Talk:Chittagong Hill Tracts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Chittagong Hill Tracts is part of WikiProject Bangladesh, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bangladesh and Bangladesh-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not subsitute this template.
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
| Collaborations: | Sundarbans & Cox's Bazar |
 |
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Bangladesh may be able to help! |
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)
[edit] 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)
