Talk:Hazari Lane violence

NPOV

Blocked sock. Bruno (talk · contribs) 18:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Ahammed Saad You have added {{NPOV|date=November 2024}}. Why do you think the neutrality of the neutrality of this article is disputed? C⚛smLearner 💬🔬 07:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

We had warnings about using the citations of Indian media since the fall of Hasina. See the discussions in the talk pages of Non-cooperation movement (2024) & 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence. Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Many words in the article are found to be offensive: "caning", "thrashed". These words cant't be found in Bangladeshi news articles, these are only used in Indian sources. Previously, the article was more biased in vocabulary, it has improved since then. Please use secondary sources and neutral vocabulary. Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked sock. Bruno (talk · contribs) 18:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It has been claimed on the talk pages of Non-cooperation movement (2024) & 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence that the Indian media spread false news. But, aside from Al Jazeera, no source has been provided to support this claim. Additionally, on the talk page, AmitKumarDatta180 has expressed concerns about this. But the editors involved in editing that article have not responded. What does it imply when Bangladeshi media did not use such terms, but Indian media did? I do not think that those two words are offensive in this context, however, I have replaced them. C⚛smLearner 💬🔬 08:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@CosmLearner I completely agree with Ahammed Saad. You are not adhering to WP:NPOV standrads and adding fabricated news like this. I understand that you have added multiple sources but all of them are linked to Indian Hindutva right wing, like Zee News, News18 and others. I can see detailed description in Non-cooperation movement (2024) on how India's Godi media is trying to portray the uprising as an Islamist-backed military takeover of the country through disinformation which is very visible in the sources you added. Based on fabricated social media posts, the sources are saying Hefazat has called for a genocide and killing of Hindus on November 15, however, the actual official statement from Hefazat is completely different. Please do not add fake news defaming an organization as it is a serious WP:BLP violation. LucrativeOffer (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked sock. Bruno (talk · contribs) 18:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to Bangladeshi media, The Business Standard, https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/hefazat-calls-banning-iskcon-terming-it-anti-hindu-militant-group-988186, Hefazat calls for banning Iskcon. But https://www.freepressjournal.in/world/bangladesh-hefazat-e-islam-is-not-against-hindus-or-iskcon-says-organisation-leader-after-clashes-between-communities-in-chittagong shows Hefazat-E-Islam Is Not Against ISKCON. The two are contradictory. C⚛smLearner 💬🔬 21:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Not contradictory, from the source, "noted that some ISKCON members attacked a Muslim shopkeeper in Chittagong under a plot to implement the previous Awami League government agenda by destroying religious harmony", this aligns with what the speakers on November 8 said. However, Hefazat has clarified the rally was not organized centrally by the organization. LucrativeOffer (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheNeutrality you are reinserting the same content from the same fabricated news sources based on social media posts that CosmLearner tried to add earlier. Adding fake news defaming an organization is a WP:BLP violation, please follow the wikipedia guidelines. LucrativeOffer (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked sock. Bruno (talk · contribs) 18:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@LucrativeOffer All the references used are both popular and reliable. Bangladeshi media has one-sidedly validated the Islamic organization Hefazat-E-Islam as accurate. Since Bangladeshi media is not widely recognized, fact-checkers rarely verify their claims. If Indian media publishes any false information, we can learn about it through various fact-checking websites. So why should we rely solely on Bangladeshi media? To maintain neutrality, both Bangladeshi and Indian media must be utilized. Additionally, it is not appropriate to identify whether the source is Bangladeshi or Indian media. Instead, we should focus on selecting websites that are reliable. TheNeutrality (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hefazat e Islam

The conflict on November 5 that took place in Hazari Lane only includes ISCKON members/Hindu mobs and law enforcement agencies. Hefazat e Islam only held a rally few days later after the incident. They are not a party to the conflict. LucrativeOffer (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Disputed claim about CCTV camera tampering by law enforcement

I would like to raise concerns regarding the section (2024 Chittagong unrest#Incident) that mentions that the police and army broke CCTV cameras to hide evidence during the 2024 Chittagong unrest. This claim is based on two Indian news sources that themselves cite Taslima Nasrin's Twitter posts as the primary evidence. However, this raises several issues:

1. Reliability: Per WP:RS, the cited sources lack independent verification and rely on a controversial figure, Taslima Nasrin.

2. Verifiability: According to WP:V, information must be verifiable. Taslima Nasrin is reportedly banned in Bangladesh & West Bengal, India, making it unclear how she could obtain video evidence from within the country when no other sources have reported on such evidence. The lack of corroboration further undermines the verifiability of the claim.

3. Undue Weight: Under WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia should not give undue weight to a single, unverified claim, especially when it is based on indirect evidence. Without additional reliable sources to back up these assertions, their inclusion in the article could mislead readers.

Considering these issues, I propose that the statements related to CCTV cameras being broken by the police and army be removed unless more robust, verifiable, and reliable sources are provided. I look forward to hearing the community's thoughts on this matter. - Cerium4B • Talk? • 10:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)