Talk:Bijon Setu massacre

Recent changes to the article by Garamond
I object to the recent changes by User:Garamond Lethe to the article on the ground that, they give undue weight to one side of the conflict, thus going against the basic policy WP:NPOV. --Universal Life (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that doesn't give me a whole lot to work with. What independent, reliable sources am I not giving sufficient weight to?  Garamond Lethe  16:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't improve the article if you don't tell me what you think is wrong with it. I've removed the NPOV tags.  I'm happy to discuss this with you when you're ready.  Garamond Lethe  04:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tags
Universal Life, if you don't identify why those sections aren't neutral then the tags are just going to come off again. I've made a good-faith effort at improving the article, adding a few more newspaper citations and removing the unsubstantiated accusations in the lead. Did that resolve the problem? If not, what is the problem? Garamond Lethe t c  08:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, we have guidance about just this situation. From template:POV:
 * "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."
 * I will be removing the tags in hopes of beginning a discussion here. Garamond Lethe t c  08:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bijon Setu massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080117100058/http://www.indianexpress.com:80/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990501/ige01007.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990501/ige01007.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Slander and POV at the Explanations Section
Hi everyone. First of all I'm not a lawyer and I don't usually use words such as "slander". However, the sentences I've read in the section such as Sil describes how members of Ananda Marga had engaged in many acts of violence (including murders of members leaving the group) does slander Ananda Marga, a world-wide socio-spiritual organisation which propagates the philosophy of ethics at its core and ahimsa (non-violence) as a part of that philosophy. The Explanation section creates the false image that Ananda Marga members are murderers and/or violent and/or may be child-kidnappers, of which there are no reliable source, therefore it is defamatory (WP:Libel). The fact that all its philosophy and humanitarian activities (from yoga to disaster relief) I've read so-far, all the praise they've got from leaders and organisations world-wide and all the positive feedback published directly by NGOs (such as UNICEF) that they work together shows just the contrary.

The section also reflects the viewpoints of just one side creating a WP:POV article with WP:UNDUE weight. The quotations and wording seem to be used out of context and seem to almost legitimise to murder of 17 human beings. Therefore, could someone either rewrite the whole section, remove it or at least remove the libellous sounding sentences from the section? Thank you. Universal Life (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the way the section is written and quoted with an undue weight, seems only to benefit a political party interests and perhaps to whitewash them. --Universal Life (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)