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The blogspot link is to the book of Tathagata Roy. It used to have the link to bengalvoice.org but it has been moved to blogger.com. Salam Azad's views are relevant to show the sufferings of Hindu and reiterate the need for separate land for Hindus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hikingdom (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Blogspot blogs are non notable, and you are simply spamming the article. So is the non-notable blog you had added. Salam Azad is a non-notable author, and his "views" are not relevant here. Stop spamming. --Ragib (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You get a life too. Wasting thousands of hours on Wikipedia for no money. hahaha Anyways, Salam Azad is a notable author. How do you he is not notable?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hikingdom (talk • contribs)


 * I have a life, and what I do with my time is not your business at all. And that I spend my time removing link spam for no money is also not your business. Salam Azad is not a notable author, a google search shows only a few real reviews of his work besides the usual right wing blogs. What a non-notable or minor notable author thinks is of no encyclopedic value. --Ragib (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a life? OK. LOL. That's fine. Anyways, I didn't know google search defines notability. He is a very popular author and his book can be found in all major libraries. Hikingdom (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from making personal attacks here. As for Salam Azad, No, google search alone does not prove notability, but when most of references to an author comes from right wing blogs, that does bring his notability into question. Now, back to my main point: Salam Azad is a minor or non notable author, how and why is his personal view relevant to the subject? There is no justification of the lengthy quote from his book when he himself is not notable. --Ragib (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do I have to repeat myself to you over and over again? "Salam Azad's views are relevant to show the sufferings of Hindu and reiterate the need for separate land for Hindus." Why are you so scared to present the truth? Which right-wing blog are you talking about? The Bangladesh Watchdog? Did you care to look into the blog on who exactly is the writer? Anyways, Salam Azad's books are all over the places in the libraries. He is a way more notable than you and me. Hikingdom (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * YES, you have to justify why the excerpt from hsi book is relevant here. Azad is not a notable authority related to Bangabhumi, nor he is associated with the movement. Azad is also not a notable or recognized authority about Hinduism in Bangladesh. If you have facts referenced from reliable sources, feel free anytime to present them here. But comments by a non-notable author does not add any value to any article, especially when they are irrelevant. --Ragib (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Blogs and other unreliable websites are not reliable sources
I have removed a large number of POV statements and commentary as well as "references" from personal blogs or websites. Such sites are not reliable sources for any information. --Ragib (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Even Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics census accepted 10 million missing Bangladeshis - the claim is not supported by a reference that shows the BBS "accepted" anything.


 * It is ludicrous to include a POV statement from Elst that claims the following: for work purposes & invasion of east India like they earlier did to Bangladesh during Islamic Turk & Afghan invasions. took their numbers to around 35% in West Bengal. At best, that is a party propaganda, not supported by any reliable sources.


 * Is Salam Azad a member or leader of the Bangabhumi movement? No? Then whatever rant he puts in his article is entirely irrelevant here. Not to mention that he is a non-notable writer.

In general, the "ideological argument" part of the article is original research. Unless it is shown that the Bangabhumi movement leaders espouse these arguments or have stated these as their arguments, combining a number of writeups to invent their ideology would simply be original research and synthesis. --Ragib (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons
file:c:File:Bd banga.png Reason: subpage: Message automatically deposited by a robot on 09:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harideepan (talk • contribs)

Not fit for lead
The line in the lead, India is accused of helping to organize the Banga Sena is sourced from an independent source of little credibility. Such controversial info is against of WP:LEAD.

Obtained from Global Politician's Get Published page --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Global Politician is not of "little credibility". It is a well-known political magazine and RS per WP:RS. I have properly reworded the sentence Khodeza Begum in an article in the Global Politician accused India of helping to organize the Banga Sena.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes thats the reason I added { {who} } to the sentence. I have now moved the modified sentence to the second paragraph as opinion columns shouldn't be used as facts. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Banga Sena. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080904233910/http://news.indiainfo.com/2003/02/18/18held.html to http://news.indiainfo.com/2003/02/18/18held.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110714174437/http://www.newsnetwork-bd.com/UI/Public/NewsDetail.php?LogID=11409 to http://www.newsnetwork-bd.com/UI/Public/NewsDetail.php?LogID=11409

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

First OK, but link rot set in before the second was archived.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge
Banga Sena and Bangabhumi are two minor subjects completely dependant on each other. Two articles are too much, and perhaps a little WP:UNDUE for a WP:FRINGE. I propose a merger. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 19:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support- Too short stubs to have separate articles. I'm also not sure if Bangabhumi passes WP:GNG. -- Zayeem  (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It passes GNG, but not by a very wide margin. A marger solves that too. Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 00:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support- Agree that it is better to merge both. The infobox was missing in the target article Bangabhumi. I have copied it. --Walrus Ji (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)